Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2020

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 10 September 2020

Legislative Council

Thursday, 10 September 2020

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) took the chair at 10.00 am, read prayers and acknowledged country. COVID-19 RESPONSE AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY OMNIBUS BILL 2020 Assembly’s Message Message from the Assembly received and read notifying that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Council. OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SURVEY Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [10.02 am]: Yesterday I received a letter from the Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations regarding the Office of the Auditor General’s survey of members of Parliament. It says — I advise that the Auditor General recently contacted the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations regarding the annual survey of Members of Parliament feedback on the Office of the Auditor General’s services and reports. The Committee has a formal working relationship with the Office of the Auditor General pursuant to the Auditor General Act 2006 and takes an active interest in the work of the Office. I advise that the survey is currently underway and closes on 23 September 2020. Given the short timeframe, the Committee encourages all Members of Parliament to participate in the survey as soon as possible. Yours sincerely Hon Alanna Clohesy MLC Chair PARLIAMENTARY SITTING DATES 2020 Statement by Leader of the House HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [10.03 am]: Following the decision of the house yesterday to facilitate the tabling of the 2020–21 budget papers in the Legislative Council on 8 October 2020, I table a revised parliamentary sitting calendar for 2020. [See paper 4187.] WORLD SUICIDE PREVENTION DAY AND R U OK? DAY Statement by Parliamentary Secretary HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.03 am]: Today is an important day, when World Suicide Prevention Day and R U OK? Day are both recognised. It has been an extraordinary year and one that has impacted many people in this state in unprecedented ways, so today of all days I think it is pertinent that we take a moment to check in on each other. The year of 2020 especially highlights the importance of making connections and building relationships with others in our neighbourhoods, workplaces and community. World Suicide Prevention Day and R U OK? Day is a national reminder to check up on loved ones who might be struggling and have meaningful conversations that can make all the difference. The issue is very personal. It can be complex and enormously difficult to recover from. The McGowan government recognises that there is no easy fix; however, we are committed to providing support when it is needed and when we can. Sadly, each year, we lose close to 400 Western Australians by suicide. Sadly, this means that on average around one person each day loses their life to suicide in Western Australia. Each death is a tragic event that has heartbreaking consequences for families and communities. Suicide affects the whole community, and a whole-of-community approach is required to prevent it. The McGowan government is committed to supporting Western Australian communities to reduce deaths by suicide. This is evident through our investment in suicide prevention. This year, we have announced more than $45 million in suicide prevention initiatives. This $45 million includes the continuation of essential services to support people and communities affected by a suicide death and an expansion to services that provide long-term support to children who have been bereaved by a suicide death. It also includes nearly $10 million to develop and implement a region-by-region approach to Aboriginal suicide prevention in Western Australia. This is the first time such an initiative has been undertaken. The regional plans will prioritise Aboriginal-led and locally endorsed initiatives that accommodate a culturally informed social and emotional wellbeing approach to suicide prevention. Aboriginal people are disproportionately affected by suicide, with Western Australia having

5638 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] the highest age-standardised rate of suicide among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. The McGowan government recognises Aboriginal people and their culture as one of the state’s great assets. We will continue to work closely with communities throughout Western Australia to prevent and reduce the impact of suicide deaths in this state. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION Forty-fourth Report — “Children and Community Services Amendment Bill 2019” — Tabling HON DR SALLY TALBOT (South West) [10.08 am]: I am directed to present the forty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Legislation entitled “Children and Community Services Amendment Bill 2019”. [See paper 4188.] Hon Dr SALLY TALBOT: The report I have just tabled advises the house of the committee’s findings and recommendations regarding the Children and Community Services Amendment Bill 2019. The bill implements some recommendations from the 2017 “Statutory Review of the Children and Community Services Act 2004”, progresses some recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and provides stronger powers for enforcing compliance with the act. The policy of the bill includes to work more closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and community-controlled organisations to better implement the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle, and build stronger connections for children in care. The committee is of the view that the bill effects positive changes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families; however, the committee respects stakeholder views that the bill falls short of fully implementing the placement principle. The bill also aims to contribute to protecting children from harm by requiring ministers of religion to report child sexual abuse. Although this will likely contribute to child safety, the committee notes that it fails to fully implement the royal commission’s recommendation that, at a minimum, five groups of individuals become mandatory reporters. The report also canvasses opposition the committee heard to the clause providing that ministers of religion will not be exempt from mandatory reporting on the basis that information was disclosed during religious confession. The committee has made findings and recommendations to improve the operation of the act. I commend the report to the house. DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS Notice of Motion 1. Transport Regulations Amendment (Fees and Charges) Regulations (No. 2) 2020. 2. Energy Operators (Electricity Generation and Retail Corporation) (Charges) Amendment By-laws 2020. Notices of motion given by Hon Robin Chapple. HOMELESSNESS Notice of Motion Hon Alison Xamon gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move — That this house — (a) expresses its grave concern about growing rates of homelessness in Western Australia; (b) recognises that the WA Labor government’s initiatives and announcements to date are wholly insufficient to address this crisis; and (c) condemns the WA Labor government for failing to take a whole-of-government approach to homelessness, acknowledging particularly the failed intersections between homelessness responses and WA police, transport, justice, mental health, and alcohol and other drug services. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY Motion HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [10.11 am] — without notice: It is my pleasure to move — That this house notes the failure of the Minister for Agriculture and Food to support the agricultural industry in Western Australia, especially the traditional agricultural sector that delivers over 90 per cent of our production, and notes in particular the minister’s apparent — (a) opposition to live export; (b) opposition to genetically modified crops; (c) opposition to the use of glyphosate;

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5639

(d) failure to find a real solution to the impending farm labour shortage crisis; (e) failure to control invasive weeds and pests, noting the recent Auditor General’s report; (f) victim-blaming approach to farm invasion protection for farmers; while at the same time her (g) failure to hold anyone to account for the mass cattle deaths on Yandeyarra and Noonkanbah stations. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I have not even had a chance to put the question yet. Is it an indication of things to come? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I start this contribution by making the very simple and obvious observation that we have the most anti-agriculture Minister for Agriculture and Food this state has ever had. We are inflicted with a minister who has no understanding of agriculture and is given to stunts, such as bringing hats into state Parliament. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I could have brought in my own akubra and I could have worn my work boots. I note that I am probably the only member in the chamber who has the residue of cattle manure on their shoes—because I actually walk onto farms. The minister bringing in a hat has demonstrated my point amply and adequately in that it is a lovely hat that has not the least trace of agricultural production or dirt on it. It shows not the least trace of any understanding of what happens in agriculture in this state. She has beautifully proven my point: this minister has no understanding of agriculture. This minister is not a champion for agriculture. She is a champion for alternatives. She does perform one particular role, though, and that is to keep the only apparently working farmer in Parliament from taking over the role and being a greater disaster than the current minister already is. So, for that one particular role, I thank the minister! Even though we think it is bad, there is usually always one step downwards. Agriculture in this state is vitally important. It is the case that traditional agriculture underpins all of our agriculture. It is one of the two great pillars of the economy of Western Australia that has put it in the sound economic position that it is in. The other, of course, is the mining sector. Without the Western Australian mining and agricultural sectors, this state would be in a bigger disaster than the state of Victoria is in at the moment. Agriculture deserves a round of applause from all of us for being a great component of our COVID recovery and a great pillar in upholding our economy in a very difficult set of circumstances. What does agriculture look like in Western Australia? It might surprise the minister to learn that traditional agricultural production is where all of this activity is underpinning our economy. The Western Australian agricultural system puts out about $10 billion of farm production every year. Of that, approximately $3.4 billion comes from the WA wheat industry and $1.6 billion comes from the WA barley industry, and that is based on last year’s production and markets, so we will see how that goes. The wool industry is worth $1 billion, the cattle industry is worth $800 million, the canola industry is worth $750 million and the sheepmeat industry is worth half a billion dollars. It all adds up to about $8 billion of the $10 billion of agricultural production in this state. That is before we put in things like the dairy, wine, vegetable and fruit industries. All those things are making a massive contribution to the economy of Western Australia. Well over 90 per cent of the production value of agriculture in Western Australia comes from these traditional industries—industries that this government and this minister appear to hold in absolute contempt. Although people who would like to grow biodynamic quinoa or run a small boutique brewery might say that this is a great Minister for Agriculture and Food, it is not the minister or the government for someone who is a grains producer or an animal producer in Western Australia, or for someone who works in any one of those great big marketplaces that underpin agriculture and provide the exports that feed and support regional communities in particular, but also the entire economy of Western Australia. This minister has no respect for traditional agriculture. It is traditional agriculture that gets us where we need to be. It is not enough to have a nice, clean shiny hat and turn up on a farm every once in a while to make an announcement. It might come as a surprise to the government to know that it does not understand the picking of fruit if it is already in the bottle! That is not understanding agriculture and agricultural production, and I will demonstrate precisely why this government and this minister have no understanding of agriculture. Let me run through the list, because today’s debate has an extremely short time frame. This minister should be a champion for agriculture. I do not see how she can do that if she spends most of her time attacking a significantly important part of agricultural production. I think the minister and I agree that there will come a time in the future when chilled meat products will replace live export, and that will be a great day. Hon Darren West: They already are. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: They already are, so there is no live export from Western Australia! This is why we do not want Hon Darren West as the minister, because that would be worse. There are still plenty of live exports from Western Australia, Hon Darren West, and they will continue for a few decades to come yet. If the government

5640 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] pulls the rug out from under the live export industry, it will pull the underlying price support out from under the entire sheepmeat industry. It is essential that it be retained. A champion for agriculture in this state would be looking after the interests of those producers that rely on that industry. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: They would be a champion for the industry, instead of doing everything they possibly could to undermine it. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Yes, we should always be careful of someone who wears hats inappropriately. I think that is a good lesson we have learnt. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: That is why I’ve got you one! Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: We are in dreamland, Madam President! Opposition to live export undermines the traditional agricultural industries in this state. This minister is also apparently firmly in opposition to genetically modified crops. I am not the greatest advocate of genetically modified crops, but I understand that they play an important role in agriculture and will continue to do so in the future. This is probably the reason why the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs examined whether compensation was necessary for someone who had some genetically modified crop contamination. To the credit of that committee, it came back and said, “There is nothing to see here. This investigation was of little value. There is no evidence of any contamination causing any problems.” But this minister is a champion for those who attack agriculture when we need a champion for agriculture. Genetically modified crops will play a role. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Where is the actual evidence? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I think the minister should read the report because that might give her some of the answers. That would be very useful. In American courts, there are some questions about the safety of glyphosate, but everybody in Australia is telling us that glyphosate used as per the label is still allowable and considered safe for use in farming. The use of glyphosate means that no-till cropping has become a major part of agriculture in this state. The minister is again attacking one of those underpinning and underlying supports of agriculture. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Where’s the evidence? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The evidence is out; it is called the wheatbelt. The evidence is in the wheatbelt because so many farmers who are still reliant on glyphosate — Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Perhaps the minister should read the scientific papers. She should look at what Food Standards Australia New Zealand and other authorities are doing on this. Although opposition to almost every traditional form of agriculture might support the minister’s agenda, she should be a champion for agriculture instead of spending her time undermining it. The next one is an absolute ripper. Paragraph (d) refers to the failure to find a real solution to the impending farm labour crisis in Western Australia. This government was told six months ago that farm labour is a problem and that a crisis is pending. Its initial response was to put out a few more training places. Those training places are welcome, and maybe in a year’s time they will provide a few more experienced farm workers to help pick crops, bring in wheat harvests and shear sheep, but for the time being it is a drop in the ocean. The government’s next response was to say that people from the city will simply walk to agricultural areas and take over these jobs. We have had unemployment in this state for decades. I actually live in a regional area, unlike, it would appear, the entire Labor upper house ticket from the South West. Those members will potentially be the fly in, fly out workforce of the south west. I live in the south west and I have worked around agriculture for decades. Donnybrook orchardists have relied on backpackers forever. Despite the fact that there has been unemployment in this state forever, we have not been inundated with people from the metropolitan region looking to pick fruit; and the few who do turn up tend to last two days before asking to be paid and moving on again. It is not easy work; it is difficult work. The government’s advertising campaign, which started out as Wander Out Yonder and is now Work and Wander Out Yonder, is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen in my life. Not only will it be completely unable to deliver, it is a misrepresentation. I have seen the ad. The ad is great. It shows a couple of young ladies walking along the corridor between a set of fruit trees. They trot down the corridor, laughing and chatting to each other, and they pick the occasional piece of fruit while they have this lovely conversation. They are on a holiday! The ad says that they are on holiday. Hon Diane Evers: What is your response? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: They are trotting down the corridor because they are on a holiday. The government’s advertising campaign says, “If you pick fruit in a regional area, it’s a holiday.” Hon Diane Evers: Give us your answer.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5641

Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I will in a minute. That might be perfectly reasonable if they were actually going on a holiday, and it might be what the government thinks fruit picking is like, but, as I have said, whether people pick fruit or just grapes, it is the picking part and not what ends up in the bottle that determines whether they know what they are talking about. It is the picking that matters, and it is a hard and difficult job. It is not a holiday. This campaign is a half-hearted and pathetic response from the government, which has been caught out and is utterly embarrassed by its response. It is absolutely the case that Western Australian industries need labour certainty. I was asked what my response is. My response has been public for weeks. The Northern Territory government has a deal with the federal government that allows it to bring in workers from Vanuatu to save the mango crops in the Northern Territory. There are 170 or so workers who arrived last week and they are doing 14 days of quarantine. They will be tested for COVID. They have come from a COVID-safe environment but the tests are still important. I propose that that continue in Western Australia. A workforce will be available and it will be funded by industry. It is also supported by the Northern Territory government, which, I believe from memory, is a Labor government, unless I have got that wrong. I think Labor won the last election. The commonwealth government has said to every state in Australia, “We will help you do the same thing.” The problem is that this government has said, “We are not interested. We are going to tell young people in Perth sitting on Jobseeker that they should wander and work out yonder and blissfully drift down the aisles, picking the odd apple or pear as they go.” That is this government’s solution to the labour shortage in Western Australia. Negotiations with the commonwealth should have happened already; if they have not, they should be happening now, because it will take months before such a workforce will be available and it has to be done before the crisis hits. This government will see fruit rotting on the vines and grapes unable to be picked. It will see sheep unable to be shorn, which will create a welfare crisis of its own. The government will see struggles with harvests because it does not understand the agricultural industry and what a harvest actually looks like. It is not a holiday, and to suggest it is a holiday is a significant slap in the face for the producers of Western Australia; and to suggest, as the minister did, that the problem is that they need to pay more to workers in agricultural areas—the suggestion was that farmers are too cheap—was a double slap in the face for farmers of Western Australia. This is an example of, let us call it, policy on the run, but it is actually no policy on the run. This is a media argument but it is not a sensible one. The way the government has maintained its approach is disgraceful. I am going to run out of time. Paragraph (e) of the motion is an absolute ripper as well and refers to the failure to control invasive weeds and pests. The Auditor General’s report that came out last week is an absolute beauty. It said that the state has failed in biosecurity. I am the first to say that it has failed for decades. I absolutely get that. But right now this minister is in charge. I have asked a couple of questions about this issue this week and the minister has again demonstrated that she has no understanding of agricultural production and no interest in looking after the interests of farmers. A champion for farmers would be out there saying, “We need to do better.” The invasive species that are already on Western Australian land are a problem for farmers—they are a billion-dollar problem for farmers. Part of the problem with spraying chemicals about—I know that the minister hates the spraying of chemicals—is that we have weed invasion problems. The minister is a supporter of the organics industry and I think that is a good thing. I, too, am a supporter of the organics industry. Alternative farming has a place. I am a supporter of that. The people in that industry need to control pests and weeds, but they need to be encouraged to grow the industry, and the minister is doing that, so well done, minister. However, the difference between the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the shadow minister is that the minister supports those industries at the expense of traditional agriculture, while I, as the shadow minister and a champion of agriculture, am interested in only having those things done concurrently. There is a place for alternative production. I am happy if people want to grow biodynamic quinoa or sell boutique beer. I am happy to support that, but I will not use that as an excuse to attack traditional agriculture and undermine its capacity to do its job, support regional communities, support farming families and underpin the economy of the entire state of WA. That is the big difference between the two of us. It is not one or the other; there is room in agriculture for all those productions. The Auditor General’s report was scathing of the government in its handling of biosecurity. It effectively said that nothing has been done. The minister is very careful to say that our focus is on exotic pests. That is great, but do members know what? The exotic pests are the ones that are not here yet. It is important to keep them out—we do not want foot-and-mouth disease in this state; there are a lot of things we do not want in this state—but what is happening right now is that invasive animal, plant and pest species are causing issues to farmers in this state, and that is still important. That includes, interestingly enough, the wild dogs out in Esperance, which I know Hon Ken Baston is very interested in. An interesting story came up this week. The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions—that is the worst name of any department I have ever heard, DBCA; let us go back to calling it the Department of Parks and Wildlife—has stopped supporting the recognised biosecurity groups in their use of fluoroacetate for controlling wild dogs. Fluoroacetate, or compound 1080, as members might know it, is actually critically important, but the risk-averse DBCA is now saying that it will not support these recognised biosecurity groups. Of course, the problem with that is that the governments—governments plural—have set up these groups so that the various departments of government do not really have to bother. These groups are out there working on unallocated crown land and state-held land controlling wild dogs before they become a problem. They are doing that

5642 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] because nobody has made the departments look after the land for which they are responsible, which is in contravention of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act, but that act had its teeth pulled in this house way back in 2007. Departments do not even have to report that; the government department gets a listing on the department of agriculture and food annual report saying that it has failed, but there is no penalty. But then we have recognised biosecurity groups out there doing their job, and this government is saying, “We’ve handballed this work off to you because we can’t be bothered doing it, but we’re not going to support you to do that work.” That is one of the most insane things I have ever heard. The government is saying, “We’re cost shifting off to you. We’ve abandoned ship on biosecurity; we can’t be bothered. By the way, the mere fact that you are actually doing the job for us doesn’t mean we are supporting you.” That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The last part of the motion—the victim-blaming approach to farm invasion—is something that I think this house is well aware of. This house previously examined in detail the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill 2017 and firmly rejected this minister’s animal rights agenda. We accept that there are important animal welfare issues to address, and if the minister wants to put those important animal welfare issues into a public debate, I am more than happy to take them up on her behalf. I am still a registered and qualified vet. I have some experience in the area, I have some qualifications, and I actually know what I am talking about, which I think is an exception to what we see in the government. I hope members will again reject this agenda. Farmers deserve protection in their own right. Farmers deserve to be protected, particularly because their homes are also their places of business. Agricultural producers deserve some protection. Agriculture needs a champion for agriculture, not a constant critic harping on about their own personal agenda. It is time for the government to figure that out and support the industry. HON COLIN HOLT (South West) [10.32 am]: I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate today. I really want to concentrate on the announcement that was made yesterday by the Minister for Regional Development; Agriculture and Food about the redevelopment of the South Perth facility for the department of agriculture and food. She announced that around 500 office-based staff will move to a facility near the CBD. To my mind, that is a completely missed opportunity to look at how agriculture is being delivered in this state. Yes, the ag department in South Perth is very old and has been in need of redevelopment for many, many years. The minister pointed out yesterday in her statement to this house that it has been promised over many decades and many previous governments, but the decision was finally made by this government to redevelop the site and move the department of agriculture and food—the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. There is no doubt about that need for redevelopment. But the decision to not look at moving that office to regional Western Australia, or at least to some interface with its main purpose, is absolutely a missed opportunity. We know that this government can make those decisions. Surely the Minister for Regional Development; Agriculture and Food would not make the decision to relocate departments like agriculture and regional development into the CBD if there were opportunities for them to be moved to other regional centres. I know there is capacity in a lot of those regional ag offices, especially in Albany and Bunbury. It would be interesting to know how much capacity there is. There was a great opportunity to say: how do we look at the new model? I understand it is difficult to move people out of South Perth, but guess what? That is what is going to happen. People are going to move out of South Perth. Here is the ideal opportunity to combine the two roles of the minister—agriculture and regional development— into one policy shift and to say, actually, let us take agriculture and regional development and put it into the regions, where most of the activity is. I know that this government can do that because there are some great examples of it having been done, mostly within fire and emergency services. For example, a multipurpose bushfire management facility has been established in Collie, and there is a training facility there. We know that the government can do that. It has also moved the Bushfire Centre of Excellence, which is being built at the moment on the corner of the City of Mandurah and the Shire of Murray, so we know that it can make decisions on those sort of regional development opportunities. Another example is the Frontline Fire and Rescue Equipment manufacturing facility, which was awarded to a Malaga company, but some components of it are placed in Collie. In fact, the government incentivised that company to move from Malaga and take up residence in Collie. I think it is good that the government is incentivising regional businesses to provide regional development opportunities in those towns that really want and need it. Obviously, Collie is going through a transition in its economy. It is a good location for some of these facilities. But with the closing of the South Perth ag department, the same opportunity could have been provided to many regional communities and regional centres. Around 500 people will be going to the CBD. Perhaps we could take two-thirds or 300 of them and say, “Actually, your main role is in agriculture in the regions; let’s relocate you to a regional facility where the ag department already has a major footprint.” Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Why didn’t that happen during the eight and a half years you were in government? Hon COLIN HOLT: I have already said that the minister could have done that. The minister made the decision; she should defend her decision to put those people into the CBD. Do not keep blaming previous governments. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon COLIN HOLT: I am not the decision-maker. The minister made the decision to put it in the CBD. The minister should tell us, from a cabinet viewpoint or from her own viewpoint, what was involved in the decision:

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5643

“Actually, this is a really good idea, we know we need to close it, we’re going to put people in the CBD.” The minister should defend that decision. We will defend the fact that we did not do it, but the minister should defend the decision that she did do it and made the decision not to relocate them to the regions. That is a question for the minister. In the last six to eight months, we have had to operate differently in this state. The COVID pandemic and the response to it means that we have had to work remotely. We know that in many cases, although they have not completely improved, things like the national broadband network and telecommunications have improved throughout the regions, so there is no reason an agency such as the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development could not work effectively from outside the CBD of Perth. We know we can do it; we have been doing it effectively for six to eight months. The closing of the facility in South Perth was a natural step and an opportunity to invest in regional communities. When this government came to office, one of the first things it did was to stop the relocation of the Department of Parks and Wildlife, as it was named in those days, to Bunbury. The reason given was that the director general did not have the funds and the government needed to pull back on some of those decisions because of the state of the budget. Okay; that was the decision that the government made. That was going to provide a great incentive and a great injection of investment into Bunbury and the south west that would have helped enormously, just like the investment into the Bushfire Centre of Excellence in the Shire of Murray and other investments into Collie helped those places, but that was not done, for whatever reason. This was another opportunity for the minister to invest in those communities by taking an agency, the focus of which is almost completely outside Perth, to provide that same type of incentive, but it was a missed opportunity. HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [10.40 am]: It is good to have this debate. I brought in my hat. I do not wear it, but I brought this in for you, sweetheart, because — The PRESIDENT: Minister, as much as that might have been a term of endearment, you know that the standing orders require you to refer to members by their appropriate title. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I thought Hon Dr Steve Thomas was one of the members of Parliament who had a little intellectual integrity. He gets obsessed by things like perfluoroalkyl substances. I thought that at least he was a guy who had intellectual integrity, but what he has shown today—hat or no hat—is that he is just a poor man’s Barnaby Joyce. He is getting himself whipped up into this fury: “I’m gonna get out there and I’m gonna tell these farmers I like really like ’em and I’m just gonna tell them everything they want to hear”, even if it means that he is absolutely and completely ineffective. He did not offer any evidence for a single thing that he said. He just made these Barnaby-like claims. I find it incredible that anyone in the opposition could come in and actually be prepared to put their head above the parapet to talk about the conduct of agriculture in this state. During their eight and a half years in government, when we had record receipts and record income and royalties coming into this state, we were able to have plastic cows and singing toilets but we could not invest in the real cows! What we were told was that it had to cut and slash from agriculture in every budget. That was extraordinary. When we got this portfolio, it was a basket case. It had been cut over and again by Mr Barnett, who used to say, “When we cut it, the farmers don’t complain, so we kept cutting.” We saw those extraordinary cuts and the department was in crisis. There was an acting director general. There had been such great animosity and trauma in the department that the director general had to be moved off to the Department of State Development. Because of the blue on green walls, the agricultural endeavour was spread across five different agencies and there was no morale. When we came in, we had to try to rebuild it. I agree with some of the comments Hon Colin Holt made. I think it would be preferable, ultimately—this is our aim— to move more people out, but we inherited an organisation that was so dispirited that we had to rebuild it. At this point, our focus is on trying to get the show back on the road. We are talking about the absolutely essential endeavours. One of the first things that was presented to me to sign on the line when I became minister was a plan developed under the previous government to sell InterGrain—the premium wheat, barley and oats grower in this state—to an entity owned, in part, by the South Australian government, and it was to be headquartered in South Australia. I said no. We have to have that agency here, based in Western Australia, producing for and focusing on the needs of our grain growers. That has been a rip-roaring success. We have rebuilt InterGrain and it is performing a vital role. Likewise, with the grains industry. The previous government had some idea about establishing an institute but there was no active engagement with the Grains Research Development Corporation. We got in there and put $40 million on the table. We told GRDC that we wanted some long-term funding from it and that we would match it dollar for dollar, because we understand that the most important thing for the grain sector is constant research. It is because of the R&D effort that that industry, over the last 40 years, notwithstanding the drying climate, has quadrupled its production. That is the way that we need to deal with this. The continuing opposition to that role of R&D is amazing. Recently, as part of the restoration of these regional premises, we expanded the Merredin Dryland Research Institute. We could not believe that that facility had been instructed that it was no longer to be called the Dryland Research Institute. I think the research institute was initially opened by Dick Old and reopened by Monty House. For decades it had been called the Dryland Research Institute but was told that the name had to be changed to something generic. We are rebuilding that.

