Legislative Council
Thursday, 27 June 2002
THE PRESIDENT (Hon J.A. Cowdell) took the Chair at 10.00 am, and read prayers. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE Statement by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [10.02 am]: On behalf of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I am pleased to inform the Parliament that the Executive Council meeting on Tuesday morning ratified Cabinet’s decision to appoint Mr Greg Martin as the Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. In this role, Mr Martin will be responsible for coordinating services and policies that reflect the Government’s vision for integration and modernisation of land use and transport planning. Mr Martin is an outstanding administrator who we believe will bring to the position valuable experience in overseeing organisational change. He has demonstrated a very considerable team-building capacity. As Commissioner of Main Roads since 1999, Mr Martin has seen Main Roads become a more open and unity-focused organisation. He has also worked to strengthen Main Roads’ professional and managerial capacities and implemented a program of recruitment of young technical and professional staff to address the agency’s ageing staff profile. Mr Martin has had a considerably long involvement in transport and planning, not only in his role in Main Roads, but prior to that as the Chief Executive Officer of MetroBus and the Executive Director of Metropolitan Transport at the Department of Transport. In applying to become the first substantive Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, Mr Martin has accepted the challenge of completing the integration of the State Government’s land use and transport planning and regulating functions. If the community is to gain better planning outcomes from this process, there must be a fusion of the agencies, not simply an amalgamation of functions. The Government has also embarked on a process of engaging the community in a far more fundamental way. Mr Martin has in his role as commissioner played a very constructive role in ensuring the process is effective. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure looks forward to working with him to achieve these outcomes for the citizens of Western Australia. Mr Martin will commence duties as Director General on 29 July 2002. Finally, we wish to thank most sincerely Mr Mike Harris for his significant contribution while acting as Director General of the department since July 2001. Mr Harris took on the challenging role of bringing together very different cultures of the Department of Transport and the Ministry for Planning for the first time, and we are most appreciative of his endeavours. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson. JOHN CURTIN’S HOUSE, COTTESLOE Statement by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [10.05 am]: I have another statement to make on behalf of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The former residence of Australia’s celebrated wartime leader, John Curtin, at 24 Jarrad Street, Cottesloe is a heritage property of national significance. It was purchased by the State in 1999 for $520 000. The Department of Land Administration acquired the property and arranged its interim management before being placed with the managing body consisting of Curtin University of Technology and the National Trust of Australia (WA). The National Trust and Curtin University agreed to accept management of the property, but needed to ensure that there were funds available to assist with the refurbishment of the house. Our Government, through DOLA, has recognised the need to make a real commitment to this important site and has contributed $73 000 to the National Trust and an additional $35 000 will be made available through the Heritage Council of Western Australia to enable the maintenance issues to be addressed. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has requested that the National Trust provide a plan of the works to be undertaken with that money. Progress reports on the expenditure of these funds for accountability purposes will also be required. In view of the $108 000 maintenance contribution by Government to carry out essential maintenance, DOLA now anticipates it can pass management of this significant heritage property to the National Trust and Curtin University in the very near future. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson. The PRESIDENT: Members, I was pleased to hear those ministerial statements on the basis that I had cause to refer to the ministry the fact that many statements were made in another place and never made their way to this place. I am pleased that we are starting to get some statements that should be made to the Chamber from time to time.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12145
MR IAN ALLNUTT, DEPUTY CLERK AND USHER OF THE BLACK ROD Retirement HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [10.08 am]: I move without notice - That this House takes this opportunity on his last day of service as an officer at the Table to place on record its sincere appreciation and thanks to Ian Allnutt, the Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Council, for the dedicated and highly professional service that he has rendered to this Parliament in the past 35 years and for the unfailing personal integrity that he has maintained in the discharge of the duties of his office, and expresses the wish that he will experience good health and enjoyment of life in the years ahead. Mr President, I will speak briefly to the motion. If I can presume to speak for all of us in the House, both members and parliamentary staff, I thank Ian Allnutt very much above all else for his friendship. Members: Hear, hear! HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [10.09 am]: I also add to the comments of the Leader of the House. This motion is very well put together. It describes in a magnificent way the contribution that Ian Allnutt has made to this Chamber. It refers to his dedicated and highly professional service. There is no question about that. As members know, I am now called the father of the House. I have not been here anywhere near as long as Ian, but I have known him for quite a long time. When I first became a member of Parliament, Ian had been here for about 10 years, and he was very helpful and supportive of me as a new member. He and I have become very good friends over the years. We have even played a couple of games of golf together. The motion talks about Ian experiencing good health and enjoyment in his life ahead. I know that in his well-earned retirement, he will spend a lot of time on the golf course. I have every intention of joining him on as many occasions as possible. I am not quite sure, in the context of my own career, how long it will be before we can enjoy those times together. Ian has also spoken about hiring or buying a caravan and heading off to wonderful places around Australia, all of which will, of course, have a golf course. He intends to thoroughly enjoy his retirement with his family. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank Ian for a magnificent job well done. I congratulate Ian most sincerely on the work he has done for this Parliament. His sincerity and dignity have always been obvious to us all. We wish Ian a very happy retirement. I hope he gets significant enjoyment from those great things that he enjoys doing. Members: Hear, hear! HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [10.10 am]: On behalf of the Greens (WA), I also thank Ian sincerely for the support he offered me as a new member of this place. I am sure other members join me in acknowledging that that is a very important contribution to the steep learning curve that all new members face when they join this Chamber. I join in wishing Ian all the best for his future and with whatever he does with his retirement. I hope Ian enjoys his trip, and we wish him all the very best for the future. HON PADDY EMBRY (South West) [10.11 am]: I am a very new member of a new party of this place. As such, One Nation has not had the benefit of Ian’s past experience, but he has been very helpful and considerate to us, and certainly to me in particular. I am sure that most members will be quite envious of Ian when we occasionally receive postcards from wherever he might be. We wish Ian all the best. THE PRESIDENT (Hon J.A. Cowdell): In supporting this motion from the Chair, I would like to say a few words. Speakers have referred to Ian’s integrity, dedication and, of course, his neutrality. That is all on the record. Other members have referred to the aid and support he has given to them. He has, of course, been a fount of information. Most members who have been in the Chair know of Ian’s assistance, particularly with standing orders and procedures. He has always been ready to prompt the Chair for the appropriate response or ruling and, even when the Chair did not get it right, he would indicate that Hansard would record it appropriately, and that it was done according to Hoyle. Of course, there is also the meticulous work he has done. Following the amendments in this Chamber is difficult on occasion. Ian has been meticulous in his work with the amendments and has precisely kept the records and conveyed our views to the Assembly. Of course, we do not forget the more difficult elements of service, when one must rise to the occasion. Ian has appeared in the buckled shoes and sword on the opening day of each parliamentary session, put up with the outrageous comments of members, and still survived each opening ceremony as gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. As members will be aware, Ian’s role as Usher of the Black Rod also pertains to a role as enforcer. He was Sergeant-at-Arms in the Assembly. That was fine training for when he had to apprehend Brian Mahon Easton. I recall the evening news report and the footage of the media car drawing alongside. There was the Usher of the Black Rod speeding to apprehend this personage and, without the benefit of police assistance, conveying him to Casuarina Prison. Ian has indeed played a varied role. We also value Ian as a source of information in the sense of the stories of the Chamber. We will have to get the oral historians to him promptly to record some of those stories, which are indeed brilliant, but we will not venture onto those at the moment.
12146 [COUNCIL]
Ian has become an institution. He has now served this Parliament, on this his last parliamentary sitting day, for just under 36 years. I made the comment, foolishly relying on the new parliamentary handbook, that it was 35 years, but Ian pointed out to me that of course the parliamentary handbook was incorrect in this regard. As I say, he has a remarkable record of service. I am sure we will all look forward to some more stories and comments from Ian when we gather on 5 July, which is his last working day at Parliament, to wish him well. I add my commendation to the motion, which I now put. Question put and passed. [Applause.] ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Paper Resumed from 26 June on the following motion moved by Hon N.D. Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming) - That pursuant to Standing Order No 49(1)(c), the Council take note of tabled paper No 1428 (2002-03 Budget Statements), laid upon the Table of the House on 16 May 2002. HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan) [10.17 am]: I intend to give a traditional budget speech. The historical reason annual grants of revenue were made to the Crown was that it was the only opportunity the people had to complain about the multitude of grievances they had against the Crown. They would not give that money until such time as the king had agreed to hand over or deal with a certain person, or had satisfied their grievances, often by enactment, which became known as an Act of Parliament. The people made certain that they had this annual opportunity to air their grievances by only ever giving the Crown the money for a year. I have a grievance about the Crown. The particular area of the Crown I wish to complain about involves a number of its ministers. Hon Simon O’Brien: Just pick on the worst 14. Hon PETER FOSS: I have only four points that I wish to make. I will ask that the Attorney General be dismissed for his breach of ministerial oath, his dereliction of duty as first law officer and his blatant use of confidential information for party political purposes. I will discuss the involvement of the Minister for Health in the Mickelberg trial, but I do not intend to make that a major part of my speech, except to explain why I am upset with the Attorney General. The Minister for Health will face questions about what he did, in another place, and the answers will be determined in another place. However, we cannot understand what the Attorney General has done unless we understand the questions that will be asked of the Minister for Health. I will look at that and give members some understanding of that. Secondly, I will say that the Minister for Health should be stood aside by the Premier pending those answers being given. The role of the Premier is unclear. However, by now, he should be in no doubt that he was led a merry dance by the Attorney General, and if he does not immediately dismiss the Attorney General and stand Mr Kucera down, he will be plainly complicit in the cover-up and interference in the royal commission and obstruction of justice that the Attorney General has - if he has not already - become complicit in. Finally, I will call on the Government to immediately extend the terms of reference of the royal commission to include an inquiry into the role of the Government in dealing with the Lewandowski affidavit and its release along with transcripts and statements to the Minister for Health and others, and its leakage to the media. I have a lot of documents here, although I hope not to have to read them out to the House. I will, to the extent possible, rely on my memory and merely take a few excerpts to prove the points that I make. The reason is that I believe this is not the place for a minute examination of the evidence; this is a place to look at the gross nature of the facts that have occurred. I now have some of the transcripts of the 1998 appeal and of the 1983 Mickelberg trial. Again, I will not go into great detail about those, simply because I have not had the chance to read them completely. Also, I want to draw to the attention of the House those matters that are clearly obvious to anybody giving this the slightest amount of attention. I do not want to say that, from a minute examination of all the words, this is what can come out; I want to tell members what should have been obvious to the Attorney General when he was given those same papers by the Solicitor General on the weekend of 8 and 9 June. I want members to understand why the Attorney General suddenly went into an absolute frenzy of activity, which included trying to contact the Premier wherever he was - including in those most improbable of places, at home at 6.00 pm on a Friday night. I would have thought that was the last place he would look to find a Premier at 6.00 pm on a Friday night, but that was one of the places he tried. He finally caught up with the Premier at midnight Sydney time, which is where the Premier was. His frenzy also included multiple calls to the Minister for Health until he finally contacted him, and then several discussions with the Minister for Health, including one at which he met with him and handed to him the Lewandowski affidavit, which he had received from the Solicitor General, plus a whole lot of other documents that he had also received from the Solicitor General. They included the transcripts of Mr Kucera’s evidence in 1998 and, as I understand from what the Attorney General has said elsewhere, other transcripts of what other witnesses had said at that appeal and possibly at the original trial. As soon as I heard that he had these documents - he was in the other place boasting about how he was so diligent that he spent the whole weekend reading transcripts - I wondered where he had got them from, because he did not tell us. Mr President, I can tell you that those things do not suddenly become available. It has taken the Opposition, for instance, nearly three
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12147 weeks to get them from the Attorney General. However, having first learnt on Thursday night of the Lewandowski affidavit, the Attorney General had them on Friday and the Minister for Health had them on Saturday. How did the Attorney General get them so quickly? It was obvious to me the Solicitor General had come to him with those transcripts. The question members must ask is, why? The Premier and the Attorney General in the other place consistently said that the Lewandowski affidavit made no mention of the Minister for Health - to Sergeant Bob Kucera or to Assistant Commissioner Kucera; he is not implicated. One wonders why they were so loud in saying that, if that was the case. How did the Attorney General, brilliantly, suddenly think that the Minister for Health would be subject to a cheap political attack? How did that strike his mind? What was it that caused the Attorney General to go into that frenzy and to contact the Minister for Health to give him all those documents, yet he did not contact the Minister for Police? If something were coming up about police corruption, I would have thought if the Attorney General contacted anybody, his first thought would be the Minister for Police. No, she was not consulted; the Minister for Health was. By the time I get to the end of my speech it will be patently clear why that was the case. Hon Norman Moore: You might also find that nobody from the Labor Party is in here. Hon PETER FOSS: Attendance is rather sparse. I know they do not like hearing about their hero. Hon Norman Moore: They do not spend much time in here either. Hon Sue Ellery: That is not fair. Hon PETER FOSS: Hon Sue Ellery is a notable exception. Most of the time, she is the only person in here and I give her credit for that. She is a lonely soul on the government benches. It seemed to me obvious, when I heard that Mr Lewandowski had said this. When I learnt that Assistant Commissioner Bob Kucera had given evidence at the 1998 appeal to the effect that he had seen notes being taken during the interview, put with the suggestion that no notes were taken, which is what Lewandowski said in his affidavit, that could not have happened, there had to be a dispute. I did not know that Assistant Commissioner Bob Kucera gave evidence in 1998. What I intend to do honourable members is to take this story through from two points of view. The first is from the point of view of an ordinary member of the public and what the public learnt from the papers about what happened, and then to go into the detail from the point of view of someone who happened to have a little extra specialist knowledge of what happened. Let us go back in time. In 1982 there was the Perth Mint swindle and, ultimately, the Mickelbergs were charged with that. During that investigation, Peter Mickelberg was taken to the Belmont CIB office. The officer in charge there was Sergeant Bob Kucera. He was taken into Sergeant Bob Kucera’s room. I do not fully understand this, but I take the word of the Attorney General that it is very important to understand the layout of this office. He was saying this on the Tuesday in Parliament, so obviously he had read the transcript very carefully. After I had read the transcripts I understood the importance to him of the layout of the office and why he said that. Obviously, when the Attorney General spoke in Parliament on the Tuesday it is clear that he had read that part of the transcript. He said that he had been reading the transcripts, and he proved it by saying it was important to know the layout of Sergeant Bob Kucera’s office. That was raised in the appeal. There was an interview room off Sergeant Kucera’s office. The interview room was very small, not big enough to swing a cat or, it would seem now, a punch. They went in there. One of questions that everybody asks is, why go there? We have had that answered in the newspaper. Somebody said that when detectives want to rough up people they take them into one of the suburban offices and do it there. Sergeant Bob Kucera moved out and let them have his office. By Mickelberg’s account, he was stripped naked, initially put in the little room, pulled out by his throat and “punched up”. The Court of Criminal Appeal outlined that no notes were taken and at the end, he was put back in a little room and Sergeant Kucera came in. Mickelberg complained about being beaten and Sergeant Kucera said, “Don’t tell me; I cannot do anything about it.” In 1998 a Court of Criminal Appeal trial was held because my colleague Hon Cheryl Edwardes, the then Attorney General, had given leave for the matter to go to the Supreme Court and when I became Attorney General I provided the funds to the Mickelbergs for that appeal. It became known at some stage during the hearing that there were problems. At the interview with Mr Mickelberg, Mr Lewandowski supposedly took notes that indicated the questions and answers. At completion of the interview, it was acknowledged by Mr Mickelberg that that was the case, but he refused to sign the document. Some evidence then emerged that Lewandowski had been getting drunk and confessing that Mickelberg had been stitched up. It then emerged that, to their horror, an English expert had submitted the notes to what was called electrostatic deposit analysis, which could reveal the order in which the notes were written. I am sure members will recall reading this in the newspaper. I will now deal with what the public can recall. Notes written on pages that belong in a pad of paper create an imprint on the pages underneath. As a result, a clear record or, I suppose, a palimpsest on the notes underneath show the order in which they were written. Unfortunately for Sergeant Lewandowski and Detective Sergeant Don Hancock, the expert
12148 [COUNCIL] who did the ESDA indicated that the notes had been substantially rewritten. That caused some concern for Mr Lewandowski and Mr Hancock. However, they worried not. One of the good things about being a policeman is that if a policeman gets into trouble with his evidence he can always produce some more! The West Australian of Friday, 8 May 1998 reports - “I was wrong: ex-CIB head”. A former head of the police CIB changed his evidence in court yesterday - admitting that he got his events out of sequence in a 1982 interview with convicted Perth Mint gold swindler, Peter Mickelberg. Donald Hancock, now retired from the police, apologised to the Court of Criminal Appeal for not paying sufficient attention to the details when he swore an affidavit for the court this year. But Mr Hancock rejected a suggestion from Peter Mickelberg’s lawyer that he changed his evidence only to bring it into line with expert document examiners who studied the 14 pages of handwritten notes. An expert said that he could prove that the evidence was wrong, so the detectives had adjusted it to bring it into line with the expert document examiners. What a suggestion! To continue - He said he realised at the weekend that he had got things wrong - That was 16 years after the event. and told lawyers from the Director of Public Prosecutions on Tuesday afternoon. Is that not nice? Further on the article reads - This week, Robert Radley from Reading in England, testified that impressions from page 14 were on the rewritten page two. One page had been on top of the other at a particular angle. Mr Radley said that, after what was said to have been a break to read the document, it would have been an enormous coincidence for page two to have been put under page 14 again at exactly the same angle before the interview continued. Yesterday, Mr Hancock testified that a 20-minute break - when Mr Lewandowski rewrote some pages and the notes were read to Peter Mickelberg - occurred later. Mr Hancock said he did not ask Mr Lewandowski why he was rewriting the pages but as soon as Mr Lewandowski finished, the document was read to Peter Mickelberg. He never checked the rewritten pages and did not know what happened to the originals. Is that not nice. Peter Mickelberg has always said that no notes were taken. Now Mr Lewandowski has confessed that he concocted them later. However, in 1998 they had another story. An article in The West Australian of 7 May reads - An expert document examiner suggested yesterday that there had been a wholesale refabrication of a police interview . . . . The article indicates further on that there were no impressions from page 1 on page 2, no impressions from page 2 on page 3 and no impressions from page 3 on page 4. Page 4 contained many impressions from a different page 3 and some from different pages 1 and 2. Impressions from page 14 were found on page 2. Page 14 was in different ink and produced at a different time from the other pages. Pages 2 and 3 were written on a different surface. Mr Lewandowski’s reason for rewriting them at that stage was that the handwriting was illegible. Mr Richard Radley of Reading said that that was nonsense; there was no difference in the legibility of writing on those pages from that on all the others. At that stage the situation for Lewandowski and Hancock was not looking too good. It seemed possible that they might not convince the Supreme Court that they were telling the truth. It looked suspicious. No mention had been made of the rewriting. Expert evidence indicated that there was rewriting and a different story was given to explain it. It sounded a little bit false. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Especially when you know that the so-called allegation that they had read the confession to Peter Mickelberg did not match his record. Hon PETER FOSS: That is interesting. They knew that, and we also now know that they knew that Mickelberg was correct and that they had lied. This is the difference. They did not know what view the court would form, but they did know the truth. We know that Lewandowski knew that Mickelberg did not do that and he knew that he needed to fabricate more evidence. It is easy to see things in hindsight with 20-20 vision. What was in the minds of those two crooked detectives in 1998 when they were caught out, and had to fabricate some evidence, but did not know what the Court of Criminal Appeal would do? In that situation one brings in the cavalry; and the cavalry came, magnificent in uniform, silver braid and probably gloves - I do not know about the gloves, that is a little elaboration on my part - in the form of an impressive character no less than the Assistant Commissioner of Police. He gave evidence. Sergeant Bob had been examined by police internal investigations in 1985 and had made a statement because allegations had been
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12149 made by Peter Mickelberg that he had been stripped naked and beaten and that the confession had been fabricated. We now know that there is a high probability that those allegations are correct. He had been questioned about it, because he was the officer in charge, but at that stage he very kindly corroborated the fact that he had been in and he had seen them. I say that because I have derived it from the documents; I have not actually seen that statement because the documents have not been given to us. I am waiting to get them; there may be another interesting instalment, but that is what I understand it is all about. Hon Derrick Tomlinson interjected. Hon PETER FOSS: Yes, his original statement was that he went away. The interesting part is that he said he entered the room three times during the interview. This is all put up in an affidavit which is tendered as evidence in chief. It is marvellous; it is really fine detail. He was not a light witness; he was a very strong witness. He gave evidence the first time about making notes, the second time about making notes and reading them back, and the third time they were read back - marvellous detail! Interestingly, I am reminded of Pooh-Bah. Those who are Gilbert and Sullivan fans will recall the situation in which residents of the town of Titipu are in trouble with the Mikado because they had not executed somebody, so they agree to say that they have. When the Mikado turns up, they supply in great detail how this criminal was executed, and Pooh-Bah provides wonderful detail and says that after the head was cut off it had bowed to him three times in deference. They then find out that the person they supposedly executed was the Mikado’s son. They thought it was a bit difficult to explain to the Mikado how they had executed his son, but then not be executed themselves because they executed his son. There is a bit of recrimination between the three who gave these wonderful descriptions, but the one I think suits Sergeant Bob is this - Ko. Well, a nice mess you’ve got us into, with your nodding head and the deference due to a man of pedigree! This is the answer which I think aptly tells what happens - Pooh. Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. Is that not exactly what happened in 1998? Pooh-Bah strode into the court and gave corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: In other words, a lie. Hon PETER FOSS: I have not said that; that will be determined elsewhere. But it worked! For that reason and for other reasons the appeal was dismissed. One of the things we should understand about this is that there were many other reasons the Mickelbergs could be convicted, which the court in fact upheld, but at the time of the appeal, Lewandowski and Hancock did not know that was what the court would do. They were very concerned about their supposed confession being undermined and removed. They were not to know what the court would say, but they did know it would be handy to have the assistant commissioner give evidence. As I said, I did not know that Assistant Commissioner Kucera gave evidence. I have checked the papers and cannot find any reference to the fact that he did, which is strange. All the other witnesses seem to be mentioned in the papers, but he is not. I do not think there is anything sinister about that; I just mention it, because I did not know. I have checked with my staff and they did not know; I have checked with the Minister for Police at the time and he did not know; I have checked with a later Minister for Police and he did not know. I just wanted to get a bit of an idea about what the public knew about this. I do not know whether Mr McGinty knew more, whether he was aware that Assistant Commissioner Kucera - or if I can call him Sergeant Bob Kucera, because that was his relevant title - gave evidence, but we do know that he knew after Thursday night, on 6 June, when he was briefed by the Solicitor General. That is when the Attorney General went into a frenzy. He met with the Minister for Health and said, “Have these documents.” He said in the other House, “I spent the whole weekend reading transcripts; I have familiarised myself with the layout of the Belmont CIB station”, and at the same time the Attorney General and the Premier keep standing up in the other House saying that there was no mention in Lewandowski’s affidavit of the Minister for Health. They parroted it all the way through. Obviously, what would be said had been agreed. They kept hammering the point, “He is not mentioned; he is not involved”. However, he was. He was involved because his evidence corroborated that of the crooked detectives and was inconsistent with the new version, and was inconsistent with the consistent version that Peter Mickelberg gave at the 1983 trial. It must follow that the now Minister for Health will have to be questioned about that; he cannot get away from it. Blind Freddy, without the benefit of a briefing from the Solicitor General, could see that. The Solicitor General could see that. They tried to tell me they were not advised by the Solicitor General that Kucera was involved. Rubbish! What sort of a lawyer do they think the Solicitor General is? What sort of dumbcluck do they think I am to believe it? Nobody with half a brain would have missed the point: Hang on, did Bob not give some evidence that was going to be undermined by this; will he not have to give an explanation? He may give an explanation. I can see the explanation already, because I can see Lewandowski now saying, “Well, we did take some notes, and he could have come in.” That was not what he said in 1983; that is inconsistent with what he said in 1983. I am not surprised that Mr Lewandowski is making it up as he goes along. He appears to have always made it up as he went along. The concern is that Sergeant Bob did too. If this is a valuable document for use for inquiry by the royal commission, give me the name of one person in the whole world - only one name - to whom that affidavit should not have been given. There is only one
12150 [COUNCIL] person who under no circumstances should have been given that affidavit, and that was the first person to be given it. There is no doubt in my mind that the Minister for Health should have been examined about his evidence in 1998 without the benefit of the knowledge that what he had said had been undermined by Lewandowski. However, he was given the affidavit and all supporting documentation including his previous evidence in the Court of Criminal Appeal, his previous affidavit, his previous statement and I understand - I have not yet seen it - other transcripts of evidence from the appeal in the 1983 trial. Why? We did get an explanation in the first instance from the Attorney General - I think one that he now regrets - on radio. He said he gave the Minister for Health the documents so that he could prepare his version of the events and tell the truth! Little did the Attorney know how truly he had described these events and how truly he had described his acts. He did it - he said this too - because he was a colleague. He said he did it to allow him to prepare his version of the events. He did it - if I may substitute my words - to allow him to prepare some corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. Here we have a document that was given, as I understand it, in confidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As we know, the DPP has an independent prosecutorial function. The Director of Public Prosecutions obviously regarded this as so important that he hand-carried the file to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General on Thursday night briefed the Attorney General. So far, one would think that we are dealing with people who have a clear idea of their duties as independent prosecuting officers. When I was Attorney General, on more than one occasion I received confidentially - I do not think they were confidential; in fact, people wanted me to publicise them - documents that would have been evidence of police corruption. I handed those documents immediately to the Anti-Corruption Commission and the police, intending that the people be examined on the matters raised in those documents without being aware of what was in the hands of the examiners. I did not tell any of my colleagues in Cabinet. The reason I did not tell them is that I did not think it appropriate that matters of that confidential nature be bandied around. As Attorney General, in matters relating to prosecution, one has not only the right but also the duty to remain independent of Cabinet. Politically, I am sure my colleagues in Cabinet would have liked to know that some sort of bombshell was coming out about police corruption. I am sure the then Minister for Police would have loved to know, just to have advance notice. However, I did not tell him, because I did not believe it was within my capacity, professional duty and ministerial oath. A minister swears an oath to administer his or her portfolio without fear or favour and not to use it for his or her own advantage. However, the mind of this minister, who calls himself the Attorney General, flew instantly to looking after Bob. That is a breach of his duty. It is a disgraceful departure from ministerial standards. It certainly does not match what that hypocrite of a Premier says he demands of his ministry. The Premier now knows the situation. Why does he not dismiss this man? He now knows that Pooh-Bah gave evidence that will be questioned. Why does he not set him aside? I am not saying Bob Kucera will be found guilty, but with a bit of luck he will now get off! In some ways I am sorry for former Sergeant Kucera, because now the world will never know whether the story that he will tell before the royal commission and the Court of Criminal Appeal is fabricated, based on the ample notice that has been given to him by the first law officer, or is the truth. We will never know. If he gets off, rather than get off on the merits, people will say, “Well, he would not have got off if they had been able to spring it on him”. There will always be a sneaking suspicion that the reason he got off is that he was given ample time to prepare and get all the corroborative detail. I am a bit sorry for Mr Kucera. Whether I remain sorry will depend on how the evidence comes out in the royal commission and the Court of Criminal Appeal. At the moment, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am sorry for him. If he gets off, his name will never be cleared, because no-one will ever know why he got off. I went to the other place and watched the smirking of the Attorney General as he told us about how he had spent his time reading the transcript and said, “Have you read the transcript? I have read the transcript. I have spent a lot of time reading the transcript. I know all about this”, and as he stood up and tried to act in a very superior way about how he knows what it is all about and we do not. The difference between the Attorney General and me is that I know how to behave - Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The parliamentary secretaries will come to order. I give them one warning now. We have followed this debate in silence, and if the two parliamentary secretaries want to interject, they will be leaving the Chamber the next time they do it. Hon PETER FOSS: I give the Attorney General credit for diligently studying the transcript. He also had the benefit perhaps of being directed to the correct places by the Solicitor General. I asked the Attorney General in a question on notice whether the Solicitor General had advised him - because remember he made a big point of saying he had asked the Solicitor General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the royal commission before he released the Lewandowski affidavit to the public - before he released that affidavit to the Minister for Health. I got a lovely answer. Keep in mind that throughout all this the Premier and the Attorney General have been making a big play about how they will tell all the story; we can ask them any question, and they will answer it. The record does not show that. As soon as I asked about that, the Attorney General said that discussions between him and the Solicitor General are legally privileged. They are. He was prepared to tell us about everything else that he had been told by the Solicitor General. When it suited him, he was fulsome in his description of his discussions with the Solicitor General. However, when it came to asking about what advice he had been given by the Solicitor General, suddenly it was privileged.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12151
I then asked a question on notice about why one thing is privileged and the other is not. I asked the Attorney General for an assurance that he did not receive advice from the Solicitor General. That is when I received this really fascinating answer. I still intend to try to find out what happened. Having asked for an assurance, I received the answer that the Solicitor General had advised the Attorney General that Kucera was involved in the 1998 appeal. That is what I call an ambiguous answer. It does not actually address the point. When I got the written copy of that answer, it had on it the word “Yes”, meaning “Yes, I can assure you I was not told.” However, the word “Yes” had been crossed out, and the answer that I was given was written in the Attorney General’s handwriting. That is curious, I thought. That may mean a couple of things. He has crossed out “Yes”. Does that mean “No”? Does that mean “Yes, but he did tell me that he was involved in the 1998 appeal, but he did not tell me anything else”? We do not know. I asked about that yesterday, and I will follow up on it. What one really needs to know is whether the Attorney General is being a bit dodgy or evasive. We will find out, no doubt, in due course. The reality of the matter is that I believe it is clear from the record that he was told by the Solicitor General that Bob Kucera was to be examined, because his evidence had been called into doubt, and that is why he went straight to Bob Kucera to tell him all about it. I intend to keep going on this matter, because we still have a mystery. I asked the Attorney General whether the answer means yes or no. The answer I was given yesterday was - To the best of my knowledge I did not type or cross out the word “Yes.” The Attorney General did not type the word “Yes”. I believe him. However, somebody crossed out the word “Yes”. I would like to know who and why. I will keep asking the Attorney General until he is prepared to put on record whether or not he was advised by the Solicitor General. I do not know whether I will believe his answer, unless it is that he was told, but, for obvious reasons I want his answer on record. I will refer to parts of the transcript, although I will not go into in great detail. I want to highlight a couple of aspects of which members should be aware. I refer to the type of information that might have been brought to the attention of the Attorney General over the weekend when he was studying the transcripts. I understand that he had the transcripts. I will read out some excerpts, because the impact they have on some people is quite interesting. I refer to Mr Kucera’s cross-examination at page 508 of the transcript. It should be borne in mind that in his affidavit, which was tendered in evidence, he stated that he went into the room three times. Mr McCusker had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Kucera. Despite the unbelievable collaborative detail of what took place 16 years ago, it has become clear that Sergeant Bob is not good at remembering things. Where have we already heard the notion that people have scintillating, clear and defined memories when it comes to favourable events; however, on occasions when it does not suit them, they do not seem to have any recollection? Somehow, this rings a bell about a situation involving a former Labor Government and the royal commission into WA Inc, when ministers had a clear recollection of some events and no recollection of others. Mr McCusker asked - Before you made that statement, which was converted into an affidavit, had you spoken to Detective Sergeant Lewandowski? The obvious implication was that he had done a bit of fabricating. It continues - No, not that I recall. In fact, I worked very little with Lewandowski during the time that I recall he was in the detectives. You see, I just want to put this to you to see if this is any way alters your view of things, That is what lawyers say when there is a slight inconsistency with some of the evidence; in other words, in lawyers’ terms, the person is lying. However, lawyers are never so impolite as to start off that way. The evidence continues - . . . Lewandowski said at the trial - and maybe you were told this and maybe you weren’t. It’s at page 942 of volume 4, line A. Mr Davies asked him at the trial: Was he bought any lunch at any stage, Detective Sergeant Lewandowski?---Yes, he was. At what stage was that?---That was after the interview had finished and after the notes had been read to him. That is interesting, because we know that the notes were not read to him, but it was after the interview had finished and after the notes had been read. If that is the case, how did Mr Kucera manage to give evidence about seeing it three times, when he did not go into the room until afterwards? Believe it or not, Malcolm McCusker thought likewise and he asked - If that’s right, then you would have come in with the lunch after the notes had been read to him?--- I can only tell you what my recollection is, Mr McCusker. What I am asking you is this; how strong is your recollection?---About as strong as anybody else’s 16 years later. 16 years later?---Yes.
12152 [COUNCIL]
Is it possible that, given the difficulties of memory, particularly of things that are not recorded and not doubt you were a very busy police officer at that stage - would that be right?---Yes. Given all those difficulties, is it possible that the sequence of events actually was that when you brought in the lunch the reading of the notes was not taking place, but it had been completed, as Lewandowski said at the trial?---My recollection is on both occasions I actually interrupted their interview. Is it not funny how people can remember when it matters. Mr Kucera’s recollection is as good as anybody else’s 16 years after an event, except on this occasion. That document is the one the Attorney General had; maybe that is the reason he wanted to speak to Mr Kucera. Could it be that having read that document, the Attorney General realised that he would be asked the same question again and that people would want to know how Mr Kucera saw the notes in light of the fact that no notes were taken. I would have thought that that was a pretty obvious question, even to a mock lawyer such as the Attorney General, one who has never practised. If we were to read the transcript of evidence from Mr Kucera alone, we would know that he was challenged by McCusker and that he would be further challenged. As members are aware, the appeal was dismissed, for good reasons that were outlined by the Chief Justice. It is interesting to see how he was influenced. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not have to determine whether the detectives were lying - that is along the way. It had to determine whether evidence existed upon which the Mickelbergs could be convicted. I will now read evidence given by Peter Mickelberg at the trial, which states - Hooft and Henley then took Peter to the unit in Rupert Street and thereafter to the Belmont CIB where he was put in a small room. Tovey was there and Peter asked him if he minded if he (Peter) went to sleep. Peter put his head on his arms and he dozed off on the desk. He was then grabbed around his throat by Lewandowski who pushed him into a large room where the interview took place. Peter was made to take all his clothes off and he was handcuffed while naked. He said Hancock punched him in the solar plexus two or three times. He was hit on the breastbone and he was chopped in the throat. Lewandowski then grabbed him by the hair and banged his head on the window sill. He had a small bruise on his hip where he landed after Lewandowski had thrown him. He said that he had no other bruises but was slapped innumerable times to the side of his face, 15, 20 times or more. He said that the only visible effect of the slaps was to redden his ear. He said that Hancock asked him a number of questions and produced some photographs and asked him about them. He said that at no time did Lewandowski or Hancock take notes. At no time did they take notes! It continues - He said that there were threats from Lewandowski who said, “If you don’t give us the gold, the toe-cutters will get definitely get you.” That is a nice little threat. I think I know who the toecutters were, because, given his record, Mr Hancock, was probably after the gold himself. Who knows, he might have found it. We shall never know, because, unfortunately he is dead. The only other person who should not have been given the affidavit is dead. The evidence continues - He said that Lewandowski hit him a few more times with his open palm. In cross-examination he said that Hancock gave him a “few thumps” but he would not call it a beating. In this passage he appears to be referring to the assaults by both Hancock and Lewandowski. He said that the punches left bruises on his breastbone. (This was not mentioned in examination in chief). At about 1.00pm, Hancock told Lewandowski to dress Peter and take the handcuffs off him. He had been sitting naked with handcuffs on for two to three hours. He said he left at 6.00pm, and the interview lasted probably seven hours. Of this time he was actually interviewed for possibly two or three hours. He said that he was left sitting alone on a lot of occasions, “they just come in and come out.” . . . When the interview was over he was given a Hungry Jack’s hamburger and it was slapped out of his hand by Lewandowski. He was then taken back to the small room where he had been with Tovey. Kucera was there and he introduced himself to Peter. Peter told Kucera that he had been hit and Kucera said, “It’s got nothing to do with me” and “I can’t help you at all.” Peter was then taken by Round from Belmont back to police headquarters at Perth. As this occurred he said to Constable Cvijic that he had bruises on his chest and he undid his shirt and pointed to them. Given that Lewandowski admits that that was true, that is chilling stuff. It was chilling enough to read when we had doubts about it, but it is extremely chilling to learn that it was true. Several pages in the judgment deal with the notes of interview, and the fact that they had been constructed. At page 25 reference is also made to the scientific evidence. I will not read it out, but it is important for anybody who is interested in this issue. I suggest that members read it; indeed, it can be found on the net. I urge Labor Party members to read it because they are being asked to support Mr Kucera, and I do not think they have been told the truth by the Attorney General - possibly not for the first time. They need to read the transcripts and ask serious questions, because this issue could cost them. It is like the Watergate scandal. What happened in 1998 might have disastrous personal effects for the Minister for Health, but not for the
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12153
Government, unless it holds onto the minister when it should not, and unless it allows the Attorney General to support him in the way that he has. Members should think now; they do not have much time in which to act. If they hold on to him and he is examined on this issue and he goes down, members opposite will go down with him. It is worth keeping that in mind. Extensive examination was conducted on that issue. The various accounts given by detectives were also the subject of some comment. Members have no idea how often the detectives changed their statements. It was extraordinary. They did it each time to match their stories to the evidence. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Which was changing. Hon PETER FOSS: Yes. It was extraordinary. Surely the court was getting suspicious. At page 40, the court states - Lewandowski said that the first time he carefully considered the sequence of events “was only within the last week when I had discussions with Mr Hancock”. He explained that they had met at Hancock’s home. They wanted to get together “to go through the evidence, what had been given in the past, various transcripts, and discuss it”. Does that not sound rather like what Hon Jim McGinty did with Hon Bob Kucera during the weekend? I am running out of time and I doubt that I will get an extension given the circumstances. The court went on to state - It did not appear to this Court that the testimony of Hancock and Lewandowski in regard to the sequence of events was obviously dishonest. There was nothing in their demeanour that suggested that they were giving false evidence. They were good at giving evidence. The document continues - Plainly, their evidence has altered each time Baxendale and Radley have uncovered information about the notes of interview. But this is not necessarily indicative of dishonesty. We now know that it was. It continues - So far as Lewandowski was concerned, we gained the impression that he did not have a particularly good grasp of the scientific issues involved. It is hard to prepare evidence when one does not know what is coming next. The court further states - This suggests that he would not easily have been able to tailor his evidence under cross-examination to suit the ESDA findings, and makes it easier to accept what he said as genuine recollection. The Attorney General should be aware of those issues. Members should keep in mind that the Attorney General said he had no idea; he did not think that Hon Bob Kucera was involved. He said that he had read the transcript and Kucera was not mentioned in the Lewandowski evidence. Page 52 of the judgment states - Under cross-examination, Kucera said that he could recall the people being in his office at the time “because it was different. It was unusual”. By that he meant that it was unusual for his office to be used as an interview room. Kucera stated that his recollection was that on both occasions “I actually interrupted their interview”. He said that his recollection was that he entered his office in the first instance because he needed to get some papers. Kucera said: “On the first occasion I can recall that Hancock was talking and on the second occasion I can recall Lewandowski holding something up and speaking, and my impression was that he was reading notes back to the person Mickelberg.” He said that he could not say what Lewandowski was reading to Peter but he was reading something to him. Mr McCusker drew attention to testimony of Hancock at the trial to the effect that interrupting an interview is “something you don’t do in police circles”. He submitted that this convention casts doubt on Kucera’s testimony. In other words, it cast doubt on the statement that Kucera had entered the room. If he had, he would not have seen anything. If he had not, he could not have given evidence about it. If he had not given evidence, the police might have been in trouble about whether they were telling the truth. The fact that they lied might have come out in 1998. Do members think, when this case is heard again by the Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr McCusker, QC will miss that point? Do they think he will not suggest, as he did on a previous occasion, that Kucera was not in the room? Is there a weird, wild chance that he might ask? Of course he would ask! Blind Freddy would ask! Even Blind Jim McGinty would ask after having seen that page of the judgment. There is no way the question will not be asked of Hon Bob
12154 [COUNCIL]
Kucera. It will be asked, and asked vigorously. Lewandowski will also be asked. They should have been asked without the opportunity to confer. It has become clear - even the Court of Criminal Appeal remarked on it - that they got together and discussed it, but the court would not allow that to be put to him in testimony. The Court of Criminal Appeal said that Hon Bob Kucera was an impressive witness and that his evidence was critical. This man gave evidence in 1998 to support what has now been revealed as a total fabrication. Of course, these officers can come up with some nice little ad libs - they always can. I would not be surprised to find out that the police academy has a course entitled “How to adjust your evidence to keep up with changing circumstances”. That is what police officers did throughout the Mickelberg trial. Their trump card was to call in the assistant commissioner. It would have been even better had they been able to get the Commissioner of Police, but that was never going to happen. Police Commissioner Matthews has criticised Hon Jim McGinty’s actions. He has said that the affidavit should have been given only to the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers. Mr Matthews was dead right. He is the one man in this saga with integrity, who is prepared to speak out and who knows what to do. He told the Attorney General that he should not have done it, and he was correct. Hon Bob Kucera was a critical witness. Obviously he would be challenged on his evidence. What did the Attorney General do? He handed Hon Bob Kucera every available document so that he could prepare his version of events and tell the truth and, to use the words of Pooh-Bah in the Mikado, to work out more “corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative”. The Attorney General should resign from everything - not only his portfolio. He should leave this Parliament! He is a disgrace; he should go! The Minister for Health should be stood aside until we establish what he was doing in 1998. The terms of reference should be extended to allow the royal commission to inquire into every aspect of this issue. This involves corruption at the highest level. The Premier should give us an account of how far along the road he has travelled with this issue. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: I seek leave for the member’s time to be extended. Leave denied. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL 2001 Second Reading Resumed from 14 November 2001. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [11.19 am]: This Bill does not involve the same degree of passion as the previous topic, so the House will probably adopt a different approach - at least for a few moments. This Bill has been around for some time. It is an amalgamation of a number of different proposals taken by me, as the Minister for Mines, to Cabinet and agreed to over a period. For the information of members who have been critical of the process, it is important to understand that amendments to the Mining Act are often of a technical or practical nature and do not involve questions of policy. They are amendments recommended by the Mining Industry Liaison Committee - MILC - which is an organisation comprising industry members and the department. That committee regularly makes recommendations on amendments that are necessary to the Mining Act, as I said, of a technical or practical nature. Often these amendments are quite small and it is not appropriate to bring a Bill to Parliament every time a small amendment to the Mining Act is proposed. Therefore, over time a number of these recommendations come through the MILC process, go to Cabinet for endorsement and then reside with parliamentary counsel for a period while a number of other similar amendments are also considered. After a period, when there are enough amendments, or a degree of urgency attaches to any amendments, a Bill is created, goes through the cabinet process and comes to Parliament. The Mining Amendment Bill 2001 is one of those Bills. It was made up of a number of recommendations from the MILC process over a period, amalgamated into a Bill and brought to Parliament in October 2001. I do not propose to go through all the provisions of the Bill. The reasons for the various amendments are clearly outlined in the second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum. As I said, they are not matters of great importance in policy terms; they relate to the basic administration of the Mining Act. In that sense, there is no great need to have a long debate on this Bill. That would have been the end of my speech if it had not been for the Auditor General’s report released the other day. I suspect a number of people who work in the department would not agree with the findings of the Auditor General. Perhaps I need not say this, but I will say it anyway. The Auditor General pronounces on many things and those pronouncements are a little like the tablets from the mount: they are regarded as factual and correct and nobody is entitled to argue them. On a number of occasions over the years, the Auditor General has made comments and pronouncements on issues that can be argued; however, nobody is ever game to argue them because in Australia when
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12155 an Auditor General says something, it is correct and anybody who argues against him is trying to cover up a corrupt, improper or incorrect action. I suspect this particular Auditor General’s report is not supported by the department and the officers who work in the department. I was fortunate to spend four years as Minister for Mines and I believe that the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources - formerly the Department of Minerals and Energy - is a highly professional department. I was very impressed by the capacity, capability and dedication of virtually all the officers of that department. It is generally recognised by the industry that the department does an excellent job. I believe, therefore, that the Auditor General’s report over-exaggerates some of the problems that are being experienced by the department because they are problems that relate more to legislative and policy issues than to the management and administration of the organisation. On page 13 of the report under the heading “Level Pegging: Managing Mineral Titles in Western Australia”, the Auditor General draws attention to the fact that a number of amendments to the Mining Act have been recommended over time, that they are before Parliament and that the amendments he lists on page 14 of the report began the process way back in November 1996. This Bill contains recommendations that began in 1996, progressed through to 1998 and were approved by Cabinet at various times in that two-year period. There is an implied criticism of the process in the Auditor General’s report and, in a sense, he is right when we acknowledge that this Bill came to this House in November last year. The Bill has, therefore, been sitting in this place since November last year and could have been dealt with if the Government had given it priority. The Auditor General has drawn our attention to the fact that the Bill’s legislative program has been slow, to say the least, and in that sense I agree with him. However, there are reasons for that and they have nothing to do with the Opposition. I was, therefore, a little irritated to say the least when the Minister for State Development, in a speech to the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies just the day before yesterday, had the audacity to say that this legislation has not been progressed in the Legislative Council because of the Opposition and that the Opposition had determined that the Bill would not be debated. Similarly, I read in the Kalgoorlie Miner an article, again referring to comments made by the minister, indicating that upper House members of the Opposition were responsible for the delays in dealing with this Bill. I can understand the minister wanting to blame somebody when the Auditor General draws to his attention problems relating to his agency. However, I make it very clear that I told the Leader of the House when this Bill came to the Parliament that we had no problems with it, we would support it and we would deal with it. I was, in fact, responsible for most of it. Why would we not be prepared to progress it quickly? The same applies to the Mines Safety and Inspection Amendment Bill 2001, which is also before the House. The Opposition has always held the view that the legislation would be progressed and we would deal with it the moment the Government brought it into Parliament. Since those days, it transpires the Government has determined its priorities. We have talked about this matter at some length. The Government’s priorities have been a decision to change the electoral system, which was significant legislation and which by its very nature required and provoked a huge amount of debate. The second Bill, the Acts Amendment (Lesbian and Gay Law Reform) Bill 2001, was a Bill that similarly required and provoked a significant amount of debate and consideration. The third Bill, the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002, is still in this place and is, again, another Bill of such significance that it provoked a huge amount of debate and consideration. My colleague the shadow Attorney General very aptly described those three Bills as skulduggery, buggery and thuggery. Hon Kim Chance: That is alliteration. Hon NORMAN MOORE: No, it is not alliteration; it is assonance, if my memory serves me correctly from the days of my English teaching, and means a repetition of vowels. Skulduggery, buggery and thuggery have taken priority over all other legislation in this Chamber. That is the reason that Bills such as the Mining Amendment Bill and the Mines Safety and Inspection Amendment Bill have not been dealt with, although they have been sitting in this Chamber since November last year. I make that very clear to the Minister for State Development so that he does not continue to promote the myth that somehow the Opposition is responsible for the delay in this legislation. I have had to take the action of writing to AMEC and to all of its members, explaining to them that skulduggery, buggery and thuggery are more important to the Government than the Mining Amendment Bill. It is a pity that the Minister for State Development, who I think is doing his best in that job, should have to resort to that sort of criticism of the Opposition on this legislation, which he knows we support. As I said a while ago, it is legislation that I had taken to Cabinet and which, through an effluxion of time, reached the Parliament after the change of Government. I also wrote to the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia and the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies when the legislation was presented to Parliament to check their views on this legislation. The Chamber replied - The Chamber is aware of, and has had input into, the Mines Safety Inspection Amendment Bill 2001 and the Mining Amendment Bill 2001.
12156 [COUNCIL]
The Chamber was consulted on the proposed amendments to the Mines Safety Inspection Act (1994) through MOSHAB and has no further comment on the proposed amendments. With reference to the Mining Act (1978), the Chamber consulted through the Mining Industry Liaison Committee (MILC) on the proposed amendments and again has no further comment. AMEC wrote - Thank you for your advice of 1st November, 2001 concerning the Bills to amend the Mining Act and the Mines Safety and Inspection Act. We have perused the information you provided and have found they are on track with the MILC Committee’s recommendations, and we are therefore happy to see both Bills passed into legislation. As I said, the MILC process, which I think was put in place by the previous Labor Government, is an excellent process for making technical or practical amendments or those that involve the administration of the Mining Act. That process means that the various industry groups and the government department can meet on a regular basis and collectively work out the amendments that are necessary and which are not of a policy or political nature. That leads to regular updating of the Mining Act 1978. A number of amendments have been brought forward through the MILC process over the years. This is another of those amendments. I do not propose to go through all the clauses of the Bill. The Bill brings the Mining Act up-to-date and makes it a more useable piece of legislation from the point of view of industry and the department. I indicate to the House that the Opposition supports the legislation. As I said, we were keen for it to be passed in November last year. We are equally keen to pass it in June this year. HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [11.32 am]: I also will not spend much time going through issues on a clause-by-clause basis. I have negotiated with the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development and the minister’s advisers on a couple of areas of concern. I will respond to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. He would probably be aware that, over a considerable period, I have been concerned about the whole idea of use it or lose it. The Auditor General’s report, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, clearly identified that he also has concerns about the exemptions and the whole notion of how they are applied. According to the summary sheet, it appears that only 11 per cent of titleholders provide the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources with information sufficient to demonstrate that at least the minimum amount of expenditure is made in exploration mining activity each year. This has been of considerable concern because the exemption process has led to a number of corporations becoming de facto owners, so to speak, of crown land. As a result, the Greens (WA) have always been of the opinion that, if the mining industry is to expand and come to the forefront of development, we need to make sure that people who want to use the land for mining be allowed to access that land, and that it not be held in perpetuity by corporations through the expenditure exemption provision. As the honourable member opposite has identified, the legislation came before us in November last year. We indicated that we would support not only this legislation, but also the introduction, as soon as possible, of the mines safety and inspection legislation. The Greens (WA) support the increased level of penalties for breaches of the Act that relate to environmental issues, as outlined in this legislation. We support the strengthening of the existing provisions that prevent related persons or related corporations from getting access to tenements ad nauseam. Tenements were continually being held within related corporations or related families because of the knowledge they had of the expiry of the tenement provisions, which stopped people from plainting and those sorts of things, which was a legitimate ability. We support the changes in procedures to allow prospectors advance notice of the release of ground compulsorily surrendered for exploration licences. We support the reversion of the special prospecting licence application to a normal prospecting licence application should the tenement become available. The issues with which the Greens (WA) had some concern, and which I understand the parliamentary secretary will identify in his response as issues that will be addressed, were, firstly, in the area of allowing multiple mining tenements on a single exemption form. The Greens (WA) raised the concern that although the tenements can come forward in a single exemption form, the exemptions must still apply to each lease. This issue involved Hancock in the early days, when his leases were taken off him because, at that time, he put all his expenditure into one lease. We are still of the view that expenditure must be across all leases to get the appropriate level of expenditure provisions and, thereby, not enabling applications for exemption. I understand that the parliamentary secretary will mention that. The other area of concern was the amendment to section 20 to bring it in line with section 29, which deals with private land. Section 20 deals with vacant crown, pastoral or farming land and relates to the distance one can mine below the surface of areas which are under crop or on which there are stockyards, gardens, cultivating fields, airstrips, plantations, cemeteries and other items. Section 29, the parallel provision, which deals with freehold, states - Except with the consent in writing of the owner and the occupier - Obviously, with vacant crown land, on the whole that would not apply. However, we wanted to make it clear that if changes are made to section 20 of the Act to bring it in line with section 29, those pastoralists or holders of graveyards
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12157 and burial sites should at least be advised of the intent to mine within 30 metres, underground, of their activity. The impact of the mining industry on pastoral activities was raised at the Carnarvon muster as a contentious issue. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to allude to a notice of intent to carry out the activity to mine between the original definition of 100 metres and the proposed definition of 30 metres to the land-holders or lessees of such property. Within that context, the Greens (WA) will support this legislation on the understanding that the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister, will identify that either that notice will take place under the current Act and regime or, if it does not take place, that regulations will be introduced to ensure that such notice will be the case. HON JOHN FISCHER (Mining and Pastoral) [11.41 am]: Although One Nation does not have any major concerns with the main points of this Bill, I feel that the Government is wasting our time presenting it in its current form. The reason is that the Act is very old. The Act came into being in 1978, and an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Mining has changed dramatically in that time. In those days, we hardly ever heard the terms sustainable development, native title, downstream processing, value adding etc; it was dig it up and ship it offshore. During the 1980s, explorers wanting to get a quick look at what was going on under the soil would dig costeans all over the goldfields. Fortunately, those days have gone, and modern explorers exercise a different and a greater degree of care with the environment than explorers once did. Nowadays they are considerably more accountable for their actions. Since the current Government came to power, it has gone a long way in looking at the problems the mining industry is facing. It is to the Government’s credit that it has instigated a number of reviews and task forces to look at the problems of the Mining Act, native title issues and the problems associated with project approvals. The final reports and recommendations from these reviews have only recently come out. In addition to that, the Auditor General’s report “Level Pegging: Managing Mineral Titles in Western Australia” was released a short time ago adding further dimension to these issues. At present, the Minister for State Development is conducting a review into the declining level of exploration expenditure in this State. The Auditor General, in the level pegging report, makes the comment - Despite ongoing consultation with industry to maintain the relevance of the Mining Act 1978 many proposed legislative amendments have yet to be enacted. Some of these proposals date back as far as 1996. During the past five years, the Mining Industry Liaison Committee has proposed 29 amendments to the Act, and all have been approved by Cabinet; six have been enacted by Parliament, 15 are included in the Bill before us and the remaining eight are to be included in a future Bill. What about the recommendations that will flow from these reviews - that is, the Wand review, the technical task force, the project development approval system review and the recent findings of the Auditor General in the current exploration review? One must ask whether they will sit around for another six or seven years and whether they will be relevant by the time they are brought before Parliament. Even by making a few amendments, as One Nation is proposing to do with this Bill, we still have to address the major concerns with the Act. Several major problems with the Act will not be resolved with this Bill. For example, after five years, exploration licences either expire or have to become mining leases. When a company applies for a mining lease it is always held up in the Native Title Tribunal. In fact, 11 000 applications are being held up in the Native Title Tribunal. Very few of these applications relate to leases on which a definable deposit will be mined, and most leases are required only for exploration. Exploration licences need to be extended beyond the current five-year term. Mining leases should be resolved solely for bone fide mining operations. These two changes to the Act will go a long way towards reducing the backlog of titles awaiting native title determination. Of the 1 798 lease applications in the first half of 2000, only 20 per cent had been granted by October 2001 and only 50 per cent had made it to the Native Title Tribunal. They are certainly travelling at a snail’s pace. Native title claims affect 95 per cent of mineral title applications and can add from four to 19 months on the approval time. It is no wonder that exploration is declining in this State. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that exploration expenditure is down a further two per cent for the March 2002 quarter. While the future of the mining industry slips from our grasp we are tinkering with the problems. Inevitably, all the producing mines in WA will run out of ore, and with three to 10 years between discovery and development and declining investment for the past five years, the mining industry is facing a rather precarious situation. Globalisation has seen large companies move from exploration to acquisition. When international companies have mined us dry, they will move offshore to greener pastures, leaving this State bereft of royalties. There is a critical need for action. The time has come; we have tinkered with the Act long enough. The right to negotiate that is given to native title groups means that any Aboriginal can lodge a native title claim over an area. Mining companies are forced to negotiate with myriad native title groups, all with conflicting needs. The bone fides of the traditional representatives need to be established before the industry can be expected to negotiate an agreement. The Mining Act should reflect this view. Prior to the development of Murrin Murrin, Anaconda negotiated with 10 overlapping claimant groups. It was a costly exercise and, quite frankly, absurd. However, because of the immense size of the Murrin Murrin project it was worth obtaining agreements with these groups. However, the cost and the pain involved for companies that simply wish to explore ground is not worth it. For this reason, companies are exploring offshore. Mining companies pay fees and rents on mining lease applications and these are reimbursed if the licence is not approved. Over $20 million is tied up in this; it is money that could be spent on exploration and development.
12158 [COUNCIL]
Instead of annually adding amendments to the current legislation, we would be better served by reaching consensus with the mining industry and rewriting the Act to incorporate the recommendations of all the reviews to which I have alluded. We are making a patchwork quilt of the current Act. It is obsolete and we should replace it with a new Act; one which is in keeping with the reviews and today’s views and which will service the industry for several decades. The amendments that we are considering today are really nothing more than bandaids and will do nothing to increase exploration in this State. Most of the amendments are worthy, but they do not address the major issues. The Government must have the courage to throw out the Act and incorporate many of the recommendations that the public has paid for via the various reviews. A far better result will unfold in the long term for the mining industry as a whole. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [11.49 am]: I thank members for their contributions, particularly those of the Leader of the Opposition. I will pass on his compliments to the staff at the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, and I entirely agree with him. A number of members have made reference to the Auditor General’s report alluded to by Hon John Fischer. Fifteen of the outstanding matters in the list on page 14 of that report will be addressed by this legislation. Hon Robin Chapple raised several issues. The single exemption issue is about a single exemption application form for multiple mining tenements. I can assure the member that although multiple tenement applications can be made on one application, the merits of the exemption application will continue to be assessed for each individual mining tenement involved in the group application. A decision will then be made on a tenement-by-tenement basis on whether exemption should be granted. The grouping is solely for ease of administration. The Government considers that the member’s reservations about section 20 of the legislation and the need to notify holders of some interest in the land above an underground operation are addressed in the existing legislation. Further to our discussions yesterday, the internal procedures of the department ensure that people are notified. I have undertaken to have that matter fully examined. If necessary, the Government will use the regulation-making powers under section 162(2) to provide a process for the warden to ensure that the appropriate people are notified. I am fairly confident that that is the existing practice and procedure. I thank Hon John Fischer for his comments and I appreciate that we can always do much more. I agree that a range of projects have been on the boil and the Government will seek to progress them. If that leads to legislative changes, I will look forward to his support. I can assure Hon John Fischer that the Government sees the issues he has raised as key priorities. He has highlighted a number of committees that are investigating matters on which a conclusion is imminent. It is fair to say that all members acknowledge the importance of the mining industry to the Western Australian economy and the need to ensure that we have the right legislative framework to progress it. The member is arguably correct that many issues can be addressed and the various reviews will lead to that, including how we can increase exploration in Western Australia. That will lead to the continuation of a healthy industry in Western Australia. I thank members for their support and commend the Bill to the House. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time, and by leave proceeded through remaining stages without debate and passed. MINES SAFETY AND INSPECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2001 Second Reading Resumed from 28 November 2001. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [11.51 am]: I will save some of my comments on some of the speeches about the previous Bill for another occasion. I believe that fundamentally the Mining Act is very good legislation. Events in other areas have caused the problems; they are not problems caused by the Mining Act. People are nonetheless trying to change the Act. The Mines Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board and the Government have sought to amend this legislation to overcome a situation that arose during a court hearing and determination. It seeks to define a mine manager, an underground manager and a quarry manager. The legislation is to clarify who should take which responsibilities on a minesite to ensure that in the event of a safety issue we know exactly who is responsible. I will not go into the details of the court case that led to this amendment other than to say that I supported the amendment when I was the Minister for Mines and I am pleased that we are dealing with it; albeit not expeditiously. The Opposition supports the legislation. HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [11.56 am]: I rise to mirror the words of the Leader of the Opposition in supporting this legislation. We do so in the hope that the issues to which the Leader of the House referred in relation to a person dodging prosecution over an important matter - Hon Norman Moore: That was not quite the case. He was found not guilty because of the interpretation of the Act. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will rephrase my statement. His role was determined to be within a category that was not covered by the Act. The case that the person should not be prosecuted was fought on the basis of a legal technicality.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12159
Whether that is dodging something I do not know. The person was theoretically culpable but managed to escape prosecution on the basis of a bad definition in the Act. The Greens (WA) support this broader concept of definitions so that all workers in the mining industry know that their management must take due care. The Greens, therefore, support the legislation. HON JOHN FISCHER (Mining and Pastoral) [11.58 am]: One Nation agrees with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and supports the legislation. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [11.58 am]: I thank members for their support of this legislation. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time, and by leave proceeded through remaining stages without debate and passed. HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 2002 Second Reading Resumed from 26 June. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [11.59 am]: This Bill provides some amendments to the principal Act, the Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927, which is a major administrative Act establishing the framework for the machinery of our state hospital system and a number of related matters. It is an important piece of legislation. This amendment Bill touches on some comparatively small but important parts of that overall machinery. It does so by virtue of proposed amendments to sections 7, 7A, 7B and 18. All of these amendments are interrelated and they ensure that the legislative machinery will be in place to permit the operation of forensic biology services and other forensic pathology services, including obtaining DNA profiles. This is the main reason for the contemplated amendments. The Opposition supports this Bill and also its being dealt with expeditiously. The DNA technology, which will be in the hands of our Police Service, as an investigative tool, is also firmly supported by the Opposition. To the extent that this Bill facilitates that by ensuring that the pathological and forensic services are available to assist in the implementation of law enforcement procedures utilising DNA technology, we support it. The other parts of this amending legislation relate to the powers, duties and functions that are exercisable by authorities within the overall health system. [Quorum formed.] Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: During briefings attended by the opposition spokesman on health, Hon Mike Board, and me, we queried the amendments proposed by clause 7 of this Bill to amend section 18, which relates to the functions of hospital boards. Members in the other place and observers of this small but important piece of legislation have also questioned what this amendment is designed to achieve. The amendment applies to section 18(1)(b) of the Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927, which currently states - (1) A board - (b) may perform such other duties and functions for the purposes of this Act as may be prescribed. That is to be changed to read - (1) A board - (b) may perform or exercise such other duties, powers and functions for the purposes of this Act as may be prescribed. In considering this matter today, I restate the Opposition’s concern with what has been done in recent times to the hospital boards in this State and note the abolition of certain volunteer boards and their replacement by a ministerial board, all of which is within the power of the existing provisions of the principal Act. The Opposition relies on the information provided to it by the Crown Solicitor’s Office, through representatives from the Department of Health, that the essential changes to insert the term “powers” to complement the reference to “duties and functions” is required to remove possible inconsistency in the operation of boards and agencies. The Opposition accepts that advice at face value, although it recognises the concerns about the future of hospital boards. We understand that a reference in an amending Bill at this time to introduce the powers available to the minister acting as a board could cause interested parties to question what is going on and the motives behind it, and generally to display some unease. As I say, the Opposition accepts the advice of the Crown Solicitor’s Office. It also accepts the reassurance of the Minister for Health, given in another place, that the Department of Health was not actually the instigator of these changes; it was, in fact, a possible anomaly detected by parliamentary counsel when drawing up changes to accommodate DNA processes. We also note that in the future, as now, the powers, duties and functions will be available as prescribed, so at all times any fresh powers, duties or functions when prescribed will be subject to the review of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. That does not qualify our support for the Bill, but it reassures us that the capacity of Parliament
12160 [COUNCIL] to review any possible extension of powers is retained in any case. I again indicate the Opposition’s support for measures to allow the use of DNA technology in these areas to facilitate the passage of this legislation. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [12.10 pm]: The Greens (WA) will support the Hospitals and Health Services Amendment Bill. As much as we have reservations about the forensic evidence Bill that was passed in this place recently, we believe that if there is to be provision for forensic evidence to be tested and processed to provide DNA profiles to establish a DNA database then a suitably scientifically credible and independent organisation such as PathCentre is the preferred service to process those forensic samples. We do not wish to do anything to inhibit the operation of PathCentre in processing forensic samples. This Bill has been brought to us at short notice. I have had an opportunity in the past 24 hours to receive a briefing and to look at the Bill. It seems to me the Bill is over cautious. On the face of it, it appears more than likely that PathCentre has the power to provide forensic sampling services. However, a question has been raised by the Department of Health, and an opinion has been sought from Crown Law, about whether there is a potential problem with PathCentre’s providing this service; hence this Bill has been amended to make it clear that PathCentre has that power. It seems to me that the Interpretation Act provides a reasonable defence for PathCentre to carry out the function of providing forensic samples. I understand the potential problem arose in 1994 when PathCentre was empowered to be an independent body. The notice that was placed in the Government Gazette of 3 March 1995 states in paragraph 5(e) that one of the objects of PathCentre is to provide forensic science services to the public and private sectors. It seems to me that makes it clear that PathCentre is empowered to provide those services. However, we do not have a problem with a Bill that will make that explicit. The other point I want to raise with regard to PathCentre and the newly passed DNA legislation is the independence of PathCentre. I raised this matter yesterday with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health. The “Report of the Legislation Committee in Relation to Forensic Procedures and DNA Profiling: The Committee’s Investigations in Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States of America”, report No 48, states on page 260, under the heading “Observations and Recommendations”, in point No 126 - The Committee considers that it is undesirable if the “purchase of services” is equated by the public as the “purchase of prosecution”. The Committee notes that in the United Kingdom a deliberate decision was made to provide funding directly from the United Kingdom Treasury rather than the police department. Whilst the police service in the United Kingdom ultimately support the analytical services through the “fee for service” arrangement with forensic service providers, the police “pay” for a service and do not “fund” a service. The Committee considers that this distinction is very important and that the same separation is appropriate for Western Australia. That matter is not related directly to this Bill, but it relates to the separation between the Police Service and PathCentre by having the Police Service pay a fee for a service that is provided by PathCentre. The committee was happy that the model that the cross parties agreed would provide that separation between the Police Service and the scientific service being provided by PathCentre. It appeared that it would remove any question of tampering with or affecting the scientific service that was provided. However, in looking at this Bill, I revisited that issue. It seems to me that in 1999, the Police Service was funding the services provided by PathCentre. I seek clarification from the parliamentary secretary about whether that is still the case and whether it would not be more appropriate to have the Police Service pay a fee for each sample that was tested rather than fund PathCentre. Pending an answer to that question, the Greens (WA) will be happy to support the Bill. Despite our reservations about the breadth of the powers under the DNA legislation, we do not want to inhibit or leave any question mark over the powers of PathCentre to carry out that work. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [12.17 pm]: I thank the members of the House for their support and their preparedness to deal with the Hospitals and Health Services Amendment Bill at such short notice. Given that we are at this stage of the parliamentary sitting, it is good that members have a greater level of understanding and preparedness to deal with matters expeditiously. Two key issues were raised on this Bill, and I fully expected those issues to be raised. One issue that was raised was about clauses 4 and 7, which deal with the duties and powers of the board, and what will happen if the minister were to act as a board. These were not amendments that the Government sought. They were proposed at the suggestion of parliamentary counsel. They were certainly not proposed at the request of the Department of Health. Their purpose is to ensure certainty in the interpretation of sections of the Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927 in which the terms “function”, “power” and “duty” are found in whatever combination. I agree with Hon Giz Watson that the Crown Solicitor’s Office has probably been a bit overzealous on this matter, particularly in light of the Government’s policy change on hospital boards and the fact that it is moving towards a model that favours the establishment of advisory boards. That will mean that amendments will need to be made to the Hospitals and Health Services Act, particularly section 15, which deals with the establishment of hospital boards, section 18, which deals with the function of hospital boards, and section 7, which deals with the power of hospital boards, and perhaps also to other sections of that Act. The minister gave an undertaking in the Legislative Assembly that that would be the case. The matter is one of honest and enthusiastic drafting, and not of a hidden agenda - there are no two ways about that. Indeed, the minister happily stated that if sections 4 and 7 of the Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927 were causing concern, and if members believed
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12161 that the Government was not doing the right thing, he would be the first to suggest that such sections be removed from the legislation in order to expedite its passage. The thrust of the Bill is clause 5, which seeks to amend section 7A of the Hospitals and Health Services Act. It deletes section 7A(1)(ba), and inserts the following paragraphs, which make specific PathCentre’s ability as follows - (ba) to provide pathology services and related medical scientific services for the purpose of diagnosing and managing disease or protecting public health; (bb) to provide forensic biology services and forensic pathology services, including obtaining DNA profiles for forensic or other purposes; (bc) to conduct training and instruction in, and research into, the services referred to in paragraphs (ba) and (bb); We could have just had a three or four clause Bill that did not make reference to sections 4 and 7, but that is not the aim of the Bill. I hope that members are satisfied with this information. Hon Giz Watson raised the issue of funding for DNA services, about which she is concerned. She stated that Treasury once funded PathCentre, which was not a problem. However, given that PathCentre would have broader functions, and given that funding would be shifted across to the Western Australia Police Service, she wanted to ensure that there would not be a conflict of interest. I took it upon myself to seek a briefing from the department. I am pleased to advise that PathCentre and the WA Police Service are concluding a memorandum of understanding, which will shift the funding of PathCentre’s forensic support to the WA Police Service from block funding to a fee-for-service arrangement. Hon Giz Watson referred to the United Kingdom funding model favoured by the committee of which she was the chairman - Hon Bruce Donaldson: No, she was not. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am sorry, Hon Bruce Donaldson was the chairman of the committee. The United Kingdom funding model was allocated a capital grant of ,4.5 million. This money was provided by the Home Office to fund developments associated with the establishment of DNA databases and related services. A recurrent funding model was provided by police constabularies under a fee for service arrangement with the United Kingdom’s forensic science service. Paragraph 14.29 of the committee’s report states - . . . in the United Kingdom a deliberate decision was made to provide funding directly from the United Kingdom Treasury rather than the police department. This related to a provision of capital grants that would enable an expansion of DNA testing and the creation of DNA databases. The adoption of a fee for service under the MOU that is being concluded between PathCentre and the WA Police Service will see recurrent funding of the forensic services provided by PathCentre in support of the WA Police Service being provided in accordance with the committee’s preferred model. Such information allays my fears. Indeed, after Hon Giz Watson raised concerns about whether PathCentre would remain objective even though it would rely on police or block funding, I too had concerns. I hope members are satisfied with the responses that have been provided. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time, and by leave proceeded through remaining stages without debate, and passed.
APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL (NO. 1) 2002 Second Reading Resumed from 19 June. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [12.28 pm]: The Opposition is prepared to support the Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) 2002. Members should be aware that the Bill will appropriate $8 767 393 000 for various capital issues, which are detailed in schedule 1. Recent budget papers have provided a significant amount of information for members. Indeed, more information is now available than was the case 15 years ago. However, a considerable amount of information is not included. I will address this matter when I address the Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 2) 2002. I am especially interested in division 55, which appears in budget paper No 2, volume 3, and which deals with the amounts allocated to the Minister for State Development, Tourism and Small Business. I have a particular interest in the amount allocated for mineral and petroleum resources. Members would generally agree that the mining industry plays a significant part in driving this State’s economy. In fact, the mining industry is the powerhouse of Western Australia’s economy. It accounts for 30 per cent of gross state product and 70 per cent of the State’s export income -
12162 [COUNCIL] which, in itself, represents a huge amount. It also employs approximately 40 300 people directly and 141 000 indirectly and provides about one-sixth of all employment opportunities in the State. The mining industry is such an important part of our economy that the budget papers reveal that in 2000-01 it contributed $1.136 billion in royalty payments to the State. That represents many schools, hospitals, police stations and other public facilities. It concerns me when I hear members denigrate the mining industry. If we did not have such a strong mining industry in Western Australia, many public facilities would not be built for the benefit of the people of this State. In addition to the $1.136 billion it pays in royalties, the industry is a major contributor to state revenue derived from stamp duty, payroll tax and the myriad other state taxes and charges imposed on businesses and individuals. Only last night we dealt with a stamp duty Bill that will cause a number of charges to be increased. We have hidden our light under a bushel for too long with regard to the achievements of the mining industry. The schoolchildren who visit this place from time to time are entitled to know that it is the economic powerhouse that drives the State’s economy. For instance, in 2000-01, mineral production in Western Australia was worth $27 594 699 000. That is a production rate valued in excess of $75 million a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. In anyone’s language, that is a very big operation and a huge contribution to the economy of this State. Western Australia produces 51 per cent of Australia’s total mineral and energy output. Our State might occupy one-third of the continent and it might have only 10 per cent of the national population, but it is a massive mineral and energy producer. We are fortunate that ours is a relatively mineral-rich State. It is interesting to note how our mineral production has changed over the years. Young people have come to rely on the mining industry for the hospitals, schools, police stations and other government facilities that benefit the community. However, 100 years ago the industry concentrated on gold; in fact, it comprised 97 per cent of all mineral production. I have been provided with statistics by the Association of Mineral Exploration Companies. I had dealings with the association for many years in my role as Minister for Lands and Minister for Mines in the previous Government. It is one of the more prominent lobby groups in this State and is headed by George Savell, who is assisted by very competent staff. The association promotes the mining industry very effectively and positively in the community. The statistical data provided to me indicates that, in 1901, Western Australian mineral production was worth £7.5 million. In today’s dollars, that is $180 million. Today, the State’s mineral production is worth $27.5 billion. [Quorum formed.] Hon GEORGE CASH: The industry is now producing 140 times what it produced 100 years ago, which is a magnificent contribution. The industry has been strongly supported by the equivalent of today’s Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources for many years. It was called the Department of Mines; its name has been changed various times during the past 100 years. The private enterprise sector of the industry has worked closely with the department for a long time. The department’s Geological Survey division has always worked with private industry. One of that division’s responsibilities is to prepare geological maps for Western Australia, and it has done a tremendous job in producing and updating those maps. Its mapping work and the scientific analysis that it applies to the maps it produces are very useful. The mining industry relies on those maps. Of course, the industry contributes to that production process. That work has been significant in helping the industry grow. A number of other divisions in the department have worked closely with the industry to assist it in resolving some of the challenges it has faced. Any challenge facing the industry faces the State, because of the impact it has on the economy. The industry must deal with issues such as native title and the environment, which are causing serious problems. The department needs more resources to come to grips with those issues. They are not new and they are not emerging; they are issues that are confronting the mining industry in Western Australia. I say that, notwithstanding the fact that revenue from mining production in WA last year was $27.5 billion, which accounted for 70 per cent of the State’s import income. The mining industry’s exports from our State have a significant and positive effect on Australia’s balance of payments. In fact, 43 per cent of all of Australia’s exports are produced in Western Australia and 85 per cent of Western Australia’s mineral and energy production is produced for the export market. In 2000-01 the mining industry, which includes the petroleum industry, exported $23.4 billion worth of product. That is a huge benefit to Western Australia and a very significant benefit to Australia as a whole. The problem with these accounts that comprise the Bills before the House relates to Geological Survey of Western Australia. I refer to page 952 of budget paper No 2, 2002-03, volume 3, division 55, output 5 under the heading “Geological Services”. Output 5 notes that geological services benefit the Western Australian community by encouraging exploration and hence the discovery of mineral and petroleum deposits through maintaining an up-to-date geological framework and archive of the State and its mineral and petroleum resources. That confirms what I said earlier, that Geological Survey of Western Australia produces many maps, reports and other statistical information to assist the mining industry. The budget paper also indicates that it produces products and services, which include publishing maps, reports and data sets and has access to a developing archive of geoscientific and resource exploration documents, samples and data.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12163
The budget paper then provides some information on the major achievements that Geological Survey achieved during 2001-02. I realise that I am limited by time, but in summary, the major achievements for 2001-02, as stated in the budget paper, were- Produced over 38 reports, 42 geoscientific maps and geophysical images, and 18 digital datasets that publicised the geological framework of the State and its resource potential with highlights illustrating the range of work, including the completion of the third phase of the GIS-based seamless digital geoscience database for the Leonora to Laverton region, the publication of a Bulletin in specialty and common clays in Western Australia and the publication of a report on the mineralisation of the Southern Cross-Esperance region. Geological Survey also achieved considerably in other areas during 2001-02, which can be seen at page 953 of the budget paper. The major initiatives anticipated in 2002-03 through Geological Survey, as the budget paper states, will be to publish reports, geoscientific maps and geophysical images - as was done last year - and provide support for exploration in the east and central Yilgarn, Edmund, Collier and Earaheedy Basins, and the Pilbara. A number of other initiatives are planned for this year. My concern is that last year $18.214 million was provided to Geological Survey to carry out its work. An amount of $18.320 million is the estimated actual for 2001-02. However, I note that in 2002-03, notwithstanding the inflation of the past 12 months which is referred to in the budget papers, the Government has provided only $17.934 million for the cost of Geological Survey’s outputs for this year; that is an insufficient amount of money. I should say that the total cost of the output is anticipated to be $17.934 million, but with revenue from Geological Survey in the amount of $512 000, the net amount will be $17.422 million, with another reduction of $189 000 related to movements in cash balances and other accrual items such as receivables, payables and superannuation. That leaves the appropriation for the purchase of output 5 items at $17.233 million. That is the total amount of money that will be applied to that division by the Government this year. My view, which is shared by many in the mining industry, is that it is an insufficient amount of money. We will be doing a disservice to the State by under funding Geological Survey of Western Australia, which is part of the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources. Until the mining industry is given some guide on the geological structure of Western Australia and to where it should apply its exploration dollars, limited new discoveries of minerals will be made in this State. It is fair to say that native title and environmental issues, compounded by the fact that we have not provided sufficient funds for the Geological Survey division of the department in recent times, will have a negative impact on Western Australia, and indeed Australia, in forthcoming years. A problem that we face in Western Australia from time to time is, notwithstanding the under funding of Geological Survey in this State, mineral production continues to rise. Governments, and I regret to say governments of all political persuasions, appear to take some solace in the fact that mineral production is rising, irrespective of the funding of the department. However, a huge amount of additional production could be had in Western Australia if additional funds were provided to this area. Hon Norman Moore: The previous Government promised an extra $66 million over four years for Geological Survey. Hon GEORGE CASH: Indeed, and I was about to give credit to the former Minister for Mines, Hon Norman Moore, for the considerable amount of money that he procured for the department during his period as Minister for Mines. Much of that money was applied directly to Geological Survey, which was recognised by the Court Government as being a very important element of the mining industry in Western Australia. As the former Minister for Mines, Hon Norman Moore, apart from being highly regarded and respected by the industry, worked extremely hard to convince the Government to provide those additional funds. It is a pity that this Government does not recognise or consider the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources and, in particular, Geological Survey, in the same light. That will be reflected in due course in the fact that we will not get the optimal return from the resource potential of Western Australia. For those who may not be aware - again, it is important to put these things on record so that schoolchildren in particular will recognise the huge benefits that come from the mining industry in Western Australia - I indicate to the House the quantity and value of a number of the minerals that are mined in Western Australia. Madam Deputy President (Hon Adele Farina) should not look at the clock in the hope that I will stop talking, because I have unlimited time. The only reason she should look at the clock is in the hope that lunchtime has arrived. The clock is at “000”. I will obviously do my best to use as much time as I can to talk about this industry. Hon Dee Margetts interjected. Hon GEORGE CASH: I understood Hon Dee Margetts to say that it was not a responsible thing to do, as it regards the mining industry in Western Australia. It is important that some of the achievements of the mining industry do not go unsung in this Chamber. If Hon Dee Margetts objects to that, I invite her to look at my record, because I am not one who wastes time in this House. I hope that will give her some comfort. However, I intend to make some points. In the area of alumina, the production for 2000-01 was 10 479 429 tonnes at a value of $3 600 668 000. Western Australia produced 42 631 tonnes of copper with a value of $111 244 000. Gold is obviously a very big earner. Western Australia produced 200 852 kilograms of gold during that period at a value of $3 239 503 000. The level of production of gypsum was lower, but it is a very important mineral. In 2000-01, 913 231 tonnes of gypsum was produced at an estimated value of just over $18 million. Iron ore is a huge export earner for the State and the nation.
12164 [COUNCIL]
Western Australia produced 161 769 890 tonnes, worth $4 912 703 000. Western Australia is also a big producer of nickel. In 2000-01, 167 540 tonnes were produced, worth $2.246 billion. Other minerals that are not separately stated in the chart before me were worth a total of $1.7 billion. Petroleum was worth $10.556 billion during that period. That is a huge amount of production in any nation’s budget. The total value of production was $27 594 669 000. I congratulate the mining industry on the phenomenal job it does in Western Australia in all areas, and for the fantastic contribution that it makes to the economy of both Western Australia and the nation. The latest figures available that compare production in Western Australia with that of the rest of the world are for 1999. According to those figures, Western Australia produces 32 per cent of the world’s zirconium, 26 per cent of the world’s rutile, 19 per cent of the world’s alumina, 14 per cent of the world’s ilmenite, 15 per cent of the world’s iron ore, 13 per cent of the world’s nickel and eight per cent of the world’s gold. That is a pretty good contribution in anyone’s language. This morning I received a newsletter from the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, which raised a number of issues. AMEC raised a number of points in expressing its views on exploration investment in Western Australia. I will relate a few of those points to the House, but will first put them in context. The current Government appointed the member for Eyre, John Bowler, to inquire into investment in greenfield mineral exploration in Western Australia. That inquiry invited submissions from various groups. In its submission, AMEC emphasised a number of concerns, one of which involved native title issues. AMEC’s view is that native title is nearly unworkable, and states - . . . because of the unworkable process used in Native Title determination, has resulted in a backlog of mineral title applications approaching 10,500 in total, some of which are several years old. Another area that it emphasised to the inquiry was that of Aboriginal heritage. The newsletter states - . . . which is emerging as a key issue both in its own right and as a prime factor in native title claims, because of its role in determining “connection to the land” by native title claimants. One other area it raised with the inquiry was - The emerging problems of Commonwealth driven Indigenous Protected Area declarations (IPA’s) which have the potential to create land access problems and increased compliance costs and to remove large tracts of land from exploration access where they are declared. These declarations are available on a voluntary basis for any Aboriginal landholder or group irrespective of type of land title. AMEC also raised, at some length, environmental questions, particularly in the areas of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, and environmental bonds and rehabilitation guarantees. I raise those points because I worked closely with AMEC some years ago when I was Minister for Mines. I am aware that Hon Norman Moore, when he was the Minister for Mines, also worked closely with that group. I always found AMEC to be extremely responsible and responsive to the requirements of both the industry and community. One thing that can be said of AMEC is that when the industry was criticised, it was prepared to accept that criticism on the basis that it was constructive. AMEC would often make sure that all its members were aware of various issues and challenges that were raised so that the industry could get on top of those problems. The next area I will talk about is that of state taxes and the Government’s decision to review state business taxes. Members will be aware that in the 2001-02 budget, the Treasurer made reference to a review of state business taxes that was to commence. It was courageous of the Treasurer to consider trying to streamline our taxation system. As a result of the budget that was brought down on 13 November 2001, a review of business taxes was put in place. Various industry groups, taxpayers and community groups were invited to make submissions in accordance with the terms of reference. Those submissions were considered and a report was delivered to the Treasurer on 28 February this year. As a result of that report, the Treasurer recently released a paper titled “Streamlining Western Australia’s Tax System - Fewer, Fairer and Simpler” in the form of a draft white paper. The Treasurer has invited those affected and the community at large to comment on the propositions contained in that package. The submission period will close on 16 August 2002. Sitting suspended from 1.01 to 2.00 pm Hon GEORGE CASH: Before the lunch suspension I referred to a document called “Streamlining the Tax System”, which indicates the decisions made by the Government as a result of the report of the review of state business taxes in Western Australia. Submissions were sought from business and community groups and other interested parties until 16 August 2002. There is no need for me to go through the original report or this document; suffice to say that the package of reforms being considered include the reduction of a number of state taxes. Those reductions include the abolition of stamp duty on cheques, leases, marketable securities and life insurance from the financial year 2003-04; workers compensation insurance for 2004-5; and the debits tax in 2005-06. Currently, those taxes raise a total of about $150 million a year. However, there are some stings in the tail. The Government has made it clear that if those taxes are abolished, other taxes will need to be increased. It is intended to replace the current multiple marginal payroll tax pay rate scale with a single marginal rate of six per cent, which would apply above the exemption threshold of $750 000. In my view, the document is worth reading and I encourage interested parties to make submissions to Treasury so that they can be taken into account before the Government makes its final decision. Members will note that I have neither
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12165 agreed nor disagreed with the final decision because, firstly, it has not been made and, secondly, I do not want to encourage the Government because in due course we will no doubt discuss its decision. Recently, I received a letter from the City of Stirling. I understand that all members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council within the City of Stirling have also received a copy of this letter. It is addressed to the Minister for Government Enterprises, Hon Nick Griffiths, and is dated 5 June 2002. It deals with the infill sewerage program. The letter comprises a complaint from the City of Stirling about the actions of the Water Corporation. Members are aware that the former Government agreed to an infill sewerage program for much of the metropolitan area over a given period. An agreed infill sewerage program for the City of Stirling was intended to take 10 years to complete. Everyone knew of the program and could find out when it would take place in their area. This Government has extended the time it will take to implement the infill sewerage program for the City of Stirling from 10 to 15 years. I assure members that the City of Stirling is not happy with that decision. Originally, the program was designed in part as an environmental solution that would benefit the community. It is a very significant public work. During its first term of office, the Court Government made the decision to implement that program. I express my great disappointment that the Government has extended that program from 10 to 15 years. We will probably hear more about that in the future. I have been advised that there are some agreements in place for the time management of the House. I conclude my remarks on this matter at this stage but look forward to speaking later this afternoon on another Bill. In the meantime, I indicate the Opposition’s support of the Bill. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House). [Continued on page 12198.]
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (EXCEPTIONAL POWERS) AND FORTIFICATION REMOVAL BILL 2001 Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon Kate Doust) in the Chair; Hon N.D. Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1: Short title - Hon GIZ WATSON: On behalf of the Greens (WA) I will comment on the short title and refer to the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation on this Bill. There is no doubt that this Bill is highly contentious. It seeks to introduce new and exceptional powers that are unprecedented in the history of this State. Much as the committee inquiry was useful and some important recommendations have been made, those recommendations, in the opinion of the Greens (WA), do not make this Bill acceptable. I will comment specifically on the findings and recommendations of the committee. Recommendation 2 separates activities that might be associated with terrorism. There was quite a lot of debate in the committee about this offence, which is one of the offences listed in schedule 1 of the Bill. I raise this recommendation because the intention of the Bill is expressly stated as dealing with organised crime and criminal activities associated with it. The important point is that organised crime is the target. As members are aware, the Bill has a schedule that lists a range of offences. If an inquiry involved at least two of those offences, it would be able to be investigated by the special commissioner. Included in that list are items that relate to obstruction of railways and aircraft. My argument was that both of those offences, even though they are serious, have historically been associated with the activities of organised crime. Therefore, they introduced a new element into this Bill. If the Government, via this Bill, was seeking to introduce legislation that would deal with so-called terrorist activities, it should have stated that up front and made it public. On that basis, the majority of the committee has recommended that those offences be removed, particularly because they could potentially draw into the powers of this Bill activities such as legitimate picketing of railway lines, which might take place in the course of industrial action or legitimate civil disobedience, for example, in another protest. I am glad that the committee, by majority - it was not all members of the committee - agreed to remove those two offences. My point was that if in a climate of hysteria about so-called terrorist activities we were seeking to introduce anti-terrorist provisions under the state law, we should be clear about that. Therefore, I am happy that that recommendation had the support of the majority of the committee. Recommendation 4 of the committee deals with removing the offence or wilful murder or murder. I note that we will deal with an amendment to that effect in the committee debate. I was certainly persuaded by the argument that it was dangerous to go down a route of including in the schedule of offences any wilful murder investigations. The point has been well made by Hon Peter Foss that often in these investigations there is enormous pressure on the Police Service to come up with results and that the exceptional powers that this Bill, if passed, would, unfortunately, put into effect in this State would be particularly dangerous in view of that pressure to get a result in murder cases in which the murderer is unknown. Hon Peter Foss raised the point about differentiating between familial murders and murders that equate with the Claremont serial killings, for example. In recent times, certain injustices that have been done in such cases, particularly the Button case, have been overturned. That strengthens the argument that in those murder investigations there is a danger that police methods will be misused and the innocent will be convicted.
12166 [COUNCIL]
Recommendation 5 is a crucial one. It relates to the issue of whether the special commissioner can be a presiding judge or whether that position should be limited to a retired judge. This is probably one of the key recommendations in the committee report because it will address some major concerns that were raised by virtually every submitter to the committee inquiry. It was said that there could be enormous problems if presiding judges also acted as special commissioners because of the potential contamination of evidence as a result of the conflict in the separation of powers. The Bill seeks to give investigative powers to the special commissioner, and it would have major implications if the special commissioner were a presiding judge. Therefore, recommendation 5 is crucial. Recommendation 11 deals with the protection of witnesses. When the committee examined this Bill, it appeared to me that it had been put together in some haste and there were obvious gaps. One of them was that the Bill does not provide for the special commissioner to direct that a witness, or a person of interest who has been called before the special commissioner, be protected under the protected witness scheme. I raised the issue of the Petrelis affair in particular as an example of the protected witness scheme not operating well, to put it mildly, because in that case a protected witness was not provided with protection. In the current provisions of this Bill it is not even acknowledged that some witnesses who would be brought before the special commissioner might need to be in the protected witness program. Therefore, recommendation 11 seeks to provide the special commissioner with that power. Recommendations 12, 13 and 14 deal with the keeping of records. I am glad that the committee dealt with the issue of the potential destruction of records at the discretion of the Attorney General and unanimously recommended that the records obtained in the inquiries and procedures of the special commissioner should be treated in accordance with the provisions of the State Records Act. I applaud those recommendations in particular. Recommendation 15 relates to the subpoenaing of documents. Again, the Bill does not provide the special commissioner with the power to prevent documents being subpoenaed. Those documents might be able to be subpoenaed, therefore breaching the security and secrecy surrounding those investigations. Recommendation 15 seeks to provide an ability to prevent documents being subpoenaed. Recommendation 16 provides that certain documents remain subject to legal privilege. This was and is a highly contentious aspect of the Bill. The Bill has very broad provisions for the documents and information which are to be provided to the special commissioner and which are not to be subject to legal privilege. I am pleased to say that recommendation 16 limits the documents that will not be subject to legal privilege. However, in the opinion of the Greens (WA), it does not go far enough. At least it will be an improvement on the original Bill, if these recommendations are taken up. Recommendation 19 requires that there be a feedback mechanism for reporting on the search powers under the Bill. Again, the Greens do not support the additional search powers provided in the Bill. However, we recognise that, given the reality of the numbers in this place and that both major parties are unfortunately determined to press on with the Bill, at least if there is a paper trail, it will provide a little more comfort to offset the additional powers that are being provided. Recommendation 21 relates to parliamentary oversight of the operation of the Bill. This is a welcome recommendation in that if the Bill is passed, which I assume it will be, exceptional and new powers will be provided to the special commissioner and the Police Service. It is essential that Parliament have a very close role in monitoring the operation of the Bill, should it become law. I note also that the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation before the vote on the second reading; therefore, the committee was able to consider the policy of the Bill. On that note, I will now refer to the minority report of the Standing Committee on Legislation in my name and make a few comments on the policy of the Bill. The first page of my minority report states - 1.1 Despite my support for certain amendments that will, if adopted, moderate the excesses of this Bill, I remain opposed to the policy of the Bill and argue that it is unnecessary; has inadequate checks and balances; is unlikely to achieve what it sets out to do; and removes some of the key features of the current criminal justice system. 1.2 I dissent from Recommendation 23: “The Committee by a majority (Hons Jon Ford, Ken Travers, Peter Foss and Bill Stretch . . . recommends that the Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Bill 2001 be passed subject to Recommendations 1 to 22.” I make a number of comments in support of my position. The first point is that the exceptional powers created in the Bill are not needed. My report continues - 2.1 Hon Nick Griffiths said in the second reading speech on this Bill: These additional powers are vital to win the war against these highly organised criminals who have access to massive resources. He further asserts that:
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12167
It has been recognised . . . that highly organised crime cannot be investigated and prosecuted by relying on ordinary police powers of investigation. 2.2. The State also has substantial powers and resources. 2.3 In their letter to the Committee the Western Australian Bar Association said: However, the State also has “massive” resources to apply to the investigation and prosecution of crime and should, in the public interest, use those resources and existing police powers without resort to the far reaching extraordinary powers contained in this Bill. 2.4 It is my view that the Western Australia Police Service already has substantial powers of investigation including: powers to enter and search premises; powers to stop, detain and search individuals; powers to confiscate property; powers of surveillance and shortly they will have powers to compulsorily obtain DNA samples. 2.5 The Law Society of Western Australia made the following comment: If investigating authorities such as the Police believe that recent crimes are not capable of being solved or the perpetrators brought to justice using existing considerable powers which they already hold, then the public should be told this openly and reasons given. In other words, an empirical basis in fact needs to be made out justifying why it is contending that the level of existing powers are not adequate to do the job properly. Here, such a justification process has not even been attempted to date. 2.6 I note that as the Police Service elected to give their evidence to the Committee in private they did not take the opportunity so provided to present a public justification or any empirical evidence of the need for additional powers. 2.7 The particular and abhorrent crime that led to the deaths of former Detective Don Hancock and Lou Lewis has been clearly stated as the impetus for this Bill. Two people have now been charged in relation to that crime, without the use of exceptional police powers. 2.8 Clearly the Bill is not needed. The Royal Commission into the Western Australia Police Service 2.9 A 1996 Legislative Council Select Committee on the Western Australia Police Service inquiry found endemic police corruption. The Select Committee reported evidence of police taking bribes to protect prostitutes and drug traffickers, selling drugs confiscated from raids, tampering with evidence, colluding with concealed evidence, interfering in criminal investigations, selectively leaking confidential information to the media and warning people under investigation for gambling or drug offences. The inquiry, as reported in The West Australian , also ‘identified problems in dealing between detectives and criminals, where the relationship between the two became blurred’. In the same article Hon Derrick Tomlinson, Chairman of the Legislative Council Select Committee, was quoted as saying: “I think you will find more infiltration by organised crime into the police service.” 2.10 On December 12 2001 a long awaited Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into and report on whether, since January 1 1985, there has been corrupt or criminal conduct by any Western Australian police officer. The Commission is expected to start taking evidence shortly. 2.11 Given the nature, extent and persistence of allegations of the nature raised above, it is totally inappropriate to even consider granting the Police Service new, exceptional and coercive powers until the Royal Commission’s inquiry is completed. The removal of elements of the criminal justice system is not justified and the checks and balances provided are inadequate 2.12 An evaluation of the necessity of providing the special commissioner and police with exceptional powers to facilitate investigations of organised criminal activities, must involve an evaluation of the relative strengths of different public interests. On the one hand there is the public interest in protecting individual rights, such as the right to protection against self-incrimination. Against this interest must be balanced the need for effective law enforcement through access to essential investigative tools and a community’s right to be protected by the state from crime. 2.13 This Bill has the potential to set the trend for the criminal justice system to begin to consistently favour the interest of the state over the individual. 2.14 The Bill provides substantial coercive powers without providing immunities that would provide protection from abuse of these powers. This has the potential to interfere with certain civil rights. 2.15 The Law Society of Western Australia said in its submission to the Committee:
12168 [COUNCIL]
. . . the Society remains vitally concerned to ensure that any new legislation passed in the aftermath of abhorrent crimes does not constitute an over reaction which would trespass long term against fundamental freedoms which Australians treasure as part of a free and democratic society. 2.16 The Criminal Lawyers Association of Western Australia said in their submission: Police powers are increased and yet the legislation does not provide for any safeguards against the misuse of powers . . . 2.17 Key features of the current criminal justice system include: (1) Police cannot arrest a person simply for the purpose of questioning them. (2) Generally, there are strict limits on the powers of police to detain a suspect in custody during an investigation. (3) The defendant has a pre-trial right to silence in criminal matters. (4) The defendant may engage a legal practitioner to represent them. (5) The defendant is not required to call any evidence or give any evidence. (6) The prosecution bears the burden of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt. (7) Confessions that result from threats, inducements or improper pressure of any kind are rejected and cannot be acted on by the courts. 2.18 All these features are, to a greater or lesser extent, removed or challenged by the Bill. Further, the fact that some of these features have already been eroded by previous legislation is regrettable and does not lessen their importance. On the issue of the arrest and detention of persons of interest to an inquiry, my report states - 2.19 The Bill provides for the arrest and unlimited detention without charge of a person or persons of interest to an inquiry into two or more Schedule 1 offences. On the issue of the right to refuse to answer questions and the onus of proof, my report states - 2.20 John McKechnie QC, former Director of Public Prosecutions has said: It is fair that a person who has the resources of the State marshalled against them should not have to contribute to their own conviction by being forced to speak. The State has, in the main, all the resources necessary to investigate a matter. There is little need to interfere with the right to silence of the accused. The interest of the State is in convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. 2.21 That same article goes on to say: In legal theory the right to silence is connected to the fundamental presumption of innocence in criminal matters and the adversarial nature of the common law system itself. . . . Because the burden of proof, in legal theory, lies with the prosecution, the justification for the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination is not the protection of the guilty but the notion that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. And further The basic position in Western Australia is that no inference can be drawn against a defendant for remaining silent when questioned by police. There are two aspects to this rule. First, the fact-finders cannot use silence by the defendant as a basis to infer a consciousness of guilt. Second, if a defence is raised for the first time at trial no inference can be drawn that it is a new invention or suspect. 2.22 This Bill removes the right to silence of witnesses being examined, cross-examined or re-examined by a person representing the Commissioner of Police (such as a police officer or a police lawyer) on any matter that the special commissioner considers relevant to the investigation. 2.23 While noting that clause 39 provides a check on the abrogation of the privilege against self- incrimination by providing a form of indemnity against the use of statements obtained from a person, it must be pointed out that clause 39 does not apply to documents or other information provided by a person under clause 26 . . .