5644 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

We are rebuilding the pride and the facilities to enable people to do this research. In the first couple of weeks when I was the minister, I went to Carnarvon. I was ashamed of the Carnarvon Research Facility. It was literally in tatters and had not been repaired since a cyclone hit it a few years ago. The endeavour at that station had been wound back. It was doing some research into fruit fly but not much else. We have rebuilt that facility and restaffed it. We have got that whole centre energised. Likewise, when we got into government, we found that funding for the Frank Wise Institute of Tropical Agriculture was probably down to about 25 per cent from what it had been. We have brought in new agriculture scientists and early career scientists, and senior professors of etymology are now based in that area. The institute is back to full production and is thriving, as is the Northern Beef Development project. This is mainstream stuff. The grain and beef producers in the north were highly dissatisfied with the Northern Beef Futures program, which for some reason or other was run out of Waroona and South Perth. We moved all those personnel to Broome. We talked to industry and got that back rocking and rolling. There is absolutely no evidence to support the member’s contention that we have not been focusing on those big sectors. In fact, we have done the things that the former government failed to do. We have spent much time trying to rebuild the capability and the morale of those agencies. I can tell members that we certainly are not entirely where we would like to be, but, my God, we are so much better than we were three and a half years ago. This live export—what a load of cobblers! The opposition wants me to take the Barnaby Joyce approach. The Barnaby Joyce approach, federally, was to strip out of the federal agency all the animal welfare architecture. He presided over a regime that made it very clear to the regulators that they were not to regulate; they were absolutely to see no problem. He would put his hat on, get out there and talk about how much he loves live export. He was a champion; that was a champion. What happened? On vessel after vessel we saw extraordinary deaths in the summer period as the sheep were taken from the southern ports into high heat and humidity destinations in the Middle East. Of course, that created a huge catastrophe for the industry. When that occurred, our response here in WA was to say that we wanted a moratorium on exports during the northern summer. That is what our position was. Guess what? After about six months, all the industry recognised that that was a sensible way forward and it became the policy. We were not going to jump up and down and behave like boofheads. We were going to address the issue and ask: How do we de-risk this? How do we make sure that we have an industry that goes forward? The way we do that is by having a transparent and accountable system, and having a moratorium in place that deals with areas that are very, very high risk. That is generally supported across the board. The member’s mate Graham Daws probably does not support it, but the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council generally has supported that position. It knows it is the sensible one. Organisations have to move with their communities. I turn to the next thing, which is genetically modified crops. I mean what a load of cobblers. Again, absolutely no evidence that I am against GM has been presented. Hon Dr Steve Thomas just asserted it. He is better than that. He has an intellect. As he and many people in the south west would know, there has been a big debate there amongst farmers, and not just there. In Canada, of course, we have also seen this. I was asked: do we want to look at whether there is an issue of compensation and do we want to address the complex legal problems associated with GM? Hon Dr Steve Thomas: There was no complication. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Legal issues have emerged around the world. Anyhow, the evidence came back from the committee that, as a practical matter, there was not a real issue here in Western Australia, so it has been done with. I know when the last mob was in government, for some bizarre reason they sold part of InterGrain to Monsanto because it wanted to develop genetically modified wheat. Monsanto walked away from that because it realised that, at the end of the day, there just was not a market and it sold its interests back to the department, and that was going to be sold to the South Australians before we stopped it. In the GM area we are working incredibly hard in the Kimberley to get the cotton industry underway. The whole viability of the cotton industry in the Kimberley is predicated on the use of genetically modified cotton plant fibre. There is absolutely zero evidence that I am opposed to GM. I turn to glyphosate. We have not opposed glyphosate, but what we are saying responsibly is, “Hi guys, we have to see that there might be a problem down here.” Bayer, which now has bought Monsanto, has established a fund of €11 billion for compensation for people who have been exposed to glyphosate. China has banned it in our barley crops. We have seen successive countries such as Germany, Thailand and Vietnam all banning the use of glyphosate and the products that have been potentially exposed to it. We have to look at that. We cannot have a whole industry predicated on the use of one product and not be thinking, further down the chain, about how we make sure that if the science changes and the assessment of it is different, that we have some alternatives. To me it is completely and utterly irresponsible not to be looking at the changes occurring around the world and making sure that our farmers are well prepared. This is a job that requires people not to go out there bloody wearing a farm hat and some boots, but to apply some intelligence and discipline to the task. HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [10.54 am]: I thank Hon Dr Steve Thomas for moving this motion. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak about agriculture, knowing so much about it, as I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and studied accounting, but it is amazing how much we can pick up living for 25 years in the regions, talking to people and seeing what they are interested in and what they need to know. The member said something about traditional agriculture having got us to where we are, and I agree. We have been doing traditional agriculture since it became industrial agriculture, say, post–World War II, around that time, when we really put so many chemicals and so much

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5645 mechanisation into it. But what we have going now is increasing land degradation and increasing salinity. Our pastoral regions have lower and lower stocking rates, not just due to climate change, but because there is just no feed out there. If the member wants to call it traditional agriculture, that is fine, but I would like to call it industrial agriculture. I would also like to speak to the comments made by Hon Colin Holt. I strongly support having agriculture department representatives, the people, working in the regions, being out on farms and having a distributed network of officers, because we know we can work from multiple locations. We have to re-establish that connection to people so that the agriculture department staff are talking to farmers, learning from them and sharing the information they learn. It just makes sense to me. I will get on to the motion. It talked about opposition to live export. That suggests to me that the member who moved this motion has an opposition to jobs in Western Australia. If we change from live export to processing onshore, think of the number of jobs that could be distributed around the regions processing those sheep and shipping the chilled meats. We know that area is increasing, and it is increasing because we are trying to increase it. The public is saying it does not want live export and that it wants animals treated humanely, as most growers do. That is the idea. I cannot imagine that the member would be opposed to increasing processing onshore. If all our sheep could be processed onshore, we would not have to export them, and what we would work on is getting that price up for the farmers growing the sheep and getting a fair price for those sheep. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected. Hon DIANE EVERS: We will get there a lot slower if we do not do anything about it, so we need to keep working on it and aim to end the live export context, because we can do that. It would also give us more opportunity to have more abattoirs around the state. Right now, people have to transport their sheep many hundreds of kilometres to get them processed, and we do not need to do that. We need to increase the number of abattoirs across the state for not only sheep but also other animals so that people can keep processing here and we keep building the jobs here. I turn to the second part of the motion, which is the opposition to genetically modified crops. Again, I think the member is putting forward an idea of opposition to quality over quantity. With genetically modified crops we are usually looking just to increase the production level, but we are not looking at the quality of the goods. I know we are in theory, in research, but with the GM crops out there now, it is all about the quantity regardless of the quality. It seems that the member is also in opposition to profit over revenue. We have to increase profit back to our farmers. The revenue is lovely, it looks great on the books for our exports, but it is the profit that we want. We need to make farming more profitable. I turn to opposition to glyphosate. Again, it seems that the opposition is suggesting that it is opposed to health over sickness. We know that around the world plenty of research has been happening on this. The reason that farmers here are becoming concerned that we may not be able to use glyphosate is that around the world it has been shown that this is not a good idea. It is appearing in our food products, it is appearing in breastmilk and it is appearing in our cows’ milk. It is not something that people want to consume. There is research showing that it causes damage, but if there is not enough conclusive research for the member to understand this, I think it is only a matter of time. I think we should plan for the future when we will not be using glyphosate and we must come up with alternatives that work. We have to move on. We have to keep looking at the research, and planning for the future. I turn now to the farm labour shortage, and to bringing in overseas workers to fill jobs here when we have high unemployment. It seems to me that something is missing. If we have high unemployment, we need to find out what we can do to get those people employed. If it is not working currently, and I do not think we like the government’s involvement in trying to make it work one way or another, we have to get the employers and the employees together and say what will make it work. I agree that we need farm workers. We do not want fruit and veggies to rot on the trees and in the ground. We have to get people to do that work. It is hard work. Let us work out what we can do so that unemployed people here might think that picking fruit could be a better job than being a check-out chick at a grocery, a barista, or standing and holding a Stop/Go sign. There are other jobs that can be available for those people. We need to get the conversation going, possibly facilitated with some sort of government help to make that happen. We need to get back to what I said yesterday about people being involved in decisions. Let us get the employers and the employees talking together. Let us have some democracy happening so that we can come up with solutions that people can deal with and live with and are happy to do. There are a lot of positives about living in the regions. If we can find a way to get that across to some of the currently unemployed people, maybe they will go to the regions and establish their life out there. I turn now to the control of invasive weeds and pests. I note the recent Auditor General’s report. I want to give a little plug to the Auditor General. Remember to fill in those surveys. It is very important that the Attorney General continues to do work like this and provide those recommendations. Seven recommendations came out of that report that the member alluded to. All those recommendations had the words “DPIRD should”. I agree that the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development should be supported. Our agriculture department, as part of DPIRD, is the poor cousin in some way. Only one of the five executives of DPIRD came from the agriculture department. It is a vital part of that. Our regional development depends on our agricultural regions to produce what they do and to continue with that.

5646 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

One thing I see with our agriculture department and where we are going to locate that department is that this seems to be another place for the bipartisan camaraderie that is going on between Labor and Liberal—“It’s their fault”; “No, it’s your fault.” It just goes back and forth. To limit the department and what it can do seems to have been happening from both sides. I acknowledge that some positive work is happening, but there is much more to do. We need to get the department into the regions and distribute those office spaces so that people can do the research and be on farm with the farmers to see what needs to be done. That is what we have to do. Both sides have failed. Labor and Liberal have both let down our agricultural industry and farmers. I think that better can be done. I believe the minister thinks that better can be done, too. That is what she is aiming for, and I wholly support that. I would like to see our agricultural industry thriving, and not just looking at monocultures and at the next genetically modified crop that we will cover the planet with. We need to diversify. We can do a lot more. If we want to plan for the post-COVID reality that is coming upon us, we need to be self-sufficient in as many areas as possible. Western Australia is great at food production. We can produce much more than we will ever need. But we should then start looking at what things we should be producing. We are relying on wheat, when many other countries around the world can produce wheat and are doing it almost as well as we are doing now. We have to diversify. Our agriculture department could be looking at: what things will be needed around the world that we can export viably and safely and will be financially profitable? That is where we need to go—diversify. We can bring back some health to the landscape by diversifying, rather than just putting in the same crop year after year, with the same chemical fertilisers on top of it, and damaging other parts of the state by having to produce these chemical fertilisers. We can do better. We do not have to rely on what was done in the past. One last thing is the inspections that are proposed in the legislation that is coming up. We need legislation that allows inspectors to go to abattoirs and industrial — Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Industrial agriculture. Hon DIANE EVERS: Not industrial agriculture. It is to do with animals. The word escapes me at the moment. That is what this is looking at. Intensive animal raising—that is what we need to see. HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [11.04 am]: What a provocative motion we have before us today. Anybody would think an election is on the horizon at the moment! It is very disingenuous of Hon Dr Steve Thomas to target the Minister for Agriculture and Food for a lack of interest in agriculture. Frankly, it is the entire government that has no interest in agriculture. That is evident at the moment when we look at the government benches—we have the only farmer in the Parliament; the Whip, who has to be here; the agriculture minister; and, of course, Hon Laurie Graham, who is always very diligent in staying within the Parliament. The PRESIDENT: Member, you know it is not appropriate to reference who is currently in the house and who is not. Hon RICK MAZZA: My apologies, Madam President. Since this government has come into office, it has wanted to shut down the Schools of the Air and close Moora Residential College, which I think it would have done had it not been for the intervention of the federal government. We have some major issues and challenges before us with COVID-19. I feel for the Minister for Agriculture and Food. However, while “Iron” Mark is marching up and down doing border control, and looking at Metronet and Westport, many issues in the agricultural sector are being neglected. Yesterday, I asked a question without notice about what the government intends to do with labour shortages, particularly around shearers. The answer that I got back was quite varied. There was mention that the wool clips were lighter, so they would be easier to shear. There was mention that we have falling wool prices. Wool still grows; it does not matter what the price is. There was mention that some training is being undertaken for some shearers. The problem with wool, as the only farmer in the Parliament would know, is that the clip has to come off at the right time of the year. We are coming into the flystrike season. The weather is warming up. If we have wet wool and warm weather, the flystrike will be absolutely relentless. Farmers have to be able to get the clip off the sheep’s back, regardless of the wool price. Some real animal welfare issues are coming up. Part of the answer that I got was that farmers should undertake some management practices. If farmers do not have shearers, how will they be able to do that? All they can do is jet the sheep to try to hold off the inevitable. We need to have workers for shearing. Recently, I saw a Landline article about how some shearers, aged in their 70s, are being brought out of mothballs to undertake the job. The spirit of country people is that they will come out of retirement to do the job. One old shearer reckoned that he had sheared over a million sheep in his lifetime, and he is still going and wants to assist. That is how dire things are. Unfortunately, we cannot teach someone how to shear in a matter of months; it takes a long time. Many shearers have come from farms and have been brought up with shearing. Finding skilled shearers is not something that we can resolve in a heartbeat. We have to look at how we can get shearers into the state. Hon Darren West interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: The member will have his turn, I am sure, after me. We have to get shearers into the state to deal with the issues at hand right now.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5647

The other issue, of course, is fruit picking. I refer to an article that was on ABC News last month that is quite heartbreaking. It was about Ray Guadagnino from down south, who has said that he will have to pull out 1 700 apple trees because they are too labour intensive and he cannot get them picked. The article goes on to say that the industry body, Pomewest, expects labour supply disruptions to continue for up to five years. It is not a matter of sending people who are on JobSeeker down south to pick apples, grapes or strawberries. Believe it or not, there is a bit of skill in some of that. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: I do not think people can just wander down south, visit the wineries, and then pick a few apples or something. It needs to be a bit more organised than that. There has been talk about bringing in backpackers, if that is the term members want to use. I know that on the east coast, they have been bringing in people from the Pacific Islands, which have very low rates of COVID, if any, quarantining them, and getting them to help with strawberry picking. Some of these products have a very short window of opportunity in which to be picked, or they are gone. We have all sorts of issues surrounding our workforce. I do not think enough is being done to deal with this, and some of the ideas are a little fanciful. There is certainly a lot of work around that. The Auditor General’s report was quite damning on invasive weeds and pests, but we have been losing control of that for quite some time now. When the Agriculture Protection Board was disbanded some years ago, the approach to biosecurity became much more fragmented, and we have seen plants like cotton bush spread throughout the south west, causing major issues for farmers. The real problem with a lot of biosecurity groups and councils is that they put pressure on landholders to deal with their cotton bush infestations, which costs a fair bit of money, but down the road all the public-managed land is choked up with cotton bush, all down the gullies. I have noticed other weeds that I have not seen before starting to crop up. One has a little yellow flower. I do not know its name. I have tried to find it on the internet. Hon Darren West: It’s capeweed. Hon RICK MAZZA: No, it is not capeweed, member. It has a little bellflower and a wobbly seed. That plant is starting to choke up land, too, and I believe livestock will not eat it. We are starting to lose control of a lot of issues when it comes to pests, whether that is insect pests, weeds or even animal pests. The problem with biosecurity groups is that they are quite fragmented and there is a fragmented approach to biosecurity. There is no coordinated approach in dealing with these things. I think a lot of work needs to be done there. The Auditor General’s reports have highlighted the issue and pointed out that the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development needs to do some work in that area, and I think there needs to be some investment in that. A lot of people complain to me that they resent that they have a $30 levy on their rates to deal with this, but they do not know where the money has gone. It goes to the biosecurity group and the government matches it, but I do not think there is a lot of reporting after that. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Member, we are actually trying to improve that. Hon RICK MAZZA: That is good news. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: I believe that certainly the operational plans—the annual reports are published, but I think we’ve got to do more in terms of transparency, and I’ve said to the biosecurity groups that will certainly change from next year. If we can get it happening retrospectively, we will. Hon RICK MAZZA: That is good to hear, minister. There might have to be an entire review of how we are handling this because at the moment it is failing. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: We are reviewing the BAM act. That will start later this year, and that will be a significant part of it—whether or not that structure has worked. Hon RICK MAZZA: Thanks, minister. In the few minutes I have left, I want to touch on farm invasions and activists who enter onto farms. I believe the trespass bill has been read in to the other place. The problem with that bill is it has a barb in it. A lot of farmers who I have spoken to about the trespass bill have said that they think it is a good idea that people will not be able to trespass, but when I explained to them it contains designated inspectors, they are horrified. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Inspectors would go into an abattoir. Hon RICK MAZZA: They do not like the idea of people entering their farms. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: Can I finish, minister; I have only a couple of minutes, and I am not going to take any more interjections. They are horrified by this bill. It is a bit disingenuous to say that it is a trespass bill when in fact it contains an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act as well. There needs to be some transparency and truth when it comes to

5648 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] naming bills. It is a bit like the puppy farming bill, whereby the only place “puppy farming” is mentioned is in brackets in the heading. It is not mentioned anywhere else in the bill; it is a headline. I am sure much of this is to do with the election coming up, as a point of difference. I think that the government should focus a lot more on agriculture in Western Australia, particularly with the COVID lockdown, as far as the workforce is concerned. We also have water deficiencies and there are many challenges out there. At the moment, there does not seem to be a great focus by government on agriculture in Western Australia. I am sure that very shortly I will hear a very different point of view, but that is the way I see it at this point in time. HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [11.13 am]: I think it is important to give the perspective of a purveyor of agriculture, as the only working farmer in the Western Australian Parliament. I was disappointed. Hon Dr Steve Thomas is a man of some intelligence and he does have an interest in agriculture, but what a disappointing way to start his foray into the shadow agriculture portfolio. He is the third string from the Liberals— the third choice behind the member for Geraldton and Hon Jim Chown. We finally get down to Hon Dr Steve Thomas, and this is how we start. The honourable member follows the four failed Ministers for Agriculture and Food in the Barnett government, and he is continuing the tradition of people who do not bring any ideas or policies or have an agenda for the future of agriculture, but just have an A-grade whinge. That is all we got today from the shadow minister, and I encourage him to change tack and perhaps work more productively—pardon the pun—on how we might better agriculture in Western Australia, rather than just getting stuck into a very good, hardworking and dedicated minister. I point out the honourable member — Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Why aren’t you the minister? Hon DARREN WEST: I am quite happy to be parliamentary secretary to the best. I am quite happy with that arrangement. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members, I am trying to hear Hon Darren West. Hon DARREN WEST: Thank you. I know it causes great speculation among the opposition, but on our side we are quite happy with the arrangements as they are, because we are doing good work in agriculture. The minister and I went out to Kulin recently. There were a couple of hundred farmers in the room. Naturally, we were not the political flavour of the people in the room, but we were extraordinarily well received. We talked positively about how we can look forward to dealing with the issues of water deficiency, climate change and tier 3 rail. Do members remember tier 3 rail? Hon Simon O’Brien knows a thing or two about tier 3 rail. We talked positively about how we might be able to work closely with farmers in the eastern wheatbelt, and we were extraordinarily well received. We know that we are not the political flavour liked by farmers out there; we accept that. But this minister is one in a long line of outstanding Labor agriculture ministers—the late Hon Kim Chance, the late Hon Ernie Bridge and now Hon Alannah MacTiernan. I will remind members that 300 staff in regional Western Australia were sacked from the Department of Agriculture and Food under the previous government. In fact, Esperance went from 44 staff to 20 staff under the previous government’s watch. In 2008, when the Barnett government came to power—surprisingly and regrettably— 45 per cent of staff in the Department of Agriculture and Food worked in regional Western Australia. When that government was turfed out in 2017—thankfully—that was only 41 per cent. The number of staff in the department was not only decimated; it was decimated more in the regions. I point out that the honourable member is a brave man to pop up his head and talk about agriculture and put his side’s perspective, because, obviously, it is a terrible story that he has to tell! People in the agricultural industry have not forgotten what the former government did to their industry—it cut all the research, cut all the staff and centralised jobs in the city. I know other members want to speak, but I want to run through the points in the shadow minister’s A-grade whinge. On the opposition to live exports, I can make the shadow agriculture minister very happy by informing him that in five more sleeps, the Al Kuwait will arrive to pick up live sheep destined for the Middle East as the moratorium, suggested by the minister and taken up by industry, will have ended. Members will remember the Al Kuwait because I had a bit of trouble last time it was here, and it left a little late, with permission. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: It still owes $400 000. Hon DARREN WEST: It does owe us $400 000. The ship left and every day I got an email about the state of the stock and what was happening on that ship. That is a far cry from the Barnaby days, when nobody knew anything, and we all saw the outcome of that. This minister has made a much more positive contribution to the live export industry than the honourable member gives her credit for, because we still have one. The Al Kuwait will be here in five days to pick up some sheep and take them to the Middle East. In the last 11 years, numbers out of Western Australia have dropped from 2.5 million to one million. There are about 28 abattoirs, some of which are owned by live export companies, so the trend is on, member. The jobs processing those animals are moving to Australia; the trend is on. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5649

Hon DARREN WEST: Barnaby Joyce had a total failure as an agriculture minister. Hon Dr Steve Thomas: His failures don’t excuse your failures. Hon DARREN WEST: I think there are other people like him on the honourable member’s side of politics. Genetically modified crops are still being grown in Western Australia, but they are losing favour with farmers, because we have moved on. We are putting mills on harvesters and finding other ways to deal with grass weeds in crops. They are very expensive to buy because the seed must be bought from Bayer. The other day, the discount hit $100 a tonne. Farmers are making the decision with their feet to move into more conventional canola or into lupins. Genetically modified canola in the wheatbelt is not the panacea that was sold to farmers, but it is still being grown and as the minister pointed out, we are making advances in the Ord in growing cotton. This minister is not opposed to genetically modified crops—that is incorrect. We are not opposed to the use of glyphosate. We use glyphosate regularly. There is an issue with using it as a desiccant and there could be an issue in using it on genetically modified crops, but using it as a pre-emergent, as a knockdown, is no problem. Our customers have concerns. It is not the minister’s concerns, it is our customers in Europe and other parts of the world who have concerns. We have to respond to our customers’ concerns, because the first rule of retail is that the customer is always right. That is not an opposition to glyphosate, it is a concern that we might want to think about a future when our customers will say that they will buy the product at a discount. We might want to think about a future when we can have alternative arrangements. As I said, we used no glyphosate in our last two croppings because we have had no opening rains. That is my segue into the biggest issue facing agriculture that is not listed in the motion. Although the issues in the motion are important, the biggest issue is the change in our climate, with water deficiencies and shorter growing seasons. As I pointed out, we are in a safe farming area and we had rain on 4 June and 24 May in the last two years. We had seeded by then and did not use any glyphosate in those last two years. We are going to have a warmer and drier climate. How might we as an industry adapt to that warmer and drier climate with less water, more evaporation and shorter growing seasons? I suggest that a good way to start would be to invest in research. That is what this minister has done; she has put $45 million into research bringing scientists back into the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development to do that very important research. Members, we have a good story to tell in agriculture. The agricultural sector will disagree as a whole with the motion. This minister is highly motivated, solutions based, very driven and brings a lot of energy to the portfolio. Earlier, I referred to the previous four failed ministers. As a senior minister in cabinet, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has the capacity to get good decisions made with much-needed funding allocated—funding that was cut under the last government. I have said it 100 times before and I will say it again: there has never been a better time to be in agriculture. This motion talks our industry down. The member needs to stop. Can I suggest that the shadow minister takes a different tack, because as we run up to the election—I will help him here—the public and the agricultural industries do not want to hear whingeing, moaning and bickering between politicians. They want to hear about a vision for the future, because there is absolutely nothing in this motion other than an A-grade whinge. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [11.22 am]: Other people want to speak, so I will try to make this as quick as I can. I thank the member for bringing this important non-government business to the house. It is quite clear to me that most of the seven points that the member pointed out in the motion are very important: opposition to live export, opposition to genetically modified crops, use of glyphosate, impending farm labour shortages, failure to control invasive weeds and pests, a victim-blaming approach to farm invasions, and, of course, the absolute silence on Yandeyarra reserve and Noonkanbah station. These areas are very important, and some of them have not been discussed today. One of the areas that is also very important is water. I would like to talk a little about that. In its 2018–19 annual report, the Water Corporation reported that half a billion dollars was put back into general revenue. I cannot believe that it would put that money back when there is a complete lack of infrastructure reinvestment going on. Standpipes are non-functional and farmers are now having to travel an extra 20 to 30 kilometres to get a tank load. It is incredible that there are whole communities without decent water infrastructure, yet the Water Corp is returning money to general revenue. That is a failure. I have also seen in the Water Corp’s annual report that its value for money came out at five out of 10. That does not surprise me. There are massive increases in hardship requests, not just in the country and regionals areas, but also in the metro area. People just cannot afford to pay their water bill. The farm water rebate scheme was abolished. Maybe the Water Corp should look at that again. We need help when it comes to water, because the work is not being done and it is returning money to general revenue, which is a real disappointment. I also want to get on to an issue with farm labour. I am certainly in favour of Western Australians taking up Western Australian jobs, as Hon Diane Evers mentioned; however, it is not always possible. Certainly, under the cruel and uncompassionate way that our Premier is handling the COVID-19 situation, he is making it very, very hard for shearers and farm workers to make their way to work on farms here. There will be a lot of waste. Sheep will need to be sheared, fruit will need to be picked and many jobs on farms will go undone, which will affect the bottom line in the end. It is not good that sheep producers will have to wait an extra month. As we know, wool prices have halved. Animal welfare issues will also be looming, with flystrike due to the delay in shearing. Hon Rick Mazza mentioned that.