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12169
2.24 It is my view that this Bill sets a dangerous trend in removing this fundamental element of the criminal justice system. Legal representation 2.25 In the case of the extraordinary powers granted under this Bill which take away existing rights, the right to legal representation becomes even more important. 2.26 While acknowledging that the proposed removal of the right to legal representation will be subject to the public interest test and that the Committee has recommended that the Bill have regulation making powers in order to prescribe that public interest provision . . . it remains my view that no one should be compelled to appear before a special commissioner without legal representation. I note other jurisdictions require the state to provide a lawyer in such circumstances. Judicial supervision 2.27 In the Bill, as noted at paragraph 3.15 of the Committee report: An extraordinary amount of trust is placed in the special commissioner to make decisions based upon the public interest as the main form of ‘check and balance’ on the exercise of the exceptional powers that are provided for in the Bill. This is because in many aspects the special commissioner is the final arbiter. I would suggest that it is not only an extraordinary amount of trust but also an extraordinary amount of power that is handed to the special commissioner! 2.28 The Bill excludes judicial supervision of the performance of the functions of a special commissioner by removing any remedy by way, for example, of prerogative writ to the Supreme Court . . . I consider that this is a fundamental and unprecedented abrogation of the rule of law and I cannot support this aspect of the Bill. Search powers enhanced . . . 2.29 There has been no plausible evidence presented to the Committee that there are problems for the police in obtaining search warrants. While acknowledging that the Committee’s Recommendation 9 (which will provide a ‘paper trail’ in relation to the granting and use of search powers provided for) is a welcome increase in accountability, it is my view that enhanced powers of search and seizure are not warranted. Surveillance powers extended . . . 2.30 The need to lower the test for use of surveillance devices is unwarranted and unexplained. The standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’ is a very low one and easily abused. Further, the existing Surveillance Devices Act 1998 already has far reaching application. I do not support the extension of these powers. The Bill is unlikely to achieve what it sets out to do 2.31 It is my view that the Bill will be ineffective in its stated objective of breaking the ‘code of silence’ of certain people. Witnesses brought before the special commissioner are likely to decide to maintain their ‘code of silence’, taking a prison sentence rather than the likely severe reprisals from any organised criminal gang. 2.32 There may be good reasons to refuse to answer police questions; for example, silence may reflect fear or a desire to protect friends or family, and not necessarily guilt. A witness may have a very valid fear for their safety if they were to provide evidence, especially as this Bill does not include the power to order the protection of a witness or prohibit the subpoena of documents and evidence. However, I note the committee’s recommendations to that effect, which we will consider shortly. My report continues - A prison sentence may well be viewed as a preferable option. I note the failure of the witness protection scheme to prevent the death of protected witness Andrew Petrelis, and the lack of any adequate changes to the witness protection scheme following that failure. 2.33 Professor Art Veno, from Monash University, is Australia’s leading expert on outlaw motor cycle gangs. He said in an interview on the Law Report on Radio National: In America for example, [with] the [R]acketeer [I]nfluence and Corrupt Organisation Act, which is specifically aimed at organised crime, there have been 27 attempts at applying the Act on outlaw motor cycle clubs. Only one has been successful and that was police infiltration with the police infiltrator actually being treasurer of the club and had clear evidence that the outlaws were using some club money for the distribution and manufacture
12170 [COUNCIL]
of illegal substances, I believe amphetamines. The rest of them have all fallen on their face because that’s not their charter, they’re not there about crime, they’re there about turf, honour, loyalty and brotherhood. 2.34 The majority report notes that the National Crime Authority . . . has stated that illicit drugs are currently the most lucrative commodities for Australian organised crime. Attempts to get tough on drug dealers and a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to illicit drug use continue to fail. Nicholas Cowdery QC, former DPP for NSW, in Getting Justice Wrong - myths, media and crime, said: “Prohibition of a marketable commodity for which there is a demand inevitably produces a black (or illicit) market.” He goes on to argue for heroin to be available free to addicted users on prescription by licensed medical practitioners. Substantial drug law reform is needed to remove the enormous profits that are being made in trading in illegal substances. A prohibitionist approach has failed to prevent the increased involvement of criminal gangs in the supply of drugs, in fact it has done quite the opposite. 2.35 Despite the establishment and operation of the NCA in 1984, there has been no discernible drop in the rate of crime, or increase in the effectiveness of investigations or prosecutions. There is no evidence that introducing similar state-based powers to those available to the NCA, especially without a substantial financial commitment, will produce any better results. . . . 2.36 Hon Nick Griffiths in his second reading speech said: “The proposed powers will not apply to citizens who are not engaged in organised criminal activities.” I will not go into that matter as I have already mentioned the removal of the schedule offences that are more likely to be understood as terrorist activities. My report states - The introduction of an inquisitorial procedure 3.1 The Bill will introduce a compulsory examination procedure. The inquisitorial proceedings, carried out by a representative of the Police Commissioner before a special commissioner, are similar to the procedures adopted in continental code jurisdictions . . . It represents a departure from traditional common law investigative procedures. Despite the fact that it has been argued that Royal Commissions have similar inquisitorial powers, the inquiries of a Royal Commission are limited by the terms of its inquiry and it is not a standing body able to inquire into certain types of crimes generally and with no time limits. The final point I make is about limited privilege for journalists. My report states - 3.2 I dissent from the majority finding at paragraph 5.181 of the Report: “ . . . that the LRCWA - That is, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia - review is the appropriate place to give consideration to the adoption of a limited form of privilege for journalists to ensure consistency with the court process.” At paragraph 3.3, I quote from the submission of the Western Australian journalists association - Because the Bill elevates a special commissioner to the status of the Supreme Court in relation to contempts, any refusal to assist the special commissioner risks penalties as applied in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has sentencing powers at common law which are unlimited as to the fine or term of imprisonment. This sentencing power is seen by the WALRC to have no place in modern law. 3.4 Public disclosure of corruption, other criminal activity and misconduct by public officials or others often stems from information given to journalists on the basis of confidentiality. 3.5 Also in a written submission to the Committee, Mr Joseph M Fernandez, Lecturer (Media Law), Curtin University of Technology stated: The overall effect of the (above) provisions on journalism is that it will pose yet another obstacle to free speech by unduly extending the scope of contempt actions from its present concern with ensuring the proper administration of justice to yet another investigatory process. 3.6 He also quotes from a submission to the 1994 Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report, Off the Record - Shield Laws for Journalists’ Confidential Sources, where Journalism Associate Professor Wendy Bacon noted: without . . . sources, a lot of information would not have been published, including stories on police, union and political corruption, improper business practices and shady property deals.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12171
3.7 I believe that the right of journalists to protect confidential information and sources of that information is a cornerstone of the proper functioning of a free press. Without it, people with important information that is in the public interest to disclose, would not do so in circumstances in which the disclosure would result in retribution or dangers for that person. Therefore, I recommend that the Bill should contain a limited form of privilege which would grant them immunity from revealing confidential sources. That proposed amendment will be subject to debate during the committee stage of this Bill. The Greens (WA) clearly support some of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Legislation relating to this Bill, but we believe those recommendations go nowhere near making this Bill acceptable. We will therefore not support the Bill and will deal with each amendment as it arises during the committee stage. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I thank Hon Peter Foss and Hon Giz Watson for their contributions to this short title debate, which follows the presentation of the report of the Legislation Committee. May I also thank the Legislation Committee for what I consider to be an excellent report that deals very well with the issues that need to be dealt with The report is balanced and provides appropriate comments on the differing points of view. It is incumbent on me in dealing with the short title to deal with the Legislation Committee’s report recommendations and how the Government proposes to answer them. In doing that, I will make reference to the supplementary notice paper and, in due course, the supplement to the supplementary notice paper, which I caused to come into being earlier today. Recommendation 1 is adopted in proposed amendment 33/S1 on the supplementary notice paper. Recommendation 2 is dealt with in proposed amendment 34/S1. Recommendation 3 is dealt with in proposed amendment 32/S1. The Government does not agree with recommendation 4. It is noted that Hon Peter Foss has placed on the supplementary notice paper proposed amendment 35/4. The Government does not agree with that proposed amendment. Recommendation 5 is dealt with in the supplementary notice paper proposed amendments 16/6 and 17/8. Similarly, recommendations 6 and 7, which relate to the same issue, namely, who should be appointed as a special commissioner, are dealt with in proposed amendments 16/6 and 17/8. Recommendation 8 is dealt with in proposed amendments 18/9 and 26/44. Recommendation 9 is dealt with in proposed amendments 18/9, 26/44 and 28/NC8. Recommendation 10 is dealt with in proposed amendment 20/16. Recommendation 11 is dealt with in proposed amendment 29/NC23. Recommendations 12, 13 and 14, dealing with state records, are dealt with on page 3 of the supplementary notice paper. The Government is not adopting the approach of the Legislation Committee in that regard. I will explain that when we get to those matters. I note that Hon Peter Foss is foreshadowing moving some of those recommendations. Recommendation 15, which has not been taken up by the Government, is in these terms - The Committee recommends that the Government draft an amendment expressly to prohibit the subpoena of documents and evidence without the permission of the Attorney General. Such a provision should not relieve the Crown of its obligation to disclose all relevant evidence upon a prosecution. The Government is of the view that good public policy can safely rely on the status of the special commissioner. In any event, the Government does not want to have even the appearance of the process being politicised in any way. I do not think Hon Peter Foss is proposing to move that in his foreshadowed amendments. Hon Peter Foss: The only reason is that we do not have a draft form. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The member may deal with that in his response on the short title, if he wishes, but I am explaining why the Government is not taking it up. The Government is not taking up recommendation 16. I note that Hon Peter Foss appears to foreshadow that he proposes to take it up. Recommendation 17 is essentially dealt with in the proposed amendments resulting from recommendations 8 and 9. I refer to earlier comments I made about those. Recommendation 18 is dealt with in proposed amendment 28/NC8, that part being new clause 8C. Recommendation 19 is dealt with in proposed amendment 30/NC50. Recommendation 20 is dealt with in proposed amendment 31/NC65. Recommendation 21 is not being taken up. The Parliament has oversight of the operation of any Bill as a matter of course. Recommendations 22 and 23 recommend that certain matters be passed as a package. To the extent that they are being accommodated by what the Government proposes, I have referred to that. I will refer to the relationship between supplementary notice paper No 65, issue No 3, and the document that was placed before the Committee earlier today, it being the amendment to that supplementary notice paper. That document proposes different words from those on the supplementary notice paper No 65, issue No 3. They are, in clause 6, the addition of the word “equivalent”; and in new clause 4A, which appears on page 6 of the supplementary notice paper, the deletion of the words “in the absence of positive evidence as to age, a person who appears not to have reached 18 years of age”. The new clause 4A that I propose to move will not have those words in it. Amendment 28/NC8, on pages 7 and 8 of the supplementary notice paper, will be altered in new clause 8C(1) by the insertion of the words “or
12172 [COUNCIL] any other person” after the word “Police”, and in new clause 8C(2) by the insertion after the word “Police” of the words “or any other person to whom a requirement under subsection (1) is made”. Hon PETER FOSS: I had hoped that the Committee would proceed very speedily through this, because I thought Hon Nick Griffiths and I would go through the recommendations of the committee, work out what the situation was and then, when we were satisfied that all the matters had been addressed, we would proceed with agreed clauses. Unfortunately, I found out when this matter was called on that the Chamber will debate some of these things, including the committee recommendations. That will take a bit of time. I have taken some of the committee recommendations, photocopied them and distributed them as motions that I will move. We will deal with those when the clauses are called on. Some of the recommendations required something to be drafted, and of course that has not been done. Although I do not think it is the ideal way to do it, I have drafted another clause on the run. I do not like doing that. The Opposition is trying to cooperate. When we arrive at a recommendation of the committee that the Government has not adopted, I will move the recommended amendment, state that it is the recommendation of the committee and, very briefly, the reasons the committee recommended it. I will then sit down and allow Hon Giz Watson and representatives of the other parties in the Chamber to indicate their attitude, and then the amendment can be voted on. The committee did a very good job presenting the arguments, so we do not need to go through them all again in the Committee. It is not that I do not feel very strongly about some of these arguments, but I would not want to detract from the report of the committee, which states it very well. I do not intend to say anything more, other than that I think it is a shame that the Government has seen fit to not adopt certain of the recommendations of the committee. It was a very moderate report, and the Government is probably lucky to get such a kind report. It is a shame, the way the Government has dealt with it, because the committee gave this report in May. To use a colloquialism, the committee busted a gut to get this out, on the understanding that it was urgent. We brought it into the House and waited breathlessly for the response of the Government. The first supplementary notice paper did not appear until yesterday, and it seems largely to have ignored the report of the committee. The committee is entitled to slightly better treatment than that. We did a good job in good time, and worked long hours. I say that for all members of the committee. Many of the suggestions I will be supporting are probably the pet projects of Hon Giz Watson. They are in there because the committee accepted some of the strong arguments she made, and I am prepared to back her on these matters. On the other hand, I will not go into bat for the amendments if she is not interested in them any more. I am sure she can fight her own battles. I will just refer to the report and then sit down, and Hon Giz Watson can tell the Committee whether she is still keen on them. If she is, we will vote on them. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I note the observations of Hon Peter Foss. The positions of the parties have been made clear. The debate will probably develop along the lines of a number of votes. When it is obvious that the Government does not have the numbers, I am not proposing to call divisions. Clause put and passed. Clauses 2 and 3 put and passed. Clause 4: Section 4 offences - Hon PETER FOSS: I move - Page 3, lines 5 to 7 - To delete the lines and insert instead - (b) an offence of wilful murder which appears to be part of a series of connected wilful murders. The first part of this amendment gives effect to the recommendation of the committee, which is to delete the lines. I have also inserted the new lines, which pick up what the Government has said it wants to pick up. The Attorney General has said at some length that he supports using this legislation for serial murders. There are still considerable concerns about serial murders because, as the committee pointed out, when there is a serial murderer, nobody knows who it is. That is when the greatest pressure is on the police to not do the right thing. Therefore, one should be a little worried about giving these powers in those circumstances. However, if the Government genuinely says it wants to use the powers for serial murders and not for murders when there is a random element of another second schedule offence, this amendment will enable that. This amendment will be moved in two parts, and Hon Giz Watson will probably want to support the first part but not the second. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) will support the deletion of the words. As I said when I spoke on the first clause, we have a problem with this aspect. The Bill purports to be a measure that deals with organised crime. Clause 4(b) relates to wilful murder. For the reasons I have previously stated, with the likelihood of police cutting corners and abusing their powers in these murder inquiries, that is exactly the time police should not have exceptional powers. Amendment (lines to be deleted) put and a division taken with the following result -
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12173
Ayes (21)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon Peter Foss Hon Norman Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon George Cash Hon Ray Halligan Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple Hon Frank Hough Hon Barbara Scott Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller) Hon Murray Criddle Hon Barry House Hon J.A. Scott Hon Paddy Embry Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Christine Sharp Hon John Fischer Hon Dee Margetts Hon Bill Stretch Noes (12)
Hon Kim Chance Hon Adele Farina Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Tom Stephens Hon Kate Doust Hon Jon Ford Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ken Travers Hon Sue Ellery Hon Graham Giffard Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Amendment thus passed. Amendment (lines to be inserted) put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (15)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon Peter Foss Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Bill Stretch Hon George Cash Hon Ray Halligan Hon Norman Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Murray Criddle Hon Frank Hough Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller) Hon John Fischer Hon Barry House Hon Barbara Scott Noes (17)
Hon Kim Chance Hon Jon Ford Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple Hon Graham Giffard Hon J.A. Scott Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Hon Kate Doust Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Christine Sharp Hon Sue Ellery Hon Dee Margetts Hon Tom Stephens Hon Adele Farina Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ken Travers Amendment thus negatived. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 5 put and passed. Clause 6: Appointment of special commissioner - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 4, lines 5 to 7 - To delete the lines and insert instead - (2) The person appointed must be a person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court or the District Court or has held another equivalent judicial office prescribed by regulations. Hon PETER FOSS: This is a recommendation of the committee that the Opposition will support. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) are happy that the Government has seen fit to move this amendment and we will support it enthusiastically. Hon PETER FOSS: I have one worry about this amendment that just occurred to me. Does it include people from other States or countries - totally different jurisdictions? The judicial office could be limited in that the provision could be taken to mean a person from this area. Recommendation 6 of the committee stated - . . . any other jurisdiction having a similar basis of law . . . This amendment does not contain those words. The committee recommended that the regulations should make it clear so that no dispute can arise over whether the person comes from this area or not; it would be decided by regulation. Where does it say in the legislation that this equivalent judicial office can be outside Australia or outside Western Australia? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The words “equivalent judicial office” are not restricted to mean just within Western Australia. It can be outside of Western Australia. Who knows, it could even refer to the House of Lords. Hon Peter Foss: As long as the member is certain, so that a court wouldn’t read it down. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I do not think a court would read it down. In any event, I think there is authority for the proposition I have just explained; it could be used to interpret it. Amendment put and passed.
12174 [COUNCIL]
Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 7 put and passed. Clause 8: Tenure of appointment of Judge - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I have an amendment on the supplementary notice paper to delete this clause. Amendments of this type are put on supplementary notice papers to flag the intent of the mover of the amendment. In this case, the Government proposes that the Committee vote against the clause so that it is deleted from the Bill. Clause put and negatived. Clause 9: Scope of this Part - Hon PETER FOSS: I propose that we postpone this clause until we have dealt with proposed new clauses 8A, 8B and 8C, because it would become very confusing to make sense of the rest of the amendments unless they were included. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: That is a sensible course and I will accept it if it is the will of the Committee. Hon Peter Foss suggested that we proceed directly to deal with new clauses 8A, 8B and 8C. That would be sensible, because those proposed clauses relate to how we deal with clause 9 and the proposal to insert a new part that will precede part 3. It will enable the Committee to make sense of what is occurring. Consideration of clause postponed until after consideration of new clauses 8A, 8B and 8C, on motion by Hon N.D. Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming). [Continued on next page.] New clauses 8A, 8B and 8C - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 4, line 20 - To insert the following new clauses - Part 2A - Basis for, and control of, use of powers 8A. Finding as to grounds for exercising Part 3 or 4 powers (1) On the application of the Commissioner of Police, a special commissioner may find whether or not the special commissioner is satisfied that - (a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a section 4 offence has been, or is being, committed; (b) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there might be evidence or other information relevant to the investigation of the offence that can be obtained under Part 3 or 4; and (c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the use of powers given by Part 3 or 4 would be in the public interest having regard to - (i) whether or not the suspected offence could be effectively investigated without using the powers; (ii) the extent to which the evidence or other information that it is suspected might be obtained would assist in the investigation, and the likelihood of obtaining it; and (iii) the circumstances in which the information or evidence that it is suspected might be obtained is suspected to have come into the possession of any person from whom it might be obtained. (2) If the special commissioner is satisfied that the grounds described in subsection (1) exist, the finding is to be reduced to writing and a copy of it is to be given to the Commissioner of Police. 8B. Special commissioner may limit exercise of powers (1) A special commissioner finding under section 8A that the special commissioner is satisfied that the grounds described in section 8A(1) exist may give directions limiting the exercise of powers under Part 3 or 4. (2) A special commissioner may revoke or vary directions under this section or give further directions limiting the exercise of powers under Part 3 or 4. (3) Limitations may be expressed however the special commissioner considers appropriate and, without limiting other ways in which they may be expressed, they may operate by reference to -
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12175
(a) particular powers; (b) particular circumstances; (c) particular persons; (d) particular places; (e) particular articles; or (f) particular times or periods of time. (4) A special commissioner giving, revoking, or varying a direction under this section is to do so in writing a copy of which is to be given to the Commissioner of Police. 8C. Overseeing exercise of certain powers (1) A special commissioner may require the Commissioner of Police or any other person to give the special commissioner details of any exercise of a power under Part 3 or 4, including the identity of any person who has exercised the power. (2) The Commissioner of Police or any other person to whom a requirement under subsection (1) is made is to comply with the requirement and is to cause any person under the control of the Commissioner of Police to provide the special commissioner with any details sought by the special commissioner. Hon PETER FOSS: The Opposition supports this amendment, which was one of the committee’s recommendations. That recommendation came about as a result of a combination of amendments proposed to the committee by the Attorney General and the amendments that the committee was considering. The provisions of this amendment are contained in recommendation 9 of the committee’s report. The only concerns I have relate to clause 8C, which deals with the power to oversee the exercise of certain powers. I had asked the Government whether it would consider a proposed subclause (3) to deal with the ability of the special commissioner. However, I cannot see that in the Bill. The usual way in which the special commissioner keeps track of things is to report to the Commissioner of Police. He must have the opportunity to put his hands on any police officer and ask what he was up to. If there is another explanation, I would like to hear it. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The member and I have discussed this matter and I mentioned it in my observations on the short title. However, the amendments on the supplementary notice paper deal with certain clauses. In new clause 8C(1), after the word “Police”, the words “or any other person” are inserted; and in new clause 8C(2), after the word “Police”, the words “or any other person to whom a requirement under subsection (1) is made” are inserted. That deals with the point at issue. Hon PETER FOSS: The minister is right; he has dealt with the point. New clauses put and passed. Postponed clause 9: Scope of this Part - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 5, lines 7 to 28 - To delete the lines and insert instead - (3) The powers of a special commissioner under this Part cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner of Police has satisfied a special commissioner that the grounds described in section 8A(1) exist in respect of the section 4 offence concerned. (4) A power under this Part cannot be exercised contrary to a direction under section 8B. That brings us back into sync. Hon PETER FOSS: This is recommendation 8 of the committee and the Opposition will support it. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) support this amendment. In conjunction with the amendment that was just passed, this amendment addresses the recommendations in the committee’s report. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 10 to 15 put and passed. Clause 16: Legal representation - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 9, lines 19 to 24 - To delete the lines and insert instead -
12176 [COUNCIL]
(3) If the special commissioner considers that in the circumstances it would not be in the public interest to postpone a person’s examination to enable the person’s legal representative to be present, a special commissioner may - (a) despite subsection (2), allow the examination of the person to proceed without the person having legal representation; or (b) arrange for the person to be legally represented at the examination. (4) A person may decline to be legally represented as arranged under subsection (3)(b) by the special commissioner, but the special commissioner is not obliged to arrange any other legal representation for the person. I note the discussion in the committee report on pages 49 to 53. The amendment on the supplementary notice paper seeks to replace subclauses (3) and (4) of clause 16. Hon PETER FOSS: This is not in accordance with the views of the committee. This clause is dealt with at pages 49 to 53 of the report. There are two reasons that the committee did not make a recommendation. First, we were concerned that it would be contrary to the Constitution for us to move such an amendment because it would necessarily involve the expenditure of somebody’s money. The second reason was that the committee had some doubts; that is, that if legal representation was arranged, a person could more readily be examined without proper notice, and the view would be that as that person had a lawyer, he would be all right. However, if he got the lawyer only 10 minutes before being examined, the situation is that the substance and the form would be pretty different. I believe that we should oppose this amendment, not because I oppose the idea behind it but because the practical effect of it will be to give people more of an excuse to say, “Right. Don’t complain. You are going to be examined. You must learn.” Later on when that person complains that he did not have a chance to speak to his lawyer, it will be said on appeal that he had a competent counsel so there is no reason to do anything about it. In view of the fact that we have excluded judicial review, I am worried that this will make it much harder for anybody to get around the judicial review provisions. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I note what has been said. I do not agree with the arguments. However, I am concerned to hear the views of the Greens (WA) on this, because the first part of the amendment is to delete the lines, and the last thing the Government wants is to have subclauses (3) and (4) deleted. Therefore, I would appreciate an indication of how the Greens (WA) propose to deal with this issue. Obviously, if they give a particular indication, I will adopt a particular course of action. Hon GIZ WATSON: In the committee process, it was a vexed question for me to balance this issue in the light of my view that a person should not be brought before a special commissioner without legal representation; yet I took on board the comments made in the committee, particularly by Hon Peter Foss, about there being a danger if the special commissioner were empowered to arrange for a person to be legally represented. It is a question of whether that person has much choice about who will represent him and how long he has to exchange information with his legal representative. A range of questions arise when a legal representative is provided to, rather than chosen by, a person. The argument was that if a special commissioner can appoint a legal representative, there is a danger that the police, who might want to bring a person of interest before the special commissioner, would do so at short notice. Therefore, the possibility of that person being able to find his own legal representative would be lessened. A number of factors were difficult to reconcile. The opinion I expressed during the committee process, which has not changed, was that I would prefer that a person be provided with legal representation, and trust that that would be done in a fair manner, rather than leave that person without legal representation, which would be the situation if we proceeded with the Bill in its current form. It is not an ideal situation, but I prefer to support the Government’s amendment to this clause to ensure that a person will be provided with legal representation on the direction of the special commissioner in certain circumstances. Amendment put and passed. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 9, line 26 - To insert before “commissioner” the word “special” This is in accordance with recommendation 10 of the committee. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 17 to 21 put and passed. Clause 22: Power of special commissioner in relation to things produced - Hon PETER FOSS: The committee engaged in a great deal of discussion on this area. We were lucky to be favoured with the suggestion of an amendment by the State Records Commission, which is probably unusual. I should mention that that is an august body constituted under the State Records Act 2000, which consists of the Ombudsman, the Auditor
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12177
General, the Information Commissioner and one other person experienced in public archives. It is an extremely august body and a fairly rare combination of people. That Act is recognised around Australia as being one of the best records Acts of any State. It is the envy of the other States because it has a nice combination of checks and balances throughout. The members of the commission were quite indignant about this. I must profess that, even before we received their letter, I was fairly indignant, given my notice of changes. However, I am not proceeding with my amendments because I accept the committee recommendation about the State Records Act. It is outrageous that the State Records Commission, with such an august group of people, should be set up, and when the first test comes along we decide to bypass it. The State Records Commission of Western Australia received the documents from the WA Inc royal commission, and that included the secret report. I do not think most people realise that there was a secret report from the WA Inc royal commission that dealt with criminal prosecutions. We were prepared to give the commission all the confidential documents it received during that inquiry; yet we are not prepared to give it these documents. We are not prepared to have the documents dealt with in accordance with the State Records Act. The Act provides what must be kept and destroyed. All it requires is a schedule on how it will be done. I would not mind an explanation about the amendment to clause 22 that the minister intends to move. I understand the rest of the amendments pretty well, and they are not acceptable. How does the amendment to clause 22 fit with the recommendations of the committee? In other words, do they stand together, are they incompatible or are they compatible but a major difference from the committee’s recommendations? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 11, after line 23 - To insert - (2) A special commissioner may make an order about what is to be done with any document or other thing produced before the special commissioner, and it may be dealt with in accordance with that order. The Government’s treatment of this issue is to provide the special commissioner with the capacity to make orders about what is to happen to the documents or any other thing that may be produced before the special commissioner. For example, the order may be to the effect that a particular document be referred to the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards or the police. The matters may be of a very sensitive nature and there may be ongoing investigations. Hon Peter Foss: Can they be destroyed, contrary to the State Records Act? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: No; that is not the intent of the amendments. Hon Peter Foss: It is not the intent, but is it a possibility? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: That is not the intent of the amendments. I refer the member to proposed amendment 24/23 on the supplementary notice paper. If passed, the clause then would state - For the purpose of the State Records Act 2000 any records transferred to the State archives collection are restricted access archives unless the Attorney General requests otherwise. Hon Peter Foss: That is once they get there. What about beforehand? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: It is proposed that the documents be subject to order. It may be necessary for them to go to the ACC or, should it come to pass, a police integrity commission. Hon Peter Foss: Can they be ordered to be destroyed? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The special commissioner has discretion. The wording proposed in the amendment is that the special commissioner may make an order about what is to be done with any document. That would include the potential for destruction. That is a matter for the discretion of the special commissioner. The document may be of such a sensitive nature - I do not purport to know much about the operations of police and criminals in these matters, notwithstanding the fact that I served with Hon Derrick Tomlinson on a committee that dealt with issues of this kind - that it can be destroyed. In his discretion, the special commissioner may feel it necessary that the documents be destroyed. The Government’s view is that the public interest will be protected by the integrity of the office of the special commissioner, noting the status of the person to be engaged as the special commissioner. The treatment of the documents or any other thing, which might be a murder weapon, should be subject to order at the discretion of the special commissioner. Hon PETER FOSS: I cannot accept that. The Chief Justice, the Parliament and every other instrumentality of government must comply with the State Records Act. I can see no reason that this person should not comply with the Act. In view of the secrecy, I can see many more reasons that that person should comply. I am trying to assist the Government. I move - That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “in accordance with that order” the following - but may not be ordered to be destroyed except in accordance with the State Records Act 2000
12178 [COUNCIL]
It is the Government’s amendment. In other words, the document can be shuffled around from person to person, but it will always end up with someone who must deal with it in accordance with the State Records Act. However, it cannot be destroyed except in accordance with the State Records Act. Hon GIZ WATSON: I seek clarification. Am I speaking to the amendment on the amendment or to the amendment proper? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Kate Doust): The member is speaking to the amendment on the amendment. Hon Peter Foss: Perhaps the minister can say what he wants to say to the Chamber and then we can discuss his suggestion. The minister has suggested that the words be inserted in a different place, but not in an insulting way. Hon N.D. Griffiths: I do not mean to be insulting. My mind does not quite work in the same way as that of Hon Peter Foss. Hon GIZ WATSON: It might be constructive at this stage for me to comment on the amendment. The Greens (WA) believe that the amendment does not achieve the recommendations of the committee, which were specifically to ensure that documents were not destroyed and that documents produced by the procedures of the special commissioner be subject to the State Records Act. It seems to me that if this new subclause is inserted, it will give the special commissioner the power - Point of Order Hon BARBARA SCOTT: The member is trying to address two of the critical people in the Chamber, who are involved in another discussion. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Committee Resumed Hon GIZ WATSON: I thank the member for that gallant effort. I was speaking to the Hansard reporter. Hansard reporters always pay attention. If subclause (2) were inserted, it would give the power back to the special commissioner to make an order about what is to be done with any document or other thing produced before the special commissioner, and it may be dealt with in accordance with that order. That goes back to the status quo. We strongly reject the amendment. The amendment moved by Hon Peter Foss might address some of the issues, but I do not think that simply prohibiting the destruction of the documents will fix the problem entirely. If we take up the recommendations that the committee has suggested - Hon Peter Foss: And come back to this. Hon GIZ WATSON: Yes. If the amendment is further amended to just preclude destruction, it will address that specific issue, but it will not address any other way in which the special commissioner might deal with those documents. I think it would take the power out of the State Records Office’s hands. Hon PETER FOSS: I will try to satisfy Hon Giz Watson on this point. If a record cannot be destroyed, it will remain in existence. If need be, a document can remain in the hands of a government department forever. We do not want the special commissioner to get rid of a document. The special commissioner might order that a document be sent to the Anti-Corruption Commission or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Those bodies are caught by the State Records Act. I admit that nothing in the Bill allows a document to be sent to those bodies once it is spent; however, that is the only thing that is not included. At the request of the minister, I will amend the amendment to include new subclause (3) to prescribe that a document must not be destroyed except in accordance with the State Records Act. I am happy for the special commissioner to shuffle a document between departments. I do not think there is any problem with that. I understand the point that the special commissioner should comply with the State Records Act. The committee recommended that clause 23 be amended. Perhaps the minister can tell us what will happen with that. If clause 23 were amended according to the committee’s recommendation, clause 23(2) would read - A special commissioner may make any order considered to be appropriate, in accordance with the State Records Act 2000, as to how the records are to be dealt with when the investigation is complete. Therefore, the documents would still comply with the State Records Act after an order was completed. The minister has not accepted that amendment. The Opposition will move it, and I suspect that Hon Giz Watson, from what she said, will support that. The minister must look at these amendments as a whole and make up his mind what he will do. I think these amendments cover most of Hon Giz Watson’s concerns. There is a good chance that if we can put a foot on the documents and stop them disappearing out the door forever, the State Records Act will keep hold of them. I think it is appropriate that the special commissioner be able to order that a document go to the ACC, the DPP or the Police Service. Hon GIZ WATSON: I seek another point of clarification. I accept the argument about destruction. I also accept that if documents are dispatched to another department, they will fall under the State Records Act. What is to prevent the special commissioner retaining documents?
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12179
Hon Peter Foss: I think the next clause will address that. Hon GIZ WATSON: Okay. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Hon Peter Foss will move a new amendment. The Government proposes to accept that. Amendment on the amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment put and passed. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 12186.] Sitting suspended from 3.45 to 4.00 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, SELECTION PROCESS 1565. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the selection process undertaken recently regarding the position of Electoral Commissioner, and ask - (1) Who were the three applicants short-listed by the selection panel? (2) Which applicant received the panel’s highest preference? (3) What is the proposed period of appointment for this position? (4) What are the reasons for not reappointing Dr Ken Evans? (5) In 1997 did the then Leader of the Opposition oppose the appointment of Dr Ken Evans when notified in accordance with section 5B(3) of the Electoral Act 1907? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The selection and recruitment processes for all public sector positions are treated as confidential, particularly as applications are submitted by individuals on the basis that their details will not be disclosed. (3) Five years. (4) The Minister for Electoral Affairs determined that the position of Electoral Commissioner would be subject to open competition through a merit selection process. (5) In 1997 the Leader of the Opposition did not endorse Cabinet’s decision on the appointment.
BELMONT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BUREAU OFFICE, LAYOUT 1566. Hon PETER FOSS to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer to the Attorney General’s statements in another place that it would help to understand the layout of the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau office in assessing the involvement and in which he professed to be such a person who did understand it. (1) How did the Attorney General come to be acquainted in any way with the layout of the Belmont CIB office? (2) Has he seen a sketch or diagram of that office; and, if so, what is the source of that sketch or diagram? (3) In particular, did he discuss the layout of the Belmont CIB office with the Minister for Health? (4) How did he know that it was important to know the layout of the Belmont CIB office? (5) Is he now aware that then Assistant Commissioner Kucera, when cross-examined by Mr Malcolm McCusker at the 1998 appeal, revealed that shortly before the appeal, he had gone out to the Belmont CIB office to re- acquaint himself with the layout of the Belmont CIB office? (6) If so, when did he become aware? (7) Did he read the remainder of the transcript of evidence of the cross-examination of then Assistant Commissioner Kucera? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) Verbally. (2) No.
12180 [COUNCIL]
(3) Briefly. (4) It helps to understand events. (5) No. (6) Not applicable. (7) I read the transcript.
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE 1514 1567. Hon PETER FOSS to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer to the answer to question without notice of yesterday, which is noted on the written copy as No 1184, which is not the Hansard number. At the time I put the question in, I did not have the Hansard number. I am sure the minister knows what I mean by No 1184. To the extent that my question concerns the Minister for Racing and Gaming personally, I am asking him, and to the extent that my question concerns the Attorney General, I am asking the Minister for Racing and Gaming in his representative capacity. (1) Did the typed copy of the answer to question without notice No 1514 have the word “yes” against the first part of the answer when the Attorney General received it? (2) Did the typed copy of the answer to question without notice No 1514 have the word “yes” against the first part of the answer when the minister received it? (3) Did the minister cross out the word “yes”? (4) Did the Attorney General or the minister know who did cross out the word “yes”? (5) If the minister or the Attorney General is unable to tell the House who altered the answer to the question, will he give an undertaking to the House to ascertain who did and inform the House? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: These are two questions: one is asked of me personally and one is asked of me representing the Attorney General. I will first give the answer provided to me by the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s answer is - I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) My answer to the question is as provided to the Parliament; not the answer which was crossed out administratively to indicate that it was not the answer. I cannot relate to the House how and why the “yes” was typed in and crossed out. (5) No. To the extent that the question concerns me personally - (1) I do not know. (2) When I first received it, the typed copy of the answer was as handed over to the member in accordance with the custom of this House. (3) No. (4) I do not know. (5) The answer to the question, on my reading, was not altered, but the answer was as stated by me to the House. The crossed-out word on the piece of paper handed to the member as a matter of courtesy is not part of the answer.