5650 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

It did not surprise me that Hon Darren West mentioned that the Labor Party was not the political flavour for farmers. It is not the political flavour for farmers because of its past and current record. Its interest in the regions has been wanting for many years; it rates less than five out of 10. When we look at farm labour issues and the lack of expenditure on and work done in water infrastructure, it is no wonder we see regional Western Australia struggling. Regional Western Australia continues to deliver, even with all these difficulties. If this government and this minister gave some more thought to the points mentioned in this honourable member’s non-government business motion, maybe we would start to make some headway. Regarding Yandeyarra and Noonkanbah, I have been to both stations. I know the Aboriginal people who work on those stations and the elders who run those stations. They are prepared to be held accountable for anything they do wrong, and the silence from this government is disappointing. HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [11.27 am]: I appreciate other members limiting their debate to allow time for me to contribute to this motion. I rise in support of this motion. I believe the Minister for Agriculture and Food has failed the industry for the reasons that have been outlined by previous speakers, but, for me, it is no clearer than in how the government’s hard border is currently affecting the agricultural sector. Right now, fruit producers and wool producers are suffering the potentially severe hardship of not being able to get in seasonal workforces from over east and New Zealand. We also have a problem in that the entire ag industry will very shortly be looking at a shortage of truck drivers, because truck drivers are being attracted to jobs in the resource sector that are high paying, of course. The resource sector does not have problems with this hard border. It has the scale and scope to import workers and settle them permanently in Western Australia. The ag sector does not have that scale or purchasing power in the same way. Some of this workforce is low skilled. Shed hands are low skilled, fruit pickers are certainly low skilled, but shearers are not. That is a highly skilled profession in which years of experience can increase the productivity and efficiency of a shearer. One person can shear a few dozen sheep a day, and another can shear 100 or more a day. A member interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: They absolutely are essential workers, honourable member. The same goes for truck drivers. Someone can be trained up to be a truck driver in a fairly short period, but to train them to drive the specific configuration needed for road trains can take quite a long time. We do not want amateurs or people who are rushed through training driving road trains on our roads. That is dangerous. Nobody wants that. Normally, we would rely on a transient workforce from the eastern states and from New Zealand. We cannot do that in this case because we have a hard border in place. It is all good and well to say that we have public health concerns and that we cannot raise the hard border for the sake of the agricultural industry. But it turns out that we can. We have been raising it. We have been providing exemptions for professional sportspeople, players in the AFL and other sports codes, and businesspeople. Kerry Stokes gets waved through; he gets a shorter quarantine period than anybody else does. Mates of the Premier get the red-carpet treatment. But truck drivers and shearers who are looking for some hard, honest work in the agricultural sector in Western Australia are sent packing; they are sent on their way. Why is our Minister for Agriculture and Food not beating down the doors of the Minister for Health, the Premier, the Minister for Police and the Commissioner of Police demanding some kind of travel bubble for the ag sector labour force—for shearers, fruit pickers, truck drivers and all the other kinds of transient workers the ag sector relies upon? I find it absolutely hilarious that members and the government are suggesting—the Greens’ contribution was laughable—that we can somehow get people from the city to go out there as fruit pickers. Has anyone ever been a fruit picker? Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Yes, I have. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: The minister has? That is great. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: And I’m from the city and I loved it. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: That is great. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: I thought it was fantastic! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Shush, minister! I have only a minute and a half left. The PRESIDENT: Order! Member, I am the only one who will call shush, and I have been trying to do that and none of you is listening. Hon Aaron Stonehouse has the call. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: It is unskilled work but it is not easy. Granted, I did it for only one day. When I was a teenager, I volunteered to work for an orange producer that had a shed burn down. I did it for only one day. It was not easy. The government thinks it is going to get Instagram teenagers out there picking fruit on a regular basis. It is not going to happen. Pol Pot tried that, and it resulted in the death of millions. This weird idea that somehow we are going to get city folks out there picking fruit for pennies, as we do with backpackers, is not going to happen.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5651

It is absolutely shameful. It will mean the financial ruin of farmers. It will also potentially result in a crisis for animal welfare. When it comes to lambing season and we have high temperatures and there is the risk of fly strike, grass seeds and all the other problems, and farmers are not able to shear sheep in time, we will have an animal welfare crisis on our hands, and it will be on this government’s head. It will be the government’s fault. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2020 Second Reading Resumed from 9 September. [Emergency evacuation alarm system activated.] The PRESIDENT: Members, I will leave the chair until the ringing of the bells. Sitting suspended from 11.33 to 11.47 am The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Dr Steve Thomas): Members, we are dealing with the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020. I note that Hon Simon O’Brien, whose comments were cut short considerably on Tuesday evening but who managed to get the words “Madam President” out, did not even manage to achieve that much today. Coincidence? You tell me! I am going to attempt with my best endeavour to give the call to Hon Simon O’Brien. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [11.48 am]: I am not sure where one keeps one’s headgear. Will the minister take it? I will not table it at this stage; I will get it back a bit later on. Do not get them mixed up! We are considering the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020. Yesterday, at the start of my introductory remarks, I was reflecting on some of the history that is pertinent to our contemplation of this bill and the approach that the ALP in government takes to these matters and why they should be viewed with certainly circumspection and, in many cases after even the most casual of examinations, some disquiet. The Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 is such a bill in that, typically, the motives that the government claims are behind the bill are not the motives that we find when we examine the bill, which we will do in detail in the committee stage if the house in its wisdom overgenerously agrees to a second reading vote. It is my view in addressing the question before the Chair to recommend very strongly that the house does not agree to second read this bill. If nothing else, not second reading the bill would certainly save a lot of time in further stages, and that is something that I am going to expand on in just a moment. I have already questioned at some length the government’s motives in bringing forward this bill and I have questioned them in every way. I am not convinced of the government’s motives. They are not pure and well-intended and they do not have anything to do with the remark in the second reading speech about ensuring that the public has confidence in the accountability, transparency and integrity of elections in Western Australia. As the Labor Party in government at its worst tends to do, it has come up with an issue that no-one is particularly interested in and that does not need attention. It pretends that there is an issue, it pretends to create an issue and it pretends that it has got the answers to whatever manufactured ill it claims is out there somewhere when all the time it is getting up to its same shenanigans in spades. That is what we are going to see as we examine this bill a bit further in terms of the second reading speech, all of which goes to the question of why it should or should not be read a second time. I suggest that we could spend a great deal of time doing this. Just now this government has elected to spend time on this bill. Recently, members received a list of bills that have to go through or the sky is going to fall—urgent bills that need to be passed before this parliamentary term is up. There are only a few weeks left if we take out the budget weeks and so on and the pre-election time. There is not much time at all. The government has dozens of bills on the notice paper that I am sure have all been the subject of press releases saying, “Aren’t we wonderful, we are bringing this in?” Of course, half the time the government puts out a press release saying that it is going to bring in a bill when it has not even drafted the bill. The bills are brought in and rubberstamped in the other place before arriving here where they are rot. We are told that it is because we are holding up the legislation. Rubbish! It is because this government does not bring them on. It goes out there quite regularly and tells porkies to the public about how we are holding up the business of government, yet the same bills that Quigley or whoever it might be are grizzling about have not been brought on in this place. As Michelle Roberts — Hon Stephen Dawson: It is Hon Michelle Roberts. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I was talking about someone I went to school with, but if the minister wants to talk about his colleague, the honourable Minister for Police received an email from me recently after she let slip that members somewhere else should encourage opposition members in this place to stop holding up legislation and get on with it. Stop holding things up and get on with it! In a communication back to the Minister for Police, I said, “Please don’t blame us. You need to talk to your colleagues who run”—I was using the term “run” in inverted commas, loosely— “this house and manage the order of business. It rests entirely with them. Go and have a bitch and a moan to Hon Sue Ellery and anyone else involved in mismanaging this house.” I said in the email that, quite frankly, just between the minister and I, they would probably appreciate a bit of advice from the minister because, really, I do not think they could find a chocolate freckle if they were organising a lolly shop. Honestly, they are hopeless. Do not

5652 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] take my word for it; I am sure I will be backed up by the Leader of the Opposition, who has been Leader of the House in his day as well, so he knows what he is talking about with these matters. But we have all these bills—dozens of them. Many of them will never see the light of day. Actually, having glanced at some of them, that is probably no bad thing. I know I have criticised the bill now before us as being without merit, but it is not the only one the government has in its inventory. Even when the government culls it down to a totally unrealistic 19 bills that have to go through, where are its priorities? Now that the COVID omnibus fiasco has been and gone earlier this sitting week—that is one whole day gone—top of the wazza is, of course, the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020. I have a list of bills that was circulated. Here is where we are; that is the government’s first priority. The second priority is the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019, cognate with the Safety Levies Amendment Bill 2019, so that is actually slipping an extra, twentieth, bill in there. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Member, this is not relevant. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is highly relevant. This is the bill that introduces industrial manslaughter as an offence. This is the bill on which Hon Dr Sally Talbot and I and several other members spent weeks. We produced a report, which is now available to the house. Many witnesses and others contributed to that report. After all the work and heartache that has gone into that bill, that is second fiddle to this electoral bill. Then there is a bill about wheel clamping. The Environmental Protection Amendment Bill comes next on the list. That is a major, major bill that a lot of people are waiting on. Again, that is further down the list, and so it goes on. The Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting) Bill 2020. The Children and Community Services Amendment Bill 2019. Again, with our chair, Hon Dr Sally Talbot, and other members, I recently spent weeks and weeks on this bill, inquiring into it. It involves a number of very important matters, not least the circumstances in which Indigenous children, in particular, may or may not be separated from their family or family groups. It is not often I get a lump in my throat when I am hearing witnesses in committee hearings about legislation, but that is the sort of matter that is dealt with in that bill. That ranks number seven; this rubbish today ranks number one. On and on it goes. There are a whole lot of things. The Agricultural Produce Commission Amendment Bill 2019: again, that is the subject of another inquiry. The Standing Committee on Legislation also had the benefit of the advice of Hon Dr Steve Thomas in its consideration of that. I know that the minister on my left is concerned about that bill. I do not know how much hope she has, but it might be that her work in putting that bill together and all the work the Standing Committee on Legislation has done recently will come to nought because the minister’s bill is fifteenth on the list. They are the government’s priorities. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: For every bill we debate, we spend an hour or two talking about other bills that we could have debated. If we cut that hour out of every discussion, we would actually get more bills done. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not think that is a legitimate point at all. That is disappointing. The point is that this is the government’s number one priority when it has precious little time left. Those important matters, together with a lot of other dross, are waiting in the wings and may not be called upon and dealt with at all because this government’s priority is the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020. Why is this bill so goddamn important? It is important to the Australian Labor Party for political reasons. It is not important to the people of Western Australia and it is not important to those who are waiting on matters related to children and community services, to work health and safety or to NDIS worker screening—another bill waiting in the wings. Hon Stephen Dawson: Honourable member, the NDIS bill went through committee yesterday. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The minister is quite right. When do we anticipate that it will come back? Hon Stephen Dawson interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The minister is quite right. Nonetheless, I will be interested to see where that fits into the priorities that we have been given. It concerns me that this bill is number one. I thought that the Labor Party was all over this election gig. After March 2017, I thought that the Labor Party thought it had it well and truly sussed. Let me remind members of some of the things that the Labor Party has been trying to do. The bill provides for a number of measures. I will not go through them in any great detail now, but by gee when we get to the committee stage, I will have a very close look at some of these matters in particular. The bill talks about all the things that will add confidence to the accountability and integrity and what have you to the electoral system. We will see about that. It talks about the return of gifts and income received by a political party. As we have already noted, that is about introducing a new layer of bureaucracy, possibly only to provide some gotcha moments in the future. I am not really sure what is behind that, but I do not see how it adds any value to the activity that we are talking about. At clause 15, the government proposes to introduce caps on electoral expenditure. That is very interesting, because, again, we ask ourselves: why? I get blank looks when I ask that question of the authors of this bill. Expert advisers are unable to tell me, and they look over towards the political advisers who will not tell me. I reckon that the minister dealing with this bill, when he is asked what this is for and to rationalise and explain it, will not be able to tell us either, yet the government wants us to agree to these provisions becoming law. What are these provisions? In general terms, the government is proposing some systems to impose caps in a few ways. Firstly, there will be a cap on how much a political party or candidate can spend in their electorate. It is $125 000. I do not know why it is that figure and no-one can tell me why or even why we need a cap, for starters. Someone wanting to run for a seat in

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5653

Parliament somewhere might have a whole lot of people in the community who want to get behind the candidate and support them. Why should they not raise money to go to a good cause? Who on earth does anyone think they are to say that people are not allowed to spend money on their election campaign? They have never been told that until now. Why, in 2020, is it necessary to do this? I do not have an answer to that. It is not up to me to provide an answer, but the government certainly does not have one. I will challenge the minister to tell us in his second reading reply, in due course, why a cap is needed at all. When we discuss why a cap is needed, the government points out some other bizarre elements that it is introducing. The government will say that in the case of the Liberal Party, the cap is $125 000 per seat or region and, guess what? That can be aggregated. Parties can offset or cross-subsidise one against the other. That means that if a political party runs candidates in all 59 seats in six regions, that gives the party about $8.125 million, so what is our problem? The Liberal Party is not being capped at all. However, an Independent candidate who is running in just one seat—not all the seats—is artificially restricted to a cap of $125 000. That may or may not be more or less than what is needed and what the community and supporters are prepared to put in, but for some reason that is what it has to be. The government tells us, “Don’t worry about that. You didn’t spend anything like that at the last election, so you’re well within your comfort zone.” Are we, indeed? If occurs to me that that is right, at least. The Liberal Party is unlikely to have a war chest of $8 million at the next election. I do not know what the other parties’ positions are as they approach the next election, but I reckon there are two parties that might possibly have a war chest of that size. They are the two protagonists that I reintroduced members to yesterday when I referred to a newspaper article of 15 February 2020 that tells us there are some political laws coming forward later this year—this bill—because Mark McGowan is worried that he might be targeted by Clive Palmer after the Premier threatened Clive Palmer over a state agreement back in February. That is where this bill comes from. Which are the two parties that will definitely have war chests of $8.125 million or more—sorry, they are not allowed to have more! The two entities are Clive Palmer and the state Labor Party. Has that got anything to do with where the cap was set? We shall see whether we can tease that out. The bill proposes expenditure caps for groups in various ways, but I will not go through all that, and offences are created for people who cannot keep up with the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats will be at some central location but they will not understand the reality of having candidates all over the place with varying degrees of experience and professionalism or with dealing with all the candidates’ enthusiastic helpers. An early reporting regime is proposed to be brought in setting out the caps and offences. That is all, no doubt, intended to provide gotcha moments for some political halfwit to use in the future while all the time claiming the government is all about accountability, transparency and integrity. I think members in this place have seen enough of politics to know when a political party is up to no good and is trying to set up matters that suit themselves. By gee, you are looking at it right now. The expenditure caps are a bit different if someone is not a candidate. Someone else running a campaign, even though they are not a candidate or running candidates, has a limit of $2 million that they can spend. Again, I will ask why. What is the point? If someone wants to spend money commenting on an election or running some campaign— they might be some mining sector that wants to do over Brendon Grylls—why should they not spend millions and millions of dollars doing that? If the government wants to stop people doing that, $2 million gives them a fair bit to do it with. How is an individual candidate restricted to a total of $125 000—bear in mind that a lot of very worthwhile Independents get elected when they have spent a heck of a lot less than $125 000—going to go if they are confronted with someone spending millions against them? How on earth does that improve the accountability or integrity of our electoral system? Of course, it is a nonsense. I am always asking these things as rhetorical questions, because even as I recount them, members around the chamber can see the silliness contained in this policy. If the government is going to have limits on what people can spend on their concurrent campaigns while they are not in the election but trying to influence it, gosh, it sounds awfully Palmer–McGowan-esque, does it not? If the government is trying to do that, why set the amount at $2 million? Why should it not be $1 million? Why not $1.375 million? Why not $50 million? I do not know. Why not zero? Again, I am going to ask the government to tell us, and I am going to tell the house that the government so far has not been able to provide an explanation or any rationale at all, and I do not think it has one now. If the government is about to produce one now, why has it not produced it before? The government is good at producing things at the eleventh hour in the legislative process, so it might do that. We will see. I am sure other speakers will tease that out. There is another red herring in this whole bill. The government thought it had better try to wedge us a little bit, so it put in a clause that gifts are not to be received from foreign donors. Hell, who would not agree with that? I asked the government, saying, “Great, what evidence is there that there have been foreign donations influencing elections in Western Australia? Is there any evidence at all?” The government came up with nothing. That is all right, is it not, Mr Acting President? The colony has got by for the last nearly 200 years without this provision in law. It will not hurt to put it in, will it? Saying it will not hurt to have it is a pretty dumb reason to have a law. If the government cannot identify a reason that it is now suddenly needed, why would it do it? In any case, who disagrees with the notion that we should not have foreign donors seeking to influence the outcomes of our elections? I would not. I will tell members now formally that the Liberal Party certainly does not hold any view to the contrary. We do not want to see foreign donations being used—just to make that absolutely clear. I am sure the public of Western Australia almost universally, probably even more than 91 per cent dare I say, would agree with that view as well. Nonetheless,

5654 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] if the government must have it, it must have it. But what is the reason if there is no need for it, if everyone is in furious agreement, if everyone is on the lookout for it? I can tell members that as a political professional if I found anyone’s campaign being funded from a foreign source, geez, I would have them on toast. I would. Hon Alison Xamon interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We would, would we not, if we discovered that in the midst of an election campaign, we would go, “My opponent is using — Several members interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Have there been any examples of that? The minister has some examples, apparently. The minister, apparently, by interjection is suggesting that he has some answers. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members, Hon Simon O’Brien is addressing the Chair. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We look forward to the answers to those questions. I tell members where the provision would be handy. It would be handy for an ALP government trying to bring forward another agenda. It needs something to virtue signal, to distract people and to possibly try to wedge its political opponents, whoever they may be, so why not throw in a good old chestnut like banning foreign donations? As we will see, very sadly, when we get to contemplation of clause 13, it is a completely useless provision that the government has come up with. We will have a good reflection on ineptitude and what have you when we come to that, if we come to it. It is a good distraction, it is a good headline and it is a good thing to try to wedge us. I find it a bit annoying, because rather than dealing with matters that might need to be dealt with, what does the government do? The government basically says—the spin doctors who come up with these ideas—that it thinks we are all stupid. That is pretty insulting. I know my Liberal Party colleagues are not stupid. They do not like being treated as though they are stupid. I wonder what the Nationals WA members think. I know them all very well. They are not stupid, but they are being treated as though they are stupid. What about our other crossbenchers? What about our colleagues from the Greens? Hon Alison Xamon: We are most certainly not stupid. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: There we have it: we are unanimous on this. Of all the opposition and crossbenchers, nobody is stupid. The only people not agreeing with that—it is a common theme, is it not; these six parties against that one?—are the Labor Party members who think we are stupid. We will see what members think about that when they come to contemplate clause 13, if we ever get there. But the ALP does not have to worry about any of this. These are provisions for other people to worry about. These are provisions to maybe trip up political opponents, to say, “Here’s a gotcha moment. Let’s distract during the course of a campaign by saying someone is blowing their margin or they are going over some cap or other.” What a tremendous distraction it will be, rather than dealing with the matters at issue—the matters that are actually important. Do not worry, because the Labor Party will have plenty of money, will it not? I wonder how much money the ALP will have at the next election. Let us cobble it all together. I already mentioned that it has showed its hand early by targeting the 500 Club. At various times over the years I have gone along to the 500 Club. I am a member of the 500 Club, and I have been for years and years, because it has like-minded people. Heck, as a minister I have been there to do policy breakfasts and all those things we do. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: How many people are in the 500 Club? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not know. In any case, the ALP seems to be fixated about it. I am even getting interjections here from someone who is fixated. Does Hon Alannah MacTiernan want to join the 500 Club? Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Robin Chapple): Members! I ask Hon Simon O’Brien not to encourage interjection. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: I ask members not to interject, if possible. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It will be interesting, will it not? It seems that people have to toe this government’s line if they want to do business in this town—it certainly helps. I again refer back to the bad old Burke days, which I first observed when I was involved in a serious way in politics in the 1980s. I see a whole lot of indicators that tell me that the same rules of operation apply now. I have heard that the current Premier has a bit of time for the way Burke went about doing business. He does not like to be reminded of that. He does not want to be tarred with any of that sort of brush. But the similarities that I am seeing between then and now are spooky. They are chilling. I wonder how much it costs to do business in this town. From the little that we know already, we wonder, “Boy! Is another royal commission brewing here?” It is probably early days to call that one. How do those people contribute

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5655 to the ALP to show, “Yes, we love you; yes, help us with our development; yes, we want to do business in this town”? Where does their money go to? Does it go to any other associated entities? Let us ask the Minister for Electoral Affairs about that, because he seems to be an expert on these matters, and he has his ministerial colleague, who is also an expert on these matters, and, indeed, everything — Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I mean that sincerely, too. The minister knows that I do. Perhaps those ministers can tell us what methods are used by the Australian Labor Party and its supporters to launder funds that go to their benefit. That would be about accountability, would it not? That would be about transparency. That would be about ensuring that the public can have confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. I predict that there will be a bit of pushback from this government about any such inquiry, as well there might be. What about this cap? I reckon that with all the people who want to do business in this town and pay their five-figure sum, or possibly more, to get an entree to government ministers and so on, the Labor Party might go close to the cap. But it does not matter, really, because the Labor Party will have plenty of money anyway. One of the things the Labor Party has available to it is the public purse. The funny thing is that the Labor Party had that available to it even in opposition. It came to be known as the local projects, local jobs program. That goes back a few years now. Basically, it was a slush fund, which had no basis in the budget initially, coordinated through Labor headquarters, to enable Labor candidates to promise public money to buy their way into their seats. Hon Stephen Dawson: It was election commitments. Haven’t you read the report of the committee? It was election commitments. You’ve been in opposition. You’ve made election commitments, and sometimes you’ve delivered and sometimes you haven’t. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am sorry. I am addressing you, Mr Acting President. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Interjections from both sides are not particularly welcome in this debate. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I just had to let that one run its course, Mr Acting President, because it assists me greatly. On the one hand, the minister in charge of the bill has raised his voice, to make sure it is heard, to say, “Yes, this is the way we go about business; and, what is more, it is a legitimate way of going about business.” Hon Stephen Dawson: Election commitments! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes. Hon Stephen Dawson: Election commitments! For goodness sake! The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members! I do not want any further interjection, and I would ask the honourable member on his feet to not encourage interjection. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Absolutely, Mr Acting President. I note again that the minister, who will get a second reading reply, of course, wanted to encourage me by insisting that what I am saying is true—that a program that came to be branded as local content, local jobs, because that is what the committee to which the minister is referring has found, as the minister himself now confirms — Hon Stephen Dawson: Local projects, local jobs. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes, local projects, local jobs. Hon Stephen Dawson: You said local content. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is the government’s program, not mine. The minister is being a great help. It is a branding exercise. No local jobs were created. But let us not worry about that right now. The point I make, for about the third or fourth time, is that the minister, by interjection, insists again and again that that is how the ALP goes about running elections. That is how it did it at the last election, and presumably that is how it will do it again. Furthermore, apparently nothing is wrong with that. It is all quite normal. It is all how it should be. Wrong. The minister is dead wrong. It is not normal to do that, and it never has been. It is about buying votes. What will we see next? Does the minister want the opposition to say, “Righto, let’s outspend the government party at the next election in our promises to individual groups or voters in individual electorates. If it bids $100 000, we’ll bid $200 000”? Hon Stephen Dawson: I am sure you will. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That is clearly a ridiculous state of affairs, but that is what the Labor Party is proposing. That is unsustainable, and it is fundamentally wrong. An opposition member: Irresponsible pork-barrelling. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is all of that. We have seen some examples of how that can be ruthlessly used. For effect, I was going to show some pictures to members in the chamber, but the wretched minister has just proved my point for me. Shame on you! I will show

5656 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] the pictures anyway, just to remind members of how this lot opposite go about their game. We have all seen these pictures. Hansard cannot record these sorts of pictures, but I will just do a general display around the chamber of some pictures of various Labor candidates and members holding up enormous presentation cheques standing in their name. Here is one from Robyn Clarke. Where does she come from, I wonder? Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members! That is enough. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The caption on this picture says that she is very happy to fulfil an election commitment— they are very careful with their language—of $50 000 and that it was a personal pledge. Yet the cheque is not signed “Government of Western Australia”, for legitimate government expenditure—here is our cheque. No. It is in the name of Robyn Clarke, MLA, as though it is her money. The Labor Party, which is now in government, has said to its candidates and members, “Here is a bucketful of money, and it is at your discretion and disposal, subject only to you putting a program through the ALP campaign headquarters.” There are many examples of that. Here is another one. We now all know who Robyn Clarke is. Who is this bloke here? We have not seen him for a while. It is a chap called Barry Urban, MLA, presenting a cheque. Members of the government are getting their money’s worth here! I hope the cheque did not bounce. I do not know. Who else do we have? Stephen Price is in this picture, and here is a lovely picture of a former member of this place, who is now the member for Morley, Amber-Jade Sanderson. The caption under the picture says “Amber J. Sanderson”—I think that is a misprint—“dropped by” the centre where the photo was taken. She was just passing and she “dropped by”, as one does, with a presentation cheque for $50 000. Hon Darren West: Why shouldn’t they be funded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: But it is in her name. It is a state taxpayer–funded cheque. Even the cheque would have been paid for by the taxpayer. It is in her name—it is not from the government—and we know this is problematic. The Labor Party does not think that is wrong; it thinks it is okay to do that and has reaffirmed that it thinks it is okay to do that. What was the value of the Local Projects, Local Jobs program? Hon Peter Collier: It was $39 million. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It was $39 million—wow! That is one hell of a lot of slush funds, even if it is divided by the 57 electorates, and money was not spent in all electorates. I do not think the poor old candidates in Cottesloe, Nedlands, Bateman and South Perth got a look in, but if they were in a Labor or a marginal seat, by gee, there was $39 million. This mob says it has a bill to stop people buying or improperly influencing elections by throwing money around and that will limit good, solid independent candidates to $125 000. It does not matter that a candidate’s supporters want to raise $500 000, or that their opponent wants to spend vastly more because they are a member of a big party that can shuffle the money around from one bucket to the next, or that someone out there does not like the candidate and is prepared to spend $2 million against their $125 000. This shower on the government bench reckons it has a bill that will improve integrity in government when it runs $39 million slush funds, and the minister has just told us by interjection that he has no doubt it will happen again in the future. Seriously, are members going to give this bill a second reading? This is only the tip of a very rotten iceberg. How rotten? The Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations examined this program. The committee made heaven knows how many findings—a lot of findings. It made 23 recommendations and I think 46 findings. Finding 2 states — The 2017–18 State Budget provided an allocation of funding against a program entitled Local Projects Local Jobs that appeared to give effect to the similarly entitled WA Labor election commitment contained in the WA Labor Financial Management Plan. Is that a coincidence? I think not. This is the party of transparency and integrity! Finding 3 states — WA Labor did not retain information or records relating to the development of the individual local project commitments packaged within the Local Projects Local Jobs program. That was a finding of our standing committee. Finding 4 states — The Local Projects Local Jobs program originated from local electorate commitments made by individual WA Labor candidates between 2016 and 2017. The estimated total of these local commitments was published under the title “Local Jobs, Local Projects” in the WA Labor Financial Management Plan prior to the election. All the time, the Labor Party was thinking that when it got into office it would plunder the public purse; it would not even be buying votes with its own money. That is a question we could put to this government, too: is it okay to buy votes with a person’s own money or do they have to use the same taxpayers’ money? It is an interesting question, but I digress. The committee’s finding 11 states — The Committee could not confirm the actual selection process for all commitments that became funded projects under the Local Projects Local Jobs program.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5657

I bet it could not. Finding 12 states — The Committee could not determine the evaluation process for the commitments that became funded projects under the Local Projects Local Jobs program. I bet it could not. I betcha all the evidence, whatever that may have been, is long gone, because it was about individual candidates being invited by the Australian Labor Party organisation to put in their slush fund requests here, so that they could be politically coordinated. We have touched on this already; finding 20 states — The jobs aspect of the Local Projects Local Jobs program title is attributed to a branding exercise. What does that mean? It means that at the time the program was conceived, someone had done a survey and found that jobs were an issue in the election, so they said, “Let’s whack ‘jobs’ into the title.” There were no jobs created by this Local Projects, Local Jobs program. Again, it is just smoke and mirrors. It was an exercise in deceit. Finding 22 states — The Local Projects Local Jobs program created an expectation that new, sustainable and on-going employment would be created as a result of the implementation of the program. Did that happen? No, of course it did not. In any case, it does not matter because that was not the purpose. The purpose was for the Labor Party to use public money to buy, or to contribute to buying, its way into office. I could highlight other findings, but I think the point has been made that the Labor Party is sponsoring a bill, as I allege, and have presented evidence, that is intended to advantage it and disadvantage its opponents for the most base of reasons. It has a lot of form in doing this, and it has no scruples whatsoever in plundering the public purse. It will keep doing it. All of the talk in this chamber about the integrity, transparency and accountability in this bill is just so much eyewash. Members contemplating the second reading debate on this bill should treat it with the contempt that it deserves. As an aside, Mr Acting President, before I go to my concluding remarks, I have a couple of other thoughts. The committee’s finding 28 states — The Local Projects Local Jobs program reduced the funds otherwise available to other potential grants under the Royalties for Regions scheme to the extent that those $9 million in funds were repurposed by the Government to the Local Projects Local Jobs program. I ask all members, but particularly those who represent regional areas, and those who represent regional areas only, why they would contemplate jumping into bed with a government that brings forward this sort of bill. How on earth can members possibly trust it? Are the government’s spin doctors managing to convince members that it is a populist move that they need to support? I know that members have more brains than that, even though the government wants to take us all for fools. Members should also contemplate what the committee pointed out at finding 25, which states — Community, education, arts and sporting groups within the State were not afforded an equal opportunity to access funding from the program. What is right about that? If one lives in Amber-Jade’s or Robyn’s seat, apparently it is all right for those candidates to splash around public money at their whim on matters that in many cases do not have any merit. But none of the other worthy programs can get a look in. I look at it this way: what could the government provide by way of public housing and by way of assistance to people with a disability with the $39 million that it is prepared to splash around in such a cavalier way? Those are the standards that this government brings to this place in support of its holier-than-thou Electoral Amendment Bill 2020. In summary, the government that comes to us with a bill and says, “Trust us, it’ll all be all right”, should not be trusted. Has that not been recently demonstrated time and again as we have dealt with COVID bills in this place? We have found all sorts of unholy nasties buried inside bills that may have nothing to do with COVID responses but for which the government has already tricked us as a house into acquiescing to have time-limited debates so that those matters cannot be properly examined. How can we trust a government with that sort of form? Did members ever see the response to the committee inquiry into Local Projects, Local Jobs? It is one page from the Premier. What was it—46 findings and 23 recommendations? He says — I acknowledge the report is confirmation that Local Job, Local Projects was a mechanism through which election commitments made by Labor Candidates at the 2017 election were delivered. He has no shame at all. He is saying to us, “Yes, that’s us. You can all get stuffed.” Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am not responding to the minister’s interjection. Again and again ministers opposite demonstrate that they do not understand the proprieties that should exist around election commitments—that they are not tailored to individuals and they are not tailored to individual candidates.

5658 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

If the minister is incapable of understanding that, that is the root cause of the problem, but I thank her for pointing it out because it assists me very much in appealing to my colleagues, “Don’t trust this mob. They’re always up to no good and never more so than when they’re bringing forward electoral amendment laws.” The Premier himself admits that that is the government’s standard. He says, “What are you going to do about it? I’ve got all the media onside; I’m all right. You can all get nicked. What’s more, I’m going to bring in some electoral bills to further disadvantage you.” In the response, he says a few other things and then says — The Government response to the report is as follows: 1. In relation to Recommendations 1 and 2; The Government notes the Committee’s recommendation to consider the value of a formal policy for administering election commitments and to consider the value of developing a similar set of guidelines to the Commonwealth Grants Rules for Western Australia. Is that in this bill? No, but the government has noted it. That was recommendations 1 and 2. The government response continues — 2. In relation to Recommendations 3 thru 23; The Government notes the Committee’s recommendation to create a Parliamentary Budget Office. Then the final insulting remark, which at least got the response over to the second side of the page, along with a signature, states — The Government thanks the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations for its Report No. 85 and acknowledges the diligence of the Committee Members and staff. It is so nice! There are some very good reasons why this bill should not be read a second time. I hope I have raised that prospect with members who are not already of the view that my party colleagues and I have firmly formed on this matter. We will be voting against the bill at its second reading, and I suggest that this house does so as well, with the emphatic message of everyone, apart from the Labor members, voting down this bill. Something that we have seen a fair bit of increasingly lately in this place is that all members—be they left, right, Callithumpian or whatever— are joining in voting against a government proposition. I think that sends a collective worthwhile message that despite what this Premier and this government think, we are not stupid here in the upper house, and the people out there whom we represent are not stupid either and they will not be taken for fools. HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [12.46 pm]: I am glad to have an opportunity to rise to speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 at such an early occasion. I thank the government spokesperson for electoral matters. I am not sure whether it is a ministerial portfolio, actually. Hon Stephen Dawson: It is. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: It is a ministerial portfolio. I thank the Minister for Electoral Affairs for organising a briefing for me on such short notice, which I received on Tuesday, and his staff for making available their time. I also thank the timely expertise of the employees from the Western Australian Electoral Commission, who were very professional in their conduct and very knowledgeable. They were able to provide me with an overview of the clauses and instruments of this bill; however, I was left wanting, with questions unanswered around the intentions and policy intent behind the bill. Of course, the WA Electoral Commission is a non-political, nonpartisan entity, as it should be. It does not create policy for electoral reform, and that is appropriate. Electoral reform is instead driven by the government of the day, which sets the policy for what it should look like and what it should be. I will go through the clauses of the bill in due course and I will explain my position on each of them as I get to them. The only answer I got during my briefing on why the government was pursuing electoral reform in such a way, and the only explanation I was given of the genesis of and impetus for this bill, was that it was a Labor Party election commitment. That was it. For that reason, I was told during my briefing that no consultation was conducted with stakeholders. There was no consultation whatsoever. If it is an election commitment, normal processes for consultation are done away with! That is rather disappointing, because when it comes to electoral reform, there is a great number of stakeholders. I am not just talking about the recognised opposition party of Parliament, its junior partner in opposition or the myriad minor parties that have representation in Parliament, and I am not even just talking about those minor and micro-parties that can test elections but do not currently have political representation in Parliament; I am also talking about third party organisations that have an interest in politics and what happens in Parliament, such as various interest groups, industry peak bodies and lobby groups. They are not all lobby groups. I am not talking about the Chamber of Minerals and Energy or the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia—the evil monopoly men sitting in dark rooms smoking cigars and pulling the strings of politics. No, there are lobby and interest groups that are much more grassroots. There are ratepayer associations and associations established for the protection of certain environmental assets or the conservation of native species. These are all stakeholders on the issue of electoral reform, because these people engage in the electoral process and expend funds during elections. The biggest stakeholder on the issue of electoral reform is not one individual peak body or political party; it is actually the electors—the people who vote.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5659

The government may claim that it has a mandate in this regard because it has its “Disclosure and Democracy in the Digital Age” election commitment, which I was provided a copy of. I did not know this thing existed. Members may be surprised to learn that I do not normally spend a lot of time digesting Labor Party propaganda and material. Hon Alison Xamon interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Except when I receive The West Australian, of course—the official propaganda wing of the Labor Party! Hon Alison Xamon interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Unless it is published on the front page of The West Australian, I do not normally digest Labor Party propaganda, so this document was news to me. I suspect it was news to electors as well. I am thinking back to the 2017 election and I am trying to remember whether electoral reform was a key issue at that election, so that the government can claim some kind of mandate for it. I do not remember any mention of it at all. Certainly, quite a few issues were front and centre—Roe 8, the Nationals WA’s push for a fairer share of revenue from iron ore royalties, the privatisation of Western Power, the outer harbour, the general dissatisfaction with the Barnett government, jobs of course, the appalling state of the economy at the time and state debt. There were probably a few other issues that I cannot think of right now, but electoral reform was nowhere on the table. No-one was talking about it at all. Hon Alison Xamon: The Greens did. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I am sorry; the Greens did, of course. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members, please! I am trying to listen to Hon Aaron Stonehouse. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Of course, Mr Acting President. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Interjection is not required. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: If anything — The ACTING PRESIDENT: Hon Aaron Stonehouse — Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Acting President. The ACTING PRESIDENT: — please do not speak while I am speaking. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I am sorry if I spoke over you then. Of course the Greens did. Although I may disagree with the Greens’ communist outlook and their eco-fascist policies — Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I am sorry; I did not catch — Several members interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I am a little confused. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: You’re standing allegedly as a libertarian, yet you turn out to be a monarchist. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I will explain it for the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I am a monarchist. Of course I am. I swore the oath. I would be happy to have a discussion with her about the merits of a constitutional monarchy over some kind of depraved, degenerate republic like the United States has. I think we have a much more robust democracy in Western Australia and within the Westminster parliamentary system. In fact, it is why I am so keen to critically analyse the provisions of this bill. We are incredibly lucky to have inherited parliamentary democracy and the institutions that we now enjoy. Our entire way of life, and the freedom we enjoy, is sustained through tradition and convention, and that is all tied together through our constitutional monarchy. It is incredible that almost absolute power is vested in somebody who does not exercise it. Nowhere else in the world will we find someone with almost absolute power—the power to dissolve governments and install themselves as a dictator— but they do not use it. That is incredible. It is a beautiful thing and it is something to be protected. I might have some more to say about that when we come to some of the clauses of the bill and the policy behind the bill. To pick up something that the Minister for Agriculture and Food said about the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill, it may be hard to keep track, but I supported that bill. There was a division and I voted for it. I will bear the political cost of that, because I know that a lot of my constituents are conservative Christian voters. I will take that hit if I have to, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I believe that people have a right to make choices about their own body. Despite whatever other conservative sensibilities I have, people have a right to make choices about their own body, as long as there is no third party concern. Mr Acting President, you will recall that I supported several amendments to try to reduce the risk of coercion and the risk of innocent people being harmed along the way. I note that Hon Alison Xamon from the Greens, who is a fervent supporter of progressive policies like voluntary assisted dying, also supported amendments such as those, as did members of the Labor Party, because there was, of course, a conscience vote. Hon Nick Goiran: Not like the minister who interjected.

5660 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Not like the minister who interjected, who, as I recall, was not particularly interested in provisions that would have reduced the risk of coercion. But that is a debate for another day, I suspect. I will have a lot more to say about the benefits of a constitutional monarchy and why it is such a fantastic institution. I think I could talk about that for hours. Hon Nick Goiran interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Perhaps as I am warming up, I might — Hon Simon O’Brien: Are you foreshadowing an amendment. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I might foreshadow. I think it is within the scope of this bill that when we talk about electoral reform, we reflect on the type of democracy we have in Western Australia. I think it is entirely appropriate. The question that was raised through a very unruly interjection was: how could a self-styled libertarian be a monarchist? That does not seem to sit right. I must be some kind of libertine anarchist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members! I point out that the Chair has control of this place—hopefully! We have only four minutes before we break for lunch. I hope that Hon Aaron Stonehouse can continue his contribution in some relative silence from members. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Acting President, for your protection. Hon Stephen Dawson interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I was explaining this seeming contradiction. No, I am not a libertine and I am not an anarchist. “Libertarian” is a bit of a catch-all word. I prefer the term “classical liberal”. Liberalism is a political philosophy rooted in the idea that liberty—freedom—is one of the most important political values. It comes out of enlightenment. People like John Locke are espousing these ideas and notions — Point of Order Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: With the greatest respect to the honourable member who is on his feet at the moment, this bill is about electoral reform in Western Australia. It is not about political parties and philosophies of those political parties, so I ask you, Mr Acting President, to advise the member. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Robin Chapple): I thank the minister with responsibility for the legislation. I point out to the honourable member that indeed he should be addressing the bill before us. Debate Resumed Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Of course, Mr Acting President. I will try to make sure that I remain on topic and relevant. I was merely going to make the point that the form of government that we have, whereby power is vested in the Crown and the head of state in our case is the Queen, as represented by the Governor in Western Australia, serves to preserve liberty—our rights and freedoms. That is something worth preserving, protecting and cherishing. I think that is relevant to this bill in this case. I will not reflect on my own views, but I think it is relevant in that we have seen in recent bills an attack on those institutions upon which our parliamentary democracy is based. I will go into detail about how I think this bill does that. In just the last few weeks, we have dealt with bills that have undermined the rule of law and have stripped away an individual’s rights to natural justice and procedural fairness. We have this week dealt with a bill that I think is unconstitutional. If it leads to the amendment of a piece of legislation that the Constitution says an absolute majority is needed to amend, not through a lack of manner and form but through a seeming amendment or repeal of aspects — The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members, noting the time, I will reluctantly leave the chair until the ringing of the bells. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Before we were interrupted, I was giving a bit of an overview of some of my views on the civic institutions that we are very lucky to have inherited here in Western Australia. I will have a bit more to say about those institutions when I get to the relevant clauses of the bill. For now, I think it is worth us going back just for a moment to look at the key provisions of this bill. The Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 contains several instruments, the first being that reporting disclosure obligations for political parties will be changed from once every year to once every quarter, so that is being moved up. The Western Australian Electoral Commission informs me that it will be accommodating of political parties and will put in place some transitional provisions. That is good to hear as a member of a minor party who does not have the benefit of a head office that can do this kind of thing for me. That will be of much comfort to the small group

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5661 of volunteers who run the administrative side of my political party, and I am sure it will be of comfort to the small group of volunteers who run the administrative functions of other political parties. We cannot all be as wealthy as the Greens and have an army of volunteers and paid staff across the country to manage our administrative affairs. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: You could if you had attractive ideas that encouraged people to join. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I am sure, yes. If we had a suite of policies that appealed to young rapscallions and professional protesters, absolutely we could, and wealthy champagne socialists. We would be awash with cash and volunteers. Unfortunately, the policies of my political party do not attract wealthy champagne socialists or professional protesters. We make do with what we have, but I digress. Another provision in this bill will reduce the donation threshold from the current amount, which I believe is $2 500, to $1 000. Political parties will have to lodge a disclosure every quarter, every three months, and it will have to make those disclosures for any donations of $1 000 or more, whereas previously it was once every year for political donations of $2 500 or more. Those two things combined become quite onerous. It is not so hard for a political party that has a head office with staff and volunteers and all the resources in place to meet the compliance requirements of running a political party, but it will be quite difficult for minor and micro political parties. There are some political parties that really only pop their heads up around election time. These include the Daylight Saving Party and the Socialist Alliance, or Socialist Alternative. One is a newspaper and one is a pinko political party. I cannot remember which is which. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Of course. They only pop their heads up around election time. There are quite a few others, including the Small Business Party and the Animal Justice Party. Micro and minor parties are all legitimate, of course, because they represent the views of constituents somewhere. There may not be many in some cases, but they represent the views of at least some people in the public. They would have to, to have registered their political party to contest elections; they need at least 500 registered members and they have to be able to prove that to the Western Australian Electoral Commission to be registered in the first place to contest an election. Even if they are a very small slice of the voting public, they represent some people whose voices deserve to be heard. But these very small political parties really only have the resources to come out once every four years to contest an election. They do not have volunteers, head offices and resources across the country that can help them comply with onerous disclosure requirements. It is going to be very difficult for some of these very small parties, I believe, to meet those requirements, but I will talk a little about that in more detail later. There is also in the bill what I think is perhaps one of the most important and contentious provisions, which is the expenditure cap. That puts in place a limit on election expenditure during the election period. Unless I am wrong, as I understand it the cap is in place only during the election period; it is not in place in the intervening years. The provision will put in place an expenditure cap for political parties, independent candidates and third party organisations such as trade unions, industry peak bodies, charitable organisations and whatnot, during the election period, which typically is from when the writs are issued to the end of the election—usually the last few months of the calendar year before an election, so around October. So from October to March, expenditure caps will be in place. The proposed expenditure caps are $125 000 per district for a political party. A political party that runs a candidate in a district can spend up to $125 000 in that district for a lower house seat, or $125 000 for a Legislative Council region seat. However, there is some flexibility for political parties to move money around. If a political party runs a candidate in one seat and does not hit the cap of $125 000, it can use whatever is left over in another district or region. It can add up all the candidates it is running, times it by $125 000, and that will be the total amount of money it has to spend on the election. Independent candidates can also spend up to $125 000. Of course, independent candidates, by their very nature, will not have the ability to spread their funding around between districts and regions by accumulating it, so immediately we can see a problem here. Independent candidates will potentially be disadvantaged by this spending cap. There is also a spending cap for third party organisations, such as trade unions, industry peak bodies and such, of $2 million. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that is $2 million across the entire state; it is not limited per district. They can spread $2 million around wherever they like during the election period; that is my understanding. Hon Simon O’Brien: Quite right. If you’ve got 14 unions associated with the ALP, they can spend $28 million between them without breaking the cap. Hon Matthew Swinbourn interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: One could create as many associations as one wants. There might be some regulatory hurdles to clear to create new trade unions; I imagine that is not an easy thing to do, as they are rather entrenched. However, other registered associations can be created. Anybody can do that. All that is needed are a few people, some paperwork filled in and lodged with the department of commerce and a new association is created. Hon Matthew Swinbourn: An incorporated association. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, honourable member. That incorporated association, because it has been able to raise $2 million, is then able to spend $2 million. If someone wanted to fund an election campaign, they could create as many of those associations as they liked.

5662 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

The fourth major provision of this bill is the ban on foreign donations. A ban on foreign donations is done by putting the onus on political parties. It requires political parties to not accept political donations from somebody who is not an Australian resident or citizen, or a donation that does not come from an Australian business—registered in Australia, I imagine. That should get some people’s attention. It certainly got my attention, because it caused me to wonder who actually gets foreign donations. I am not aware of any political party that receives foreign donations. For a start, it would be a little strange. Most global businesses that have an interest in Australia are registered in Australia to some extent anyway. If there was “Evil Incorporated”, a big evil capitalist global organisation that wants to influence an election, surely it would, if it wanted to influence an election in Australia, have some kind of registered business in Australia that is acting on its behalf. It would have its Australian branch registered with an ABN, an ACN and whatever else that is required. Therefore, a ban on foreign donations on evil globalist corporations would be rather pointless, because they would not be donating through their international umbrella corporate body; they would be doing it through their more local corporate body. I will get to that in more detail later. The four main provisions of this bill are: an increase on the reporting obligations by reducing the reporting period from yearly to quarterly; a reduction in the disclosure thresholds from $2 500 to $1 000; an expenditure cap for political parties, independent candidates and third parties; and a ban on foreign donations. We are told that the government wants to pass this bill because it is part of its election commitment. It has pointed us towards its document “WA Labor: Disclosure and Democracy in the Digital Age”, published in November 2016, just prior to the state election. This document lists five pledges of the Labor Party. It says — A McGowan Labor Government will: • Introduce an online electronic disclosure of donations system. Where is that in the bill? I do not think I have seen that. That is the first point of its election promise. No, I do not think it is here. I am looking at the explanatory memorandum. I cannot see anything about “electronic disclosure of donations system”. No. That is only one-fifth of its election pledge for electoral reform, as they call it. The second is — • Reduce public disclosure threshold for donations. Now we have something that is in the Labor Party’s election pledge. The next one is — • Provide greater transparency around third party fundraising bodies. As far as I can see, the bill changes nothing about the disclosure of third party fundraising bodies. There is nothing in this bill about that. It lowers the donation threshold, of course. We are talking about the 500 Club. Do they donate $1 000 apiece to the Liberal Party? Do trade unions donate to the Labor Party $1 000 apiece? I would have thought that the amount of money that those kinds of fundraising organisations would be throwing around would be far in excess of $1 000 and would be far in excess of the current cap of $2 500. We would be dealing with, I imagine, significantly larger amounts. How does this change anything? Political parties that receive donations from these so-called large third party fundraising bodies are already required to disclose the donations that they receive on their disclosure forms once a year and at the end of an election. Are we suggesting that these insidious third party fundraising organisations are making donations of less than $2 500 and that that is such a problem and influences politics so much that we need to ensure there is increased disclosure around that? That is a little strange. In any case, there is nothing in the bill that addresses that. There is nothing that increases transparency around third party fundraising organisations. We are one for two. We are three in and only one election promise is being implemented by this bill. The fourth point is — • Implement election campaign spending caps for candidates and political parties. Here we go. This is one thing that the Labor Party did promise and it is in the bill; it is the main part of this bill. The last point is — • Promote a greater civics education in primary and secondary schools. That is one policy that I agree with. I do think that there is a lack of civics education in our schools, although I imagine that the kind of civics education the Labor Party has in mind is a little different from the kind of civics education I would contemplate. Hon Charles Smith: Education couldn’t stop them. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I agree. I wonder, however, where in this bill does it oblige the Western Australian Electoral Commission to engage in some kind of new civics education program. It is absent from the bill. I am not aware of it happening to date. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether, somewhere along the line, the government has actually instructed the Electoral Commission to engage in this practice. But it is absent from the bill. What members will note is that these five points in the executive summary of this very comprehensive “Disclosure and Democracy in the Digital Age” Labor Party manifesto is a ban on foreign donations. There is a ban on foreign donations in this bill, but it is not in the Labor Party’s electoral reform manifesto, which is

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5663 interesting. But I think I know why, and I think a previous speaker hinted towards the reason why. I think it is simply there as a bit of populist bait to sweeten the pot. People can focus on the good, which is the ban on foreign political donations, and they can ignore the bad. Who could possibly disagree with the idea of banning foreign political donations? Granted, they do not actually happen as far as anyone can tell, but, surely, that is something that we would not want to happen and, therefore, banning it seems to be a serious mischief for the Parliament to be addressing. That is being tacked onto a bill that does some other pretty nasty, egregious stuff. The previous speaker read through some of the points of this document. I do not want to tread the same ground, but I think he made some excellent points and I would like to make them again. This document is replete with almost normative statements without really much justification or really much explanation about why. Values are espoused here, but there is nothing to back up the policy prescriptions that are made. I am sure everybody has availed themselves of and read a copy of this document. The brains trust of the Labor Party developed this comprehensive document on electoral reform—this manifesto on many electoral reforms; this document that contains policies that will, if implemented, safeguard our democracy and will ensure that there is no inappropriate influence on our elections. I am sure that all members have read and were all well aware of this document before this bill was ever introduced to Parliament. At page 4, for those reading along, under the title, “Speeding up public disclosure” it says — Whist a public online system is being developed WA Labor will speed up the public disclosure following an election by: • Amending the Electoral Act disclosure period from “within 15 weeks after polling day” to 12 weeks. Allowing, the Electoral Commissioner to review the returns and make them available to the public 14 weeks after polling day. I look forward to hearing why that is the case. I look forward to hearing an explanation of why it is so important to shift away from 15 weeks to 12 weeks so that they can be made available with 14 weeks. That is almost splitting the difference. RUN ON Why, exactly, is Labor doing that? It does not tell us why. Why is 14 weeks so important? What difference does one or two weeks after an election make? No real justification is given. There might be some reason. It might have something to do with the swearing in of Parliament perhaps, but no information has been provided in Labor’s electoral reform manifesto. On the same page, under the heading “Reduction in public disclosure threshold for donations”, the document states — WA Labor believes that all organisations and individuals have the right to participate in our democracy, including through the provision of financial support to election candidates and political parties. That is great. Who could possibly disagree with that? I am sure that that is a statement that everybody agrees with. Then, turning on its heel, it goes on to state — It is important that this fundamental right is also as transparent as possible and significant contributions to election candidates and political parties are made public. Why is that important? I can think of several arguments why, but according to the government’s manifesto why is that important? It does not explain it; it just states it. It has just thrown out some values and ideals, enough to justify electoral reform that benefits the incumbent, I suppose. Why is it important that a fundamental right is also transparent? That is not actually a given. It is not a foregone conclusion that a fundamental right needs to be transparent. There are many fundamental rights that people might exercise that absolutely should not be transparent. Although we obviously do not have a common law right, some people believe that we have a natural right to some degree of privacy. When it comes to voting, in fact, it is recognised that voting should be conducted with some level of confidentiality. A person votes, seemingly anonymously. No-one is looking over our shoulder to see how we vote or who we vote for. If a person’s engagement in the political process is a fundamental right, as this manifesto seems to suggest, why does how we engage in that process need to be transparent? There are arguments for transparency and there are some arguments against it, but this document does not outline them; it merely throws it out there. On the same page, under the heading “Greater transparency around 3rd party fundraising bodies”, the second paragraph states — Currently there are a number of 3rd party bodies (or associated entities such as think tanks, or dedicated fundraising groups such as the 500 Club) that fundraise and accept donations then pass those—sometimes significant amounts of money—on to election candidates and political parties without disclosing the origins of the funds raised. The previous speaker noted, and so do I, how curious it is that the only organisation mentioned by name is the 500 Club. Even the footnotes contain no mention of other think tanks or fundraising groups. The only one mentioned is the 500 Club. I do not care too much. I do not receive money from the 500 Club—I certainly would not mind some—but it is curious that a political party develops an electoral reform manifesto that then becomes the policy of government as implemented through a bill presented to Parliament that we are expected to support. It seems to be driven by some kind of partisan frustration with a Liberal Party donor organisation. That is a little strange. One could

5664 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] imagine a scenario in which a right-wing party introduces electoral reform to ban donations from a trade union and mentions that trade union in the manifesto that went into the development of that electoral reform. There would be an uproar. It would be outrageous, undemocratic and corrupt, but here we have it. The 500 Club is mentioned by name in this manifesto. It goes on to say in the next paragraph — This is not transparent and can lead to individuals and corporations anonymously donating indirectly to election candidates and political parties. Right there a view is expressed that individuals’ donations should be transparent. It is a very interesting value to express. I will talk about that in detail in just a moment, but it is worth keeping it in mind. We are not talking about big, evil corporations and monopoly men and trade unions; we are talking about individuals. We are talking about the little, old lady who may donate a small amount of money every week during the election period that may amount to the disclosure threshold. We are talking about perhaps somebody who does not want their political colours laid bare for all to see. I remind honourable members that there are plenty of professions in which having a political view is not conducive to one’s career advancement—a job in the public sector is one of them. Legal professionals are sometimes affected—anybody who has to attract clients and who has their own political beliefs. I will talk about that in more detail. This is something very important that we have overlooked in this rush to make democracy more transparent, thinking that that somehow preserves the integrity of democracy. I think we are undermining it, but I will talk about that later in more detail. Under the same heading at the bottom of page 4, it states — • … Labor will conduct an inquiry into disclosure requirements for 3rd party fundraising bodies and address public concerns about who makes payments to the 3rd party, and who then subsequently decides and authorises to flow that money on to election candidates and political parties. I assume that that inquiry was conducted prior to this bill being produced, right? Hon Simon O’Brien: It must have been an informed bill. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes, it must have been. Labor must have conducted this inquiry. This seems rather ridiculous when one reads that and understands what Labor is saying. Labor wants to conduct an inquiry to figure out who makes the donation to an incorporated association and how that incorporated association decides how that money is spent during an election campaign. I can tell members that the incorporated association makes that decision. It would be governed by, presumably, a committee. It would have a constitution, some stated values and some stated goal. It might be something like—if I remember the name correctly—the Court family trust. I do not know a lot about that organisation, but I suspect that the Court family trust, given its name, is a patron of the Liberal Party. I would imagine that anyone donating to that organisation knows full well where that money will be spent. When they donate money, they entrust that organisation to make a decision about where that money should go, how it should be spent, if it should be donated to a political candidate or if it should be spent on some kind of election material. What do we need an inquiry for? If people are dissatisfied with how those third party organisations are spending money, there is a really quick way of addressing that problem: stop giving money to that association— done! Problem solved! That is incredible. We did not even need a government inquiry! That is quite magnificent. Hon Simon O’Brien: What business is it of government anyway? Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Exactly. If a person joins any other association, it is not really the government’s business how a bowling club might like to spend that money—whether it spends money on maintaining the green or on beer at the tap. That is a matter for the members of that association and they can express their views—their satisfaction or dissatisfaction—at the association’s annual general meeting. They can vote and elect a new committee if they like to govern things differently. Hon Colin Tincknell: It is akin to a one-party state. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: That is true. It is much akin to a one-party state. I can assure the honourable member that I will have a little bit to say about that later. On page 5, under the heading “Democracy”, it states — There is a general lack of civics understanding in the 18–30 year age group, in particular in relation to civics and citizenship and the concept of the ‘common good’. • WA Labor will task the WAEC to provide an online civics education package for primary and secondary schools. Civic education, and contact with parliamentarians and the Parliament, makes a positive difference to the perceptions of Parliament and its workings. At a glance, that seems fairly reasonable. I agree that civics education is important. Again, it states — There is a general lack of civics understanding in the 18–30 year ago group … I think there might be a general lack of civics understanding on the government benches, but that is another matter. Hon Stephen Dawson: How rude!