MICKELBERG APPEAL, TRANSCRIPTS 1568. Hon PETER FOSS to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer to the Attorney General’s claim that he had spent a lot of time over the weekend of 8 and 9 June and on 10 June reading the transcripts. (1) Were the transcripts he read those that he had been given by the Solicitor General on the weekend? (2) To the extent that they were, will he identify which of the transcripts he read? (3) To the extent that they were not, will he identify those transcripts and say where he got them from? (4) Did he read the transcript of then Assistant Commissioner Kucera at the appeal in 1998? (5) Would it be fair to say that he read them carefully? I draw his attention to pages 508 to 511 where Mr McCusker drew the attention of then Assistant Commissioner Kucera to the fact that his evidence that he
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12181
interrupted the interview of Mickelberg was at odds with that of Lewandowski at trial in 1983 that Kucera was not involved until after the interview was completed. (6) Does the Attorney General still maintain that when he gave the evidence to the Minister for Health on the weekend, he was not aware that the admission by Lewandowski that notes were not taken and the “statement” was fabricated would cast doubt on the veracity of then Assistant Commissioner Kucera’s evidence and that it might be suggested again, as it was by Mr McCusker in 1998, that he may not have entered the room as he had sworn? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) I read the transcript provided to me earlier by the Solicitor General. (4) Yes. (5) I read them. (6) Mr Lewandowski’s affidavit makes no such claim that notes were not taken. MICKELBERG APPEAL, TRANSCRIPTS 1569. Hon PETER FOSS to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer to the Attorney General’s claim in another place that over the weekend of 8 and 9 June, he spent time reading transcripts of the Mickelberg appeal and other documents. (1) Did the Attorney General read the reason for the judgment handed down by the Court of Criminal Appeal in February 1999? (2) Did he read the remark by the Chief Justice under the heading of the evidence of Kucera that “Mr McCusker drew attention to testimony of Hancock at the trial to the effect that interrupting an interview is ‘something you don’t do in police circles.’ He submitted that this convention cast doubt on Kucera’s testimony”? (3) Does he still maintain that a suggestion arising out of Lewandowski’s confession that Mickelberg was stripped and beaten and that the confession was fabricated later may cause persons to suggest that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera did not enter the room, did not see notes being taken and that the then Assistant Commissioner Kucera fabricated his evidence in 1998? (4) Does he still maintain that he was not aware at the time he gave the documents to Mr Kucera that such an accusation may be levelled at the Minister for Health and may be the subject of an inquiry by - (a) the royal commission (b) the Anti-Corruption Commission (c) the Police Service? (5) Did the Attorney General give the Minister for Health the documents because he was aware that he might be subject to inquiry in such a manner and that he wished to prevent the Minister for Health being taken unawares with fresh evidence and unable to explain himself? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1)-(5) The words Hon Peter Foss has read out are not identical to the words in front of me. Hon Peter Foss: Is there a duplication there? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The words are not the same as the words I have in front of me, being the question of which some notice was given. I note that this occurred earlier this week and led to an unfortunate misunderstanding between Hon Peter Foss and myself. I think it is very important that I have the opportunity as a representative minister to check on the matter and check the answer because where the words differ, the answer may be materially different. I do not propose to answer the question at this stage for that reason. If the member wishes to put it on notice or to ask it again, it no doubt can be answered. Unfortunately, I first saw this document shortly before question time and did not have an opportunity to see what had transpired. ABORIGINAL ROCK ART, DAMAGE BY EMISSIONS 1570. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development: I refer to the minister’s recent comments on the ABC in which he outlined plans for an expert working group to look at the science that had so far been put forward in relation to the paper The Survival of the Murujuga (Burrup) Petroglyphs by Robert Bednarik.
12182 [COUNCIL]
(1) To which department or agency will this expert working group report? (2) Have terms of reference for this group been established; and, if so, will the minister table a copy of those terms? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Who is intended to sit on this group and will the minister table a copy of their relevant qualifications? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) For how long is it intended that this group will conduct its work? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I table a copy of the minister’s press statement on this matter in which the minister said - The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources is currently evaluating the science behind a recent report claiming rock art will be damaged by emissions. [See paper No 1548.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: To continue - (1) The working group will be convened by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources. (2) These are in preparation. (3) Not applicable. (4) Dr Reinhold Hart, environmental chemist, Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources and Richard Clarke, senior mineralogist, forensic science department, WA Chemistry Centre are intended to be part of the group. In addition, a scientist from the Department of Environmental Protection is to be invited. (5) Not applicable. (6) That is not known at this stage.
SWAN LOCATION 7779, WANNAMAL ROAD, BURNING OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE BANKSIA WOODLAND 1571. Hon DEE MARGETTS to the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: With regard to the reply to question without notice 1148 of 20 June 2002, which related to recent instructions to a land- holder from the Shire of Gingin to burn all 4 100 acres of high conservation value banksia woodland at Swan location 7779, Wannamal Road, over two years - (1) Will the minister table a copy of the draft preliminary guidelines for use with hazard-reduction burning programs, which address a range of fire safety and environmental issues? (2) Will the minister advise to whom the draft preliminary guidelines are directed and whether this includes local government, including whether they would apply to rural as well as urban bushland? (3) Given that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority established a natural environment branch in its community safety division to assist in consideration of environmental policy issues relating to urban bushland groups and other publications associated with urban bushland, what has been done in this area to assist rural bushland groups? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The preliminary guidelines referred to in the answer of 20 June 2002, question 1148, is module 3.17 - “Prescribed Burning 1 - Methodologies for Safe and Effective Burning”, and the joint FESA and Department of Environmental Protection “Guidelines for Smoke Management from Burning Which Requires a Permit Under the Bush Fires Act 1954”. Also available is the brochure “Managing Smoke from Planned Burning”. All documents are in the public arena. (2) The draft preliminary guidelines are applicable in rural and urban bushland areas when local governments allow burning, and are directed to all people who wish to undertake the use of prescribed fire or require alternatives. The “Managing Smoke from Planned Burning” brochure also suggests alternatives to burning and advises some of the things that should not be burnt. The “Guidelines for Smoke Management from Burning Which Requires a Permit Under the Bush Fires Act 1954” covers the prescribed use of fire and also advises what should not be burnt and the legislation that covers this area.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12183
(3) FESA is working with a range of State, Commonwealth and local governments, as well as fire managers from the community, community representatives and others, on fire management in the rural environment. FESA is also actively seeking research finance so that specific fire and environment research can be undertaken in the rural bushland areas of Western Australia. An example of the type of research that is being pursued is to determine the flowering and seed cycles for the fire-sensitive native flora for the various biogeographical regions in Western Australia. A further example is that FESA in association with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has also produced, after significant public consultation, “Planning for Bush Fire Protection” which forms the foundation for fire-risk management planning within Western Australia at a community and land development level. The primary focus is on new subdivisions and related developments in rural and urban-rural communities and town sites, particularly where these may be exposed to risks of bush fires. BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS, FUNDING 1572. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: (1) How many border protection officers are funded, using federal funds, by the State Government through the Department of Agriculture? (2) How many employees does this entail? (3) Is this a clear indication that the real loss of employees to the Department of Agriculture is greater than 155 over the past two financial years? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) At 7 June, 2002, 174 full-time equivalents were funded by the Commonwealth to deliver Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service programs. (2) The total number of AQIS-funded staff is 208, which equates to 174 FTEs, as there are numerous part-time officers. (3) From 30 June 2001 to 7 June 2002 the total FTEs employed by the Department of Agriculture declined from 1 705 to 1 620. During that same period AQIS-funded FTEs increased from 122 to 174. Therefore, the number of FTEs funded by sources other than AQIS declined by 137, from 1 583 to 1 446. This decrease reflects changes in state, industry and commonwealth funding and a reduction in the need for casual labour. In answering a similar question, I referred to other reductions in commonwealth-funded positions, particularly the Landcare coordinators, funded by the Natural Heritage Trust. HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, PROFITABILITY 1573. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the Minister for Racing and Gaming: I refer the minister to comments he made in the House last week during debate on the Labor Relations Reform Bill, when he said that the hospitality industry seems to thrive in other parts of Australia without the workplace agreement regime that Western Australia currently has. I also refer the minister to data released this week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which showed that the profitability of most Western Australian pubs and taverns had fallen from 5.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent. What does the minister intend to do to ensure the hospitality industry in Western Australia improves profitability and thrives, just as it thrives in other parts of Australia, as he pointed out? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. He notes what is occurring in Western Australia. Unfortunately, Western Australia has this workplace agreement regime, which the Government is in the process of getting rid of. As part of the Gallop Government, I am joining in that process so that employers and employees can enter into arrangements that enable the activities of the hospitality industry to prosper elsewhere. The honourable member would be aware that this Government has given priority to matters affecting the hospitality industry, and particularly that part of that industry for which I have ministerial responsibility, liquor licensing. This Parliament passed legislation last year, early in the life of this Government, which tightened up the issuing of special facility licences. The issuing of such licences before the Government tightened up the legislation was a matter of great concern to the industry and, in my view, contributed to a lack of profitability in some areas. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that the legislation passed late last year appears to be working very well indeed. A number of special facility licences have been issued since the legislation came into effect in early January of this year. Six licences had been granted up to the end of May, compared with a considerably greater number in each of the preceding years. I referred to the specifics in the estimates committee debates. The Government and I, with responsibility for liquor licensing, take seriously the concerns of the hospitality industry, as is evidenced by the direction and priority of the government legislation so far.
12184 [COUNCIL]
Under the previous Government a national competition policy review took place in the then Office of Racing, Gaming and Liquor. Early in the life of this Government I caused what was until then a secret document to be provided to the public and to those directly concerned in the industry. I sought and received comments on that document. The member may recall from the estimates committee debate that I have finalised my views in consultation with the industry on the national competition policy matters that affect the liquor industry. That is being processed through government. I trust that matters will work out well for the industry. I can assure the honourable member that, if the draft had prevailed, it may have caused a great degree of difficulty to the industry. The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister is winding up his answer. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I have been asked a question which I am very concerned to answer, but I do appreciate the time of the House. I will make just one more point, but I could speak for some time about what this Government is doing for the hospitality industry. Recently, I announced that I had written to a number of stakeholders advising that I will examine the process of issuing liquor licences, with particular reference to the work carried out by the director and the Liquor Licensing Court, and the way they interact. I am in the process of settling the terms of that review, and I anticipate forwarding a discussion paper to relevant parties. In accordance with this Government’s usual practice of openness, that discussion paper will be on the Internet at, or shortly after, that time. I take your point Mr President. I could speak for some considerable time on this very important issue, but I had better sit down at this stage. MONKEY MIA DOLPHINS 1574. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: I hope that I can wake up the Minister for Housing and Works. Hon Tom Stephens: I am listening. Hon NORMAN MOORE: If the minister treats the House with that sort of contempt, sitting there with his eyes closed and his mouth open, one can only assume he is sound asleep. Perhaps my first question should be “what is the minister doing here?” The PRESIDENT: Members, a queue of people is waiting to ask questions. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I ask - (1) Will the minister use her powers under section 26(c) and section 33 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 to direct the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and the Department of Conservation and Land Management to allow dolphins to be fed at Monkey Mia, thereby giving the area the necessary future economic security, which is currently being threatened? (2) If not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I listened to the question of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a pity he did not listen to the answer given yesterday. (1) As indicated in the response to question without notice No 1557 of Wednesday, 26 June 2002, before arriving at a position, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage will consider advice of the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (2) Not applicable. If the honourable member asks the question again tomorrow, the answer will presumably be the same.
WATERWAYS, OESTROGEN LEVELS 1575. Hon J.A. SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: Regarding oestrogen levels in Western Australian waterways, I ask - (1) Is the minister aware that research conducted in Melbourne and Sydney has revealed that treated sewage outflow in these areas had residual oestrogens or oestrogen-like agents that have already produced deformities and distorted reproductive development in male fish, and are suspected of deformities in humans? (2) Is there currently any monitoring of health defects that might be associated with hormone disruptors? (3) If not, why not? (4) Is the minister aware that hypospadias is an indicator of potential hormonal disruption caused by toxic chemicals in the environment? (5) Has there been an increase in Western Australia in the incidence of hypospadias in newborn boys within the last 10 years?
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12185
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. However, this will be investigated. (2)-(5) Not applicable. ORCHARDISTS, WORKSAFE REGULATIONS 1576. Hon BILL STRETCH to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: This question follows from yesterday’s question but has a different nuance, which no doubt the minister will pick up. Is the minister aware that under the current WorkSafe regulations orchardists must operate elevating work platforms in accordance with the Australian Standard 2550.10? There are numerous clauses in this standard that orchardists cannot comply with, leading them to use their machines in contravention of the operating legislation. Therefore, is the minister prepared to assist by having a separate code of practice drawn up that is applicable to the orchard industry to achieve a consistently safer working environment? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Bill Stretch for some notice of this question. Further to a meeting with the WorkSafe Western Australia Commissioner and orchardists at Donnybrook earlier this month, WorkSafe has recommended to the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection that the amendment to regulation 4.54 be repealed. This action has been taken to allow for consultation within industry groups on the development of the appropriate guidelines for the operation and maintenance of elevating work platforms. I have also met with fruit growers and allied industry personnel at Lesmurdie. The concept of a code of practice was discussed in some detail at that meeting, and I also recall its being mentioned briefly at Donnybrook, which is another matter that I will take up with the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Since the member has asked for my opinion on this matter, I support the concept of a specific industry code of practice and I have advised the minister accordingly. However, it is for the appropriate minister to make that decision. The only reservation I have about an industry code, which is the right way to go, is that experience has shown that codes can take a while to be implemented. Negotiations have been under way in the viticulture industry for 18 months to two years, which is an extensive time. Therefore, I will need to learn a little more about that process. However, the way to go is to establish a code of practice within the industry, which is developed according to the identified needs of that industry, along with WorkSafe, so that we can move away from this one-size-fits-all approach. This is clearly not intended by the regulations but, similarly, the regulations cannot be drafted to suit every industry-specific need. The only way they can be made to fit is through a principle in the code of practice. So far we have had a very good outcome on this issue as a result of the Government’s response to industry concerns. I thank farmers for being forthright and cooperative in working towards a satisfactory long-term resolution. I am also grateful to my colleagues, the members for Collie and Roleystone, for their active pursuit of a fair outcome for farmers and for safer farm workplaces. KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN, NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 1577. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) In the past five years how many suits for negligence have been brought against medical officers at the King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women? (2) In each case, who were the named defendants? (3) What is the total amount that has been paid to successful litigants in each of the past five years? (4) Who were the named defendants in those suits and what amount was awarded against each of them? (5) Who was the insurer in each case? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. Due to the complexity of this question it is not possible to compile the information in such a short time frame. I ask that the member put this question on notice. ISOLATED CHILDREN’S PARENTS’ ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA 1578. Hon BARBARA SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Education: After attending the conference of the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association of Australia in Meekatharra on 13 March 2002, I wrote to the Minister for Education and the Director General of Education. The parents had expressed their desire for professional assistance with new kindergarten programs, and I suggested that the Queensland model, as provided by Frontier Services, was worth noting by Western Australia.
12186 [COUNCIL]
During the estimates committee hearing on 10 June, Mr Albert, the Director General of Education, advised that an early childhood teacher would be engaged for this purpose and I ask - (1) Will this teacher be an early childhood teacher? (2) When will this teacher begin work? (3) What areas of the State will this person cover? (4) What resources will be provided for the teacher? (5) How many visits per family per annum are anticipated? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Several individuals will be involved who will be early childhood teachers. (2) The Department of Education is investigating the proposals to determine the details, including the commencement date. (3) This will be determined in collaboration with the Department for Community Development following a review of existing services and an analysis of community needs. (4) Details of the resourcing available for this proposal will be decided once the scope of the project has been determined. (5) This will be provided once the scope of the project has been determined and the budget allocated. PEMBERTON AND NORTHCLIFFE MILL HOUSES 1579. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP to the minister representing the Minister for Environment and Heritage: With regard to the former Pemberton and Northcliffe mill houses I ask - (1) Is the Government paying money to Sotico Pty Ltd for the purchase of the mill houses at Pemberton and Northcliffe? (2) If yes, how much? (3) Does the minister intend to support the conversion of the land to freehold title? (4) How does the minister intend to ensure the heritage values of the houses will be protected? (5) Exactly what provisions could be enforced through the town planning scheme or other measures to protect the heritage values of the entire precinct? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage provided the following response - (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) A number of options relating to the tenure of the land have been prepared and put forward for the consideration of the cabinet subcommittee on protecting our old-growth forests policy, which the minister chairs. No decisions have yet been made. (4) The Heritage Council is providing advice on the protection of the heritage values of the precinct to the cabinet subcommittee on protecting our old-growth forests policy. (5) The precinct is protected under the Shire of Manjimup’s town planning scheme. This protection does not allow any change to the physical appearance of the buildings in the precinct without council approval. This protection will continue to ensure that the character of the precinct is retained.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (EXCEPTIONAL POWERS) AND FORTIFICATION REMOVAL BILL 2001 Committee Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the Chair; Hon N.D. Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming) in charge of the Bill. Clause 22: Power of special commissioner in relation to things produced - Debate was interrupted after the clause had been partly considered. Hon PETER FOSS: I move -
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12187
Page 11, after line 23 - to insert - (3) A special commissioner may not order a document to be destroyed except in accordance with the State Records Act 2000. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 23: Records of investigation - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 11, lines 25 and 26 - To delete “the investigation” and insert instead - proceedings under this Part Proceedings under this part include the evidence and records that related to the investigation. This amendment widens the provision. Hon PETER FOSS: I am concerned by this amendment because I think it will make the provision narrower. The Bill currently states - A special commissioner is to cause records to be kept of the investigation, That relates to all parts of the investigation. The Bill continues - including transcripts of all proceedings before the special commissioner. If the provision refers specifically to only this part, it will apply to only this part, which deals with investigations before the special commissioner. We do not want the paper trail to be disposed of, which we are laboriously putting in place for part 4. I am puzzled by this amendment; it seems to make the scope of the Bill narrower. I do not know what the minister is trying to do, but I think it is unacceptable, particularly in light of the committee’s recommendation that there be a paper trail. There would be no point of this provision if the special commissioner did not have to keep a paper trail. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (12)
Hon Kim Chance Hon Adele Farina Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Tom Stephens Hon Kate Doust Hon Jon Ford Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ken Travers Hon Sue Ellery Hon Graham Giffard Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Noes (21)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon Peter Foss Hon Norman Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon George Cash Hon Ray Halligan Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple Hon Frank Hough Hon Barbara Scott Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller) Hon Murray Criddle Hon Barry House Hon J.A. Scott Hon Paddy Embry Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Christine Sharp Hon John Fischer Hon Dee Margetts Hon Bill Stretch Amendment thus negatived. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 11, lines 29 and 30 - To delete the lines and insert instead - appropriate as to - (a) who can have a copy of any of the records and on what conditions; (b) how the records are to be dealt with when the investigation is complete. This is consistent with the capacity of the special commissioner to make orders under clause 22. It facilitates the process and is not inconsistent with the tenor of the Legislation Committee’s report. Hon PETER FOSS: I have read this and I have a problem with it. Hon N.D. Griffiths: You want it to go to the State Records Commission. Hon PETER FOSS: Yes. The first part, which deals with who can have a copy of the records and on what conditions, is okay. However, I want to add after the word “appropriate” the words “in accordance with the State Records Act”. Paragraph (b) of the amendment states - how the records are to be dealt with when the investigation is complete.
12188 [COUNCIL]
The recommendation of the committee on the completed investigations was - Page 12, lines 3 to 5 - After “the” to delete the lines and insert instead - “State Records Commission which may order that any record be dealt with as the State Records Commission considers appropriate in accordance with the State Records Act 2000.” There is an inconsistency with that. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The Government will oppose what Hon Peter Foss proposed. I accept that there is that inconsistency. However, I point out that if my amendment and the Opposition’s proposal are carried - I understand the Opposition has the support of the Greens (WA) on this - there would not be an inconsistency. There would be a facilitation of what the committee decided about clause 22. Equally, if that further step were taken and the amendment foreshadowed by Hon Peter Foss, which deals with what the committee proposed at page 12, lines 3 to 5, were carried, it would ensure that the public interest that the Opposition and the Greens (WA) are seeking to safeguard would be safeguarded. If Hon Peter Foss proposes to go down the path of moving the amendment that he foreshadowed, the fact that I have moved this amendment will not detract from what he wishes to achieve; and in the meantime it will facilitate what the Government wishes to achieve. Hon PETER FOSS: The problem is that I am getting totally confused. It was hard enough to follow it in the first instance. My difficulty is to be satisfied that a swiftie is not being pulled here. Hon N.D. Griffiths: There is not. Hon PETER FOSS: I know that I have the minister’s assurance. However, I thought that the minister might be in the same position as I am; that is, he was having some difficulty following it. The CHAIRMAN: Members, I will interrupt because I propose to put the question that the words proposed to be deleted be deleted. If that is not carried, the words will not be deleted and, as I understand it, Hon Peter Foss will then move to insert after the word “appropriate” the words “in accordance with the State Records Act 2000”. I am dealing with amendment 23/23, and that is all at this stage. I raise that as a matter of clarification, if it will assist. We will then work through some other amendments, and they also may need clarification. Hon PETER FOSS: I understand that. However, one of the things being done by those amendments is to try to combine to some extent clause 22 with clause 23. Is that right? Hon N.D. Griffiths: Yes. This facilitates it. It flows on from clause 22. Orders may be made, and in dealing with the specifics of those orders, the proposed new provisions of clause 23 are spelt out to make it clear. Hon PETER FOSS: I will see if I can get this right. Maybe I am tired - I do not know - but I am having trouble following it. Would there be any difference between inserting the words “in accordance with the State Records Act 2000” in the minister’s amended words and inserting them where I was going to insert them? If so, what is the difference and why is it being done? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I was about to suggest that we reach that accord; namely, that we add the words “in accordance with the State Records Act 2000” after my amendment. Hon Peter Foss: Fine; but what difference does it make? What do we achieve by doing this? I do not know why we are doing it. There seems to be something inherently suspicious about it. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: It facilitates clause 22. The special commissioner will have a capacity to make orders. It gives a capacity to delay the sending of the records to the archives. They will find their way to the Anti-Corruption Commission perhaps, or there may be an ongoing investigation. In the end, it must be in accordance with the State Records Act 2000. Hon PETER FOSS: The minister will seek leave to add those words to his amendment? Hon N.D. Griffiths: Yes. Hon PETER FOSS: I think that I can still move the amendment contained in the committee’s recommendation 13. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Yes. Hon PETER FOSS: Under those circumstances, I think that is okay. I should check what other members of the House think, but it seems to me that that can be done. I hope this will all be worthwhile. I would hate to think that we went to all this trouble for nothing, because I have known members of the Legislative Assembly in the past to say, “We’re all okay. We’ll be off, the Parliament will be prorogued, and then this will disappear down the fundamental.” Can I have the minister’s assurance that the minister in the other place intends to deal with this in this session? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I am advised that the Attorney General proposes to deal with this in this session. However, I cannot give a personal assurance, and I do not mention the Hansard in the other place very much.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12189
Hon PETER FOSS: We know it is the minister’s understanding. However, it is not because of the Opposition that this has become so hard. We thought we had made it pretty easy. I would hate to spend all this time for no point. Therefore, the minister will understand why I would like him to be fairly certain that this will be dealt with by the other place. We are giving the Government an awful lot of assistance and latitude and are being as cooperative as we can, but the time comes when one wonders whether it is worth all the trouble of hurrying it through. For the time being, if the minister can give me an indication that we are not wasting our time, I will be happy to keep trying; but it is a bit hard. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The advice I have received is that it is the intention of the minister in the other place to deal with this matter in this session. Frankly, if that were not the intention, I would not be interested in wasting the time of the Chamber. I do not know about other members, but it has been a long few weeks. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) will not oppose the minister’s amendments on the condition that the Government will accept the next set of amendments moved by Hon Peter Foss, which refer to the State Records Commission, and as long as we have the assurance that this will not go against the intention to ensure that the records are contained within the purview of the State Records Act. From what I have heard of the discussion between Hon Nick Griffiths and Hon Peter Foss, I am convinced that that is okay. I seek that assurance again; otherwise, I prefer the combination of amendments to deal with this aspect of committee recommendation 13 in the manner proposed by Hon Peter Foss. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The Government will oppose the foreshadowed amendments of Hon Peter Foss, which deal with the committee recommendations that the Government has not taken up. However, the Greens have made it quite clear that they propose to support those amendments, so I will not waste the time of the Chamber by calling a division if the result is contrary to how the Government votes. Hon Peter Foss: Will you seek leave to add those words? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I propose to do that. I seek the leave of the Committee to alter the amendment by adding after the word “complete” the words “in accord with the State Records Act 2000”. Hon PETER FOSS: I think the appropriate place for those words in the amendment is after the word “appropriate”. It would then deal with both paragraphs. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I have no difficulty with that. I seek leave to alter the amendment by inserting after the word “appropriate” the passage “, in accord with the State Records Act 2000,”. Amendment, by leave, altered. Hon GIZ WATSON: Grammatically, the alteration to the amendment might require the word “and”. Amendment, as altered, put and passed. Hon PETER FOSS: I will not move amendments 2/23 and 3/23. Instead, I move - Page 12, lines 3 to 5 - After “the” to delete the lines and insert instead - State Records Commission which may order that any record be dealt with as the State Records Commission considers appropriate in accordance with the State Records Act 2000. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: When I spoke on the short title of the Bill, I explained what the Government proposed to do on each matter. I gave the reasons for most of the matters, so I will not unnecessarily prolong the debate. Amendment put and passed. Hon PETER FOSS: I move - Page 12, lines 6 to 9 - To delete the lines and insert instead - (4) For the purpose of the State Records Act 2000 any records that are transferred to the custody of the Director of State Records as State archives, shall be treated by the Director as restricted access archives unless the Attorney General requests otherwise. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Simon O’Brien): Does the minister wish to move amendment 24/23 on the supplementary notice paper? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: No. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 24 put and passed.