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5665

Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: As I go through these clauses, I will explain to the minister why I think that is the case. I look forward to members of the government benches standing up and responding and perhaps demonstrating their view of civics. I will find rather interesting what the government’s view of “common good” might be, because that concerns me. I am talking about the common good in terms of parliamentary democracy and the Parliament’s right to govern for the welfare and the good of the state, and that makes sense. If we are talking about some kind of hippie commune claptrap where everybody gets together and sings Kumbaya and we redistribute wealth and implement some kind of socialist utopia, that is certainly not the kind of common good that I would like to see educated in our schools. The question remains: has the government tasked the Western Australian Electoral Commission to provide an online civics education package for primary and secondary schools? Has the government done that? It was part of its election promise. Has it done it? No! I do not hear any interjections. It has not done it. Parliamentary Services actually does a fantastic job of this. As all members are aware, the Parliament has a fantastic education team with some fantastic staff who provide tours and education to school students. The staff provide tours throughout the chamber and they educate students about the history and the conventions and traditions of Parliament and its role in Western Australian society. They do a fantastic job. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: There are nice big pictures of the Queen. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Absolutely. Another organisation that I have had dealings with over the last three years is the YMCA Youth Parliament, which also does a fantastic job. I believe there are other mock Parliaments around, but the YMCA is the only that I have so far had dealings with. It does a fantastic job. It would normally hold the mock Parliament in the coming weeks and students would sit here in the chamber—the presiding officers and Parliament have kindly made the chamber available to them for many years—and engage in mock debates. Each student is given a real electorate to represent, and over a few weeks they prepare debates. I am sure Mr Acting President (Hon Martin Aldridge) has probably been a presiding officer for the mock Parliament. It is a lot of fun. The mock Parliament has slightly different standing orders to us and the debate can be a little bit different from what we are used to, but I think it is great to give students an opportunity to experience how that is done. Therefore, the Parliament is doing a fantastic job of educating primary and secondary students and so is the YMCA. I am sure that the WAEC does as well. This is not to disparage the WAEC in any way; it is a fantastic organisation. In fact, I have found that whenever I called the WAEC with queries of my own, its customer service attitude is exceptional. It goes above and beyond what other agencies provide. I might call some other agencies and have a hell of a time getting a straight answer or useful information out of them, but anytime I have called the WAEC, its staff and officers are helpful, polite and very knowledgeable. They are able to provide real-time, accurate advice to members of Parliament and political parties. It is incredible. In fact, if members compare it with the electoral commissions of other states, the customer service attitude—I am not sure how else to describe it—of the WAEC elevates it above the electoral commissions of other states. Hon Rick Mazza: I’ve had the same experience. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes. Any member who has ever had to contact an electoral commission of another jurisdiction will know. One cannot just pick up the phone and ask a question of other jurisdictions, but one can in WA and it is actually quite remarkable. Maybe some of that owes to the fact that we are a less populous state, but, still, the WAEC does a fantastic job. The problem here is that the government has not delivered its election promise for electoral reform. One of the key items of its electoral reform manifesto was better education, and it has not done it. It is very disappointing. It has tacked on the ban on foreign donations, which is some red meat to throw to the populists, protectionists and quasi-state nationalists. Members know who I am talking about! Hon Stephen Dawson: You’ve lost me! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: The ban on foreign donations, minister. The ban on foreign donations is completely pointless. It is not in the Labor Party’s manifesto. No-one receives foreign donations as it is, and anybody who wanted to receive foreign donations would have the easiest time circumventing that ban anyway, so what good would it do? The good it could do is that someone can write an article in the press that says, “WA Labor is finally putting an end to the rort of foreign political donations. We’re going to end foreign influence on our politics.” Hon Charles Smith interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Indeed, they do! I have given an outline of the key provisions of this bill and we have had a look at the Labor Party’s manifesto on electoral reform. I think it is now worthwhile taking a bit of a deeper dive into those provisions and have a look at how they might impact political parties that operate in this state. Earlier, I mentioned the change in the reporting period from one year to quarterly. On its own, that will not have a huge impact. On its own, that will be not too onerous. It is a simple form for political parties to fill out—it is one page, really—and as I understand it, a party has to complete one and lodge it. It only has to fill in the lines on the form if the political party has received donations. Therefore, for a political party that perhaps goes three months without receiving donations, its disclosure is the form with no donations on it and a signature from the party’s secretary or agent and it is sent off to the electoral commission. It is done. It is easy. It is a piece of cake. The party

5666 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] can do that every three months; it is not too hard. It may be a little trickier for the micro-parties that really only come out of hibernation once every four years during the election cycle, but surely there is somebody who is hanging around, who is the convener or the president or at least the agent, who is receiving a reminder from the Western Australian Electoral Commission once every three months to fill that form in. The problem occurs when we combine that with the lowered donation threshold. The current threshold is $2 500. The Labor Party wants to make it $1 000 and now the government wants to make it $1 000, too. This makes it more onerous for minor political parties, which I have spoken about before. But it also does something far more damaging because I think that anything that damages minor parties, damages our democracy. I spoke before about the importance of minor parties having representation and having a voice. Even if there were only 500 people in the state, who for some God-awful reason wanted to implement daylight saving, they still have a right to have their voice heard. As silly as that idea is, they still have a right. People are entitled to their silly ideas, honourable members. Hon Alison Xamon: There is nothing silly about daylight saving. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Luckily, the Western Australian public thinks otherwise and we have not had a successful referendum on daylight saving or a daylight saving political party elected to Parliament to implement that policy. However, people with those views are still entitled to a voice. This applies to not just those issues that we think are trivial—I am sure daylight saving is not trivial to some people, as they are willing to put their own money and time on the line to advance that idea—but also political parties that some may think are distasteful. It applies to One Nation, which some people think is distasteful. I think that One Nation in Western Australia is quite a different beast from One Nation in Queensland or One Nation in the Senate, but some people are certainly deeply upset about the policies of One Nation and the history of the One Nation party. They are entitled to that view, of course. As evidenced by the fact that two members of One Nation are members of this Legislative Council, there are people in the community who believe in and will vote for the polices of One Nation. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: They will donate aircraft in support of that. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: And they are willing to donate money, time and aircraft, from time to time, to assist the One Nation party in winning elections. It even applies, I am afraid to say, to people like Fraser Anning, who, to say the least, has some very controversial views. In my opinion, he most certainly did flirt with a rather fringe, extreme racist constituency, thinking that it would result in electoral success. It turned out that it did not. But even people like him, his political party and his constituents have a voice. In a democracy, we take the good with the bad. We get the reasonable, sensible people, and we even get the Greens! We get all the different political views across that spectrum. They are all entitled to a view. Anything that damages their ability to engage in the political process is damaging to democracy. Members may not think that people vote for Fraser Anning—heaven forbid—but I can guarantee that they probably have a racist uncle somewhere who does. There are people who will vote for those political parties. If we try to use the power of government to block from the political process political ideas that we think are distasteful or that we do not like, assuming that they are engaging peacefully and following the rules and the law, we will no longer live in a democracy. It is my belief that when people with potentially harmful views are denied an opportunity to advance their views peacefully through a political process, they will resort to other means. That is a dangerous road to go down. We do not want to push those people to those dark corners outside of the political sphere, where their ideas cannot be challenged, debated, shut down or rejected by the public. Aside from that, the lower disclosure threshold will damage democracy by not just being onerous for political parties to comply with, but also having a chilling effect on the participation of individuals in the political process. The reason for that is that not everybody wants to have their name and details on a public disclosure form because they donated to a political party. It is fair enough to say that a big corporation should have its name and details disclosed if it donates a lot of money, but we are talking here about $1 000. In politics, a $1 000 donation is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. The Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Greens throw around millions of dollars in an election period, so $1 000 is not a huge sum. That might sound like some kind of out of touch, elitist attitude, but I can assure members that it is not. This is over an election period. This is from the issuing of the writ sometime in October to the election in March. Someone could break up their donation over the five-month period by donating $200 a month. That is not necessarily a huge amount. Some people spend $200 a month on their internet or mobile phone bills. Anybody who drives to work would easily spend that on fuel. I probably spend almost $200 a week on fuel, driving to Parliament and back every day. That is not a huge amount of money. For somebody who is interested in a political party’s policies and wants to support a political party, donating $200 a month over the election period would total $1 000. That is not a huge sum when it comes to political donations. If this bill passes as it is, people who previously were able to remain anonymous will now have their details published on a disclosure form. I mentioned earlier that there are some professions in which people do not want their political affiliations laid bare. I can imagine a scenario involving a member of a union. Traditionally, their union donates to and supports the Labor Party. Perhaps this person is a little upset with a particular Labor policy—it might have something to do with a particular road and a particular harbour—and they decide that for this election cycle, they do not want to donate to the Labor Party; they want to donate to the Liberal Democrats, or perhaps the Liberal Party or any party other than the Labor Party. Maybe they will donate to the Greens.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5667

Hon Stephen Dawson: You might be a bit too out there for them! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: No, I do not think so. Hon Alison Xamon: A lot of union members donate to the Greens. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: That is great. Hon Simon O’Brien: Or they can go to the Labor conference and just storm out during the leader’s talk. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: They have other options available to them. What will happen when a private person, who for no corrupt, dodgy or insidious reason does not want their details to be published and their political affiliation known, is subject to that disclosure? Will they still donate? Maybe they will donate $999 instead. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of people to participate in the political process. It is easy to dismiss this argument by saying that this new rule for the donation of money does not affect democracy; it just affects how people donate. They are one and the same thing. I hope most members will understand that engagement in the political process is about more than just voting. Voting is the least one can do. Voting is the basic minimum of one’s engagement in the political process. Engagement in the political process quite often involves volunteering, joining a political party, campaigning, activism, holding a protest, petitioning or calling the local member. It involves that kind of activity. That is all part of the political process, especially in the Westminster system. It is not just about turning up on polling day; that is the very least that someone can do. It is quite remarkable how effective those things are. We get to vote only once every four years. From then on, with representative democracy, people have to trust that the parliamentarians they sent to Parliament will continue to represent their views, and sometimes they do not. They need to be reminded. People need to write them letters, petition them or send them 2 000 emails about the Fitzroy River. Hon Alison Xamon: I think it was 3 000 emails. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: They can send them 3 000 emails about the Fitzroy River. That is part of the political process. The thing members need to keep in mind is that not everybody has the time for that. People have to economise on their time. Somebody who works 10-hour or 12-hour shifts wants to spend time with their family on the weekend and, frankly, has better things to do than to join Young Labor or the Young Liberals or something and go marching around doing all kinds of silly stuff in a blue or red shirt. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Why is that silly? Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I think they are rather silly, not because of their activity but because they are the kinds of characters who are sometimes involved in those organisations. Not everybody has the time to do that, so what do we do if we do not have the time to do that? If a candidate does not have the time to go doorknocking, phone banking or campaigning, what do they do? If they do not have the time, they will probably have the money so they would donate instead. “I would love to support your campaign, candidate John Smith, but I can’t turn up on a Saturday morning to doorknock; I will tell you what I will do. I do well for myself, so I will donate you some money and you can spend that money on the fliers you hand out during your doorknocking.” Great! That is involvement in the political process. The person could not campaign or do the ground-pounding grassroots activism and campaigning, but they can donate their money instead. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Nobody is stopping that. Everyone says that’s just great. We will know who it is, just as we know who are the people who donate their labour because they turn up and appear on Facebook. It is the same thing. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order, members! I think I have allowed a fair bit of latitude in the debate this afternoon. There will be an opportunity for everybody to make a contribution to the second reading debate, but Hon Aaron Stonehouse is delivering his. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Acting President. The problem is those people who would otherwise donate in a very private capacity will now have their details exposed to the public. What is the difference between donating $200 a month during the election period—peanuts to some people; a very modest amount— and a little old lady who wants to donate $200 to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party once a month for the five months’ election period, but will now have her details published? That will be available for everybody to see. Will that little old lady want everybody to know that she votes for the “Shooters”, Fishers and Farmers Party. We all know, of course, how moderate, how reasonable and how sensible the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party is and how its values are expressed by its representative, Hon Rick Mazza, in Parliament, of course. Does the average member of the public know that? Do people who do not know what the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party does know that? The only thing they know about that political party is the name “Shooters”, Fishers and Farmers Party. How will they react when they see that a little old lady who donated $200 a month was a donor to the shooters party? “Gosh!” This can be an issue for people not just in their social circles, but also their careers.

5668 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

We have seen how an executive within the Department of Agriculture and Food was responsible for animal welfare and protection. I cannot remember his role exactly; I think it was the Esperance executive. Hon Simon O’Brien: He was employed by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: It was the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Thank you, honourable member. An executive of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, who, in his own private time, had gone hunting many years ago, was publicly vilified when that information came to light because he had engaged in the legal practice of hunting. It is a practice that actually goes some way towards conservation. In Africa where, I believe, he engaged in hunting—not too many people like to hear it — Hon Dr Steve Thomas: There are not too many giraffes in Esperance! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: There are not. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: The activity of legal, regulated hunting in Africa goes a long way towards conservation, but what does not is poaching. Poaching is bad; it is a scourge to people who are trying to conserve endangered animals, particularly on the continent of Africa. However, legal, regulated hunting serves conservation quite well. We would not find any of that nuance in the articles about this gentleman. As I understand it, the solution was to spirit him away from his current location to another and put in place some kind of policy to prevent that from ever happening again. Heaven forbid that somebody who engages in a legal activity might find their way into a job within the public sector in the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Would it have been different if a photo of him had caught him fishing? It is a moral difference between a fish and a giraffe. Honestly! I fail to see the difference. Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Depends on the season. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: It might depend on the season, yes, and the size of the fish. There can be real-life consequences for people who are associated with a practice like hunting. It is legal and can be useful to conservation in Australia and Africa, but a lot of people do not see that nuance. Would somebody who voted for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, and who works in the public service in an area like the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions want their political affiliation revealed? They probably would not want their voting record revealed. Now we are saying that any donations they make will also be revealed—even a modest donation of $200 a month, $100 a fortnight, $50 a week. That is a very small donation to help a political candidate get elected, and it will now be made public. It will have a chilling effect on how people donate. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is the whole idea. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Most members of Parliament will know that when people donate, they are mindful of those disclosure limits. Most people would rather not have their name and their details published. If the disclose limit is $2 500, they will donate $2 499. That happens quite often. They will space their donations between financial years and disclosure periods. Hon Colin Tincknell: A bottle shop owner in Kwinana last election, whose name was given out, was intimidated by a certain union and it paid people not to visit his bottle shop anymore. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: That is very sad. I am sure there are stories like that all over Western Australia. We can see how riled up people get during elections when they think something very important is on the line. We see disruption by climate change protesters and how they are willing to take rash action that they feel they are justified in taking while seeking to implement policy that they think will save the world. We cannot question their conviction; we can question their wisdom perhaps, but not their conviction. I think members of a particular micro-party who are very big fans of critiquing obscure legislation and clauses of the Constitution and who contested the last federal election—I will not say the name of the party—were very interested in particular parts of the Constitution. We might call them sovereign citizens. Members of that political party were alleged to have abused people at polling stations. Whether that was based on political differences or due to some intoxicant, I am not sure, but tempers flare during elections. We do not want to subject people to a sort of mob retaliation for their political affiliation or for how they cast their vote. How we vote is kept private and confidential for very good reasons. It is to prevent coercion or retaliation if people should vote against a tyrannical government or political party that their friends, family or employer might want them to vote for. The next large portion of this bill deals with the spending cap. I will have a little bit to say about the politics around the spending cap proposal the government has given us. However, I would like to first talk about, I suppose, some of the hypocrisy of a spending cap here. The government is putting in place a spending cap whereby political parties can spend only $125 000 per district. Of course, that amount can be moved around and consolidated with all the funds and be spent all in one region or one region could be topped up at the expense of another, but it will be $125 000 per region for a political party or $125 000 per region for an Independent candidate. This is a problem

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5669 because it ignores the fact that the incumbent government has all the power. There is a huge power imbalance. The government has an army of ministerial staffers, and I know that those ministerial staffers will be leaned upon to volunteer, donate, and put on their red shirts to go marching around during the campaign period. Of course, there is nothing wrong with them engaging in the political process. They have nine-to-five jobs working as ministerial advisers and staffers. After hours, they can do whatever they like and they can vote however they like. It has to be admitted that there is a power imbalance when one political party has an army of taxpayer-funded staffers who know where their bread is buttered. They know that if they put in the hard work now, they will get to keep their cushy ministerial advisory jobs. That is not to disparage ministerial advisers; many of them do a fantastic job, work very hard and are a credit to their ministers. It is interesting that in the Labor Party’s electoral reform manifesto, there is no mention of addressing this. Of course, not too long ago in Victoria there was the “red shirts” scandal and reforms were put into place after that. In Western Australia, we have heard a few reports about potentially inappropriate conversations happening between Labor Party officials, ministers and their ministerial staff. I should stress that at this point there has been nothing that would warrant misconduct, but there have been conversations that might raise a few eyebrows. Why not contemplate banning ministerial staff from campaigning entirely? Let us contemplate that. I am not necessarily saying that that is a policy that has merit. Hon Stephen Dawson: Are you suggesting taking rights away from people? I thought you were a libertarian! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I am not suggesting that that policy has merit, but I wonder why that is not contemplated. All the other reforms that the government has contemplated to date benefit it, at the expense of its political opposition, minor parties, micro-parties and anybody who might get in its way. That policy might address potential misconduct—misconduct that has occurred in Victoria—that would come at the expense of the Labor Party, but it is not contemplated or mentioned anywhere. I wonder why that is the case. I am not so sure that it is a policy that has merit, but it is interesting that conversations of that nature do not take place. Perhaps if roles were reversed, they might take place. That is something to keep in mind. As was illustrated by the previous speaker, the problem with the spending caps is that they do not take into account that the Labor Party, whose members currently form the government, will go to the election with the benefit of the public purse. It has almost complete control of taxpayer funds. We saw that with local projects, local rorts—sorry, Local Projects, Local Jobs. That was a $39 million slush fund. The Labor candidates went to communities and asked them what they needed and suggested, “How about $10 million here or $20 million there?” Those candidates were able to pork-barrel with taxpayer funds and get into government by doing that. To some extent, that is part and parcel of politics, is it not? Candidates make pledges to electors. They say that they are a candidate for the Labor Party and if people vote for them, they will implement whatever the policy happens to be. If the policy is to spend $200 000 on a piece of sailcloth at a school that does not need it, that is the policy. If people want that piece of sailcloth that the school does not need for much more money than it is actually worth, and they vote that way, that is their choice. But it creates another power imbalance between the incumbent and those that contest elections. It also creates an issue for parties that, for the immediate future, do not see themselves forming government Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Member, when we made those election commitments, we were in opposition. How does that work? The facts do not seem to support your argument. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes, Labor was in opposition. However, once it was in government, it was the political party that could control where funds would go. It could direct funds towards marginal seats and away from its safe seats. We see that happen all the time. There is not quite as much pork-barrelling in safe Labor seats, just as there is not quite as much pork-barrelling in safe Liberal seats. It is more likely to happen in marginal seats. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: The member is saying that those election commitments are distorted towards the incumbent, but as we demonstrated, we won the last election. The member’s critique of that program is that it did not entrench incumbency. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: The last election is perhaps not a good example of it benefiting the incumbent, but it is a good example of what I was about to describe; that is, political parties that do not see themselves forming government in the immediate future do not make the same kind of promises, and they cannot—not with a straight face. We probably would not see candidates for the Western Australian Party saying that if they are elected, they will spend this many millions of dollars on this school, that many millions of dollars on that school, $100 000 over here, and $100 000 over there, because they are not necessarily campaigning to form government. The case is probably the same for the Greens. They may support the idea of increasing funding to something, but they will not be able to deliver it themselves because they will not be forming government. They will not have a majority of seats in the lower house. The major parties, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, can do that; their coalition or alliance partners can do that, so the Nationals WA can do that; but other minor parties cannot. They could lie and say that, but they cannot say with a straight face that if someone votes for them, they will spend money somewhere, because they do not have that power. They will not be in government and able to determine how money is spent. They may be on a crossbench and have some say over legislation that is passed. They may be able to amend things and leverage their position to get certain outcomes for their electors, but they will not be in a position to determine how, for instance, a grants program is rolled out. They could not say that honestly.

5670 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

A spending cap will ensure that political parties do not spend any more than $125 000 for each electorate. However, the $39 million that was spent on Local Projects, Local Jobs does not count towards the election spending cap, does it? A grant that the government promises to a community organisation, a school or some other body if it is elected does not count towards the spending cap. Perhaps it should not. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: But that’s never happened. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: We have not had a spending cap before. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: It’s a completely absurd proposition. The member is saying that if a candidate pledges to build a road or do something, the political party has to fund the investment that the candidate has pledged to make. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: No, I am not saying that the party has to fund it. I am saying that it is all well and good to put a cap in place, but that does not take into account the amount of money that a party has promised to splash around post-election. Candidates can spend $125 000 on campaigning, but they can say that if electors vote for them, they will give their community, club, school or association $1 million in grants. That $1 million pledge may not be worth $1 million in campaign funds, but it is certainly worth something, and that does not count towards the campaign cap. That alone gives an advantage to major parties that aim to form government and can deliver on those promises. Perhaps we should put a cap on pork-barrelling. If parties are going to pork-barrel, they should not pork-barrel any more than $5 million per electorate. They will have to decide how to break up that $5 million. Hon Simon O’Brien: It would be inconsistent with the policy of the bill. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I think it would be consistent. It would ensure that elections are transparent and that their integrity is maintained. Hon Colin Tincknell: We just need a parliamentary budget office. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: That is right. If we had a parliamentary budget office, some of these problems might be alleviated because political parties could cost their policies. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: That’s right. But it doesn’t have anything to do with them not being able to make election commitments. Are you truly saying that parties shouldn’t be able to make election commitments? Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I am not saying they should not be able to. I said before that it is part and parcel of politics. Parties make election commitments; it is part of an election. A promise is made to electors: “If you elect me, I will spend money on this project or not spend money on this project, implement this change, and solve whatever mischief you might have.” The problem is how pork-barrelling can be used to supplement otherwise normal campaigning, where it goes beyond addressing the legitimate concerns of the community and becomes merely throwing cash at marginal electorates to get a candidate over the line. Hon Colin Tincknell interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes. Another thing the spending cap does not take into account is the Labor Party’s propaganda wing, which I mentioned before we broke for lunch. The Labor Party’s propaganda wing is in full force; it is working overtime, running Premier Mark McGowan’s propaganda. Point of Order Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: The honourable member is talking about propaganda wings and other things. That has nothing to do with the bill before us, so I ask the Acting President to remind him that we are dealing with the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020, and that perhaps he could keep his comments focused on that. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Martin Aldridge): Members, the minister has moved a point of order on relevance. I have been listening to Hon Aaron Stonehouse and he is, on occasion, bringing his debate back to referencing aspects of the bill. I encourage him to keep doing that, but I am satisfied with the contribution thus far, and there is no point of order. Debate Resumed Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I refer the Minister for Electoral Affairs to section 175 of the Electoral Act 1907, under which there is a definition of “electoral expenditure”. Under that definition, broadcasting, publishing and public display of material are all covered. I think what I was about to describe as propaganda is absolutely within the terms of this debate, because it is in the principal act. I am, of course, talking about the Labor Party’s best friends, The West Australian and Seven West Media. They are very good friends—very chummy. They have a very cosy relationship indeed. It is such a cosy relationship that Western Australia’s doors are opened wide for members of Seven West Media. If you are Kerry Stokes, you can come on in: “Oh, Mr Stokes—right this way.” You are given an express, streamlined entry into the state with a shorter period of quarantine than anyone else, which is incredible. It seems like the government can move heaven and earth when it comes to its mates. Hon Alison Xamon interjected.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5671

Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: The problem with the expenditure caps is that I do not think they will necessarily capture the millions of dollars of free press and advertising the Labor Party currently receives from The West Australian. I know the counterargument will be, “Well, hang on; this is a newspaper. It has its editorial and it can publish whatever it likes. If a newspaper’s editorial is pro-Labor and anti–whatever else, that is their prerogative. They can make that decision themselves.” A problem arises when there are allegations of certain favours, such as prohibitions on domestic gas exports that apply to everyone except one. Hon Charles Smith: Who? Name this person. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I just did. Hon Tjorn Sibma: He doesn’t want to tempt fate! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I do not want to tempt fate. I do not want to have an unflattering photo of me on the front page. Hon Alison Xamon: Too late! You’re going to have your head on a cockroach, or something! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes! It starts to become a problem when there are crazy coincidences, like the head of a newspaper getting express, VIP treatment when he comes into Western Australia from interstate; when his interests in gas companies are exempt from a ban on domestic gas exports; and when there is a clearly sycophantic editorial towards the political incumbent from what is really the only newspaper in town. It is actually rather sickening. We talk about protecting the integrity of democracy and transparency, which is what this bill purports to do; but it is rather sickening that we have the only real newspaper in town running the government line. It repeats whatever the government says. It basically takes the top line of the notes from a ministerial press conference and runs it, almost unedited. It might as well just copy and paste the relevant minister’s press release in the newspaper, the way some of this stuff is being reported. There are a few other media outlets in Western Australia that try to balance that out, but they are certainly not as prolific as The West Australian. So prolific is The West Australian, in fact, that it is actually mentioned in several statutes. There are requirements for various ministerial directives and decisions to be published specifically in The West Australian; it is written in the law of our state that The West Australian is the default newspaper du jour for communication from the government to the public. The government has all but nationalised that newspaper; it has basically become a propaganda wing. The spending cap does not cover that, and that is potentially a problem. It is something that I think has not been properly considered. It certainly benefits the Labor government to not include in the bill the free media coverage it receives, but it does not benefit other parties, and it does not benefit democracy or transparency either. There is also a problem relating to the impetus for the proposed spending caps. We earlier had a look at the government’s electoral reform manifesto and its arguments on spending caps. This was prior to the current fracas between the Premier, the Attorney General and Mr Clive Palmer. I do not think we can talk about this bill without talking about that bizarre relationship. It seems at times almost an infatuation, or symbiotic. Hon Alison Xamon interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Order, members! The member is on his feet. He will direct his speech to the Chair and not seek interjections from other members, and they will refrain from interjecting. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Including the Minister for Regional Development! Hon Peter Collier interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Including the Leader of the Opposition! Continue please, member. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Acting President. Mr Palmer—it is a bit weird referring to him like that, is it not? Quite often the media refers to him just as “Palmer” alone; I think Parliament is a little more dignified than that. There is a strange relationship with Mr Palmer, and he is something of a pariah; he is a patsy. He is an easy man to dislike, is he not? It is very easy to direct frustration and hate towards him. It provides the government cover for its other shortcomings and an excuse to bring in reform that otherwise would have sat at the bottom of someone’s drawer for four years with not so much as a peep from the government as to what it wanted to do with it. There is something deeply unsettling in an incumbent government implementing electoral reform that is seemingly targeted towards one person in particular. It is deeply troubling to use the power of government to change the law to the advantage of the incumbent and to the disadvantage of a much-disliked contender. It is the kind of thing that might have been seen in Zimbabwe when Mugabe took over. One of the earliest things he did was to eliminate opposition parties. It is the kind of thing that happens in just about every despotic regime. In a glorious democratic people’s republic, when some kind of flowery socialist democratic this or that—something to do with people—

5672 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] party is elected to power, the first thing that they do is eliminate the opposition; they change the laws to outlaw political parties other than, of course, the ruling party. In fact, it reminds me of an observation that a friend of mine made. He said that we can tell a lot about a society and a political system by how it arranges its Parliament. Of course, in the Westminster system, our Parliament is arranged much like a courtroom. It is an adversarial engagement. There is the Presiding Officer, who adjudicates and oversees the debate but otherwise does not engage in it, and, of course, the two parties who argue their case, not at each other but before the Presiding Officer. It is much like a courtroom; it is adversarial and it is good. It fosters debate, transparency and accountability. The Prime Minister or Premier, or whomever it happens to be, is brought in and can be berated with questions at question time. That is a fantastic feature of our parliamentary democracy. In continental Europe, they do things a little differently. Their seats are arranged almost in a semicircle. Sometimes there is a podium at the front and it is a little more collegiate. It seems like political sensitivities are a little more collectivist. They all band together and come to some civil arrangement or agreement and then pass whatever bill or ordinance it happens to be. It is a little less rowdy than in the Westminster system. Then, of course, in Communist China, its Parliament—I do not know what they call it; it is certainly not a Parliament—is arranged like an arena. Everybody sits in rows and there is a stage. The President will get up and tell everybody, “This is the five-year plan. Okay, there you go. You’ve been told. You can all go home.” It is a very different affair. Hon Alison Xamon: In Taiwan, they throw chairs. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes. There are some Parliaments that are much more lively. In some Parliaments in the Balkans there have been fistfights; someone has even lit a flare or smoke grenade on the floor of Parliament. But I digress. The point that I was making is that there are different types of parliamentary democracy. The type we have recognises that there is normally more than one view. There is normally more than the government’s view; there are opposition parties. There is the obviously recognised opposition party, but quite often in a parliamentary system there are minor parties that make up a crossbench. Passing reform that benefits the incumbent at the expense of an opposition or minor party is the kind of thing that we see in despotic communist regimes, which we do not want to emulate. That is what I think this reform is trying do. No matter what people think of Mr Palmer—they can think all kinds of mean things about him—I will not defend him. I do not know him. I have never met him. I spoke to him on the phone once for about five minutes. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Did he give you a donation? Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: No. He gave me a spiel that was very similar to the one that I heard on the radio. It was a well-rehearsed spiel. I cannot say anything about the guy’s character. I do not know him. He is my competition. He is my opponent. When it comes to the next state election, if he is running candidates in the seats that my political party is running candidates, then he will be my opponent. People may think that it would do me well to see him blocked and banned and kept out of the race. Why would I want a protest party or something like that potentially stealing votes from my political party? Surely, I should be supporting that kind of electoral reform— but, no; I do not. There is a principle at stake; that is, the government should not change the rules to benefit itself at the expense of others. If there were some kind of agreement between the political parties, after there had been some consultation or bipartisan agreement between the parties, that that there was a need to address some deficiency in our Electoral Act, then, yes, we should agree. Even if, perhaps, that hurts one or two parties, so long as there was at least some semblance of consultation, some kind of political party consultation but also community consultation, there would be an argument that that reform should be passed. Nothing of that nature has happened with this bill. There has been no consultation. No-one picked up the phone and called me before this bill was produced and said, “Aaron, as the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Democrats, what do you think about this? What is it going to do to you?” Neither my party’s president nor director were contacted. Neither were the parliamentary representatives of other political parties, as I understand it, or their organisational wing representatives or state directors, presidents or conveners. No-one was contacted. No; the government is not trying to be consultative in this approach. The government is not trying to bring people along so we all agree on what is best for preserving our parliamentary democracy. The government is trying to keep out what it thinks is a threat to its own political interests, which is Mr Palmer. The spending caps that are proposed are quite high, ultimately. I am sure that there are certainly some regions in which political parties would spend more than $125 000, but taken as a whole, spending about $8 million in an election is quite a lot of money. Most political parties do not spend that. Some of the large parties might spend a couple of million or $4 million. I do not have the spending disclosures in front of me right now, but I believe the government has set a rather high mark for the spending cap. Most parties would not reach it anyway. An argument could even be made that there is probably an upper limit to how effective campaign spending is anyway. Another member, who may speak to this, told me behind the Chair that their theory is there may be an oversaturation effect. Someone can hassle people, as Mr Palmer does, it seems, with constant obnoxious radio ads 24/7. That may be effective to a point, but beyond that point people will try to tune out. They will start to get frustrated and associate

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5673 that political candidate with the very frustrating jingle for that product that they hate and that they now refuse to buy because they find the advertising campaign very annoying. I am not sure whether that theory holds up, but the spending cap seems as though it would have very little impact on the political parties that are currently represented in this Parliament. It is really only in place, I suspect, to address Mr Palmer in his perhaps upcoming contest at the state election. It is concerning that this bill is targeting one individual, given the history of that individual. We are all aware of the history—the current legal action in the High Court and the arbitration that was cut short. I will not comment on that legal action because it is sub judice. However, it is interesting to note that of all the legislation that this Parliament has passed over the last few weeks, nothing has been rushed through quite so quickly as the bill that was designed to strip away the civil and legal rights of Mr Palmer. We cannot just separate these matters. Some people will say that this has nothing to do with electoral reform. Some people will say that this is irrelevant. I think that it is absolutely relevant because the government has form in this space. The government has exhibited an almost vendetta-like hatred towards one individual. The Premier and members of the government will say that they have done that in defence of state: he is public enemy number one. Goodness! Language like that is terrifying— this guy over here or this group of people over there are enemies of the state; therefore, we should strip away their rights and deny them the ability to contest elections. We have heard that somewhere before, have we not? That sounds scarily familiar. This Legislative Council had to stay back late to rush through an emergency bill within a limited time frame to strip away someone’s civil rights. The Governor was kept up late at night so that he was on hand, ready to sign the bill as soon as it was passed, to take away somebody’s rights. Then the next legislation that the government has for us is going to limit or curtail to some extent that same person’s political rights. I know that Mr Palmer is not mentioned in the bill, but it is very clear that that is the intention. In fact, there have been media articles to that effect. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members! I am going to interject here. The member on his feet has an unlimited amount of time to make his contribution. He does not need anyone’s assistance to make that contribution. If the member can continue to make his contribution, that would be most helpful for the progress of this bill. Thank you, member, continue. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I will not respond directly to the interjection but there was a valid point — The ACTING PRESIDENT: It would be disorderly to respond to the interjection. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes, it would be, Mr Acting President. Thank you for that guidance. But a valid point has been made that I can address because it is relevant to what I was just saying: what is the difference between a media mogul and a politician spending vast amounts of money to advance a political agenda? There is no difference and that is the point. If the government is concerned about a political candidate splashing money around to influence the outcome of an election, it should be equally concerned about a media mogul splashing money around, in kind, perhaps, because in this case they own the newspaper. It is the same thing. Both efforts are designed to influence the outcome of an election by pushing a campaign message or advancing some kind of policy idea to voters that will have some impact on the election. Both are virtually identical, except one will be capped. One will be subject to disclosure and the other will not be, and that is the problem. I would not for a second propose or support some effort that would curtail or restrict the media in how it reports. We need a free media. My criticism of the current arrangement in Western Australia is that we do not really have a truly free media that holds the government to account. There are some minor media outlets that do that from time to time, but the major one is more intent on pushing government propaganda than actually doing its job properly, but that is another point. That is something that I have already spoken about. I am getting towards the end of my remarks. The problem is one of elitism, almost. There seems to be this idea that voters are too stupid to make up their own minds. If they see that big two-page spread on Clive Palmer in The West Australian—even though he is portrayed as a chicken, a cockroach or some other animal on the first page—it will somehow stick in their minds and they will vote for Mr Palmer on election day or for whatever his political party is called. There is this idea that voters are too stupid to make up their own minds, to read that message, to think about the policy that is being pushed forward by that candidate and to make a decision. It is a very elitist idea that voters need to be coddled, protected and shown only the messages that the government approves of and in a format that the government approves because otherwise those poor voters might be too confused. The same thing happens when it comes to group voting tickets. It is a different reform, and I assure you, Mr Acting President, that I will not talk about it for very long, but the same thing applies: voters are too silly to do their research and to look at the political party that they are voting for to understand how that political party might direct its preferences. There is a big difference between this elitist sentiment that the Labor Party expressed in its manifesto, that voters are too stupid, and the view that voters economise on time, that they do not have the time to analyse every policy of a political party, so they pick out the most important parts and make a decision, imposing

5674 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] upon that their values, views and ideals. Voters economise on information. They need to receive information in a way that is easy to digest and that fits with the way they consume information currently—social media and things like that—but they are not too stupid to make decisions for themselves. They are not so stupid that they will be easily swayed by a double-page spread in a newspaper with big yellow and black text everywhere. Hon Alison Xamon: It’s pretty bad behaviour. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes, it is not great. I can prove to members that voters are not that stupid and that we should not write them off. Voters in Western Australia are actually rather smart, and the Labor Party should know this and not try to suggest otherwise. After all, the Labor Party was elected to government in 2017. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: That is exactly my point. But Mr Palmer and his political party, whatever it was called at the last federal election—it was either “United Australia” or “Palmer United”—have already tried this. How much money did he spend? I cannot remember, but it was bucketloads of cash, a lot of money, and more than anybody else I believe. Was it $70 million? I cannot recall the figure; it was a lot of money. He spent more money than anybody else did. What did he get for that? Zero! A big goose egg. He got nothing at all. Of course, the Labor Party lives in this fantasy land in which the reason it lost the last federal election was that Palmer—who was a big critic of the Liberal Party, I might add—somehow directed voters away from Labor towards Palmer, which then benefited the Liberals and the preferences flowed to them. I think that is fantasy. It is political pundits and politicians living in denial that they took their policies to the voters of Australia and the voters said no. People decided that, no, they would like to keep their coal jobs in Queensland and they would like to keep their jobs in economic growth, even if there was some looming threat of an environmental disaster. When voters are presented with two options and one is tangible—it gets the kids to school and it puts food on the table—and the other is abstract, vague and potentially a threat in a few decades, which one do they vote for? My theory is that they vote for the jobs, but that is just my theory. Hon Alison Xamon: And they also voted for the Greens. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: They also voted for the Greens, of course. That is just my theory. But my point is that Mr Palmer has already done this. He has wasted bucketloads of his cash and did not get a single candidate elected at the federal election—did not even come close! In fact, I believe that he did not even get his funding back for most of the electorates that he contested. He did not hit the four per cent threshold for federal election funding, so he did not even get his money back from the Australian Electoral Commission. He poured money straight down the drain. Voters have a very strong and well-attuned BS detector—they really do! They have a finely attuned nonsense detector. I mentioned Fraser Anning earlier, and I hope that this is not an unparliamentary thing to say. Fraser Anning’s political defeat is actually something to celebrate. By my analysis, Mr Anning went hard for the racist vote. I am not one of these cultural Marxists who thinks there are Nazis hiding under every rock, but a sensible analysis of what Mr Anning did was he thought there were votes in this racist schtick. He thought that if he could appeal to the disaffected, jaded, mostly male, extreme right-wing racist types, he could get elected— that is what he thought and he tried it. He played Pauline Hanson’s schtick better than Pauline Hanson plays it. What I mean by that is poorly formatted memes on Facebook with bad JPEG compression with some terrible font that says, “If you don’t like it, leave” or something to that effect; that kind of messaging is what I am talking about. He did that and he did it better than his main opposition, which was One Nation. He went for the racist vote and what happened? He was utterly defeated. He did not even come close. What does that tell members about the Australian electorate? One, the Australian electorate has a finely attuned nonsense detector; but also, the Australian electorate is not quite as racist as some people would make us think, and that is something to celebrate. Someone went out there to the electorate and said, “I’m a racist; vote for me if you’re a racist”, and they lost and that is a good thing. Therefore, voters have a very finely attuned BS detector and I think that is a very good thing, so we do not need to worry too much about exactly how much gets spent and where—not that it affects me or my political party in any way. My party will never come close to these caps, but there are principles at stake, of course. As I say, an incumbent changing electoral law to benefit themselves at the expense of others is something that this Parliament should never consider. Part of the reason I am so concerned about this bill is the lack of community and stakeholder consultation. There was no consultation with political parties or the third party fundraising organisations that the bill states it will target. I believe that there were some Public Sector Commission guidelines that require that stakeholder consultation is undertaken before bills are drafted. There is also a regulatory impact assessment process that Treasury oversees. It would seem to me that a bill of this nature would certainly have some regulatory impact. There was no consultation at all—not so much as a sit-down meeting to say, “Hey, this is the bill we’re thinking of doing. Before we table it, give it a glance. Let us know if you have any problems, anything that stands out.” Nothing of that nature was done. In 2019, the Greens introduced the Electoral Amendment (Ticket Voting and Associated Reforms) Bill, which was about group voting tickets. I think I said before the break: credit to the Greens members; they are consistent, even if I disagree with them on policy. When I spoke on that bill and I outlined all the reasons I was not a fan of the policy of that bill, one of the critiques that I gave that bill was that it had not, in my view, captured enough consultation

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5675 with stakeholders to be properly contemplated by this Parliament. At the time, I said that it would be desirable that perhaps a bill of that nature that would affect political outcomes that would affect the make-up of the Parliament be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation. It seemed sensible. We send much more trivial matters to the Standing Committee on Legislation. We have sent the Ticket Scalping Bill 2018 to the Standing Committee on Legislation. We have sent other bills that would have an impact on various industries or individuals or groups. If we are dealing with a bill that is going to change political outcomes in this state, that is going to potentially change the make-up of Parliament, that is going to limit how people engage in the political process, it only makes sense that it is given the full level of scrutiny that this Parliament can offer it. Therefore, it is my intention to move a motion to that effect. I apologise to members if I have not had a chance to canvass their views on this proposal to have this bill referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation. The reason is we have been busy dealing with other legislation in the meantime and I was not fully expecting to have to rise to my feet today to speak on this bill, so I have been called a little off guard. I hope members will indulge me just this once as I move a surprise motion. Mr Acting President, I will try to get the form of words right. Discharge of Order and Referral to Standing Committee on Legislation — Motion HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [3.45 pm] — without notice: I move — (1) That the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 is discharged and referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration and report by no later than 9 October 2020. (2) The committee has the power to inquire into and report on the policy of the bill. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Member, you need to put that in writing and sign it. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I absolutely will. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order, members! Point of Order Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: We are the government and I would appreciate getting a copy of the motion, and I think there are other members around the place who would like a copy of it too. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Yes, we can wait for that to happen. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Perhaps we could do that before we move on. The ACTING PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, but I will delay the matter. Debate Resumed HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Electoral Affairs) [3.49 pm]: It will come as no surprise to anybody in this place that the government will not be supporting the motion moved by Hon Aaron Stonehouse. Having listened to Hon Aaron Stonehouse for the past two hours, it is very clear that he does not support this bill. He made that clear a number of times. This is nothing more than a stalling tactic. This bill is about political parties. We are all members of political parties, so everybody in this place should have an opportunity to talk about the bill, and we will get an opportunity. Hon Simon O’Brien indicated in his contribution that this bill will go into Committee of the Whole. That is the most appropriate opportunity to canvass the bill and its policy. It does not need to go off to a committee of five members of this place. If the member has issues or questions, let us discuss them in here next week. Do not send off the bill; do not delay. If he does not like the bill, he can vote against it. This is nothing more than a stunt and we will not be supporting it. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [3.50 pm]: I indicate that I am not quite sure how to vote on this motion. I would have appreciated some more notice of it, so that I could have canvassed this issue with my colleagues. I have not yet had the opportunity to give my contribution to the second reading debate, but in order to allay any suspense, the Greens are inclined to support the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020. Certainly, any referral that we might be part of will in no way be indicative of our opposition to the legislation itself. I listened intently to the contribution by Hon Simon O’Brien yesterday, when he reiterated the precedent within this house of government electoral reform bills involving extensive consultation with parties. I note that in this instance, certainly my party was not consulted. I understand from hearing the contributions of other parties that they were not consulted either. Obviously, that precedent has caused a significant level of disquiet. I have some questions. Firstly, is the proposed time frame simply too short to enable anything meaningful? If it is, it really begs the question of why we would do that. I understand that the minister has already given his contribution so he is not in a position to reply, which I am disappointed about. However, I ask: in terms of the implementation of the elements of this bill, would a delay of even a month pose a problem in terms of having an impact on the next election, should the bill even be successful in passing the second reading stage and, ultimately, the third reading stage? Members would know that the Greens tend to err on the side of referring bills to committees for further investigation, particularly

5676 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] when there is not necessarily going to be a problem with delay around implementation. I do not know whether anybody in government will be able to shed any light on that and say whether a delay of a month or so would pose a problem in terms of this legislation being able to apply to the next election. I would appreciate that advice. The other bit of advice I am missing is whether this is something that the Standing Committee on Legislation can even handle within its existing workload, because I do not know. A very short time frame has been proposed. HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [3.54 pm]: The minister has dismissed this referral motion as being some sort of mischief by the member. However, I listened very carefully to what Hon Aaron Stonehouse had to say today. It was an excellent speech, by the way; I must congratulate him on his very detailed speech. To me, he raised a number of very troubling questions about the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020. I think it is important that we look at it further. I certainly support the referral to the committee so that we can have a better look at the implications of this bill, particularly as we are so close to an election. I think a delay of a month or so to fully assess what this bill is about, given that we have had very little consultation on it, would be a prudent and wise thing to do. I will certainly support the referral. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [3.55 pm]: I will respond to the question raised by Hon Alison Xamon, because as she said, the minister is not able to speak again. Bearing in mind that this is not my bill, I am advised that the Electoral Commission would like to be ready to implement parts of the bill from 1 October, so to that extent, a delay would be problematic. The other point I would make, in my own capacity, on the sensibleness or otherwise of referring this bill to a committee is that a significant part of the bill is about what political parties do. Political parties are right here. If we think about what the committee would do in terms of seeking submissions, from whom would it seek submissions and who would most likely be prepared to put in submissions? The answer is political parties. Those political parties are represented right here. This is an unusual bill in the sense that the external stakeholders, if members like, are represented right here. This is a different set of eyes than would perhaps be on a bill that deals with other policy-related matters. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [3.56 pm]: If proper consultation had happened in the first place, maybe all political parties would have been engaged. That did not happen. The way I look at the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 is that it is in such a mess, it cannot be fixed with amendments. I believe that the best thing we can do is to refer it to the Standing Committee on Legislation. HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [3.57 pm]: Unfortunately, I was detained on urgent parliamentary business. It has been drawn to my attention that Hon Aaron Stonehouse has moved that the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020, which is currently under consideration by the house, be considered by the Standing Committee on Legislation. I have rushed back into the chamber as a result of this new information—I am just catching my breath at the moment. I am grateful to be provided with a copy of the motion that is currently before the house. The reason I have abandoned the urgent work that I was undertaking is that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Legislation, and I will have a few things to say at this point. Firstly, this government has said to the opposition and other members in this place that it would ideally like to pass in the order of 19 bills between now and the end of the sitting period. That is extraordinary in itself. The point I want to make about the motion before the house is this: if the government is genuine and would like to pass, understandably, as many of those bills as possible between now and the end of the year, because it has belatedly recognised that it has mismanaged the legislative agenda for the last three and a half years and is now running out of precious weeks to pass its legislation prior to the dissolving of Parliament, then it might be in the best interests of the government to consider this type of reasonable proposal. The alternative is the approach that has been proffered by the minister with the conduct of this Electoral Amendment Bill in this house and, in fact, I believe it is the Minister for Electoral Affairs, and that is that we do it in the Committee of the Whole House. We know which of those two mechanisms is the most efficient use of the time of the chamber. We absolutely can do it that way but that will definitely take a substantial portion of the chamber’s time. I have no problem with that because I quite like the Committee of the Whole House process. I am usually a frequent contributor to that process, so I have no difficulty with that. I simply make this point to the government: if it would like to use the remaining few weeks as efficiently and productively as possible, it needs to consider all the mechanisms and levers at its disposal. The second point I make is that the motion before the house suggests that the referral take place and the report come back by no later than 9 October. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Thank you, honourable member. I am grateful to hear it. If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times: it is not acceptable to ask the Standing Committee on Legislation to do work in less time than we give to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. Some members who have been here for a while will know that once upon a time, the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review had a mere 30 days in which to do its work. At one point, it came to the chamber and convinced at least an absolute majority of the house, if not all the members in the house, that that should change and the period should be 45 days because 30 days was unworkable for that committee. In this instance, we have a proposal—I note that today is 10 September—that the report be done by 9 October. That will be far too short a time in my opinion.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5677

I make this final observation: the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review has very narrow terms of reference, whereas the legislation committee can, unless constrained by the house, look at the entirety of the bill, yet we will give it less time to look at it than we would give the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. I simply make those brief remarks. I have spoken for a mere five and a half minutes, which is an incredibly brief time for me—less than the time for a member’s statement. As I say, I rushed down to the chamber from my other urgent business on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019, which I understand is an important bill that the government would like to get on with. I have been busy preparing for that, but I have rushed down to make these comments as the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation. I do not even know what our party’s position is on the motion before the house because I do not have carriage of this bill. I have great sympathy for the remarks made by Hon Alison Xamon, who seemed to indicate that she also had not had an opportunity to confer with her colleagues. I simply want to make these remarks because although I have no objection in principle to taking on any more work as the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I ask members that, if the bill is to be referred, they give some consideration to the time in which we will have to do our work. HON CHARLES SMITH (East Metropolitan) [4.03 pm]: I was and still am interested in the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 as it stands and would give it some cautious in-principle support. However, there are issues in the bill that concern me. An issue that is not addressed is straw donors, for example, and that is an issue I am particularly interested in. I would again cautiously welcome a referral to inquire further into the bill. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [4.04 pm]: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I am the lead speaker on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 and my colleagues have asked me to respond on this matter. I note what has been said. In relation to Hon Aaron Stonehouse and his motion, I appreciate what he is trying to do. He is approaching this whole affair in a constructive manner and I congratulate him for that. He appreciates, as do others who have mentioned it, that this is all at very short notice. It is times like this we need the old-fashioned smoke-filled back rooms in which people could consult, but we are not allowed to do that these days; we have to rush around the chamber talking about things. I observe that the Standing Committee on Legislation was given a ridiculous task at the end of June when every controversial bill this place could round up was suddenly dumped on it. There were about four inquiries and one was for an act that had already gone through! Nonetheless, the committee is quite capable of dealing with whatever the house refers, so that is not a consideration. The question of a reporting date has been well made and this reporting date is probably a bit too soon. My personal preference is that we proceed to a second reading vote and defeat this bill. I have made that quite clear already. If that does not happen at the second reading vote, we can go to a very intensive Committee of the Whole House stage. That is my preference. However, the voice of reason, from Hon Nick Goiran, who I know is much beloved by members on the other side, has raised the very pertinent point that we know what happens when there is a proposal to refer something for detailed examination to a committee but we opt instead to try to do it on the floor of the chamber. We lose a whole lot of government bill time on the floor of the chamber and it soon becomes apparent that it would have been better to send it off to a committee. I think that guided those colleagues of mine who have spoken to me and prevailed upon me to accept a party view that we will support the honourable member’s motion. However, in the first instance, I would like to give that committee a more reasonable reporting date. I think Hon Nick Goiran mentioned that 45 days is the amount of time that the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review has to deal with much more simple matters. Amendment to Motion Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I move — To delete “9 October” and substitute — 12 November In so moving, I also indicate that the Liberal Party will support a referral motion in those terms. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [4.10 pm]: Although I have already indicated concern that a reporting date of 9 October would create a very short and relatively impractical time in which to consider such a bill, I am also concerned that making it 12 November would mean that, should the bill ultimately be successful in its passage through this chamber, it would be too late for it to be implemented in time for the next election. That may serve the purposes of people who, for a range of reasons, are opposed to this legislation, but for those people who support this legislation, that would be a considerable concern. I thought I should express my concerns about that. Indeed, it highlights how disappointing it is that this legislation has come to us so late in the fortieth Parliament and how advantageous it would have been to have seen it long before now. HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [4.11 pm]: I want to express very briefly my gratitude to Hon Simon O’Brien. I rushed down from upstairs, where I was dealing with the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019, and was somewhat concerned that the reporting date would be 9 October. I think the reporting date being 12 November absolutely addresses my concern. I thank him for it.

5678 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

Division Amendment put and a division taken, the Acting President (Hon Matthew Swinbourn) casting his vote with the noes, with the following result — Ayes (15)

Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Nick Goiran Hon Robin Scott Hon Dr Steve Thomas Hon Jim Chown Hon Colin Holt Hon Tjorn Sibma Hon Colin Tincknell Hon Peter Collier Hon Rick Mazza Hon Charles Smith Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Donna Faragher Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Aaron Stonehouse

Noes (14)

Hon Robin Chapple Hon Sue Ellery Hon Martin Pritchard Hon Alison Xamon Hon Tim Clifford Hon Diane Evers Hon Samantha Rowe Hon Pierre Yang (Teller) Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Laurie Graham Hon Matthew Swinbourn Hon Stephen Dawson Hon Alannah MacTiernan Hon Darren West

Pairs

Hon Colin de Grussa Hon Kyle McGinn Hon Michael Mischin Hon Dr Sally Talbot Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Adele Farina Amendment (deletion of words) thus passed. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 5688.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE CORONAVIRUS — INTERSTATE TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS — EXEMPTIONS 884. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the article in today’s The West Australian regarding plans being developed to fast-track quarantine for interstate fly in, fly out workers and the Premier’s comment yesterday that “I have been very clear with the major mining and oil and gas companies that those days are over and we need to move to a new arrangement whereby their workforce is based here.” (1) Is the government currently undertaking negotiations to allow interstate FIFO workers to fast-track quarantine protocols in Western Australia? (2) If yes to (1), with whom are these negotiations taking place, and what are the revised conditions being considered? (3) Have any quarantine exemptions been provided for interstate FIFO workers over the past 30 days; and, if so, how many? (4) What plans does the government have in place to manage the looming workforce shortages in the mining industry? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. Western Australia’s Chief Health Officer and the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee agree that 14 days of quarantine is an essential requirement. This important health requirement will continue for the foreseeable future. (2) Not applicable. (3) The article referred to in the question does not canvass quarantine exemptions; however, as previously outlined in answers to the member’s questions 383 and 406, applications for exemptions are assessed on an individual basis and it is not possible to break down the exact number of applications by category. (4) The government has been working actively with industry to both promote the permanent relocation of interstate workers to Western Australia, as has been reported in the mainstream media this week, and identify training and skills gaps to provide pathways for WA residents to access these jobs, and is working with individual companies to identify any high-level skills gaps that will need to be covered in the short term.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5679

MANDURAH MULTISTOREY CAR PARK 885. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the announcement regarding the new Mandurah multistorey car park and the Premier’s comment that it will support local companies and local workers. (1) How many companies tendered for the project? (2) For each company in (1), in what suburb or geographic location are they located? (3) Of the 120 jobs that are expected to be created, how many will be filled by local people who live in the Mandurah area? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) Seven companies submitted tenders for contract PTA190120. (2) The locations of the tenderers are Perth, Subiaco, Balcatta, three tenders from Osborne Park, and Busselton. (3) Although the minister’s statement indicated that 120 jobs would be created, the contractor’s recently submitted Western Australian industry participation plan shows the following number of people to be employed during the life of the contract: 150 regional area employees, and 15 regional area apprentices or trainees. MINERALOGY ARBITRATION — STATE SOLICITOR’S ADVICE — BRIEFING NOTE 886. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Michael Mischin, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to my attempts on 18 and 20 August 2020 and 9 September 2020 to obtain forthright answers about the Premier’s decision to inform the Legislative Assembly that certain advice had been given to a previous government. (1) Will the Premier confirm that, as far as McGowan government standards are concerned — (a) The failure of the State Solicitor to obtain the consent of the Leader of the Opposition before disclosing to the Premier and the Attorney General advice provided to previous governments is the fault of Hon Nick Goiran? (b) The failure by the Premier to obtain the consent of the Leader of the Opposition before volunteering to the Legislative Assembly advice provided to previous governments is the fault of Hon Nick Goiran? (c) The failure by the Premier to obtain the consent of the Leader of the Opposition before tabling a briefing note from the State Solicitor marked privileged and confidential, disclosing to the Premier advice provided to previous governments, is the fault of Hon Nick Goiran? (2) For the benefit of future Parliaments, governments and oppositions, will the Premier confirm that if a question is asked by a member of Parliament concerning advice or documents provided to previous governments, it is consistent with McGowan government standards to disclose that advice or document without seeking the consent of the Leader of the Opposition? (3) If that is not the case, how does that differ from what has happened here? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) The Premier can confirm that the existence of the advice would not have been made apparent had Hon Nick Goiran not asked about it in a briefing. The Premier can further confirm that the extent of the advice would not be known if Hon Nick Goiran and other opposition members present had not interrogated both what the advice was, and what was done with that advice. IRON ORE ROYALTY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS — 2019–20 STATE BUDGET 887. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Treasurer: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Dr Steve Thomas, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to my question without notice 825, asked on Thursday, 20 August 2020. (1) What was the average spot price of iron ore during the three weeks since I asked that question? (2) How much higher than the 2019 budget estimate of 2020–21 iron ore prices is the answer to (1)? (3) How much higher than the 2019 budget and the 2019 midyear financial projections have iron ore royalties been in the calendar year 2020 to date? (4) How long would the price of iron ore have to stay at the price given in (1) for the additional iron ore royalty revenue above the 2019 budget estimate to pay entirely for the government’s $5.5 billion COVID-19 WA recovery plan?