12190 [COUNCIL]
Clause 25: Proceedings for an offence - Hon PETER FOSS: Faint heart ne’er won fair lady. I move - Page 12, after line 17 - To insert - (2) Where in this Part an offence is created, then in the absence of any other specific penalty the penalty shall be imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of $1 000 000. (3) Despite subclause (2) the Supreme Court shall be entitled to imprison a contemnor until a contempt is purged in addition to any specific penalty for the offence. (4) In imposing a penalty under this Part the Court shall take into account whether the act or omission leading to an offence is such that had the act or omission not occurred evidence could have been given so that some person known or unknown is likely to have been convicted of a specific offence (the “offence under investigation”) and if so satisfied as to that matter on the balance of probability the Court shall impose a penalty upon the defendant which the Court considers would be appropriate to impose on a person found guilty of the offence under investigation. Interestingly, this is a matter about which Hon Giz Watson and I agree, but for different reasons. We were both concerned with merely referring people to the Supreme Court for imprisonment for contempt because of the open nature of the penalty. We thought that was undesirable; however, we thought it was undesirable for slightly different reasons. I thought it was undesirable because my research could find only one similar case of a person being convicted for contempt. That person was convicted in the New South Wales Court of Appeal for failing to give evidence on a criminal matter. That person was imprisoned for six months and fined $10 000. That penalty seems a bit small. I am concerned that the penalties under this legislation will be tiny. My experience is that penalties for contempt are small for two reasons: first, because contempt of court is a summary offence, the courts are very reluctant to impose a significant penalty. Normally a person charged with an offence is called before a judge and jury, which makes the decision about prosecution. The presence of a jury gives a person protection against abuse of the criminal provisions. Judges are reluctant to overdo things when they relate to a summary offence. They realise that the accused has not had the benefit of a trial by jury. The second reason is that contempt of court is seen as an offence against the judiciary, and judges feel reluctant to do anything significant because that is seen to be making rulings about matters that happen in their court. Admittedly, these provisions relate to contempt of another body. However, these offences are deemed to be contempt of court, and the judiciary tends to be reluctant in dealing with that matter. I was concerned that the penalties might be too small. On the other hand, Hon Giz Watson argued - I must admit that, logically, she was absolutely right - that if the penalty is open-ended one way, it is open-ended the other way, and a person could theoretically be jailed forever. I do not think that will ever happen, but it is a theoretical possibility. To some extent, Hon Giz Watson and I agree. However, we disagree in that I would like a minimum penalty and she would not. If I were proposing to delete some of the clauses in this part of the Bill, she might sympathise with me. I do not think she will sympathise with me on this amendment. I shall call a division, and we will see. If we lose that division, I will not move my foreshadowed amendments to clauses 28 and 30 to 35, even though they are not, strictly speaking, consequential amendments. My comments are on the record. I do not think there is any point in labouring the issue. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I do not want to surprise Hon Peter Foss, but the Government opposes this amendment. The penalty of 20 years and a fine of $1 million is over the top. It is not consistent with penalties for similar acts of misbehaviour, such as those in the Anti-Corruption Commission Act. What is outlined in proposed subclause (3) can happen anyway. It is not a matter of taking one out. Proposed subclause (4) is very interesting. It would lower the standard for a situation that, it seems to me, is designed to be hypothetical. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) will not support this amendment - surprise, surprise. I think my comments were substantially made by Hon Peter Foss. The Greens fundamentally oppose the establishment of a minimum penalty. My concern on this clause is that it would allow an open-ended penalty at the upper end. The proportions of the proposed penalty are extraordinary. I think it is an ambit attempt, and we will not support it. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (16)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon John Fischer Hon Barry House Hon Barbara Scott Hon George Cash Hon Peter Foss Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Bill Stretch Hon Murray Criddle Hon Ray Halligan Hon Norman Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Paddy Embry Hon Frank Hough Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller)
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12191
Noes (17)
Hon Kim Chance Hon Jon Ford Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple Hon Graham Giffard Hon J.A. Scott Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Hon Kate Doust Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Christine Sharp Hon Sue Ellery Hon Dee Margetts Hon Tom Stephens Hon Adele Farina Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ken Travers Amendment thus negatived. Clause put and passed. Clause 26: Penalty for failing to attend or produce anything - Hon GIZ WATSON: I move - Page 12, after line 26 - To insert - (1a) It is a complete defence to a charge of contempt arising from failure to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b) for the person to prove that the document or other thing was obtained in the course of that person’s occupation or employment as a journalist. The Bill deals with the issue I raised of the attack on the media. The Bill as it stands at the moment would not protect journalists acting within a professional capacity if they had information that was considered of interest to the special commissioner. This Bill would require that they provide the information to the special commissioner. They would then potentially be in the situation of having to breach their confidentiality commitments to the source of the information. The Greens (WA) feel that maintaining a degree of privilege for accredited journalists acting in their professional capacity is very important. It was discussed in the committee, and I was unfortunately unable to persuade the other members of the committee that this was a significant issue. I believe that any Bill that attacks or undermines the operation of the free Press is very dangerous indeed. This is very pertinent at the moment with the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers under way. Information provided to journalists is often very useful for bringing issues into the public arena that would otherwise go unnoticed. I suggest that investigative journalism has been very instrumental in raising matters of corruption and inappropriate behaviour on the part of police, for example. This Bill will be a major impediment to journalists. They will not seek out information because of their concern that if information is provided to them and they are then required to appear before a special commissioner as a person of interest, they will be required to divulge their sources. This is an important amendment. I ask members to indicate that we do not want to see a restriction on the operation of the media in Western Australia. It is a fundamental issue for a free and democratic society. I encourage members to support the amendment. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The amendment is opposed. It gives to journalists a privilege given to no-one else in the community. The proposition that someone need not disclose the name of a person who committed a serious offence against the community, just because he found it out in the course of his occupation as a journalist, is very interesting but not one with which I agree. The notion of a journalist is also interesting. It lacks definition. I am not sure what a journalist is. Unlike a legal practitioner or a medical practitioner, there is no licensing system as such. Hon Peter Foss: You might try the Coffin Cheaters’ manual. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I do not want, as they say these days, to go there. A free Press in our society is very important, but at the same time we do not exclude people from the scrutiny of the law just because they happen to be in a particular occupation. Hon PETER FOSS: The Opposition also opposes this amendment. Hon JOHN FISCHER: I certainly oppose this amendment. I believe that if freedom of speech is required, someone should stand for Parliament to have the opportunity. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (5)
Hon Dee Margetts Hon Christine Sharp Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple (Teller) Hon J.A. Scott
12192 [COUNCIL]
Noes (27)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon Paddy Embry Hon Ray Halligan Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon George Cash Hon Adele Farina Hon Frank Hough Hon Barbara Scott Hon Kim Chance Hon John Fischer Hon Barry House Hon Tom Stephens Hon Murray Criddle Hon Jon Ford Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Bruce Donaldson Hon Peter Foss Hon Norman Moore Hon Ken Travers Hon Kate Doust Hon Graham Giffard Hon Simon O’Brien Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Hon Sue Ellery Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Louise Pratt Amendment thus negatived. Clause put and passed. Clause 27: Penalty for failing to be sworn or to give evidence - Hon GIZ WATSON: I move - Page 13, after line 30 - To insert - (1a) It is a complete defence to a charge of contempt arising from failure to answer any question under subsection (1)(b) for the person to prove that the information to which the question relates was obtained in the course of that person’s occupation or employment as a journalist. This amendment is similar to the one we have just dealt with. The difference is that this seeks to provide a complete defence to a charge of contempt if a person is employed as a journalist and is sworn to give evidence. It is similar to an earlier amendment, but I will not revisit my remarks outlining the importance of protecting the operations of a free Press. The Greens seek support for this amendment. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (5)
Hon Dee Margetts Hon Christine Sharp Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple (Teller) Hon J.A. Scott Noes (28)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon Paddy Embry Hon Ray Halligan Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon George Cash Hon Adele Farina Hon Frank Hough Hon Barbara Scott Hon Kim Chance Hon John Fischer Hon Barry House Hon Tom Stephens Hon Murray Criddle Hon Jon Ford Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Bill Stretch Hon Bruce Donaldson Hon Peter Foss Hon Norman Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Kate Doust Hon Graham Giffard Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Ken Travers Hon Sue Ellery Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Louise Pratt Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Amendment thus negatived. Clause put and passed. Clauses 28 to 36 put and passed. Clause 37: Judicial supervision excluded - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 19, after line 10 - To insert - (2) Subsection (1) does not apply after the completion of the investigation that it was being sought to facilitate by performing the function. Clause 37 currently prevents the issue of a prerogative writ and an injunction or a declaratory judgment on the performance of a function when the process is ongoing. The amendment will allow a person to seek relief, whether by way of a declaratory judgment or by way of certiorari, if appropriate, after the event. Clause 37 exists to prevent people with deep pockets involved in organised crime from frustrating the process. When the process is out of the way, if someone feels aggrieved he should be able to “go for it”. Hon PETER FOSS: This is a very sensible amendment. It was not recommended by the committee, although I wish the committee had thought of it. It was the result of a discussion. The clause is designed to prevent interference with an investigation by people with deep pockets. The committee did not think it was ideal, but it could not think of an alternative. It is not a complete solution, but it is reasonable. If a person had to come up with a solution, this is a good
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12193 one. I do not know what other members think, but the Government is to be commended on a very sensible enhancement and voluntary undertaking to deal with the concerns expressed by the committee in a very sensible way. Hon GIZ WATSON: I seek clarification. In what way does this amendment affect the exclusion of judicial review? How does it modify it? I believe I understand what the Bills states. What does the amendment seek to do? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: It enables judicial review to take place after the process is completed, in appropriate circumstances. Hon GIZ WATSON: Could I have the term “the process is completed” defined? Is it after the special commissioner’s investigation into particular matters? Is that the point at which a judicial review would be available, if appropriate? What does “appropriate” mean in this circumstance? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: As worded, a judicial review cannot take place on the performance of a function under a part of the Act. When the function has been completed, the review can take place, if this amendment is agreed to. If the Committee opposes the amendment, it would not be agreed to. In respect of judicial review in appropriate circumstances, there is a large body of law on when one can obtain a prerogative writ, a declaration or an injunction, although one would not see an injunction as being appropriate. The Committee does not have time to deal with the matter, but if the member wishes to see me afterwards I will invite her to accompany me to the parliamentary library. Hon PETER FOSS: It is hard to see exactly how it would work, although it could be said to be an improvement, whatever it means. It imposes a temporal limitation on the operation of subsection (1). To some extent that may be taking action akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It does not necessarily leave people totally without recourse. It certainly would leave them some limited and narrow recourse, which at the moment they do not even have. Whatever it means, it is better from the Greens (WA) point of view than what is currently there. The Greens should support the amendment and oppose the clause. Hon GIZ WATSON: With that explanation, it seems that this amendment is an improvement. It does not completely address the concerns of the Greens (WA) about judicial review. That was not something the Government was willing to go all the way on. The Greens will be happy to support the amendment as it provides some relief. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 38: Legal professional privilege - Hon PETER FOSS: I move - Page 19, lines 12 to 16 - to delete the lines and insert instead - (1) Legal professional privilege does not prevent a summons under section 11 from requiring a person to produce a document that would otherwise be subject to that privilege. (2) Unless it is claimed and allowed in accordance with this section legal professional privilege does not provide a reasonable excuse for failure to produce a document as required by a summons under section 11. (3) A person who wishes to claim that a document is subject to legal professional privilege (which claim is permitted by subsection (4)) shall: (a) attend and produce that document in accordance with the summons, sealed up and identified as subject to a claim of legal professional privilege; and (b) at the same time provide to the special commissioner a statement detailing the name and address of the person entitled to waive the privilege with regard to each document. (4) A claim of legal professional privilege may only be made in relation to the following: (a) proofs of evidence taken from clients and possible witnesses; (b) notes of instruction taken from clients or possible witnesses with regard to events that have already occurred; (c) documents created for the purposes of preparing: (i) a defence to any existing or possible charges; or (ii) for an appearance or reasonably anticipated appearance before a special commissioner, arising out of events which have already occurred such as but not limited to: (i) notes, letters and opinions which set out legal advice to a client;
12194 [COUNCIL]
(ii) internal memoranda or letters; (iii) a solicitor’s letter to a private investigator; or (iv) a solicitor’s letter to potential expert witnesses; (d) correspondence between a solicitor and prosecuting authorities or police written in order to negotiate the possibility of a client giving a statement or testimony; and (e) correspondence between a solicitor and prosecuting authorities or police written in order to negotiate a plea of guilty. (5) Legal professional privilege is not to attach to any document by reason of this section unless that privilege would attach by law. (6) The special commissioner shall determine with respect to each document for which a claim of legal professional privilege has been made whether that claim is valid. (7) The special commissioner shall return any document, which the special commissioner has determined is subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege, to the person who produced it without allowing the Commissioner of Police access. (8) Until such time as a special commissioner has determined that a document is not subject to a valid claim of legal professional privilege a person other than the special commissioner may not unseal the document or have access to it. Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of $60 000. (9) In this section “document” includes any other thing. This amendment is recommendation 16 of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. It deletes lines 12 to 16, which is the whole of the existing clause 38. Part of that is put back again, up to and including the words “that privilege” as proposed subclause (1). The proposed new clause then provides a system for claiming legal professional privilege. Legal professional privilege cannot simply be claimed in any circumstances; it must be claimed in accordance with this proposed clause. The process of claiming privilege is set out in subclause (4). The wording used in proposed subclause (3) is a variation on a suggestion made by the president of the Law Society of Western Australia, Mr Bayly. What the committee was particularly concerned about was that we understood that people could use legal professional privilege to their benefit by using it to hide advice that enabled them to commit a crime. Strictly speaking, no legal professional privilege attaches to that, but it can be claimed, and the committee wanted to set a system by which it would be tested. The process begins with attending and producing the document, sealed up and identified as subject to a claim of legal professional privilege. It must still be handed over. At the same time a statement detailing the name and address of the person entitled to waive the privilege on each document must be handed to the special commissioner. The legal practitioner does not own the privilege, the client does. It enables the special commissioner to ask that person whether he or she wishes to retain that privilege. That provision came from the anti-corruption commission in New South Wales. Proposed subclause (4) follows the suggestions from Mr Bayly, to make sure the provision was prospective. Proposed subclause (5) makes absolutely certain that the clause does not create a new code of professional privilege. The committee did not want to allow people to claim privilege when they could not otherwise claim it. Proposed subclause (6) allows the special commissioner to make the determination, and under proposed subclause (7), if the commissioner upholds that privilege, he hands back the document without allowing the Commissioner of Police to access it. Proposed subclause (8) provides that until such time as the document is unsealed, no-one but the special commissioner may have access to it. It is a fair process that strikes a balance between looking after an orderly process of examination and, in appropriate cases, permitting privilege to be claimed. Interestingly, evidence was given to the committee that the minister agreed that it was not intended to take those sorts of documents away, so the committee has come to a fair recommendation for this amendment. It cannot be used for delay, because the documents must still be handed over in an envelope, and the special commissioner can look at them and decide whether the Commissioner of Police can have them. It cannot be fairer than that. I cannot see why any investigator would find this an unreasonable provision. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) will support this amendment. We were very concerned about the issue of legal professional privilege in this Bill. This amendment goes a considerable way towards addressing some of those concerns, and limiting the prohibition on privilege. The issue of privilege still concerns us, so this amendment does not entirely satisfy our objections. However, recognising that it is an improvement, we will be supporting it. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The Government opposes the amendment. It is concerned that lawyers may find themselves involved in carrying out a hiding exercise for the corrupt. I note where the numbers lie in the Committee, so I propose not to say anything further. Amendment put and passed.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12195
Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 39 to 43 put and passed. Clause 44: When this Part applies - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 22, lines 4 and 5 - To delete “section 9(3) exist.” and insert instead - section 8A(1) exist in respect of the section 4 offence concerned but a power under this Part cannot be exercised contrary to a direction under section 8B. This amendment is consistent with recommendations 8, 9 and 10 in the Standing Committee on Legislation report. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 45 to 67 put and passed. New clause 4A - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 3, after line 7 - To insert the following new clause - 4A. Act not applicable to juveniles (1) None of the powers given by this Act can be exercised in respect of a juvenile. (2) In this section - “juvenile” means a person who has not reached 18 years of age. This new clause makes it clear that the legislation is not applicable to juveniles. Hon PETER FOSS: This seems to be a sensible amendment. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) are happy to support the amendment. New clause put and passed. New clause 23A - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 12, after line 9 - To insert the following new clause - 23A. Witness protection arrangements If it appears to a special commissioner that, because a person - (a) is to attend, is attending, or has attended, before a special commissioner to give evidence or to produce a document or thing; or (b) proposes to produce, or has produced, a document or thing to a special commissioner, the safety of any person may be prejudiced or any person may be subjected to intimidation or harassment, the special commissioner may make any arrangements (including arrangements with the Minister or with members of the Police Force of the State) to avoid prejudice to the safety of any person, or to protect any person from intimidation or harassment. This new clause relates to recommendation 11 of the committee’s report. New clause put and passed. New clause 50A - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 25, after line 24 - To insert the following new clause - 50A. Report on use of powers under this Part (1) A police officer who exercises powers under this Part is required to submit to the Commissioner of Police a report in writing of each occasion on which any of those powers were exercised, giving details of - (a) what was done in the exercise of those powers;
12196 [COUNCIL]
(b) the time and place at which the powers were exercised; and (c) any person or property affected by the exercise of the powers. (2) The report is to be submitted within 3 days after the powers are exercised. (3) The obligation of a police officer to submit a report under this section about a particular exercise of power within a particular time is sufficiently complied with if the police officer ensures that a report by another police officer who was present when the powers were exercised is made within that time dealing with all of the details about which a report is required. This new clause relates to recommendation 19 of the committee’s report. New clause put and passed. New clause 65A - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 35, after line 18 - To insert the following new clause - 65A. Regulations (1) The Governor may make regulations prescribing all matters that are required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed, or are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for giving effect to the purposes of this Act. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), regulations may be made affecting how a special commissioner may decide for the purposes of section 16 that it would not be in the public interest to postpone a person’s examination to enable the person’s legal representative to be present. (3) Regulations under this Act are made on the recommendation of the Attorney General whether or not the Attorney General is the Minister to whom responsibility for the administration of this Act has been allocated by the Governor. This new clause relates to recommendation 20 of the committee’s report. Hon PETER FOSS: I support the amendment, but I am unhappy about the way it has been drafted. The committee was trying to ensure that certain matters would be taken into account when deciding against allowing something to be called at short notice. I refer to paragraph 8.22(a) of the Report of the Standing Committee on Legislation in Relation to the Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Bill 2002, which states - to prescribe the circumstances which must be taken into account under section 16(3) in considering whether it is in the public interest to postpone an examination and which would indicate that it should be postponed . . .. We wanted regulations to state that if that is the case, examinations must be postponed. If it is short notice because the police have delayed it, it should be postponed. We did not want to encourage postponement. As the guardian of the law, the Attorney General should be able to postpone. The committee’s words have not been adopted, and I am too exhausted to suggest the way in which the amendment should be amended. It is not often that I make such an admission. I do not like the wording, but, for the life of me, I cannot think of a suitable change to bring the amendment in line with the committee’s recommendation. New clause put and passed. New clause 68 - Hon PETER FOSS: I move - Page 36, line 19 - To insert the following new clause - 68. Parliamentary Supervisory Committee (1) Despite anything contained in this Act, a special commissioner may report to a Standing Committee on any matter which has come before the special commissioner and shall where the special commissioner forms the view that to do so would assist the Standing Committee in understanding the operation of this Act. (2) Nothing in this section requires a special commissioner to provide detailed operational information in a report under subsection (1). (3) Information disclosed in a report under this section is to be treated as information received by the Standing Committee in closed session but may be released by order of the committee.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12197
(4) If either House orders, the public disclosure of facts disclosed in a report is permitted whether by publication in any medium or otherwise. (5) In this section, the words “Standing Committee” mean a Standing Committee of either House or a Joint Standing Committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed to monitor or review the performance of the functions of special commissioners and may be that a committee appointed for a similar purpose under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 1988. I lifted much of my amendment from the Anti-Corruption Commission Act. Although the committee made the recommendation, I asked the chairman whether he thought it was sensible, and he did. Parliamentary supervision is required, even though it has not been ideally set out in my proposed new clause. I must confess that it was drafted rather hurriedly. I would have preferred more time to work on it. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The proposed amendment causes concern because it gives a special commissioner the discretion not to report to a standing committee. The Government does not like the use of the word “shall” in proposed new clause 68(1), and would prefer the word “may” to be used. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I suggest that we postpone consideration of new clause 68 until after consideration of the schedule. The reason is that some adjustments are being made to the proposed new clause. It is currently in the process of being typed and should be made available to the Committee shortly. Further consideration of new clause postponed until after consideration of schedule 1, on motion by Hon N.D. Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming). Schedule 1 - Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 37, after line 4 - To insert - s. 145 s. 147 This amendment meets the requirements of the Legislation Committee’s third recommendation. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) do not support this amendment and we did not support this proposition when the committee discussed it. It seeks to add two more offences to the schedule. In principle, we do not support the Bill or the schedule; therefore, we do not support any additional items being added to it. Hon PETER FOSS: The Opposition supports the amendment. Amendment put and passed. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 37, lines 19 and 20 - To delete the lines. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 37, lines 19 and 20 - To delete the lines. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) support this amendment. This is a technical amendment because, as can be seen in recommendation 1 of the committee report, this section has already been repealed. I assume that it was an error to include the section in the schedule in the first place. Amendment put and passed. Hon PETER FOSS: I move - Page 37, after line 22 - To insert “s. 409”. This amendment will add a reference to section 409 of the Criminal Code, which deals with fraud. I dealt with the reasons for including this section of the code during the second reading debate. Evidence suggests that fraud is probably one of the largest and fastest growing areas of organised crime. It seemed strange to me that, if it is such a significant part of organised crime, it was not included. Hon GIZ WATSON: As much as the Greens agree with the arguments raised by Hon Peter Foss - that is, that fraud is a significant issue - we do not support either the Bill or the schedule and, therefore, we will not support any additional offences being included therein. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: It is the view of the Government that this amendment would considerably expand the operation of the Bill. The arguments that have been put forward have merit. The Government wishes first to see how the scheme
12198 [COUNCIL] to be put in place by the Bill operates, and will then give the matter further consideration. However, we oppose the amendment at this stage. Amendment put and negatived. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I move - Page 37, line 23 - To delete the line. This amendment is designed to implement recommendation 2 of the committee’s report. Hon PETER FOSS: The Opposition does not support this deletion; however, it does not propose to divide on the question. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens support this amendment. We agree to the removal of this item from the schedule of offences. Amendment put and passed. Schedule, as amended, put and passed. Postponed new clause 68 - Hon PETER FOSS: I have already moved the amendment to introduce this new clause. I now seek the leave of the House to amend subclause (3). Debate on this clause was postponed because I thought we might consider it over the dinner break. I must confess that I did not do anything over the break, but the Clerk very kindly did. He pointed out that the standing orders of the two Houses are slightly different in practice, and that the better way to ensure that something is not published without an order of the standing committee is to provide for that in subclause (3), rather than to say that it is information received by the committee in closed session. That would work in our House, but it may not necessarily work in the other House; therefore, the Clerk suggested that we make that alteration. I seek the leave of the House to delete paragraph (3) and insert a new paragraph (3). New clause, by leave, altered. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The Government opposes the new clause for the reasons that I gave in the speech on the short title. If the call does not go the Government’s way, I do not propose to divide. Hon GIZ WATSON: The Greens (WA) will support this new clause. It goes to a recommendation of the standing committee report to require parliamentary oversight; therefore, we are happy with new clause 68 as proposed by Hon Peter Foss. New clause, as altered, put and passed. Title put and passed. Bill reported, with an amendment. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I seek the leave of the House to proceed to consideration of the report. Leave denied. APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL (NO. 1) 2002 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [7.44 pm]: This debate enables members to comment on any issues they wish to. I do not propose to speak directly about the budget; I shall talk about a number of other issues. The first one came to my attention about two minutes ago when leave was not given to deal with the remaining stages of the legislation we have just been discussing. The committee report on the Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Bill will have to be dealt with tomorrow, assuming we proceed, of course; and if leave is not then granted, the third reading will have to be dealt with next week. The Greens (WA) have obviously decided to use that strategy to ensure the Bill does not proceed any further. In the short time between now and the debate on the Labour Relations Reform Bill, I will be anxious to know what the Government proposes to do about that denial of leave. It is quite extraordinary that the Greens should take the line of action that they have to effectively ensure that that Bill does not proceed, if we stick with the current parliamentary timetable. If the House rises tonight, as planned, and that Bill has not been dealt with any further, it will disappear at prorogation, and we will either start again or I guess it could be recommitted after the break. That will be an interesting scenario indeed. I will be interested to know of the Government’s plans. A rumour is also going around that the Government does not want the Bill passed; it does not like the amendments that have been made by this House. Hon Kim Chance: I have just checked that rumour with the Attorney General and he assures me that it is not correct.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12199
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Therefore, in the event the Bill had been passed by this House tonight, it would have gone to the Assembly tonight, been dealt with tomorrow and agreed to. Hon N.D. Griffiths: I was asked whether the Government wished to proceed with the matter. Certainly, the Government wished to deal with the matter in the Assembly tomorrow. What the Greens (WA) did in denying leave came as a complete surprise to me. Frankly, if they had said earlier today that they would deny leave, we would not have spent hours debating the Bill. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The minister is absolutely right. We have been, in all good faith, debating that legislation today with the expectation that it would be dealt with. Unless the House resumes next week, the Bill will not be dealt with. If that is what the Greens have in mind, that is their business. However, it is extraordinary that they should take that course of action when they had already asked the Leader of the House and me if we would facilitate their dealing with a disallowance motion today. As a result of this action, my enthusiasm for dealing with any disallowance motion has diminished quite dramatically, because I have no intention of encouraging people to be here next week. However, if that is to happen, that is how it will be. It would be a shame if the Government had been aware of what the Greens would do, but I accept the minister’s assurance that that was not the case. The Greens, of their own volition, without telling anybody what they would do, have again effectively disrupted the proceedings of the House. That is not an acceptable scenario, particularly when they ask us to cooperate with them in what they want to do. I will now talk about a couple of things on the appropriation Bill. The other night Hon John Fischer raised the issue of Monkey Mia. Yesterday I asked the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage who would make the final decision about the situation with the Monkey Mia dolphins. The answer was that the decision would be made by the Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management. Today I asked another question; that is, whether the minister would use her powers under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 to direct that the decision be made. The minister’s answer was that she will wait until she gets advice from a range of different organisations. My view is that she should make a decision, under the powers available to her under the Conservation and Land Management Act, to direct her department to allow the situation regarding those dolphins to be resolved so that the future of Monkey Mia, Denham and Shark Bay is assured. Right now it is not assured. Anyone who does not know how important the dolphins are to Monkey Mia has not been there and does not understand the importance of that tourism industry. I recently asked the following question - (1) Have you, or any of your Departments or Agencies been lobbied by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd? (2) If so - (a) in each case, on whose behalf was the lobbying conducted and what were the issue/s or the subject of the approach; and (b) what was the outcome of each approach? CPR Communications and Public Relations is quite new to Western Australia. A high profile, former Labor member of Parliament, Hon John Halden, is one of its employees. It is very actively involved in lobbying the Government of Western Australia. That is not a sin; it is a perfectly legitimate part of the political process. It is also legitimate that the Parliament knows who is being lobbied by this or any other company, on what issues and the result of the lobbying, especially when a very powerful member of the Labor movement is involved with one of those lobbying companies. I am interested in an article written by Joe Poprzeczny recently in the magazine called Business News. I read the article coincidentally to the question I had asked of ministers. Joe referred to the importance of lobbying in the political process. He came to the conclusion that there should be a register of lobbyist and that the lobbyists should put in a report, I think, every six months about who they deal with, the issues they discuss and the results of those lobbying exercises. I am not saying whether that would be a good thing. However, I want to know what has been the effect of CPR Communications and Public Relations on the Government and what lobbying it has been involved in. The answers were interesting. The fundamental generic response from 90 per cent of the ministers was - The resources required to answer such a general and ill-defined question would involve an unjustified expense. If the Member has a specific question relating to a particular meeting, an answer can be provided. It was pathetic because it would not be difficult to find out whether, in approximately the past 18 months, this company had been involved in lobbying the Government. The question was “Have you” - that is the minister - “or your departments and agencies been lobbied by this company”. That is a simple question and not difficult to answer. The Government decided not to answer it. However, it appears that some ministers were not told by the spin doctors in the middle of the organisation that they should all give the same answer. One minister said in answer to my first question, “No” and that the second part of the question was not applicable. Another minister, who clearly had not been told of the Government’s line, said - (1) Yes I have been.
12200 [COUNCIL]
He gave the details of how he had been lobbied and the outcome. With regard to his agencies he then added that it was an ill-defined question, too general and would involve unjustified expense. That was a start in the right direction because the minister answered on his own behalf. Thank you; I appreciate that. Hon N.D. Griffiths: I always answer my own questions. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Another minister had obviously not listened to what was said, because he actually answered the question, which was extraordinary. If one minister can answer it, why can the rest of the ministers not do so. To give him his due, that minister was the Minister for State Development, who is represented here by the parliamentary secretary. They both do a good job in providing information. The parliamentary secretary handled the mining legislation very well today. I give him credit for that. He has given me an answer, which is terrific. The parliamentary secretary will be in trouble because he has given an answer, and the Government has said, collectively, that it will not give an answer. Hon Ken Travers: You just said that is not the case. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I have been there, done that; the parliamentary secretary should not tell me what happened and what did not happen. This is the Government’s response: it is too ill-defined and too broad to answer, but some ministers took no notice of that, or did not get the instruction. The Minister for State Development told me that he has known one of the principals involved in CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd and sees him from time to time at functions. The minister does not keep a record of the times he sees him or the matters discussed. That is fair enough. He then gave me an answer from the various departments that, yes, in one case they had been lobbied, in another case they had not been, and in respect of a couple of other agencies the same answer is provided. Most ministers are saying they will not provide an answer, three ministers have given me part answers, and one minister has given me a full answer. What concerns me is that if one minister is capable of answering the question, then all ministers are capable. I am entitled to know what lobbying of the Government this company is undertaking. I acknowledge that there are lots of lobbyists, many of whom are former members of Parliament from both sides, who lobby all the time. I was lobbied as a minister by former Liberal members who were lobbyists. I used to say to their clients, “Why are you going through a lobbyist? Just ring my office and you can come and see me; you don’t have to bother paying anybody.” They all thought that was the way they had to go about it. I suspect that out there in the business world people understand that if they really want to get anywhere with this Government, they must talk to CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd, because that is the best way to make sure they get a response from the Government that satisfies their requirements. That is how lobbying works. I will keep asking questions about this company because I am especially interested in it. I am also interested in other lobbyists. The Government should look at an article by Joe Poprzeczny in the Business News in which he refers to some register of lobbyists. The register would let everybody know who does it, who does not do it, why they are in it and the outcomes, so that we have some transparency in the process. Lobbying has been around since time immemorial. It is part of the political process - I do not criticise that - but it is important that we start giving some thought to whether we should know about it and its results. I am especially interested because Hon John Halden spends more time in Parliament now than he did when he was a member. I told him I was going to ask this question. I hope he was not involved in preparing the answer, but that is for the Government to decide. He just said, “You be very careful”, or words to that effect, as Hon John Halden would. I know as well as he does that we were lobbied as a Government by former Liberal members and also by former Labor members, which is part of the political process, and I do not have a problem with that. When I ask questions like this it would be good if the Government could get its act together and either say that none of its ministers will answer or all will answer. It would be better if they all answered. The second issue I wish to raise relates to Hon Tom Stephens’ air charter arrangements. The only reason I asked about his air charter arrangements was because his use of the government jet is legendary. That is the aircraft that he described as being a slimy jet when he was a member of the Opposition. He actually said to me on one occasion when I saw him at one of the ports in the north west, “Did you get here on the slimy jet?” For some reason he just hated the thought that a Liberal minister would fly around in a jet; this is the same fellow who used to sit in the minister’s office when he was a parliamentary secretary and look out the window and imagine what it would be like when he was a minister. Now he is there and he uses the trappings of office in a way that no other minister in history has every contemplated, let alone done. I have seen the gentleman in action. I asked him a question about his flights, which states - (1) Will the Minister provide the following details of all Ministerial air charter flights he has engaged in since his appointment to the Ministry after the February 10 2001 election - (a) date of each flight; (b) destination and duration of each flight; (c) type of aircraft used . . . (d) names of passengers . . .
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12201
(e) cost to the Government . . . (2) If not, why not? The answer I received states - I refer the Hon Member to the answers he provided in response to Questions 1019 of 5 May 1999 and 426 of 11 October 2000. As stated in the Hon Member’s answers, provision of this information would require some research which would divert ministerial staff away from their normal duties. If the member has an enquiry relating to any particular matter of concern, I will endeavour to provide a reply. I had a look at the questions to which I gave answers as a minister, both of which were answered in my capacity as the Leader of the House representing another minister. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked me, as the Leader of the House representing the Government, whether I could provide all the information about every long service leave entitlement of every public servant in every agency. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I am still waiting for that answer! Hon NORMAN MOORE: She probably is! There are probably 20 000 public servants still working on it! It would have taken an inordinate amount of time to gather that information. The answer gave some information but said that it was not readily available. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s other question asked me, as the Leader of the House representing the Premier, whether I could provide information about every credit card ever issued by anybody in history. My answer asked the member to put the question on notice because the information was not readily available. As the reason he should not give me an answer to my question about his air travel arrangements Hon Tom Stephens has used those two examples. It seems to me that his ministerial office staff would have spent more time trying to find those two answers than it would have taken them to provide me with an answer to the question! They would have gone through Hansard from the time I became a minister until the end of my time as a minister to find an answer that the minister could use to justify his not answering the question I asked. He is not even in the Chamber! He is never here! He is outside somewhere. Whether he is in the bar or watching Big Brother, I do not know; however, I suspect it is the former. The way he was asleep in question time today means that he has to be in the bar. Hon Barbara Scott: He is probably watching Sesame Street. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Sesame Street would be too sophisticated for the minister. He would not watch that. He has probably spent more time finding an answer to divert him from giving an answer to the question than it would have taken him to give an answer to the question. It is important for us to know what his flight arrangements have been since he has been minister. I am told that the jet is permanently in the sky. The only time it is not in the sky carting him around is when it is being serviced, which is about every three months. If that is not the case, the minister can make very clear to all of us what he does and answer the question. Now I will have to send $30 to his office and tell his staff that I will use the freedom of information process, so he needs to provide that information to me. Hon Ken Travers: You have the Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich handbook, haven’t you? Hon NORMAN MOORE: I do not mind spending $30 to find out this information. That sort of answer to a question is very simple; it can be provided. The answer the minister gave me, and the answers and questions to which he referred me, suggest that telling me how many flights he has been on and the details of those flights is somehow equivalent to the accumulated long service leave entitlements of every public servant in history and every credit card that has ever been used by a public servant. If there were so many flights and so much information that it equates to those two answers, heaven help us because the Government will go broke! The Government cannot keep an aeroplane going for that long at that expense; it is just impossible. I want to know what the minister has been up to and why he has not given me an answer. I also raised in this place the question of one particular use of the government aeroplane. I saw Hon Tom Stephens in a meeting at Cue the day before the last federal election. He flew to Cue in a government jet aircraft. I travelled in a charter aircraft that I had hired with my charter allowance as a member for that area. The minister flew on to Carnarvon that day, where he spent the Saturday of the federal election. He then flew home to Perth that afternoon in the government jet. While he was in Carnarvon, he hired a motor car, at ministerial expense, and spent most of the day carting Aboriginal voters to the polling booth. He did that at government and ministerial expense. That is outrageous. It is a total waste and misuse of taxpayers’ money through his ministerial account. That is the person who will not answer a question about how often he flies around in government aeroplanes. I look forward to receiving the freedom of information documents I propose to get from him so that we know once and for all what he has been up to. He is on notice, because the way he behaves in the electorate during elections is outrageous. For many years I have watched him manipulate Aboriginal votes and Aboriginal voters. At the last federal election he used a government-funded motor car to ferry Aboriginal voters to the polling booth. In my view, that is not acceptable at all. I do not have a lot of time. I say to the Leader of the House that we need to find a better way of dealing with the budget debate. The budget is now handed down around June, and the House normally finishes sitting at the end of June. If
12202 [COUNCIL] major legislation is before the House, we do not have enough time for a proper budget debate. There must be a way around that. Maybe we should set aside a week in which to hold this debate. I suggest that the Leader of the House think about that seriously. Many members will not be able to make a contribution to the budget debate on this occasion. The last thing I want to talk about is an issue that affects my electorate; that is, the Tom Price-Karratha road. During the estimates committee I asked Mr Martin, the Commissioner of Main Roads, whether the road from Karratha to Tom Price would be sealed in its entirety during this term of government. Mr Martin replied - No, it will not be completed from Tom Price to Karratha. My question related to the Government’s commitment at the last election. The commitment was made by the Speaker, the member for Burrup. I went through my files and dragged out an Australian Labor Party policy document called “Working for Burrup”, which was released before the last election. It states - $100 million for the construction of the Tom Price to Karratha Road. I acknowledge that the Government has provided that $100 million - Despite the Court Government’s promises at the last election, construction will not begin until 2008/9. Labor will construct this road in the first term of government; The answer I received during the estimates committee is that it will not be constructed in that time. It is a broken promise. Governments are entitled to break promises. It contributed $100 million. It was told at the time that it was not enough. It said it would construct the road during its first term of government, and now it says it will not. That is a broken promise. More importantly, the member for Burrup, who is now the Speaker, went on local television day after day saying that he would resign from Parliament if a future Labor Government did not construct that road in its first term of government. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon NORMAN MOORE: He thought it was right at the time. Now he knows that it was not right at all. I suggest to the Speaker, through you, Madam Deputy President (Hon Kate Doust), that he should contemplate his next occupation. If he is not true to his word and the Government does not complete the sealing of that road by the end of its first term - its only term - he will be denying those people the fulfilment of a promise he made personally. The ball is in the Speaker’s court. He might tell us he did not mean what he said. After I received the answer to this question, I asked people in the region what they thought of the Speaker’s commitment, and they all said that they thought it meant that the road would be sealed during the Labor Party’s first term of office. That will not happen. The Speaker should get himself organised and look at the employment sections of the newspapers and start working out where he will be in two years. In any case, I suspect he does not want to be a backbench member in the next Opposition. He is probably already looking in the employment sections of the newspapers. The fact of the matter is that the Government has broken a promise, and the commitment made by the Speaker will not be delivered. The Speaker should be very angry about that, I might add. Those are just a few of the issues I wanted to raise in the budget debate. There are many other things I would like to talk about, but I understand other members want to talk about things tonight, so I will close now. However, I repeat to the Leader of the House that we need to work out a process to enable members to speak on the budget debate, and not on the last night like this, when we are given 10 minutes in which to speak. That is not an acceptable scenario. I do not blame the Government. It is a matter of circumstances and the way in which the budget process has changed. However, the House needs to reflect that change and put in place a process that will enable us to have a proper debate on the budget. With those comments, I support the budget, obviously, in a technical sense, although I think it is a heap of rubbish. HON BILL STRETCH (South West) [8.10 pm]: I guess I should start where my leader finished. I also support the budget in principle, but I wish to take a few moments to make some brief comments about road funding. We need to take a long, hard, objective look at road funding. Roads are probably the most important structure that keeps our State productive and running. All sorts of things have been said in the past about how roads are the backbone of the country, or whatever it is, but the reality is that the movement of freight and passengers around the State is an issues that should attract more government attention than anything else. When we think about it, there is nothing that we eat or use in industry and in the home that does not at some stage travel by road. Although dedicated rail freight has a place, at the beginning and end of most journeys we have road transport. In my view, the argument that we should downgrade our road system to produce better rail systems and move freight off road and onto rail is Dreamtime stuff. The sparseness of our population and the concentration of commodities is such that we will always need the road network. I believe that in the future, we will need to put more money into research, not into getting traffic off road and onto rail, but on working out how to cart a greater quantity of freight more quickly, cheaply, and safely on the roads that we have. It seems to me that with an economy the size of ours, we will not get concrete autobahns from one end of the State to the other serving every district. In the future a lot of our research will need to be directed at tyre technology and vehicle suspension. Developments have been made that allow heavy transport to travel on unmade roads at pretty high speeds
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12203 and pretty safely. A lot of that depends on tyre structure, but it depends also on vehicle suspension, because with the vehicle suspensions we have now it is very hard to keep heavy vehicles in one piece for many years. The road transport industry is probably trying to adapt too much of its technology from Europe and the United States. We possibly should be looking more at what Australia will need in the future in coping with its transport task. A lot of the engine technology we will get from the developed countries. However, I think the task of constructing the permanent solutions that will be needed in the future to the standard that we would like will be unsupportable with the size of our current economy. I guess that one of the main arguments of the conservation lobby and others is that the cheapest way to move freight is on rail and that the way to build more railways is to get more money out of the road system, which means taxing heavy transport further. I submit we have got to the taxation limit; in fact, I believe we have gone past it. Certain members of this Government and certain sectors of the bureaucracy seem to believe that heavy haulage transport is an inexhaustible milch cow and that they can go on putting taxes on it. What they do not seem to realise is that when road transport charges are increased, the cost is increased for every piece of cereal on the breakfast table, every loaf of bread and every other commodity that is consumed or used in industry. As I said originally, everything we touch spends a certain amount of time on road transport. There is no train running to every door of every house, and a railway line does not run to every source point of the products we use. We must be realistic: rail transport will only ever be used for dedicated bulk freight routes. The argument that if trucks are taken off the roads, the roads will become safer for car travel is equally the stuff of fairyland. I know that the size of a road train intimidates some people, but many people have put the argument, particularly my friend Hon Murray Criddle, that it is better to pass one road train than three or four separate truck-trailer combinations. Provided that we look further at ways in which to utilise cheaper construction methods for roads, we will improve traffic flow. I hesitate to say that we will bring freight rates down, but we can at least arrest the increase in charges that we are facing now. There will always be the demand for roads, which will come mainly from motorists. Car traffic will always be with us. Governments will always be called upon to supply a road network for cars. The challenge is to construct roads to an acceptable standard so that they can safely handle both modes of transport. We cannot go back to the 1900s when any vehicle travelling over 10 miles an hour had to have a man in front of it carrying a red flag. People found that 10 miles an hour was a bit fast for a man carrying a red flag so they slowed the speed. Some people in the community think that slower traffic will make the roads safer. That may be so in certain circumstances, but the effect is limited, and I think we have reached the limit now. I guess I could be accused of being a bit biased because I have lived in rural areas all my life. I know only too well the importance of road systems and what they mean to country life. Some people tend to say that it is all right for people who live in the bush, but they must realise that every cent that is added to the costs of country transport is reflected in the costs of food, clothing or any other commodity. Government has an incessant greed for money and thinks that if it does not raise it from transport, it must raise it somewhere else. As I have said, I guess that I could be accused of being a little biased in this matter. I subscribe to the Royal Automobile Club because I live 35 miles from the nearest corner shop and, therefore, every trip out of the house is a long trip. I was interested to read the RAC’s June-July issue of RoadPatrol. I have found that to be a very interesting publication over the years. It always contains articles about holidays that I wish I could afford to have and other interesting articles. It also contains interesting commentaries on government policies. It has been no friend of the previous coalition Government over the years and I therefore should not have been surprised to read its analysis of this state budget headlined “Ripper’s rip-off”. A smaller headline is titled “The State Budget is a tale of woe and broken promises for Western Australia’s long-suffering motorists”. When I read the budget papers I was concerned about the amount allocated for road funding. I know that the amount is never enough, but I also know that it must always be on a steady curve, otherwise we will lose the battle to maintain our roads. The simple fact is that our roads are wearing out faster than we can replace or repair them. If Governments allow their road-funding budget to get behind, they will pass on a very expensive legacy to future generations. That is not fair; it is certainly not sensible; and it is very bad economic sense. The article in RoadPatrol states - Treasurer Eric Ripper has targeted motorists as an easy mark in producing a Budget surplus of $119.1 million. Half of this surplus has been plucked from the pockets of motorists, with huge increases in car stamp duties. The RAC accepts the need for CPI increases in drivers’ licence fees, vehicle registration and vehicle transfer fees. What is unacceptable is the huge increase in stamp duties on vehicles, which will raise more than $62 million in 2002/2003. RAC General Manager Group Policy and External Relations, David Moir, said the increased taxes would hit all motorists.