5680 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank Hon Dr Steve Thomas for some notice of the question. The following answer has been provided to me by the Treasurer. (1) For the 15 weekdays inclusive of 20 August 2020, the iron ore spot price averaged $US126.2 per tonne. (2) The average price over the past 15 weekdays is $US60.6 per tonne above the 2019–20 budget estimate for the whole 2020–21 financial year. (3) Royalty revenue forecasts are based on whole financial years, not calendar years. (4) See answer to (3). Also, iron ore prices are extremely volatile and can move significantly in a short space of time. Furthermore, while royalty collections have been supported recently by the higher iron ore price, other sources of revenue such as taxation revenue and GST grants are expected to be significantly impacted by COVID-19. CONSERVATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2020 888. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Minister for Environment: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Tjorn Sibma, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2020. (1) Can the minister please provide information regarding the identity of the 19 traditional owner groups with whom consultation has occurred? (2) When did these consultations occur, and what issues were identified in the course of the consultations? (3) Can the minister identify the dates and times that consultation occurred with the following parties: Recfishwest; the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council; the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association; the Chamber of Minerals and Energy; the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies; the Conservation Council of Western Australia; the Pastoralists and Graziers Association; Surfing WA; and Royal Life Saving WA? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Due to the level of detail required in the time frame given, it is not possible to provide an answer today. I give an undertaking to the house that I will provide an answer on Tuesday, 15 September 2020. CORONAVIRUS — QUARANTINE ARRANGEMENTS 889. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Corrective Services: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Simon O’Brien, who is otherwise occupied! (1) Do convicted felons in the state’s prisons have access to fresh air? (2) Are convicted felons able to get out of their cells to take exercise on at least a daily basis? (3) If yes to (1) and (2), will the minister consider giving advice to the Premier as to how the same basic dignities might be extended to the innocent Western Australians confined in hotel quarantine? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Minister for Environment, and no unruly interjections! Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following answer is provided on behalf of the Minister for Corrective Services. (1)–(2) Yes. (3) The use of hotel quarantine for people returning from higher risk destinations is to continue to protect Western Australians from acquiring COVID-19. Confinement to hotel quarantine is for a short time. The impact of COVID-19 can be widespread, long-lasting and fatal. BANNED DRINKERS REGISTER TRIAL — PILBARA 890. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming: I indicate that I have two questions: one from Hon Jacqui Boydell and one from me. This question is on behalf of Hon Jacqui Boydell, who is away on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the banned drinkers register, which has been long delayed but is seemingly ready to start in December. (1) What processes are in place to assist residents who do not have suitable identification to get appropriate identification before the trial begins?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5681

(2) Given the three avenues for an individual to be placed on the register, are there also processes to recommend someone be placed on the register, for example, by a family member; and, if yes, please table this process and detail any wraparound support that the department will provide or any tender will be required to provide? (3) Please outline the process and requirements for someone to be removed from the register? (4) Will the minister table the details of the current funding that has been allocated, together with the actual amount that has been spent, to implement the banned drinkers register across the Pilbara? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Racing and Gaming. (1) The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries is currently exploring options to assist residents without suitable identification to be provided every opportunity to obtain a form of identification that can be used to purchase takeaway liquor. (2) No. (3) A person will be removed from the register upon expiration of their prohibition order or barring notice. Those people who voluntarily seek to be placed on the register need only apply to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries to be removed from it. (4) The two-year banned drinkers register trial across the Pilbara is estimated to cost $1.9 million. POLICE — WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 891. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the state government’s commitment to introduce a police-specific compensation scheme prior to the next state election. (1) Has cabinet given approval to draft a bill; and, if so, on what date was approval granted? (2) Is the state government still committed to honouring this election commitment in the remaining weeks of this Parliament? (3) If yes to (2), why has a potential bill not made it to the top 20 priorities of the government for passage prior to Parliament being prorogued? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following answer has been provided to me by the Minister for Police. (1)–(4) Deliberations of cabinet are confidential. The government is committed to honouring its commitment and is engaging with the Western Australia Police Union of Workers on its delivery. It took the Liberal–National government eight years to develop a proposal, which required our police officers to choose between their existing conditions and the state workers’ compensation scheme. [See page 5687.] CORONAVIRUS — INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL BORDER RESTRICTIONS — APPLICATIONS 892. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the minister representing the Minister for Police: (1) How many applications has the government received from people seeking to enter WA on compassionate grounds since the hard border closure was implemented? (2) How many of these applications received approval to enter WA? (3) Is the government aware of how many people have entered WA without making a formal application? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The following answer has been provided to me by the Minister for Police. The Western Australia Police Force advises the following. (1)–(2) As part of its response to protecting the community from COVID-19, the Western Australia Police Force gave priority to developing processes that allowed the timely processing of applications for entry. The first five months of managing entry to the state were based on ensuring the systems and processes were in place to assist the Western Australian community. The G2G PASS has been critical to this process and placed Western Australia ahead of other states. The priority was to keep the community safe and support the State Emergency Coordinator and the police to manage the borders rather than to collect data. Now the state has systems, processes and procedures in place, the WA Police Force is looking at data collection options that do not require daily manual counting.

5682 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

(3) Travellers are encouraged to apply prior to entry into Western Australia on G2G PASS or the “WA Entry” application. Applications are regularly made and assessed upon presentations at border arrival points— airports, ports and road borders. Statistics are not recorded on the number of persons presenting before making an application. CONVERSION PRACTICES 893. Hon ALISON XAMON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health: I refer to dangerous conversion practices, which attempt to change a person’s sexuality or gender identity, and which, according to a 2018 La Trobe University report, are practised throughout Australia. (1) Has the WA government undertaken any work to determine the extent of conversion practices in Western Australia? (2) If yes to (1), please table this work? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) Will the government commit to banning conversion practices more broadly, including those that occur in religious and informal settings? (6) If no to (5), why not? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: (1)–(6) The government is opposed to and does not support the use of gay conversion therapy. The Australian Medical Association, the Royal College of Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians all oppose psychological practices that attempt to change sexual orientation. Psychiatrists or psychologists who engage in practices that attempt to change sexual orientation may be in breach of their professional code of conduct and ethics, and individuals who have experienced this should consider reporting them to either the Health and Disability Services Complaints Office or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. It is acknowledged that counselling sectors are currently unregulated in WA. The WA government supports the introduction of the national code of conduct for unregulated healthcare workers. This legislation is being drafted and once implemented will protect the public by setting minimum standards of conduct and practice for public and private healthcare workers. Practices that attempt to change sexual orientation may be in breach of the national code. Once implemented the national code will provide the director of HADSCO with powers to issue prohibition orders to healthcare workers when their continued practice presents a risk to public health and safety. The Mental Health Commission’s feedback on the Victorian report on the inquiry into gay conversion therapy indicates that there is benefit in providing counselling services for survivors of gay conversion therapy, together with legislation to prohibit such practices. The Victorian government committed to prohibiting gay conversion therapy as standalone legislation in February 2019, but these laws are not yet in place. Separate legislation, similar to Victoria’s, could be considered in the future if the national code of conduct was not effective in preventing gay conversion therapy. With respect to support services, the Mental Health Commission currently funds a range of services that support the LGBTI community, totalling $2 108 792. SHARKS — HAZARD MITIGATION 894. Hon RICK MAZZA to the minister representing the Minister for Fisheries: I refer to the death of surfer Nick Slater on Greenmount Beach on 8 September 2020, the sixth shark fatality in Australian waters this year. Now that Western Australians are being forced to holiday in the state due to COVID-19 border restrictions and the summer season is approaching, many people will be seeking to enjoy our beach culture. (1) Will the government review the SMART drum lines on the south coast for the coming summer, particularly with likely increases in local tourists? (2) What other management programs will be in place to help ensure the safety of beachgoers? (3) What research is being conducted to assess the relative abundance of shark numbers in the marine ecosystem? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I do note that I think most Western Australians are really enjoying the opportunity to experience their state. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Fisheries. (1) The SMART drum line trial was reviewed by the Chief Scientist of Western Australia, Peter Klinken, in April this year, with a recommendation to continue the trial in its current format until May 2021. The

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5683

McGowan government committed to continue the trial, recognising that more data is needed to determine its effectiveness as a public safety tool for shark mitigation. Shark warning systems that include both visual and audible alarms will continue to alert the public to the presence of sharks, both tagged and caught on the SMART drum lines within the waters of the SMART drum line trial. (2) Western Australia has one of the strongest evidence-based shark mitigation programs in the world to assist locals to enjoy the beach and ocean with confidence. The McGowan government is committed to a range of measures and initiatives to improve the safety of our ocean users. This investment includes the SMART drum line trial off Gracetown, the electronic shark deterrent rebate, beach emergency number signage, beach enclosures, an extensive targeted shark tagging program, the satellite-based shark monitoring network and, of course, the SharkSmart WA app, which integrates so much of this technology. Since March 2017, the government has successfully implemented a targeted tagging program of white sharks, doubling the number of tagged sharks along the Western Australian coastline. Recently, the McGowan government announced its commitment to deploy an additional two VR4 receivers and an alert tower in Bunker Bay following the latest shark incident involving a local surfer. The government also works in partnership with Surf Life Saving WA and other external stakeholders to deliver various shark mitigation strategies, including aerial and beach safety surveillance to gather intelligence information along the Western Australian coast in the Perth metropolitan and south west regions for the benefit of public safety when using the beach. The millions of dollars of investment in these measures demonstrate the McGowan government’s commitment to improving ocean safety in Western Australia. (3) To access trends in the relative abundance of sharks, the department undertakes stock assessments of more than 30 commercial species and annual abundance surveys in the north west of eight species. These assessments and the information are used to assess the sustainability risk on Western Australian sharks. The department also undertakes surveys of shark diversity and relative abundance within inshore and nearshore ecosystems—shallow reefs, creeks and rivers—in the Kimberley marine ecosystem; baseline surveys of threatened, endangered and protected sawfish and river sharks and the identification of critical habitats; long-term monitoring of the relative abundance of sharks within the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park; and baseline surveys of shark diversity relative abundance and tagging of coastal shark species at 30 to 300 metres depth in the North-west Marine Parks Network. DRIVERS — MOBILE PHONES — PENALTIES 895. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE to the minister representing the Minister for Police: It may assist the minister to know that this question is dated Wednesday, 9 September. I refer the minister to the regulations that commenced on 1 September 2020 in relation to mobile phone use by drivers. (1) What industry consultation, if any, was undertaken during the drafting process with the likes of rideshare providers or courier companies? (2) Why have rideshare companies been granted a series of exemptions, while couriers, many of whom use very similar phone applications to those employed by rideshare drivers, have been treated differently; and, what is the difference between delivering a person and delivering a package in the context of these new regulations? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: Honourable member, I have a question dated Tuesday, 8 September to the Minister for Road Safety, but it is essentially the same question. I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Road Safety. The Road Safety Commission advises the following. (1) The Road Safety Commission consulted widely across government, including the Department of Transport, which has regulatory oversight of the road transport sector. (2) Rideshare drivers have been placed on a level footing with taxidrivers. Rideshare drivers and taxidrivers operate within a highly regulated industry with strict safety management systems for drivers and vehicles. Parcel couriers can use a mobile phone as a dispatch system while driving, so long as they operate the phone using voice-activated controls. Further, the courier industry is not as regulated and has operated within the existing regulatory framework for several years. RESIDENTIAL RENT RELIEF GRANT SCHEME 896. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the minister representing the Minister for Commerce: I refer to the state government’s rental relief grant scheme and the expansion of the eligibility criteria. (1) When were the criteria for eligibility of the grant scheme changed?

5684 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

(2) How many people applied for the grant prior to the expansion of eligibility and after the expansion of eligibility? (3) Did the relevant department undertake additional advertising to inform tenants and landlords of the changes to eligibility; and, if so, what advertising measures were undertaken? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Commerce has provided the following information. (1) On 5 June 2020. (2) Prior to the change, 813 applications were received. Since the change took effect, 5 580 applications have been submitted. (3) The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety’s Consumer Protection division undertook a three-month industry and community education campaign to inform the real estate industry, landlords and tenants about the scheme. The campaign will run until the end of September 2020 and includes coverage on television-streaming services, online, digital, social media, radio and direct email to 300 000 individual tenants and landlords. JANGARDUP MINE — ACID SULPHATE CONTAMINATION 897. Hon DIANE EVERS to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the former Jangardup mineral sands mine. (1) How far offsite from the former Jangardup mineral sands mine has the acid sulphate groundwater plume caused by former mining operations migrated? (2) Is the minister aware of the proposed mining lease application M70/1385 located in an area of very high acid sulphate soil occurrence adjacent to Lake Jasper? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I am advised by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation that the core of the acid sulphate groundwater plume remains predominantly within or adjacent to the former Jangardup mineral sands mine site, with the outer edge of the plume extending offsite. (2) I am aware of mining lease application M70/1385. JOONDALUP DRIVE–WANNEROO ROAD INTERSECTION — FLYOVER 898. Hon CHARLES SMITH to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to The West Australian article of 22 August 2018 entitled “Compensation plan to protect small business from construction pain”. (1) Has the minister’s department carried out any assessment on the loss of income, business closures and decline in trade at the Drovers Market Place, located at 1397 and 1387 Wanneroo Road, due to the ongoing infrastructure works on the Joondalup Drive–Wanneroo Road flyover? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Are there any plans to offer compensation to those affected businesses? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(4) No income assessment has been undertaken as access to Drovers Market Place has been retained from both Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive throughout the construction phase. In response to feedback from business owners, access arrangements have been incorporated into other project communications. If businesses wish to submit a business claim, advice on that process is available on the Main Roads Western Australia website. POINT-OF-CONSUMPTION WAGERING TAX 899. Hon COLIN HOLT to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming: I refer to the announcement that Racing and Wagering Western Australia will provide a total of $182.3 million in distribution grants and subsidies to the racing industry in 2020–21. (1) Can the minister please provide a breakdown of funding sources for this distribution, including the amount from — (a) WA TAB profits;

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5685

(b) race field fees; (c) the point-of-consumption tax; (d) cash reserves; and (e) other activities, and please define each activity? (2) How much point-of-consumption tax was paid to other jurisdictions by RWWA for 2019–20? (3) How much point-of-consumption tax was received by RWWA for 2019–20? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Racing and Gaming. (1) The funding commitment to the racing industry made for the year in advance will be sourced from profits made by WA TAB, together with income generated via the WA race bets levy from national wagering operators and the point-of-consumption tax in the financial year 2020–21. Therefore, a specific breakdown of funding sources for the financial year 2020–21 is not available as this is based on budget projections. (2) This information cannot be disclosed. By disclosing the WA portion of point-of-consumption tax payments, it will be apparent what percentage of WA TAB revenue is generated by WA customers and also the WA TAB market share of WA customers. As the TAB operates in a highly competitive and commercial environment, this information is confidential and commercially sensitive. (3) It was $24.9 million. ROLEYSTONE COMMUNITY COLLEGE — KISS ‘N’ RIDE ZONE 900. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the government’s announcement of planned improvements to Roleystone Community College’s Kiss ‘n’ Ride zone. (1) What is the total funding allocated to deliver these improvements? (2) Will the minister detail the proposed changes to the zone and table any designs that have been prepared? (3) When are the works expected to commence? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) It is $100 000. (2) The City of Armadale has confirmed it will design and construct the new Brooks Road Kiss ‘n’ Ride. The city is currently working on the design. (3) Design work is underway. The project is expected to be completed by the start of the school year. DERBY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL — CAPITAL WORKS 901. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to a question yesterday regarding the shocking state of the Derby Senior High School. In her answer, the minister said that on 29 June, a Department of Education officer and an architect went to Derby to inspect the disrepair of the school. (1) If an architect visited the school on 29 June and the funding was announced weeks later on 3 August, why did Derby miss out on the funding? (2) Will the minister table the report given to her by the architect and the Department of Education officer; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(2) If what the member is seeking is facts, that is why it is useful to give some notice or even talk to me behind the Chair. If the member is going to ask for a report, for example, and I do not have any notice of it, I cannot possibly give the member the report because I did not know that the member was going to ask me for it. I make this point: in respect of the allocation of funding that was announced as part of the recovery project, I think the member made the point himself in the question yesterday that 63 schools across Western Australia received funding out of that. Hon Robin Scott: I’m only interested in one!

5686 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

Hon SUE ELLERY: I know, and I am trying to provide an answer to the member’s question. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! A few more members still wish to ask questions. We are running out of time. Hon SUE ELLERY: I am doing my best. If the member asks me a question without notice, I will give the member the best answer I can. Out of more than 800 public schools, 63 schools received funding out of the recovery plan, so not every school across Western Australia received funding out of that plan, and that includes Derby. I have not received a report from the architect and, frankly, that is not unusual. The architect would report to the department and the department would put the plans together to prepare advice to me for future consideration. DUST MANAGEMENT — AIR QUALITY MONITORING — PORT HEDLAND 902. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the issue of the dust pollution at West End, Port Hedland, the Port Hedland Industries Council and specifically the data that the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation has received from PHIC in 2020. (1) Given that the Taplin Street monitor was shown to be defective and that now the Taplin Street monitor results have been wholly expunged for 2018–19, does the minister understand stakeholders’ concerns that this monitor is referenced in BHP’s licence conditions? (2) How regularly has the PHIC delivered data to the department, whether voluntarily or requested? (3) Given that the Taplin Street monitor results have been wholly expunged for 2018–19, how is the department assessing BHP’s latest 40 million tonnes per annum increase amendment approval? (4) Is the minister still confident in the ability of PHIC to monitor and collect data; and, if so, why? (5) Can the minister confirm that DWER does not plan to return the residential areas of Port Hedland to under DWER’s and DOH’s adopted HRA 70 level? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation has advised me that the Taplin Street monitoring data is not the only source of information available to analyse the level of impact on the community and potential dust sources. The BHP licence includes a range of conditions relating to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of dust. This includes the requirement for BHP to monitor dust levels at the boundary and undertake specific management actions in the event of criteria being exceeded. (2) There is no statutory requirement for the Port Hedland Industries Council to provide data to DWER on a regular basis. DWER does from time to time request data from PHIC for a range of reasons. These have included to inform assessment of applications, review of annual reports and for the investigation into the faulty Taplin Street monitor. (3) The department is undertaking its assessment of BHP’s licence amendment applications in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and its regulatory guidelines. DWER’s assessment is informed by a wide range of information such as air quality modelling from emission sources, results of boundary monitoring and ambient dust level from the entire air quality monitoring network, not just the Taplin Street monitor. (4) I am advised that PHIC replaced the faulty monitor on 15 January 2020 and has advised the department that the new monitor is delivering consistent datasets. DWER will progress the transfer of the air quality monitoring network from PHIC as soon as possible. (5) The government is implementing the endorsed recommendations from the Port Hedland Dust Management Taskforce. In order to address the DWER-related recommendations, the department is establishing a regulatory strategy with medium and long-term objectives. In the short term, DWER is ensuring dust emissions from major sources are not increased. In the longer term, the objective is to ensure that dust impacts are reduced to the lowest practicable level across the whole Port Hedland peninsula. MEDICAL RESOURCES — SHARK BAY 903. Hon KEN BASTON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the Shark Bay region, which has experienced a surge in intrastate tourism since COVID-19 travel restrictions were put in place.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5687

(1) Is the minister aware that increased visitor numbers to the region have placed significant pressure on medical resources in the region, which is served by two nurses and a visiting GP? (2) Will the minister commit to undertaking a review of the resources allocated to this region to ensure that medical staff are adequately supported and that residents and visitors can access medical services in appropriate time frames? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I have been advised by the WA Country Health Service that further time is required to answer this question. The information will be provided to the honourable member by 23 September 2020. VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING — INFORMATION 904. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the recently released Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board’s “Report of Operations: January–June 2020” and the startling revelation that 124 Victorians have ended their lives through the administration of VAD poisons between 19 June 2019 and 30 June 2020. (1) Is the minister aware of this latest report released in August 2020? (2) Given that the Victorian report has identified that there is “a lot of important information related to voluntary assisted dying that the Board does not have the power to obtain”, what steps will the government take to ensure a similar information blockage does not occur in our state? (3) Has the WA voluntary assisted dying implementation leadership team considered the issue of board power to collect, use and disclose information? (4) Further to (3), will the minister table the minutes of the meetings held to date by the implementation leadership team? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) Under section 119 of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board has all the powers it needs to perform its functions. The board is established for the purpose of ensuring proper adherence to legislation and to recommend safety and quality improvements. The board’s functions, which are set out in section 118 of the act, include advisory and monitoring functions. For matters relating to the response to a request for access, section 22 of the act requires that a medical practitioner receiving a first request for access to voluntary assisted dying must notify the board of this request, including the medical practitioner’s decision to accept or refuse the first request and the reason for a refusal of a first request. The Victorian act does not include this requirement for notification to its board. Under section 152 of the act, the minister may give a written direction to the board to record and retain statistical information about a matter relating to voluntary assisted dying specified in the direction. This provision is not a feature of the Victorian act. (3) The power of the board to collect, use and disclose information is embedded in the legislation and is not a matter for the implementation leadership team. (4) Providing the answer to this part of the question in the time required is not possible and I request that the honourable member place it on notice. POLICE — WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Question without Notice 891 — Correction HON MARTIN ALDRIDGE (Agricultural) [5.11 pm]: I asked a question of the Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Police during question time today. I think, through an administrative error, the copy of the question that I asked, which was in my file, did not entirely reflect the question that I had approved, but the answer that the minister delivered did reflect the question that I had approved. I think I will need to seek leave to have the question incorporated into Hansard or re-read the question so that it does reflect the answer provided by the minister. Leave granted.

5688 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

The following material was incorporated — I refer to the State Government’s commitment to introduce a police-specific compensation scheme prior to the next state election and I ask: (1) I refer to the State Government’s commitment to introduce a police-specific compensation scheme prior to the next state election and I ask: Has Cabinet given approval to draft a Bill and if so on what date was approval granted; (2) Has Cabinet given approval to print a Bill and if so on what date was approval granted; (3) Is the State Government still committed to honouring this election commitment in the remaining weeks of this Parliament; and (4) If yes to (3), why has a potential Bill not made it to the top twenty priorities of the government for passage prior to Parliament being prorogued?

ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2020 Discharge of Order and Referral to Standing Committee on Legislation — Amendment to Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting on the following motion moved by Hon Aaron Stonehouse — (1) That the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 is discharged and referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration and report by no later than 9 October 2020. (2) The committee has the power to inquire into and report on the policy of the bill. to which the following amendment was moved by Hon Simon O’Brien — To delete “9 October” and substitute — 12 November The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Prior to question time, we were proceeding through the process of dealing with an amendment to the motion, which had been moved without notice. The question that the words to be deleted be deleted was carried. We are now up to considering the question that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. Amendment (insertion of words) put and passed. Motion, as Amended HON MARTIN ALDRIDGE (Agricultural) [5.13 pm]: I note that we are short on time, so I will make my remarks brief. I rise to indicate that the Nationals WA will support the motion, as amended. It certainly was not something that we had given great consideration to before Hon Aaron Stonehouse moved the original motion. In fact, we were prepared to deal with the Electoral Amendment Bill 2020 in the Committee of the Whole. I recognise the comments made by Hon Nick Goiran, and I agree with him that the life of this Parliament is becoming more and more limited by the day. Although committee examination does not guarantee a more expeditious passage of the bill, it assists in that regard. Given the way the second reading debate has progressed thus far, considerably more time will need to be given to fully consider this bill in its current form without its discharge and referral to a committee. In the very brief time available, I put on the record a couple of issues I would like a committee to further examine, particularly related to clause 15. There has been significant discussion about the application of expenditure caps to elections and how they will operate under the provisions of this bill. In fact, that is a part of the bill that the Nationals WA will not support in its current form. The committee could consider the application of clause 15 to the parties, associated entities and others that will be affected by expenditure caps and whether there is cause to reflect on jurisdictions such as New South Wales and others with similar provisions to see whether clause 15 can be corrected, and the concerns of parties about the application of expenditure caps on elections addressed. The other issue is the way foreign donations are addressed in the bill. The way that “foreign donations” and “foreign donors” has been defined is insufficient and will make it very easy for somebody wanting to bypass the provisions of this bill to do so simply by registering an Australian business number in Australia. Indeed, that is quite a simple task. Shortly after our recess this afternoon, issue 1 of the supplementary notice paper on this bill was issued, with a number of amendments in the name of Hon Alison Xamon. Hon Alison Xamon interjected. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE: Hon Alison Xamon has just interjected and advised the house that there are more to come. Just looking at the amendments on the supplementary notice paper, some of these provisions may go to the issues around foreign donations and the definitions, and that is something that the committee could assist the house in considering. The last point I want to make is about the transitional provisions. It concerns me that we are three and a half years into a four-year term, and we are now considering a bill that has some elements that will apply retrospectively, particularly the disclosure thresholds and the quarterly returns. They will apply from 1 July 2020, some two to three months before today’s date. Further provisions will apply from 1 October 2020. If this bill were discharged

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5689 and referred to a committee, it would be good if the committee could consider the views of stakeholders about whether it is appropriate for further transitional provisions to be considered so that we have a more seamless introduction of some of the provisions in this bill to make sure all people who will be captured by it are fully aware of the constraints and requirements of them engaging in donations and the like. With those few words, given the time constraints, I reiterate the support of the Nationals WA for the amended motion. Division Question put and a division taken, the Deputy President (Hon Simon O’Brien) casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result — Ayes (15)

Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Nick Goiran Hon Robin Scott Hon Dr Steve Thomas Hon Jim Chown Hon Colin Holt Hon Tjorn Sibma Hon Colin Tincknell Hon Peter Collier Hon Rick Mazza Hon Charles Smith Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Donna Faragher Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Aaron Stonehouse

Noes (14)

Hon Robin Chapple Hon Sue Ellery Hon Martin Pritchard Hon Alison Xamon Hon Tim Clifford Hon Diane Evers Hon Samantha Rowe Hon Pierre Yang (Teller) Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Laurie Graham Hon Matthew Swinbourn Hon Stephen Dawson Hon Alannah MacTiernan Hon Darren West