12204 [COUNCIL]
“The stamp duty on third party insurance, which every motorist pays when they renew their annual registration, has rocketed from 25 cents to nearly $20 . . . “And every time a motorist buys a new or second hand car, they will pay on average about $100 more in stamp duty. “This means a family buying a new $20,000 car will be paying an extra $100 in stamp duty. This is more than motorists in most other States and $300 more than in Queensland. “To balance its books, the State Government is using the long-suffering motorist as a cash cow. We are being treated like wallets on wheels.” To make matters worse, says David, - That is, David Moir - spending on roads has been slashed. Road funding is down about $70 million and the State Government has siphoned off about $20 million in speed and red light camera revenue which they promised to spend on road safety. “Before the State election, Labor promised Road Patrol readers that 100 per cent of revenue from speed camera and red light camera fines would be spent on authentic projects to reduce the road toll. “The Government is expected to rake in about $39 million from these fines this year. We can only identify about $19 million in road safety spending in the Budget, above existing Main Roads programs. “The expectation of the public was that this revenue would be used to produce a real increase in road safety spending. “Unfortunately, the reverse is true and the Budget is completely lacking in concrete plans to improve the State’s unacceptable road toll. “The most telling figure in the Budget is that the Government estimates the number of road crash deaths will increase from 9 per 100,000 people to 10 this year. That is the Government’s estimates, not the RAC’s estimates. The article continues - “This means the Government is expecting an additional 18 Western Australians to die on our roads this year.” The detail of the State Budget includes: Motoring charges: Drivers’ licence fees and vehicle transfer fees go up by 2.6 per cent. Vehicle registration fees go up 3 per cent for light vehicles and 3.2 per cent for heavy vehicles. Incidentally, the RAC is not very concerned with heavy transport charges; I believe those charges have gone up a heck of a lot more than that. Back to the article - The RAC says in a tight economic environment, it can understand the need for increases in line with CPI. . . . Stamp duty on motor vehicle compulsory third party insurance will rocket from a set fee of 25 cents to 8 per cent of the premium. This increases the cost of third party insurance by $19.21 for a standard car. Hon Nick Griffiths and I had a debate earlier about misleading percentages and figures. The fee has gone from 25c to eight per cent of the premium. In money terms, it goes from 25c to $19.21 for a standard car. Eight per cent does not sound much, but to go from 25c to $19.21 is a very big increase. The article continues - Stamp duty will increase for all motor vehicle transfers, including new registrations, except for heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. In fairness, I must say that I welcome that. It continues - For cars valued under $15,000, the stamp duty increases by 10 per cent from 2.5 per cent to 2.75 per cent. There is a 20 per cent increase in stamp duty for cars valued at around $23,000 and a 30 per cent increase for cars valued over $40,000. The RAC says a family buying a new $20,000 car will now be paying more stamp duty than motorists in most other States. There is not much more but I want it all read into Hansard because it is a very important and objective analysis of the Government’s budget. It continues -
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12205
Road Safety: Of the $39 million expected from speed camera and red light camera fines, only about $19 million can be identified as going to authentic road safety measures. This includes about $13 million to the Road Trauma Trust Fund (the legislated one-third of revenue from these fines), $3.5 million for the CAP Speed Project to provide for a more streamlined and efficient infringement system and $2 million in extra black spot funding. The RAC says the RTTF funding is in line with previous years. The CAP Speed project addresses inefficiencies in the speed and red light camera system. The additional black spot funding, another pre- election commitment, is welcomed. The RAC is bitterly disappointed the Budget fails to clearly identify spending in road safety and that the remaining two-thirds of revenue from speed and red light cameras has gone into a Budget black hole. Those are the RAC’s words, not mine. It continues - . . . The Main Roads budget figure has been cut from $827 million in 2001/02 to $755 million in 2002/03. While the road maintenance program has been maintained at around the level of the previous year (thanks to long-term contracts entered into by the previous Government), the road improvement program has suffered a cut of 40 per cent compared to the 2001/02 Budget estimate. The road improvements (e.g. overtaking lanes, road widening and roundabouts) are vital if we wish to improve road safety in WA. The program for new road construction has suffered a less dramatic cut of 4 per cent compared to 2001/02. The RAC says these funding cuts will directly impact on road safety and on the effectiveness and efficiency of the State’s transport system. That describes the attitude taken by the Government to this year’s budget far more eloquently than I can. The Government has not faced up to the issues in road transport. The State cannot get by through maintaining previous spending levels. Spending levels have to be increased rapidly. The previous Government took very drastic steps to create a fund that allowed it to try to address backlogs from previous years. Every Government has to address this because it is not fair to deny the reality to voters. Taking money from road funding directly affects rank-and-file voters. It is the same as taking money from people’s household budgets. It is not seen or felt but it is worse in some ways because the effect will snowball over the years as the task of rebuilding roads catches up with everyone. In the very early years of the Burke Government, a very courageous senior man in the then Main Roads Department produced a report of what had to be spent on roads to maintain a viable program into the future to ensure that this sort of trouble did not develop. When the money started to run out in those rather unfortunate years 1986 to 1988, the first thing to suffer again was road funding. The Labor minister at the time canned that report; it was never published and was never tabled in the Parliament. However, enough reports survived for people to realise not only that the messenger was slain, but also that the message never got out. That was a tragedy for the road network of Western Australia and for the whole economic structure of the State. If this is not addressed in coming budgets, this Government may get away with it, but it is doing itself no favours in the long term, and it is doing future generations a grave disservice. The road system will not be able to support even the level of activity that exists now, much less cope with the increases that everybody is dreaming about. With those remarks, I repeat my support for the budget, but I hope to look in the future for a far more thoughtful and far-sighted look at the economic backbone of our State, one that will continue to make our State great. If the State cannot move on the roads, it cannot move forward. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Third Reading HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Racing and Gaming) [8.32 pm]- by leave: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time. HON BARRY HOUSE (South West) [8.33 pm]: I believe it is a discourtesy that no minister responds in any way to the many issues raised by members during the budget debate. This is the main debate of a general nature in which members have the opportunity to raise issues of particular concern to their electorates. To have the Bill proceed straight through without any acknowledgment from the Government that those messages have been heard and will be taken back to the responsible ministers is a pretty poor showing. Before the House approves the third reading of this Bill, I invite the minister to give the House an assurance that those messages will be relayed to ministers. HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Racing and Gaming) [8.34 pm]: I meant no discourtesy to Hon Barry House and other members. I was very conscious of the time, but I can assure honourable members that their
12206 [COUNCIL] contributions will be given consideration. I am aware that a number of very important matters have been raised in a very constructive way. I trust my ministerial colleagues will give those matters very appropriate consideration when they are presented to them, as I intend to do. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and passed.
APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL (NO. 2) 2002 Second Reading Resumed from 19 June. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [8.35 pm]: This Bill is described as - An Act to grant supply and to appropriate and apply out of Consolidated Funds certain sums for the capital purposes of the year ending 30 June 2003. The amount of $449 253 000 is to be applied through this Bill for capital purposes in the 2002-03 financial year. That amount is sought in clause 4 of the Bill. However, an additional $56 288 000 is to be expended by way of capital expenses. That expenditure is permanently appropriated for by special Acts of Parliament, which appropriate that money without any further requirement of this House. It is interesting to look at the various budget papers to get a better understanding of the detail of the capital expenditure for this financial year. Under each division is a list of capital projects that each agency intends to carry out during this financial year. I intend to refer to some of those projects later. Schedule 1 of the Bill lists items numbered from 119 to 179 inclusive. Adjacent to those numbers is a list of the individual appropriations to the particular departments or agencies and the total amount of the appropriation to them that the Bill authorises. The grand total of those items is $449 253 000 million. Item 119, which is the first item, deals with the funds appropriated for Parliament. The budget papers estimate capital expenditure of $4.16 million for the Parliament in this financial year. The various items that comprise that amount are set out on page 56 of the Budget Statements. I am pleased that the Government will agree to appropriate funds for additions to the northern elevation of Parliament House; some emergency stonework repairs that are required, particularly to the outer walls of Parliament House; the completion of the relocation of the parliamentary library; and the continuation of building refurbishment and upgrades. When I was the Presiding Officer, I sought funding for the addition to the northern elevation of Parliament House over a number of years. Regrettably, the then Government was not prepared to provide that funding. I commend Hon John Cowdell for being able to convince the Government to provide $1.86 million this financial year for additions to the northern elevation of the House in only his second budget as President of the Legislative Council. Although the total cost is estimated to be in the order of $2.45 million, the appropriation for that item is certainly welcome. I said that in the case of the Parliament, it is intended that $4.16 million will be spent on the capital works program for the forthcoming financial year. In the accounts, under the heading “Capital Contribution”, it should be noted that $665 000 will come from internal funds and balances and $700 000 from a holding account, and the Government’s capital contribution for the Parliament is $2 795 000, which is the amount set out in this Bill. In recent years, the accounting presentation of the budget papers has changed somewhat to take account of accrual accounting. Therefore, the presentation of the budget papers this year is somewhat different from that of last year and the year before. In that regard, I strongly support the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and his suggestion to the Leader of the House that we are going to have to look at a different method of considering the appropriation Bills. At the moment, when the budget papers come into the House on budget day, a motion is moved noting the tabling of the documents to give the Legislative Council an opportunity to discuss what is in the budget and members make what are, in effect, budget speeches. We then await the two Bills from the Legislative Assembly. In recent years, those Bills have often arrived in the last week or, if not the last week, in the last two weeks of the session. It is often the case that the Leader of the House holds those Bills until the very end - that is, the last day of a session - no doubt in the hope that if they are held until the last moment, they will go through without great debate. I understand the tactic that is involved, but it prevents a proper examination of the capital works projects that are being considered in this and other financial years. It could be argued that the estimates committee hearings are the time in which we should closely examine the various capital items. I do not think that the current estimates committee system is a suitable structure in which to closely examine the capital amounts. The members of the budget estimates committee, which is really the Deputy Chairmen and the Chairman of Committees, need to sit down and carefully consider how we can properly examine these matters. I say that because, if we were to properly examine these matters tonight, we would have to go into and stay in Committee for three days. I do not exaggerate that situation, because, if we were doing our jobs properly, we would have a number of Treasury officers here so that we could go through the various accounts that make up the amounts set out under the capital contribution area. I would not expect any minister to have a full understanding of what comprises
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12207 those accounts. I say that with respect to the minister who is handling this Bill, Hon Nick Griffiths, because he is, without question, the most competent minister in this House and handles the Bills that he is in charge of with great diligence and with an understanding of what is in them. I do not know if that extends to the total Treasury situation, especially as we have now moved to accrual accounting. Definitions are provided on page iv of volume 1 of the Budget Statements. They are very useful definitions. For instance, the definition of the capital works program reads - Capital Works Program details the agency’s planned capital works program for 2002-03 and provides financial information against Works in Progress, Completed Works and New Works for 2001-02 and 2002-03. The definition of capital contribution reads - Capital Contribution information is presented on the capital contribution required to meet an agency’s equity needs. The total cost of an agency’s capital works program plus working capital requirements is adjusted for other sources of funding to derive the capital contribution. Reductions in leave liability that are not funded from credits in the agency’s holding account will be funded through output rather than capital appropriations as from 1 July 2002. That definition is understandable; that is, if people have the accounts in front of them and they are prepared to work slowly through them so that they fully understand the amount of capital contribution, which just happens to be the amount that is reflected in schedule 1 of the Bill. I want to go through some of those accounts to show the House why we need to change the system so that we can better analyse where this funding is coming from. Before I do, I note that budget paper No 3 indicates that the capital works program for 2002-03 will amount to $3.1 billion or 3.8 per cent of gross state product. At page 28 of that budget paper, table 6 titled “Public Sector Capital Works Program” indicates that in the financial year 2000-01 an amount of $3.1087 billion was expended on capital works. This year it is anticipated that $3.1365 billion will be expended on capital works, and for the next financial year that begins on Monday it will be $3.1084 billion. We can deduce from that, that funding for the capital works program for this forthcoming financial year is almost the same as the amount expended in 2000-01. Any increase that should have occurred due to inflation or other matters will not be occurring this year. More than that, the budget papers indicate that capital expenditure in the forward estimate years is in fact estimated to decline progressively because there will be a decline in the capital works programs of public corporations. Public corporations such as the Water Authority, Western Power and the other substantial public corporations that are owned by the Government are cutting back on their capital works programs. That will have an impact on the economy as a whole. I remember that, if not this year’s Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No 1), certainly last year’s Bill indicated that, when we were going through the Asian financial crisis, the then Court Government intentionally increased its capital works over a period of at least two years to take into account the need to generate employment opportunities during that time. As far as the funding sources go, the 2002-03 capital works program will be financed from a number of areas. The first is the capital contribution of 10 per cent, which I will deal with in a moment. The funds included in the output appropriations will amount to four per cent, holding account draw-down amounts to five per cent; borrowings by authorities, 20 per cent; commonwealth grants, seven per cent; asset sales, six per cent; internal funds and balances, two per cent; and other funds generated by the agencies, 46 per cent. That last item is a huge amount of the capital budget and needs further elucidation. In table 7 on page 31, under the heading “Funding - Public Sector Capital Works Program”, those various amounts attributed to the sources that I just mentioned are set out to give the $3.1084 billion worth of capital expenditure anticipated for 2002-03. The major question I have at the moment concerns the make-up of both the holding accounts and the internal fund balances that are being applied to capital works, and I will deal with that in a moment. However, I note in passing that there is an estimated $585 million increase in public sector net debt for 2002-03. That will take the net debt up to $5.9 billion. I mentioned yesterday during my speech on the Stamp Amendment (Budget) Bill that when the Court Government came to office in 1993, net debt was about $8.5 billion. That had been reduced to $4.5 billion or thereabouts by the time it lost office. In the 16 or 17 months that this Government has been in office, net debt has increased by more than $1.3 billion, and it is anticipated that that will blow out over the next couple of years. In fact, the 2003 budget estimate is $5.8573 billion. Next year it will blow out to $6.1624 billion, and then to $6.331 billion. They are huge increases. Another half a billion dollars of debt is anticipated over the next two years on top of the $1.3 billion that has been added in the first 16 months of this Government’s term in office. Hon Murray Criddle: Does that cover the rail contribution? Hon GEORGE CASH: Hon Murray Criddle asked me whether that would cover the rail contribution. I do not know whether it does. The reason I say that I do not know is that I am fast coming to the view that the southern railway extension may be nothing more than a figment of the Government’s imagination. I anticipate that in due course millions and millions of dollars will have been spent on consultants’ fees and the drafting of the engineering and master plans that are required. I believe that there is a strong possibility that in due course the Government will come to the realisation that the capital cost of building that railway will have blown out so far that it must call a halt to the whole job. That is why I am extremely disappointed that the Government did not take the advice of a lot of consultants and
12208 [COUNCIL] use the original Kenwick route, which would have serviced many more areas than will be the case under the proposed southern rail extension. On page 73 of budget paper No 2, volume 1, the table under part 2 sets out the summary of portfolio appropriations for the Premier’s area of control. Under the item “Premier and Cabinet”, the capital contribution is nil for this year, and a nil amount is reflected in the Bill before us. However, the various capital works programs set out in division 3 show that the Premier’s area will spend $8.769 million this year. That $8.769 million is made up of funds included in the output appropriations of $6.65 million, a holding account transfer of $1.36 million, and internal funds and balances that are being used of $759 000. When those three figures are added up, one gets the $8.769 million. If we were having an extended committee stage on this Bill, I would ask to see the figures that represent these areas. I would want to know where the appropriation is and what was the break-up of the $6.65 million for output appropriations. I would want to know what the holding account represents, how the $1.36 million was accumulated and what items and balances comprise the unexpended amounts referred to in the internal funds and balances. Where did the $759 000 comes from? What does it represent? I would want to know the unexpended capital works funds that were rolled over from the last financial year, which jobs, for instance, were not fully expended and which jobs provided for some rollover funds. Under the present structure that is not possible. I raise that issue with the minister because at some stage, if the House does not consider it, I want to sit down with the minister and, if necessary, some Treasury officials, to work out how this place can be better informed on some of these accounts. I am not disputing the accuracy of the figures. However, there is certainly insufficient detail to know why a holding account of that magnitude exists and what funds comprise the rollover funds. I am also aware that there is a definition of holding account within the documentation. It is an adequate definition. It refers to depreciation being accounted for, being placed in a holding account and being used to fund some capital programs. That is a change in the accounting procedure for depreciation on public accounts in Western Australia. The House must get on top of that. The next item on the Premier’s list is the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers. No capital contribution is intended and an examination of the figures indicates that it is not intended to do any capital works in that area. However, $480 000 is allocated as a capital contribution. Under the capital works program of that agency, $550 000 worth of capital works is allocated for this financial year. That is made up of computer hardware and software to the amount of $100 000 and operational equipment replacement of $450 000 giving a total of $550 000. The funding is $480 000 out of the capital contribution, again reflected in the schedule of this Bill. However, $70 000 of the $480 000 comes from a holding account. The footnote indicates that it represents a draw-down from the holding account. What does the $70 000 comprise? How was that amount created? Is it depreciation? I refer to the Governor’s establishment for which there is a capital contribution intended of $1.325 million. The capital works program amounts to $1.51 million made up of the capital contribution of $1.325 million and a holding account of $185 000. The same questions apply. It would be impossible to refer to all the accounts. However, in some areas, the holding accounts represent hundreds of millions of dollars and the transfer of internal balances represents hundreds of millions of dollars. If we are to do our job properly, we should know much more about those accounts. For instance, page 191 of budget paper No 2, volume 1, Western Australian Treasury Corporation, indicates that the total cost of the capital works program for this financial year is $1.254 million. No capital contribution is reflected in this Bill, which is reflected in the accounts, because that amount of money is being generated through a transfer of internal funds and balances. The House is entitled to know what that $1.254 million represents. It is a huge amount of money. I am sure there is a logical explanation, but the accounts in their present form do not adequately explain what is represented within the holding accounts of the various organisations. Page 152 of budget paper No 2 lists amounts represented as administered capital. For instance, item 124, Forest Products Commission, shows an amount of $1.287 million for administered capital. Page 301 of the budget papers relating to the Forest Products Commission indicates that the total cost of capital works for this year is $6.42 million, including borrowings of $5.12 million. A question was asked during the estimates hearings about that and it was explained adequately that that was where certain funds were derived from. Specific contributions are set at $500 million, but internal funds and balances indicates an amount of $800 million. Maybe a reasonable explanation can be offered for that $800 million, but the House is entitled to have that information. The way this debate is structured, it is impossible to get the information to enable members to adequately understand what is going on. One of the reasons I am keen to find out where those funds are coming from is that there is every likelihood that it represents rollovers from the previous year - unexpended amounts from either capital works or perhaps other sources of funding. It is important to look at that. The minister nods, I think in appreciation of some of the matters I am raising, and in that regard I do not intend to go through the balance of the accounts that I have researched, because it would be almost a repetition of what I have said. However, there has to be a better way of examining the Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 2). It is a relatively short Bill in terms of words, but a huge amount of information is required if we are to adequately understand what is included in schedule 1, which is the area setting out the amount to be appropriated in this Bill. With
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12209 those comments, we support the Bill and it is up to the House to work out a better system of properly analysing these accounts. HON MURRAY CRIDDLE (Agricultural) [9.04 pm]: I would like some more information on a couple of issues. I notice that Main Roads is getting something of the order of $66 million and the Department for Planning and Infrastructure is getting $18 million. I am very interested to know the background of that money. I would like a briefing on the Main Roads Western Australia budget. I asked questions about that issue yesterday and the answers did not fully explain the situation. I would like a briefing so that I know exactly what the figures mean. I would also like some information on the capital funding of in excess of $3 billion, because it has been in excess of $3 billion for two years in a row. I would like to know where that money flows through and where the income is coming from. Another issue that I will raise is the dividend that is paid by various organisations, and the variations in the dividends. There is an indication that in some instances dividends will rise for port authorities and the like, and that will impact on their ability to carry out capital works in the future. That is a very important issue that will affect the provision of facilities in those areas. The main brief of port authorities is to facilitate trade. If they have the income in the first place, obviously they will not need to borrow and repay the money. That issue needs to be addressed. If the dividend is taken away, obviously they will not have the opportunity to expend the money. It is a never-ending circle if that method is used. I know that Treasury uses that method to raise the funds, but it would be better if they were not gathered in the first place. I support the Bill. HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Racing and Gaming) [9.06 pm]: I thank Hon George Cash and Hon Murray Criddle for their support of the Bill. On the comments made by Hon George Cash, I agree that the process of dealing with the appropriations, particularly in this appropriation Bill, does not provide what could be considered appropriate scrutiny. I will be very keen to have a discussion with Hon George Cash in the near future on how that can be improved. The Leader of the House is also interested in ensuring that this process can be improved, because a few of us have been here for some years and we know the circular nature of politics. In the end, the public interest is served by the Opposition and non-government parties having the opportunity to scrutinise the Government properly. Apart from anything else, that improves the Government’s game. Hon George Cash made a number of other observations of interest and they will be taken on board. If there are specific areas that require an answer, I would appreciate the member dropping me a short note. He raised issues that should be given proper scrutiny. However, if he raises with me the specific matters to which he wants answers, I will endeavour to provide those answers. If they are within my portfolio responsibilities, he will have those answers. I am sure my other colleagues will provide answers as well, but I am speaking only for myself in a direct sense. I note that Hon Murray Criddle has raised matters in which he has a longstanding interest and about which he has a great degree of knowledge. In particular, he wishes to have a briefing on those matters, and I will bring that to the attention of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. I thank members for their support of the Bill. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time, and by leave proceeded through remaining stages without debate, and passed. Hon KIM CHANCE: Mr Deputy President (Hon George Cash), I ask that you leave the Chair until the ringing of the bells to allow members to discuss matters pertaining to the conduct of tonight’s business. Sitting suspended from 9.10 to 9.36 pm
LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM BILL 2002 Report HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Racing and Gaming) [9.40 pm]: I move - That the report of the Committee be adopted. Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (17)
Hon Kim Chance Hon Jon Ford Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple Hon Graham Giffard Hon J.A. Scott Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Hon Kate Doust Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Christine Sharp Hon Sue Ellery Hon Dee Margetts Hon Tom Stephens Hon Adele Farina Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ken Travers
12210 [COUNCIL]
Noes (16)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon John Fischer Hon Barry House Hon Barbara Scott Hon George Cash Hon Peter Foss Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Bill Stretch Hon Murray Criddle Hon Ray Halligan Hon Norman Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Paddy Embry Hon Frank Hough Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller) Question thus passed. Report adopted. Third Reading HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Racing and Gaming) [9.43 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time. HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [9.43 pm]: I do not support the motion. I certainly do not support the Bill. What the Government is proposing to do, and in a very short time will have done, is something that this State could do without. What we have had in this State over the past eight years is enormous flexibility in the workplace, not just for employees but also for employers, because businesses have been able to make changes that previously they were unable to make. Because of previous labour relations regimes, businesses had been forced into the situation of having to look at - and this term has been used repeatedly - their bottom line or profit line. They have had to work backwards from that bottom line and determine how many people they could employ considering how much they would have to pay them. That has meant that businesses have had to operate according to strict hours so that they could still make a profit. That in turn created a situation in which services were available only during periods when it was cost effective for those businesses to operate. Over the past eight years we have had innumerable changes, I think for the betterment of the consumers of Western Australia. A lot of the employees are also better off, because they have flexibility and greater opportunities. Businesses that were prepared to operate on a 24-hour basis were able to offer work opportunities for people who were prepared to work all night and have all day off. Some would say those opportunities still exist. They exist, but at a cost to the employer and the consumer. There has to be a recognition - I am not sure that this Government has recognised it - of the economic equation of land, labour and capital. The Government continues to believe that whoever is employing the work force can afford to pay more. We have seen this repeatedly. When this legislation is enacted, many small businesses will have to cut back on the services that they are providing, and customers will not have the facilities that they have had for the past number of years, purely because the small business owners will be unable to pass on the additional costs that will be involved. A number of letters have been provided to us from small businesses. One proprietor said that he currently operates over the weekend, but the enactment of this legislation will lead to much higher wages. He cannot increase the price of a litre of petrol or a litre of milk, so he will just have to absorb that additional cost. Many service stations operate on a 24-hour basis. Their margins are very slim. I suggest that they will not continue to open for 24 hours a day and employ these people if they are required to pay them more. Many service station owners will have to cut back on the number of hours they open, and staff their businesses themselves. They will have to work longer hours or bring family and friends in who are prepared to work with them to keep their businesses viable. They will not acknowledge this, but I believe that the coalition of the Government and the Greens on the other side of this Chamber, know not what they do. They have not thought it through. In fact, only a few days ago - it seems like a few weeks - when I was talking about the right of entry, I was told by way of interjection that only a union official will have a right of entry. We have been through the clauses of the Bill and we now know full well that is not true; a person does not have to be a union official to have the right of entry. I was also told by way of interjection that they must give 24 hours notice. We know that is not true. Members of the Labor Party are espousing certain things about this Bill that are not true. I am not suggesting anything untoward, other than the fact that they do not know what is in the Bill. They are voting for it and do not even know what is in it. I hope that no small businesspeople ask those members how this Bill will affect them, because those members will not be able to answer. What is being done about an economic impact analysis? We have heard that there has been an enormous amount of consultation. Hon Dee Margetts and I were at a meeting in Albany at which we heard from a government spokesperson about an enormous amount of consultation. When the 70-odd people at that meeting were asked how many of them had been consulted, not one was able to say that he or she was; in fact, all of them said they had not been consulted. When pushed on the matter, the spokesperson said that everyone had been consulted and everything was fine because now the workers of Western Australia would receive the same as workers in the eastern States. That is the consultation, and that was his explanation of the consultation. I will ask again, where is the economic impact analysis? When government members respond during this third reading debate, I would like them to answer that. We know full well that the Bill probably took in the order of 10 months to draft. We are also aware that many people were involved in the drafting of it. Hon N.D. Griffiths: I get the impression it has taken 10 months to debate it.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12211
Hon RAY HALLIGAN: It should take a lot longer. I would like more of the government members informed, so they can stand up and argue a logical and rational case for this Bill. I suggest to the minister that they cannot because they do not understand the Bill. We are told that when the Bill was drafted, there was consultation. Many business associations told us that they had 10 days in which to respond. If I am wrong, the minister can tell the House and have it recorded in Hansard. I am telling the minister what we have been told. Those businesses certainly do not like what has happened. They are definitely not happy with this legislation. I do not know who suggested to government members or the Greens (WA) members that the people of Western Australia want this legislation. This Government should govern for all Western Australians, not just one particular group. The Government also has the responsibility for the economy of Western Australia. We have seen what has happened in the past to the economy when Labor members have had charge of the Treasury bench. One can only hope that on this occasion they do not produce more of the same. Many small businesses and employees will not be happy when this legislation goes through the Parliament. We know very well that it will go through because of the Greens-Labor coalition. A report was provided to the Government some time ago that even Homeswest homes would increase in cost by some 30 per cent. I believe that figure has now dropped somewhat, but it is still not an insignificant figure, which still means home costs will increase. I asked for the report to be tabled in this House, and I am still waiting for it. I did not ask for it from the Minister for Racing and Gaming, although I am looking at him, as he is the only minister that I can see in the Chamber at this point. There has been no recognition from the Government that costs will increase if services are provided at the same rate as they are currently provided. The Government says that people can afford those increases. Every member should be concerned about that. I suggest that in the not too distant future, certainly before the term of this Government has expired, we will see the results of this legislation, and I do not believe they will be very nice results. In the past the Government tried to open up Perth by creating a precinct and allowing businesses to open on Sundays. Many small businesses complained about that. Don Mazzucchelli of Mazzucchelli’s Jewellers was one of them. He said that he had to open his business because all his competitors were open but he could not afford to pay his staff. He therefore had to work there himself on Sundays because it was not cost effective to open on a Sunday and staff the shop as he normally would during the week and on Saturdays. Exactly that same type of thing will happen but, again, there is no recognition of that from the Government. What will happen in the disability sector? I do not believe the Government has produced anything definitive on that issue. That again comes back to an impact statement. Many different areas rely on flexibility in the workplace. The Government should suggest solutions or at least identify the problems. It has not identified the problems. No impact analysis has been undertaken; or, if it has, the Government has kept it very close to its chest. The Government is not keeping everyone else advised. Regarding an economic impact statement, what happens on 1 July? Employers have to increase their superannuation contribution to nine per cent. Has that being taken into consideration? Female public servants will be eligible for paid maternity leave. Is it believed that this will not flow on to the private sector? Is there a belief that employees’ representatives will not go to small businesses and insist that it flow on? We hear so much from members on the other side of the House, particularly the Greens (WA). What about globalisation? Has that being taken into consideration? We know full well that some Greens definitely do not like globalisation. However, it exists, so they have to work with it. Has it been taking into consideration? I suggest not. What will happen with the investment required in Western Australia? Investors will not look at our lovely climate, but they will look at the work force - not only the numbers but also how well people are trained and what they are paid. Investors will have to decide if they can afford to take them on. Investors will make comparisons between Western Australia and other States and countries. Has any of that been taken into consideration? Where is the impact statement? It would be one thing if members of the Government were able to stand up in this place and say that they had identified these potential problems and proposed ways of overcoming them. But no, we have heard none of that. It is all back to ideology; it is all back to pre-election promises; it is all back to the idea that there is someone bigger than us. That someone is the unions. This is their expectation and the Government is going to provide it to them. There is no concern for the people of Western Australia; the honest workers, including employers, who often put in 90 to 100 hours a week without overtime or guarantees of profit because they have to pay everyone else first. They have to pay their suppliers for goods and services, then their employees, then their taxes. If they are lucky, they have something left over for themselves. Has the Government taken all this into consideration? I would dearly love to know. What about all the investment mentioned prior to the last election that was moving in this State’s direction? The minister can shake his head, but it is a fact. I get the impression that as soon as Labor got into power, everyone came flocking to Western Australia and said that they would build tomorrow. That appears to be the attitude of this Government. Certain things were in train, including the liquefied petroleum gas deal in China, which had been going on for years. The Premier was happy to jump on the bandwagon and say how well he was doing in those negotiations without recognising all the work that had been done. Hon Tom Stephens: That is nonsense.