Pairs

Hon Michael Mischin Hon Dr Sally Talbot Hon Colin de Grussa Hon Kyle McGinn Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Adele Farina Question thus passed. WOMEN’S HEALTH WEEK Statement HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan) [5.23 pm]: Today, as we know, is World Suicide Prevention Day and R U OK? Day. As Hon Alanna Clohesy, who is out on urgent parliamentary business, indicated in her statement to the house this morning, today is a national reminder to check on our loved ones, our friends and our work colleagues. We do not always know when someone is hurting. We do not always know when someone is feeling overwhelmed, but it is important that we ask that question because it can make a difference—it can make a real difference. It is important that we reach out and it is important that those who do need support within our community know that support is available. In recognising that today is World Suicide Prevention Day and R U OK? Day, I want to reflect also that this week is Women’s Health Week. Mental health and wellbeing forms a very important part of the conversations being held throughout this week. So, too, are other health issues impacting women and I want to mention a couple of matters— one specific and one perhaps more general to all of us. The first is about raising awareness of diseases that sometimes are not well known or well understood within our community. One such disease is endometriosis. For those who are not aware, endometriosis can be a debilitating disease that affects around one in 10 women across Australia. Although awareness of this disease within the community is increasing, it is still misunderstood by many. Essentially, for the benefit of those members of the house who are not aware, the disease is when endometrial-like tissue is found outside of the womb. It can impact a woman’s ovaries, bladder or bowel, but, as I understand it, it most commonly affects the tissue lining of the pelvis. It can cause severe and debilitating pain, adhesions and scarring, and can result in infertility. It can also, obviously, impact a range of other areas, such as mental health and wellbeing, which is particularly relevant today, and social isolation. It can cause a range of other economic impacts. Indeed, a report for EndoActive by Ernst and Young, “The cost of endometriosis in Australia”, found that the reduction in the quality of life for women diagnosed with endometriosis has been valued at $4.04 billion per year and the cost to employers from absenteeism and loss of productivity was $2.6 billion; and that, on average, women suffering from endo use 60 per cent of their sick leave due to the chronic pain they experience. In recognising this, it is important that there is greater understanding of this disease. It is critical that more educational initiatives are made available to support women, including teenage girls, to help them understand what is normal and what is not, and when to seek help. It is also important that those education initiatives extend to and are expanded among healthcare professionals and others in relevant fields. This was certainly raised with me during a recent meeting that I had with Endometriosis WA. Endometriosis WA is a peer-based support group for women

5690 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] in Western Australia living with endometriosis. It is a volunteer group that is keen to ensure that the disease receives greater awareness within the community. I am certainly very keen to support it in its endeavours, particularly if that will help in gaining greater understanding of this debilitating disease. As Dr Katie Christensen from the Mater Mothers’ Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department said in a recent article — “The symptoms for endometriosis are so varied that patients can take a long time to receive an accurate diagnosis. Unfortunately, painful periods are often dismissed or overlooked, for a variety of reasons. I see many women who thought or have been told that this was just something they should put up with.” This is not something that women should feel that they should put up with. It is important that we raise these matters. These are matters that we probably do not often talk about. I believe, as the shadow Minister for Women’s Interests and as a female, that it is important to reduce those misconceptions and misunderstandings and increase awareness. I would also like to remind everyone, given that it is Women’s Health Week, but this pertains to both males and females, about the importance of keeping up to date with all the necessary medical tests that we should be routinely doing. As we all know, 2020 has been and continues to be a very challenging year for our community. In addition to the mental health and wellbeing challenges that many in our community are facing, which is again highlighted today, we have seen some significant drop-offs in cancer testing and other important pathology tests as people have been avoiding getting these tests and seeing general practitioners. An article in The Sydney Morning Herald titled “‘Cancer won’t wait’: Testing plunges during pandemic lockdown” says — Cancer testing plummeted during the coronavirus pandemic and is yet to recover to normal levels, prompting fears that thousands of Australians could be missing the window for early diagnosis. Nationally representative figures from major private pathology labs reveal there was 56 per cent less tissue testing in early April than the February average, while cervical cancer screening tests were down 71 per cent and blood tests for prostate cancer were down 58 per cent. … By the end of May, pathology testing had started to recover but was still lower than usual. In the week starting May 25, tissue testing was down 17 per cent, cervical cancer screening tests were down 28 per cent, and prostate cancer blood tests were down 14 per cent, compared with the February average. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia chief executive Debra Graves said testing must ramp up and surpass the normal rate to make up for lost time. “We’re seeing lower diagnoses in relation to the lower testing at the moment, but as we rebound we will see more diagnoses and it might be later in the course of the disease,” Dr Graves said. We do not want to see that. I will give this reminder to everyone. It is Women’s Health Week, but everyone’s health matters. We live in very challenging times, but we must keep up to date with those appointments and not push them back. It is easy to do and I have done it myself, but do not leave those medical appointments until they are too late. They are critical and really important. PRESCRIBED BURNING Statement HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [5.31 pm]: It is not often that I get up to make a member’s statement, but I feel duty-bound and compelled tonight to bring forward what I see as a very important matter. As many of us know, we are entering the fire season and it will not be too long until there is a lot of dry vegetation out there. Our volunteer and professional bush fire brigades will have a big job on their hands keeping the community safe. Over the years, we have had a number of big fires in this state. Looking back to 2003, there was the Tenterden fire, in which two people were killed and 20 000 hectares burnt. In 2007, a fire in Boorabbin National Park killed three truck drivers. In 2009, a fire in Toodyay destroyed 38 dwellings and burnt 2 900 hectares. In 2011, a fire in Margaret River destroyed the historic Wallcliffe House and burnt 4 000 hectares. Again in 2011—it was obviously a bad year—a fire in Roleystone and Kelmscott destroyed 72 homes and closed Buckingham Bridge on the Brookton Highway. In 2011–12, a fire in Carnarvon burnt 800 000 hectares of pastoral grazing land. There were fires in Parkerville and Lower Hotham. In 2015, a fire in Esperance killed four people, burnt 120 000 hectares and caused the loss of 15 000 head of stock. In 2016, we had the big one here in the south west in Waroona, which killed two people, destroyed 181 homes and burnt 69 000 hectares. We saw the devastation on the east coast last year in New South Wales and Victoria. Many homes were destroyed, lives were lost and to this day people are still struggling to recover from that. Prescribed burning has been a management tool. It has been seen as a way to try to protect not only property and lives, but also the environment. Reducing fuel loads provides a degree of management that fire brigades and the department can handle. After a fire in 1961, a royal commission recommended that between 250 000 and

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5691

300 000 hectares of forest be prescribed burnt each year, but that dropped off over the years. A number of inquiries have been conducted. In 2011, there was an inquiry into the Perth hills bushfire. Later on, there was a special inquiry into the fire at Margaret River. There was a post-incident analysis of the Nannup bushfires. In 2014, there was an inquiry into the Parkerville fires, and in 2015 there was an inquiry into the fires in Lower Hotham and O’Sullivan. In 2011, Mr Keelty said in his report that he was concerned that the prescribed burning that was being carried out was only about one-third of what it was 50 years ago. Of course, in probably the last 20 or 30 years, we have had increasing numbers of wildfires, mainly due to a reduction in prescribed burning. The recent Ferguson report recommended 60 000 hectares around buildings and 140 000 hectares of forest to try to protect the community and to reduce fuel loads. It has been well documented that prescribed burning plays a big part in making sure that we are able to control fires. I have spoken to a number of volunteer firefighters and the people in the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions who conduct the burning, and they have explained to me that they have had wildfires with a big fire front and crowning fires hit an area, or a forest block, that has been prescribed burned in recent years, and the fire is suppressed, and they can handle it. That is the benefit of prescribed burning. I was very concerned a few weeks ago when Hon Diane Evers tabled a petition in this place with the premise of reducing prescribed burning. The petition calls for a review of prescribed burning practices in Western Australia and is signed by 213 people. The petition goes on to say — • Removing the prescribed burning area target for the Forest Management Plan area of the South West and investigate alternative approaches that cause less detriment to our environment. • Increasing support for research and monitoring … and recovery time of prescribed burning … • Encouraging research into cost efficiency and effectiveness … comparing it to selective, risk assessed, strategic mitigation activities close to infrastructure and implement recommendations. • Supporting research and implementation of fire management technologies, particularly early detection and fast suppression … • Ending broad scale prescribed burning in the Conservation Estate … The petition proposes that we end broadscale prescribed burning in the conservation estate. It worries me that the petition refers to more research. It makes me wonder who wants the research grants to undertake this research. I would think that the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions has decades and decades of experience, and undertakes its own environmental science on prescribed burning and managing forests. Over the years, I have had been in regular contact with the groups Bushfire Front and Fire for Life in Manjimup. Those groups consist mainly of experienced retired foresters who have taken a big interest in making sure that we undertake prescribed burning as a way to manage forests. I think there is more than enough research and experience that shows we need prescribed burning for the health of our forests. It is of great concern to me that we have a petition of this nature and Hon Diane Evers’ statement last night about looking at alternatives to prescribed burning. The premise that we reduce prescribed burning worries me, and it is irresponsible. It is unsubstantiated that any method other than prescribed burning and reducing fuel loads is safe way to manage wildfires. Coming into the fire season, I think it is reckless and thoughtless. A lot of people have been affected by fire and our environment is affected by fire. The department undertakes cool prescribed burns through the forest floor. It mosaic burns to make sure that wildlife can escape, and the bush will regenerate quite quickly. When an intense wildfire roars through a forest, it devastates everything. Anyone who has seen the aftermath of a wildfire knows the devastation is just unbelievable; there is nothing left. The ground is white, the trees are black to the top and I am sure many, many thousands of plants and animals are destroyed forever. In fact, it was estimated that some of the karri trees burnt in the Northcliffe fires will never recover. Tens of thousands of trees were lost in that wildfire. Had those areas been prescribed burned earlier, maybe they could have been saved. Hon Diane Evers talked about prescribed burns every two years. I do not know any prescribed burning programs that run every two years. Generally, the rotation program for prescribed burning is somewhere around seven to 10 years. I do not know where that came from; I do not think any burning program requires every two years. But certainly, to burn on a regular basis with cool burns controlled by the department makes an enormous difference. I encourage the minister to continue the fine work that the department has been doing in undertaking prescribed burning on about 200 000 hectares of land each year. The department itself undertakes a very good job of those programs. Sometimes it has challenging times depending on weather patterns and those sorts of things, but throughout autumn we will see smoke in the hills, and sometimes people complain about the south-western smoke in the city, but it is for a very good purpose. I live in an extremely fire-prone area and all my neighbours and I at this point are putting in firebreaks and making sure that we are reducing fuel loads to try to keep the community in that district safe. I must admit that we look at that smoke with some comfort, knowing that the department is doing its job—a very fine job. I commend the minister in continuing that. I hope Hon Diane Evers pauses to think about how important it is that we have this level of prescribed burning and not embark on a journey of trying to reduce prescribed burning within the state. I think it is reckless, fraught and certainly inconsiderate of the community and the state.

5692 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

CORONAVIRUS — QUARANTINE ARRANGEMENTS Statement HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [5.40 pm]: Earlier this week, I rose to express my distress and anger at the way in which the quarantine arrangement, as well as the caps on the hard border, have been implemented in Western Australia. To reiterate, as I tried to make very clear at that point, the Greens are supportive of the principle of the hard border and of the need to have a 14-day quarantine for everyone who is arriving into the state. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and I am not interested in being misrepresented in that way. Having said that, the way it is being implemented in this state at the moment is appalling. There is huge room for improvement and we need to look at improving it. At the time, I made it very clear that I had a case example that I wanted to illustrate. I am very familiar with this case example because it is someone who is a very dear and precious friend of mine. I also know her family, so I know their personal circumstances really well and know exactly what the situation has been like for them, particularly for the past two weeks, but also in the time leading up to that. I thought it was very interesting that WAtoday published an article today titled “Perth family, including infant, ‘stranded at London airport for days’” and elements of that were remarkably similar to what occurred to my friend, and what has occurred to far too many Western Australians. It commences — A Perth mother of three—including an infant—says she and her family have been stranded at London’s Heathrow airport for three days after being bumped off flights in favour of business class travellers due to Australia’s caps on international arrivals. She talked about how she was seeing people booking business class tickets being able to get on ahead of her even though she had already booked her tickets, pointing out that she booked their flights before the international arrivals caps were introduced. That is exactly what happened to my friend. They had been trying to get back to Western Australia for a very long time. They managed to eventually book their flights, before the payment for compulsory quarantine arrangements came into place and before the caps were announced, yet this family found themselves absolutely trapped with the whole situation. They have had problems from the beginning until now. I look at the clock and I note that they are finally due to get out from quarantine in 11 minutes. I cannot wait to see them. Of the entry process, they report that the website is confusing and contains no information specifically for Australian citizens who are returning from overseas. The G2G PASS has no category for returning residents or citizens, meaning they had a choice of applying either on compassionate grounds or other, with no clarity about which one was appropriate for their circumstances. No information was available about what supporting documentation those people who were assessing the applications required, which means that most people are being rejected the first time, which is creating unnecessary stress, because people are not being told what they are supposed to provide. The G2G PASS and the WA entry email application both ask for flight details, which suggests that a flight needs to be booked before applying and gives the false impression that the state government is actually liaising with the airport, and a false assurance that if applicants have a pass and a ticket, they will be able to get home. They only realised that was not the case when they turned up at the airport and discovered that they had been bumped from their flight. Although the entry caps and therefore those who get on a flight are under federal government control, the lack of compassion and basic unwillingness of Labor government MPs to respond to multiple emails and social media messages after they were bumped from their flight and found themselves homeless at the airport only made the situation worse. That was absolutely devastating. It is worse for people when they are aware that a few high-profile cases have been allowed to home quarantine, but no guidance has been given to regular Western Australians as to how they can go about doing that. The Minister for Health’s office said that they can make an application, but there was no opportunity to do so. The police who issued the entry pass said that they would be assessed by a health person on arrival. The pass actually says that medical staff would liaise with them on their arrival into Western Australia, and that arrivals are to have any medical documentation outlining their medical condition with them to assist with the assessment. That was not the case. They had to begin the process of applying for home quarantine as a change of direction request after arriving. They arrived on Thursday evening two weeks ago and it took until late Friday to even get in touch with someone from the health minister’s office. They were told that they should have called the triage nurse on arrival. However, the arrival documentation suggested that that was only for emergencies. It took until Sunday to speak to someone from the WA Department of Health, who asked for supporting evidence that was different from what they had brought with them, because there was no guidance about what was needed. By day nine of quarantine they still had not had any response. Their original application included information about my friend’s husband, who has a disability and lives with post-traumatic stress disorder, but that was never passed on to anyone. When they arrived at the airport, my friend’s husband was in a wheelchair that had been organised by Qatar Airways, yet they were given no assistance beyond the airport or anything like that. It was quite clear that he had special needs related to his obvious disability, yet on arrival at the hotel they had to ask for some sort of trolley because it was basically just my friend and her 15-year-old daughter who were left to manage all the luggage without any assistance at all. They were not allocated or even asked about a room that had facilities for the disabled, or whether anything was required. The room that was eventually

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5693 allocated had no bath, nowhere comfortable to sit, no balcony and they were unable to open the windows. Those are three things that are medically required because her husband is on the maximum dose of painkillers. They were not even offered any facilities to assist with showering until many days later, and by the time it did arrive, it turned out to be a toilet seat. Even when, finally, a more “comfortable” chair was provided, it was a high-backed chair with padded arms, so it could not be used in any meaningful way. Instead, the onsite GP suggested that her husband take muscle relaxants and sleeping pills as a more useful short-term solution. Even then, the husband was not allowed to administer them himself, despite the fact that he is used to having to take a whole range of restricted drugs. The medication regime was absolutely inconsistent in terms of how it arrived. Some days, no medication at all arrived. In the first three days, the husband was asked to describe his PTSD symptoms and management strategies to three different people, which triggered flashbacks. That is not uncommon. It was completely pointless, because in the end nothing was done about it anyway. Nothing was ever done to ensure that there was a more appropriate room. There is a problem with people who turn up with children. On arrival, a couple with a 15-year-old young woman were offered simply a family room with two double beds. They had no real choice to ensure that they had something that was appropriate to share with a teenage girl for a fortnight. Previously, there were assurances that families would be allocated more appropriate facilities, but that did not happen. The daughter, who suffers from anxiety, ended up having a whole range of problems, particularly following what had happened with the cancelling of the flight. The other problem is that they still do not know exactly how much their quarantine is going to cost. They have been told that it is compulsory for them to pay for the food. I have spoken about the poor quality food that is being provided and the fact that they had to rely wholly on care packages, which were threatened to be searched. They had to ensure that they got a microwave because the food that was arriving was cold and inadequate. No options were provided. They are not going to get any exemption for that bill. There have been inconsistencies in the reporting about COVID and there has been a huge range of problems and a lack of clarity about how exemptions from the quarantine fees will be handled. They are just about to come out, and I cannot wait. This is just the beginning, because now we will have to go through the exemption process, because they should never have to pay these fees. APPLE APP STORE — PURCHASES Statement HON PIERRE YANG (South Metropolitan) [5.51 pm]: I wish to continue on from where I left off yesterday with my statement about the practice of the Apple App Store. I hasten to add that this happened on 2 September. After I realised that $114 had been charged to my credit card, I immediately went through Apple’s process to request a refund. I want to clarify what I said yesterday. Separate to that, I stumbled across a function on its website that enables people to report suspicious activities, and that is what I did. I was able to have a screen chat with someone from Apple and tell them about the situation that I was in. I also told them that I was hoping for an answer to why Apple is still allowing the app to be downloaded and, after many months of people complaining in their reviews, what it is going to do about those people who were scammed and lost money. The response I was given was a link if I wanted to leave feedback about it for Apple. Another response was that I could file a complaint or make a comment on iTunes by going to another link. I responded by saying — Parliament is sitting on Tuesday 8 September 2020, I hope to hear from Apple before then. I don’t give a toss about my $114.99, I want to know how Apple is going to ensure all those people who are already financially struggling and got conned by this nasty app. I was given the same response again—I do not know whether I was chatting with a person or a robot. I responded by saying — I see that you do not intend to pass this issue to your higher level. I will raise this in parliament on 8 September. thanks for your time. Obviously, I did not manage to do it on 8 September. It was a very long day and I thought it was probably inappropriate for me — Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Merciful. Hon PIERRE YANG: It was a very long day and it was a late night, so I decided to postpone my speech and I made it yesterday. Yesterday, I quoted a review from FoodTaka—that is the reviewer’s name—dated 21 August 2020. If I may, I wish to quote the review in full. The title is “$70 trick” and it states — Do not download! I did not agree to a $70 charge, but it signed me up. I’ve emailed Apple and the app developer to cancel the transaction. What I quoted yesterday was the update — Update: Apple processed the refund. Thank you Apple! Now please shut down this app so other people don’t fall for this scam.

5694 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

I think that this is an opportune time to seek leave to table these three reviews. Leave granted. [See paper 4189.] Hon PIERRE YANG: That happened on 2 September. After that conversation with Apple personnel, I contacted my bank, disputed the payment and then cancelled my card, and because I could not unsubscribe from that app, I deleted my Apple ID account. I am not going to worry about the time that I spent on it. I spent half an hour here or there that day to sort it out and probably wasted about three hours of my time, but that is what happens when you are not careful enough. To Apple’s credit, I got an email the day after. However, because my account had already been deleted, I could not log on to it. I called Apple and was asked to log on to my Apple account to see the response. I was told by Apple that my request for a refund was agreed to—granted, or words to that effect. I was given my money back. The easy option would have been to not mention it and to let it go, but I did not think that that was the right thing to do by my fellow Australians who have elected me to represent them in this chamber. It would have been irresponsible of me to let it go because I got my money back. That would not have been the right thing to do. I said to Apple, “That is very nice, but I still want to hear about what you will do for those people—a lot of them— who earn only $19.83 an hour and have lost $114.99 because they were not paying attention.” I do not know how much attention someone would need to pay to not be tricked by an app like this, which gives people little notice and few prompts. You click and then you lose your money. I think about all those people whose children are playing with their phone and see this pretty interesting app and go click, click, click and, as I said yesterday, they lose their money when the parent realises, “Oh, my goodness! What has happened to my money?” There are a lot of people in this country who still earn only $19.83 an hour. As I said yesterday, $114.99 is almost six hours of work. In 2004 and 2005, I worked in Coles as a night filler and was rostered on for three hours a day. That amount is equivalent to two hours of my time. There are a lot of people earning the minimum wage, who still only work three or four hours a day. That money could have paid for their groceries for a week. Imagine how many people would be very upset at being conned by this practice in this pandemic. I am proud to say that I am an Apple supporter, and through my action my family is. I have an iPhone and have had many iPhones in the past. I have not used any other phone since Nokia lost the smartphone race. My wife also has an iPhone, iPad and Apple computer. My parents-in-law each have an iPhone. My stepfather has an iPhone. My mother has not only an iPhone, but also an Apple Watch. She is the trendiest of us all. Apple is a great company, but its reputation is being undermined by this kind of practice. It really concerns me that this practice has been allowed since June 2019. Apple says on its website — It’s our store. And we take responsibility for it. We believe that what’s in our store says a lot about who we are. … We give developers a platform. And flexibility. Maybe a bit too much. It continues — We review every app and every update. When you download an app, it should work as promised. We carefully review each app and require developers to follow strict guidelines on privacy, design and business models. As part of our rigorous app review process, we use a combination of automated systems and hundreds of human experts. The following is the most important of all — We created the App Store Review Guidelines to provide clear guidance to developers on building the best apps for our customers. The five pillars of the guidelines—Safety, Performance, Business, Design and Legal … It seems that I am running out of time again. I will have to come back to this issue next week. I finish by saying that it would have been an easy option for me to just move on, but I do not think that that would be doing the right thing by the people who put their trust in me by electing me to this chamber. I recall Lieutenant General David Morrison’s words when I was in the Army. He said that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Hundreds and hundreds of Australians and thousands of people around the world have lost their money because an app has not been taken down and, unfortunately for some, those two days could be three days of their roster. House adjourned at 6.01 pm ______

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5695

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — BUS CONTRACT 3015. Hon Peter Collier to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the contract for the supply and delivery of buses to the Public Transport Authority tabled on 21 May 2020, and I ask: (a) what is the total value of local content in the contract; and (b) what is the total value of imported content in the contract? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) 62.9 per cent; and (b) 37.1 per cent. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT — COLLIE FUTURES FUND 3016. Hon Colin Holt to the Minister for Regional Development: (1) I refer to Collie Futures Industry Development Fund funding of $2 million to WesTrac – Autonomous Technology Training Centre, and I ask: (a) how much of the grant has been spent so far; (b) has a site been located; (c) what work has occurred on site; (d) if work has not commenced, when is the work due to begin; (e) when is work likely to be completed; and (f) when is the full project due to be completed? (2) I refer to Collie Futures Industry Development Fund funding of $777,650 to Bluewaters Farm Holdings – Industry Technology Centre, and I ask: (a) how much of the grant has been spent so far; (b) what work has occurred on site; (c) if work has not commenced, when is the work due to begin; (d) when is work likely to be completed; and (e) when is the full project due to be completed? (3) I refer to the various grants available for the electorate of Collie–Preston, and I ask: (a) referring to the Collie Futures Industry Development Fund grants: (i) how many applications were unsuccessful in Round 1; (ii) were unsuccessful applicants encouraged to apply for Round 2; (iii) when will applications for Round 2 close; (iv) when will successful applicants for Round 2 be announced; (v) can the Minister confirm that part of the criteria is that “projects applying to this fund must have an impact on the regional economy within a journey-to-work zone of up to 50 kilometres from the Collie townsite”; and (vi) if yes to (v), how many applicants were unsuccessful for Collie Futures Industry Development Fund but within the following radii from the Collie Town Centre: (A) 10–20km; (B) 20–30km; (C) 30–40km; and (D) 40–50km; and (b) referring to the Collie Futures Small Grants Program: (i) how many applications were unsuccessful in Round 1;

5696 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020]

(ii) were unsuccessful applicants encouraged to apply for Round 2; (iii) when will applications for Round 2 close; (iv) when will successful applicants for Round 2 be announced; (v) can the Minister confirm that “Funding for events will be considered where they demonstrate an economic benefit the Collie region (50km)”; and (vi) if yes to (v), how many applicants were unsuccessful for Collie Futures Industry Development Fund but within the following radii from the Collie Town Centre: (A) 10–20km; (B) 20–30km; (C) 30–40km; and (D) 40–50km? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: (1) (a) $1 800 000 (b) Yes. (c) Purchase of autonomous haul truck, Information Technology (IT) equipment, software installation, security equipment and classroom equipment. (d) Not applicable. (e) The work is completed. (f) The project is completed. (2) (a) $777 650 (b) Civil and building infrastructure to accommodate entry roads, parking, buildings, power, waste and wastewater disposal infrastructure, and security fencing necessary to establish an autonomous vehicle training centre. (c) Not applicable. (d) The work is completed. (e) The project is completed. (3) (a) (i)–(iv) The Collie Futures Industry Development Fund is a $18 million rolling fund with no funding rounds. The program will close once program funds have been exhausted. The program includes a two Stage application process. Stage 1 includes the submission of a project proposal for consideration. Projects that meet all eligibility criteria and strongly address the outcomes and requirements of the program, are invited to Stage 2 full business case development. Funding announcements are made once Ministerial approval of the business case has been received. Unsuccessful applicants are provided with feedback by the SWDC and JTSI as appropriate. They are given the option to resubmit an application should they choose. (v)–(vi) Yes, an eligibility pre-requisite of the Fund, as outlined in the program guidelines is that projects are required to be delivered within a 50km radius from the Collie Townsite. To date, there have been 2 unsuccessful applicants from within the 50km radius and therefore were not invited to submit a Stage 2 business case. (b) (i)–(iv) The Collie Futures Small Grants Program is a $2 million rolling fund with no funding rounds. The Program will continue until 2022 or until all funding has been exhausted. Funding announcements are made once Ministerial approval has been received. Announcements are generally made shortly after approvals. Unsuccessful applicants are provided with feedback by the SWDC. They are given the option to resubmit an application should they choose. (v) Yes, in the Guidelines, under Objectives of the Program, it states “Funding for events will be considered where they demonstrate an economic benefit the Collie region (50km).” (vi) Yes, an eligibility pre-requisite of the Fund, as outlined in the program guidelines is that projects are required to demonstrate an economic benefit within a 50km radius of the Collie Townsite. To date, there have been 32 unsuccessful applicants from within the 50km radius of the Collie Townsite.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 10 September 2020] 5697

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT — COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES 3040. Hon Diane Evers to the Minister for Regional Development: Will the Minister please provide the names of current and past community, local government and/or farming representatives on the following committees: (a) Southern Forests Irrigation Co-operative Limited (SFIC); (b) Southern Forests Water Futures Steering Group; (c) Southern Forests Water Futures Grower Group; and (d) SuperTowns Manjimup Agriculture Expansion Project Steering Committee? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: (a) The Southern Forest Irrigation Co-operative Limited is a cooperative formed on 25 May 2017 under the Co-operatives Act 2009 (WA). Registers of members and directors of the cooperative are kept under, and governed by, the terms of that Act. The regime under the Co-operatives Act 2009 (WA) does not contemplate the disclosure or use of information on a co-operative’s registers other than by its members and in accordance with strict statutory parameters. However, the Southern Forest Irrigation Co-operative Limited website identifies the current directors as being Mr Harvey Giblett (Chair), Mark Bending (Secretary), Travis Luzny, Justin Omodei, Bob Pessotto and Paul Robinson. (b)–(c) The Southern Forests Water Futures is a project and not a body. The governance of this project comprised of a Southern Forests Water Futures Steering Group, formed between May 2015 and June 2019, and a Southern Forests Water Futures Grower Group, formed between February 2016 and September 2016. The past local government and/or farming representatives on the Southern Forests Water Futures Steering Group were, Mr Paul Omodei, Mr Travis Luzny, Mr Beavan Eatts and Mr Harvey Giblett; and for the Southern Forests Water Futures Grower Group were Mr Travis Luzny, Mr Justin Omodei, Mr Brad Ipsen, Mr Roy McDowall, Mr Michael Campbell and Mr Mark Bending. (d) The Royalty for Regions (SuperTowns) Development Project for Manjimup ended in March 2019, and was a project and not a body. The governance of this project was undertaken by the SuperTowns Manjimup Agriculture Expansion Project Steering Committee that was overseen by the Shire of Manjimup. The past local government representative for the SuperTowns Manjimup Agriculture Expansion Project Steering Committee was Mr Jeremy Hubble and then Mr Andrew Campbell. ______