12212 [COUNCIL]
Hon RAY HALLIGAN: It is not nonsense. I have been to many events and functions over the past 18 months at which there has been no recognition of any work done by any prior Government. Hon Ken Travers: We had to wade through the problems of your Government so you can give us the credit for that. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: The Government takes the credit for other people’s work. Hon Ken Travers: And we copped the rubbish you left us as well. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: Consider the rubbish the previous Labor Government left for the coalition Government. Look at the debts, and WA Inc. It is a sad day for Western Australia, with this legislation going through, and for all those people who had found a type of employment that suited them, whether it be full time, part time, or casual. They may have been forced into it at one stage, but if they had developed a lifestyle around it and they were comfortable with it, why should they not be allowed to retain it? That is all part of quality of life - not being forced into the situation into which they will be forced by this legislation. They will be forced into that situation because the employer will not be able to provide them with the type of employment they had been enjoying for the past eight years. We are told so much about employer-employee agreements, and how they will provide the flexibility. They may provide some flexibility of hours, but will they be cost-effective? They will still be underpinned by the award, and hourly rates will be averaged, after taking penalty rates into consideration. Many small businesses will still be unable to pay those rates, because they will be in excess of what they are currently paying, and therefore those positions will no longer be available. The number of casual positions available will fall, and I wonder what the Government will give as the reason for that. I am sure that it will find other reasons, just as, as an aside, we now hear about all the problems with the health system. When members opposite were sitting on this side of the chamber, they did not mind jumping up and down and saying that the Government was not putting in enough money. The present Government has put in enormous amounts of additional money, but it has done nothing to assist the system, because it all comes down to management, which the Government is unable to provide. The Government will find a reason. If I may get back to health as an example, we have heard that there is a worldwide shortage of nurses, and this is being used as an excuse. The Government does not take responsibility for any situation; it blames someone or something else. It has put enormous amounts of money back into the health system, but still does not have the nurses. It has yet to overcome the problems. Without saying it, the Government is admitting that it is not a good economic manager. This will continue to the extent that, with legislation such as this, the economy will have a particularly difficult time, especially the small business sector. The Government will be relying on big business - the mining industry - to overcome many of the problems it will create for itself. It will be looking to the mining royalties to bring in all the additional money that it will not be able to get from elsewhere. We have seen the Government’s style of economic management, such as premium property taxes and the like, that have been proposed in successive budgets. The Government has admitted that it needs the money; it is spending it faster than it can get it. It is trying to find new ways and means to raise more revenue. This legislation will take it down exactly the same path of spending more money. Of course, the Government is abrogating some of its responsibility, because people who end up on the unemployed scrap heap will be a commonwealth responsibility. The Commonwealth will have to pay their unemployment benefits, not the State Government. In that vein, I did not get the opportunity during the Estimates Committee hearings to talk about what is happening to the timber towns in the south west. That is also an interesting scenario, particularly the associated issues of management and the way the Government cares for people. The Government does not care about the majority of people in Western Australia; it is very much concerned with only the minority. I did not talk about a number of issues during the Estimate Committee hearings. Those issues, including the repeal of pre-strike ballots, will work to the detriment of Western Australians. Even the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection, Mr Kobelke, agrees that we should provide for pre-strike ballots, yet this Government has repealed them. Employers will now have to deduct subscriptions for union fees for their employees. After reading the provisions in the Bill, it seems to me that there is an opportunity for unions to use standover tactics in some way, shape or form. The minister can shake his head, but we saw it happen even before the Bill was introduced. By pushing through this Bill, the Government is providing greater opportunities for that to happen. The Bill is very complex and it was difficult to work through it. On two occasions - and I am about to ask for a third time - I have asked the Government to provide a flow chart so that people can understand their current position and what their options will be under this legislation. If they want to move from an award to an employer-employee agreement - Hon N.D. Griffiths interjected. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: The minister can come over to this side. Hon N.D. Griffiths: You are there, we are here, and you can just stay there.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12213
Hon RAY HALLIGAN: That will not be the case for long, because the Government is unable to explain the impact the passage of this Bill will have on the people of Western Australia, including small businesses and employees. The Government has absolutely no idea, which is a pity, because a lot of people continue to write to and phone the Opposition asking what is happening. Some time ago, we heard that this Bill had to be passed by 30 June to provide certainty. However, it will provide no certainty, only total uncertainty. We are told that this Bill will not work unless we get through the many regulations. People do not know exactly what the Government is creating. I suggest it has created a monster. Admittedly, only time will tell, but I do not think that one has to be a Rhodes scholar to work that out; Blind Freddy could work it out. I suggest that there are many on the government benches who are exactly that - blind - because they are being led around by the nose by a group that is not even made up of elected representatives. That is what the people of Western Australia will have to put up with. I suggest that they will not put up with it for long. One of my colleagues in the other place conducted a survey of a number of employers and asked whether, when this legislation is enacted, it will cause any increase in costs for their businesses. Overwhelmingly, the answer was yes, it would increase costs. However, the Government does not appear to have taken that into consideration. It has not consulted with a great number of these people, let alone taken their concerns into consideration when drafting this Bill. When my colleague in the other place mentioned the number of people who must have come together to draft this Bill, she said that some were not aware of normal drafting language. I was not able to find the phrase that was said to have been used - it may well have been amended - but I was told that one clause stated that employers would be punished. As I say, I have not had the opportunity to find that phrase, if it exists. Hon N.D. Griffiths: You should be able to find something if it exists. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It has taken you only five months! Hon RAY HALLIGAN: It took the Government 10 months to put the Bill together, and it gave people 10 days in which to respond. That appears to be the attitude of the Government, and certainly of the people who drafted it if something of that nature was included. If that phrase was not included, and the minister has looked through the Bill - Hon N.D. Griffiths: So have you; you have looked through the Bill and cannot find it. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: If I do find it - Several members interjected. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: That is a great attitude. That is the attitude of government members. This is a serious matter. Hon Ken Travers: You are quoting something that you cannot find! Hon RAY HALLIGAN: What is wrong with that? The parliamentary secretary does that all the time. Hon Ken Travers reads from things which he has not written and which he knows nothing about. He does that every day in this place. What difference is there? Hon Tom Stephens: This is not one of your stronger arguments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): Order, members! Let us get back to the third reading. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: That is the attitude of this Government. It denies that something exists. I believe my colleague in the other place. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Who is this colleague? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: She is an elected member. Hon Ken Travers: She! That narrows it down. Hon RAY HALLIGAN: That is fine. Hon N.D. Griffiths: It is not the member for Nedlands? Hon RAY HALLIGAN: Government members can narrow it down as much as they like. The point is that I believe what she said. I am bringing that to the minister’s attention. I hoped that the minister would say that he would try to find out whether it exists, and, if it does, that he would change it. He has not done that. The attitude is one of mirth. The Government has the numbers, so this legislation will be pushed through. It does not matter whether it is good or bad legislation. The Government has honoured its pre-election commitment. It took 10 months to draft the Bill, but because it must be passed by 30 June, the Government gave stakeholders only 10 days in which to respond. It is a great piece of legislation! As we went through the committee stages we found the likely impact of the Bill on a lot of small businesses. We tried to bring amendments to the notice of the Government. We tried to give examples of where things might go wrong, and where small businesses would be affected adversely by certain aspects of this legislation. What did the Government do? It said no to each and every amendment. The Government is not concerned about small business. It is not concerned that a lot of employees have been comfortable for the past eight years. The Government made a pre-election promise and it will follow through on that regardless, and people will have to like it or lump it because that is the way it
12214 [COUNCIL] will be! That is most unfortunate. It is not something that should come from a Government that has said it will govern for all Western Australians, not just those who voted for it but for everyone in Western Australia. The Government said it would be open and accountable. We are starting to see some differences there - some very big differences about openness and accountability. The Premier launched a publication on consulting. It is an amazing document. He said, “This is how we consult.” If the consultation for this Bill is any indication of what the Premier believes, as stated in that publication, I do not believe there has been nor will there be any consultation at all on anything. That takes us back to openness and accountability. I have already mentioned the times that I have asked for a report that the minister knows his department has, but he will not provide that report to this House. Openness and accountability are the two things that are nonexistent in this Government. I said before that the Bill was very complex and difficult. I am loath to, but I will commend the Minister for Racing and Gaming for the way in which he handled the Bill under very difficult circumstances, although I totally and utterly disagree with the legislation that he was forced to present to this House. The minister had to explain to this House and try to convince members - he did not succeed probably 90 per cent of the time - that what was in the legislation was correct and in the best interests of the people of Western Australia and the employers and employees in the longer term. As I said before, this is a sad day for Western Australia, and will be for the immediate future. The immediate future is the next three years. However, I sincerely hope that there will be recognition of the need for a change of Government. Debate adjourned until a later stage of the day’s sitting, on motion by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House). [Continued below.] SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE - EXTENDED AFTER 11.00 PM Thursday, 27 June HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [10.24 pm]: I move without notice - That the House do sit beyond 11.00 pm. In moving this motion, it is necessary for me to explain to the House in clear terms what our objectives are. The Government needs to deal with two essential pieces of business. The first piece of business, of course, is order of the day No 171, the Labour Relations Reform Bill. I believe that it will take a little beyond 11.00 pm for us to bring that Bill to completion. The other matter that I feel we must deal with is the Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Bill. It is those two Bills only that I wish to deal with. Having said that, there are two matters that the standing orders require us to deal with. I believe they can be dealt with very quickly. The first of those is the requirement in the standing orders for us to refer to order of the day No 196, the estimates of revenue and expenditure. That is simply the noting of the tabled papers and should not take more than a few seconds. The other matter is order of the day No 188, the City of Perth - Code of Conduct Local Law disallowance. The standing orders require us in a new day’s sitting to deal with that disallowance. Again, it should not take more than a few seconds because the Government will vote for the disallowance. With that explanation, I express my appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the Opposition for their agreement to this extension of time, which I do not think will be too severe, to allow us to finish this business tonight so that we will not be required to come back tomorrow. I neglected to mention the cooperation of other parties in this matter - the One Nation party, the Greens (WA) and, of course, how could I forget the National Party? Hon Murray Criddle: One day we’ll be needed. Hon KIM CHANCE: It could be sooner than Hon Murray Criddle thinks. On behalf of the Government, I am grateful for the willingness that has been shown to deal with this business in an appropriate and proper way. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [10.27 pm]: The Opposition will support this motion. However, as a general rule, henceforth, it is our view that the House should not sit late nights and early mornings. That is a thing of the past. Our agreement on this occasion is based on the expectation that the House will not sit for a significant time after midnight. I hope that will be the attitude of other members and they will do their best to expedite the business that the Leader of the House has indicated will be dealt with. We will not support dealing with any other business. I hope that we can conclude this business with a reasonable amount of expedition. Question put and passed. LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM BILL 2002 Third Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [10.28 pm]: There is one old saying that applies to this legislation; that is, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Interestingly, from the point of view of most intelligent and sensible observers, at the present time the Western Australian industrial relations system is in good shape. All the
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12215 measurements of industrial relations are positive. The number of industrial disputes and things of that nature are all in positive territory. We have acknowledged that there were some problems on the fringes of workplace agreements that needed to be, and would have been, fixed. However, this Government is hell-bent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater and starting afresh. The Australian Labor Party-Greens (WA) alliance is giving us new legislation that will take our industrial relations back to the past. It is the third leg of the Labor Party’s three main pieces of legislation. This is the thuggery part. As we debated every clause in Committee it became more and more obvious just how bad this Bill is. That was illustrated by little known aspects that popped up, such as the requirement for employers to provide the facilities if a conference is to be held. This Bill is all about a state of mind driven by union control and domination even though only about 25 per cent of Western Australian workers are members of unions. They have voted with their feet. Those who are members of unions are not members by choice. A classic example is the iron ore industry in the north west, where Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, for example, went from having a totally dominated union work force with continual industrial disputation and strike action to a workplace in which three people remain as members of the union. The rest signed workplace agreements. In their view, that was better for them. They have not voted to sign Australian workplace agreements. However, they will not rejoin the unions either. They do not want to go back to the bad old days of industrial relations in the Pilbara. Nor does anyone else for that matter, except the people in charge of this legislation and their political masters. This Bill should not be read a third time because it represents a return to the bad old days of industrial disputation. I have been around long enough to see the changes in the work force over the years. I watched in my own electorate, especially the Pilbara, the bad old days of industrial disputation, union control and domination and circumstances in which the productivity of Western Australia was the laughing stock of the world. In the past eight or so years that has turned around, as have industrial relations at the commonwealth level, where significant improvements have occurred in productivity across the board, as they have in working conditions and salaries. This legislation should not be read a third time because it will take us back to the bad old days of industrial disputation that the coalition Government sought to get rid of and succeeded in doing so. As I said, a reading of the Bill will reveal lots of little-known clauses. Its passing will see a return to the days when ALP funding came directly from the unions. Regardless of whether union members are willing, their money will go to the Labor Party because the provisions that prohibited that have been wiped out. It will see a return to the days when union membership fees will be taken out of workers’ salaries by employers and paid in a lump sum to unions. In the good old days, the Education Department sent a cheque to the teachers union every payday. The union did not have to do a thing but collect the cheque and spend it. However, the new legislation contains provisions that allow employers to deduct employees’ union fees and pay them to the unions. Fundamentally, the Bill should not be read a third time because it will take away the flexibility of the current system and return the inflexibility of the old industrial relations system. That incredible inflexibility in working conditions and arrangements led to very poor productivity and stereotypical working arrangements that were not in the best interests of either employers or employees. Whether or not the Labor Party likes it, this legislation will have a devastating effect on many businesses and industries in Western Australia at a time when they can least afford it. I will come back to that in a moment. I took a particular interest in this debate about the tourism, hospitality, mining and petroleum industries - four industries which are particularly reliant on the flexible working arrangements and which have been the main beneficiaries of the flexibility that the previous workplace agreements allowed. The flexibility of workplace agreements in the mining industry is legendary. It made a huge difference to the capacity of our main industry to survive at a time when the Asian crisis was having a dramatic effect on many economies around this region. The Australian economy sailed through that Asian economic crisis partly - not totally - because we had in place in Australia a workplace regime that allowed for flexibility and productivity. We were fortunate that we did not have to wear the serious pain that other countries suffered. That is probably one of the main reasons people have forgotten about it so quickly. The strength of our economy, based upon the flexibility of our working arrangements, gave us a chance to survive that particular downturn in this region’s economy. The Government has ignored completely the pleas of industry associations about this legislation. Countless letters have been sent to me as a member of Parliament by industry associations and companies saying that they cannot tolerate this legislation, that it will be extremely detrimental to their businesses and industries and asking me to stop it going through. In some parts of Western Australia people still believe that the Liberal Party has the numbers in the upper House. We had the numbers for 150 years and people still think that situation exists. The fact of the matter is very simple: we do not have the numbers in this House anymore. Some people think that is a good thing, but the people who think we still have the numbers to stop this legislation should understand that we cannot. We have done what we can, first of all, to review this legislation and to make it clear to everybody what it actually means clause by clause, and it has taken a long time. I make no apology for how long it has taken, because it is a Bill of great significance to Western Australia - a Bill which has the potential to be very detrimental to this State’s industries. It is our duty as an Opposition to expose and oppose it, and we have week after week. As I said, the Government has ignored the pleas of those in
12216 [COUNCIL] industry, who have also pleaded with us to stop this legislation. We have had to say to them, “We are sorry, we can’t do it.” The party with the balance of power - Greens (WA) - has not only ignored the pleas of industry, but also turned its back even further and introduced countless amendments that would make the legislation even worse. As I said by way of interjection on one occasion, the Greens are trying desperately to make the Government look good. I will talk a bit more about that later as well. I shudder when I think about what this legislation will do to the Western Australian economy. Initially it will have the effect of driving a large number of employees into the federal system, because at least there is some flexibility in the Australian workplace agreement system. In my view, it is not as good as the legislation that is being replaced by this Bill. This legislation will have the effect of driving many employees into the federal system, and perhaps that is what the Labor Party wants. Maybe it has a long-term vision of a Crean Government - God forbid - bringing in national industrial relations legislation that would apply to everybody in Australia. Maybe in some perverse way, by driving people into the federal system, that is what the Labor Party hopes to achieve. Every poor employee across the country would be stuck with a Labor union-dominated industrial relations system that would take away individual freedom, flexibility and the right of employees to make their own arrangements. Maybe that is what the Labor Party has in mind. Alternatively, maybe there is a second wave to come. At one point during the committee stage, the minister told us that a review of the industrial relations legislation is under way and that some parts of the Bill are being reviewed and will be reviewed in the future - I think later this year. Maybe the review is all about putting together the next stage of the legislation. Maybe the next stage, the second wave or the second whammy - perhaps we need to start using some new terminology - for Western Australia is a Bill from the Government based on the amendments moved by the Greens (WA), which we found so obnoxious during the committee stage. Maybe those amendments are the second whammy. Those amendments did not come from the Labor Party; they came from the union movement, and the Greens are in bed with the unions on this piece of legislation. The unions and the Greens worked out the amendments together. For some strange reason, the union members in this House did not vote for those amendments. Perhaps they think they should be seen to be just vaguely moderate, to give industry some vague hope that they have their heads screwed on straight. Perhaps that is what they are trying to do; I do not know. However, I do know that the Greens’ amendments did not come from the Greens party; they came from the trade union movement of Western Australia. That is what the trade unions want. What the trade unions want ultimately is what the Labor Party delivers. That is what happens in Western Australia, and that is what happens at the national level. That is why the unions are fighting so desperately to ensure that they retain their 60 per cent control of the Labor Party. Even if they keep only 50 per cent control, that is a very large slice of the action when they represent only 25 per cent of employees. What do members see when they look around this Chamber and the other Chamber and at the federal Parliament? Union officials sitting on benches in Parliament, because they were put there by the endorsement processes of the Labor Party. A Labor Party-union coalition - I should not say “coalition”, because it is the same thing - is making the decisions for the State of Western Australia, regardless of the views of industry, industry associations and even individual employees. The Labor Party is taking away from them the rights they have had in recent times, and it has not asked them whether they wanted that to happen. It does the bidding of the union movement; that is what we have seen. In the not too distant future, we may well see the second whammy, which will be the amendments moved by the Greens and other amendments that they will think up in due course, and we will finish up with an even worse industrial relations system. I find this incredible, and not because I happen to be sitting here. I have never been a capitalist. I am not a big employer. I am a simple schoolteacher from the bush. However, I sat down and worked out how the world goes around from my point of view. Like Hon Ray Halligan, I understand that the people who pay most of the salaries in this country, who employ people and who provide individuals with their wherewithal, are those who put their money on the line and create enterprises. I have a small business. It cost me a few dollars. I employ two or three people. I know that, at the end of each week, what I get out of that business is what is left over after everybody else takes his slice of the action. If there is no money left, I do not get any. If a business must pay more than it has, it goes broke. The person who has his capital on the line is the last person to get a quid out of the business. Regrettably, in this country, countless hundreds of small businesses go broke very quickly because their owners cannot meet the cost of running the business and cannot get enough money out of it to survive. That is the nature of industry in Australia. The economy is very much dependent on the small business sector. This sort of legislation will do nothing to give those businesses a chance to survive. In fact, it will do the exact opposite. The small businesses in the hospitality industry provide casual jobs, on workplace agreements, for kids who go to university. The jobs are not all that flash. However, those people have a job because the cafe is open all night or the restaurant is open for 18 hours a day. They provide part-time and casual jobs outside normal hours. Young people can earn the money that keeps them going and do their studies. Those flexible working arrangements are part of the existing system. I can only hope and pray that this legislation does not completely stuff up that system. It would be a tragedy if it did. If we want this economy and this State to grow as it should, we must recognise the needs of industry. As I said earlier, our big industries are the mining and petroleum industries, as well as the growing industries of hospitality and tourism.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12217
We are not a big manufacturing economy. We do not have car plants etc. We are an economy that is based mainly on primary industry. The service industries also keep the economy going. We do not have a big secondary industry base. The sorts of industries we have demand and require flexible workplace arrangements. We have had them and they have worked. As I said, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We now have a clear and obvious demonstration by the Labor Party and its union mates that the class war in Australia is alive and well. It is them and us: the unions and the employees on one hand and the bosses on the other, and never the twain shall meet. That is what they have been preaching for generations. Yet, the hatred, bitterness and warfare that Hamersley Iron and its employees experienced for years were replaced overnight by agreements. Labour and employers negotiated arrangements in a way that nobody had thought was vaguely possible. They worked. I think Hamersley Iron has lost the plot a bit in the past year or two. It has forgotten that these people are its employees and that it needs to maintain that dialogue, which everybody had thought was impossible in the first place. This legislation will take us back to the bad old days of the class war - them and us; workers and bosses. We will be revisited by the rhetoric of the past. That is a tragedy. The only way we will go forward in this country is if everybody works in the same direction. If a certain group continues to do its best to ensure that productivity does not improve by extracting every last dollar and cent it can get out of the bosses - because that is its entitlement - for the least amount of work, and by not negotiating but using industrial action to get its way, this country will not thrive. It will go backwards. I say to the Labor Party in all sincerity that it cannot allow its industrial relations system and its union mates to ruin the economy of Western Australia. As I said, we would not have survived the Asian crisis without flexible workplace agreements. The goldmining industry would not have survived the downturn in the gold price without workplace agreements. Had it not survived, that would have meant that all the dollars the Government is getting from the gold royalty that it said it was not going to have would not now be coming into the Government’s coffers to spend on the things it wants to spend them on. The mining industry, particularly the goldmining industry, survives because of workplace agreements and fly in, fly out arrangements, whether we like it or not. That is a simple fact of life. In the mining industry we cannot turn the clock back to the days of eight-hour shifts and five shifts a week. It will not work; and if the Labor Party tries to do it, it will ruin the industry. As much as I hate the idea that Kambalda does not have a footy match on Sunday afternoons, we need to have a surviving industry if people are to be employed. If the Labor Party ruins the industry by changing the employment practices, no-one will have a job. No-one will have a job if the business goes broke. As I said earlier, at the end of the day there will be no money left for the entrepreneur or investor who has put his money on the line, because everybody else has taken out more than their share. The Labor Party must not under any circumstances allow this legislation and its relationship with the unions to destroy the industries of Western Australia, or even put a dent in them, because there is not a big gap between the survival and the decimation of the industries in this State. This State is dependent on overseas commodity prices, which go up and down very quickly. The price of oil goes up and down very quickly. The Government is benefiting now because the price of oil is up because of the Middle East crisis. If the Middle East crisis were sorted out, the royalties would plummet. It is as simple as that, regrettably. The commodity prices that are so important to our economy and industries can send us down the tube very quickly. We need to be flexible enough to cope with those variations in prices. It is not just commodity prices. It is also the value of our dollar. We have seen what has happened to the value of our dollar over the years. At the moment, the value of our dollar is low in historic terms, which means that our products can be sold in international marketplaces and our exporters do well. However, it is going up. In some respects that is a good thing, but it puts pressure on exporters. It does not take much in the world that we live in now to have a massive effect on commodity prices and the value of currencies. If our industries and workplaces are not flexible, we will suffer. The one good thing about this legislation is that, in my humble judgment, it will be the beginning of the end for the Gallop Labor Government. The day this legislation hits the streets of Western Australia and people start to see what this Government and the union movement has in mind for them, they will jump off the bandwagon so quickly that the Government will not know what has struck it. I was in the Pilbara the other day and I said to the people, “Have you gone back to the old days? You didn’t want to go onto the Australian workplace agreements. Have you gone back to the good old days or the bad old days?” They said, “No way in the world are we going back to the bad old days. We don’t want to have a bar of that. We just want to give the company a bit of a nudge, because we would like to do a bit better than we are doing now.” They do not want to go back to the Labor Party and the union movement. The moment they will have to do that is the moment they will jump off the bandwagon; and the Labor Party will regret it at the next election. That is the only good thing I can find in this legislation. I thank Hon Ray Halligan and my other colleagues for the significant job they did in going through this Bill clause by clause and making sure that every issue that could possibly be extracted from this legislation was extracted, analysed and reviewed, albeit that the Minister for Racing and Gaming, on behalf of the Government, accepted no amendments from anyone. The Government took the typical approach of saying, “We know it all, and you know nothing; you are going to get what we want whether you like it or not”, regardless of the merit or otherwise of the amendments moved by members on this side of the House. I also acknowledge the minister’s stamina. I have commended the minister in the past, because for some reason or other Hon Nick Griffiths has been given every major piece of legislation that has come
12218 [COUNCIL] into this place. Hon Nick Griffiths got the triumvirate of thuggery, buggery and skulduggery. That must be some sort of poison chalice, because I watched the minister and I could not find too many clauses that he agreed with in any of those three Bills. However, he manfully went through them point by point and did his duty to the Labor Party. For that I congratulate him; albeit that I think that he got the meaning wrong from beginning to end. I acknowledge his stamina. I suggest that next time the Labor Party wants to bring in its second whammy, it give the job to the Minister for Housing and Works to give him a reason to be in this place. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Get it all out! Hon Barry House: It even evokes laughter from your side. Hon NORMAN MOORE: They know it is true. The Minister for Housing and Works has not been here for as long as I can remember, except for question time. It would do him the world of good to come in here and deal with a piece of legislation. Let us see whether he is any good. He has already had one go, which was a disaster. That Bill is now languishing at the bottom of the Notice Paper with 47 of his amendments. I say to that minister and the people who took great satisfaction from our embarrassment at the second reading stage of this legislation that it is a fact that no member on this side of the House was watching television on that occasion. The public suggestion that it was the case is, in my view, defamatory. It is defamatory to suggest that I would watch some puerile television program when I should be in the Parliament. I take great exception to the people who perpetrate that myth, which was created by the Premier’s press secretary on the morning after the event - I know that is where it came from - and given to the media, which then asked where our members were. The West Australian printed a list of where every member from this side of the House was on that occasion. Not one was engaged in the alleged activity in the myth perpetrated by the Premier’s press secretary. I say to those people, including the Minister for Housing and Works and the Minister for Education, that if they continue to use that phrase in public, there are remedies for people like me who take great exception to their reputation being attacked in that way. We on this side of the House have thoroughly analysed this legislation, as we did the last two Bills. The Government decided the priorities of its legislative program. Those are the three Bills that it chose; we did not choose them. As I said yesterday, I also take great exception to being told that somehow or other we have stopped other Bills being debated. The Government can bring them on any time it likes and they will be debated, as we showed today. There are Bills we will agree to without any problem, as long as the Government brings them on for debate. If the Government brings on Bills that we do not agree with, we will argue against them, just as the Leader of the House did when he was on this side of the House and I sat in his seat. We will not have people hanging out of the public gallery or marching in the streets, because that is not our style or the way we do business. We have been seeking to argue the merits of this Bill from day one until now. We believe that we are right and the Government is wrong. The Government will win because it has the numbers with the support of the Greens (WA), but at least it should give some credibility to the people who have worked hard to make sure that the Government’s legislation is properly scrutinised. That is what Parliament is for. Hon Nick Griffiths said yesterday that the one-line speech made by Hon Jim Scott was the best speech he had ever heard. If that is the future of this Parliament, we might as well give it away altogether. We might as well let the Government wheel in its Bill and all say that we either agree or disagree with it and then sit down. Parliament is about talking. It is a place in which members put their views on legislation, argue their case and, after that, vote on it. We will continue to do that as an Opposition. As I said, I have no doubt that this legislation will go a long way towards ensuring that we are not in this place arguing against the Government’s legislation in the future but that we will be the Government promoting our legislation. This is a black day for Western Australia. It is a very sad day indeed for our economy. It is a sad day for the employees of Western Australia, who will now be told, “Sorry, guys, the flexibility you have had for the past five or so years is now gone; we are now back to the bad old days of union control.” This legislation should be thrown out. I recall an occasion - I guess because I have been in this place a while - when a Bill was lost on the third reading because a member got caught in the dunny and missed a division. I hope that something like a small attack of diarrhoea happens either to a Labor Party or Greens (WA) member between now and the third reading vote. That is the only hope I have, but hope springs eternal in the human breast, Mr President. One can only hope that a Labor Party or Greens (WA) member either has that affliction, or wakes up to what this Bill is all about before it is too late and votes against it. HON MURRAY CRIDDLE (Agricultural) [11.01 pm]: Under no circumstance can I support the third reading of this Bill. I saw the first industrial relations Bill go through this Parliament in 1993 and the second Bill in 1997, and have seen an improvement in industrial relations in this State in that time. As many members in this place know, I was involved in an industrial relations case in the Federal Court for a day and a half. That case was all about creating flexibility in the workplace and about facilitating trade in a better and more efficient manner in the ports around this State. Container handling in those days was at a very low ebb, but it has developed well since then to give Western Australia a competitive edge in its trading arrangements. Besides visiting all the other ports, I well recall visiting the port of Esperance, which was a typical example of how the work force gradually shifted to workplace agreements to allow flexibility for people to move from working in the hold of a ship to the port office. That legislation was all about giving flexibility to the work force and providing an opportunity to put in place a very efficient process in our ports. This legislation will take away that flexibility.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12219
There has been no industrial unrest to call for this legislation. We have seen none of the performances that we saw in this State eight years ago and in 1997. In my ministerial role, I dealt with people who were employed across this State on buses, at the wharves, as truck drivers and the like, and I had no difficulty working with those people. They were happy with the arrangements in place. I can foresee this legislation impacting heavily on the State and on the opportunity for it to compete on the world market. As Hon Norman Moore pointed out several times, whether or not we like it, we are an exporting nation. We must compete in the world market and we must have flexibility. I will not speak for long, Mr President. This has been very difficult legislation and has taken many hours to debate. Following the legislation in itself has been quite an experience. However, I do not believe we have a good Bill out of that debate. I hope at some stage somebody will tell employers and employees exactly what is expected of them and the way in which the Bill should be implemented, because it is very complex legislation. Already employers are responsible for workers compensation, superannuation and taxation. Now they will be asked to take heed of the hours people work, the wages they are paid - that is part of employers’ current responsibility - the names of their employees, the ages of those under 21 years of age, when they clock on and clock off and when they take their lunch breaks. God knows how they will do that in places such as my home town. What are employers going to do - run around behind employees with a notebook and take heed of when they start work, when they have lunch, and what job they do? What an experience that will be for employers. The legislation goes on to state “any other arrangements that are in place”. Employers will require a lot of explanation about these requirements and it will take an enormous amount of time for people to get some idea of this complicated legislation. Because requirements are so complicated, employers will put other mechanisms in place. They will employ machinery instead of people; the legislation will encourage them to do that. It is an unfortunate thing. This legislation will impact more on lower paid workers; they are the people who will suffer. They will be put out of work and they will have to face the challenges when employers work out other ways to be productive. That has already happened in the industry in which I worked. People buy modern plant and technology and workers get laid off. Operations that once employed six or seven people now employ only one or two. I have made it clear that I will not support this legislation under any circumstance. I was very disappointed with the rejection the other night of the amendment that was designed to exempt the brethren. It should have been adopted. The brethren employ more than 800 people around the State and only about half that number actually belong to the organisation. The legislation will impact heavily on those people and that is a real tragedy. The Parliament has seen a long and laborious debate about very complex legislation. The legislation will impact poorly on the State, especially lower paid workers, and make it very difficult for them to remain in employment. HON DEE MARGETTS (Agricultural) [11.07 pm]: I will not speak for long. Among Greens (WA) members are teachers, public servants, lawyers, health workers, other professionals, farmers and small business owners. Many of those people feel very strongly about the pillars of green politics, which include social justice and participatory democracy. I thank all those who participated in the debate who are beginning to realise that green politics is not, and never was, just about the environment, although there is no doubt whatsoever that there is no party in this place that has better credentials on environmental sustainability. Since the party’s inception in 1990, the Greens (WA) has never been simply an environment party, although the environment and sustainability is one of the party’s four pillars. Congratulations to all those who have now realised, somewhat belatedly, that the other three pillars exist. The drafting of Greens (WA) amendments was undertaken through the facilities of this place. Greens (WA) members believe strongly in the party’s principles. They are the people who drafted our amendments to this Bill. If members ever want to check the source of the amendments, they should look at Greens’ policies. HON JOHN FISCHER (Mining and Pastoral) [11.10 pm]: I begin by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition and Hon Murray Criddle for their dissertations on this extremely unfortunate legislation. I also commend Hon Ray Halligan for the excellent job he did trying to move amendments through the committee stage of this Bill. I express One Nation’s very real concern at the passage of this industrial relations Bill. Parts of this Bill are totally unacceptable to the public of Western Australia, in particular to the small business sector. I am absolutely appalled at the stance taken by the members of the Greens (WA) in their attempted amendments. I thank goodness that government members had at least a modicum of intelligence and forethought in coming across and voting with the Opposition to defeat those totally unrealistic and stupid amendments. I believe the Labor Party has totally abrogated its responsibility to the small business operators of this State. It has stabbed these people in the heart of their endeavours, and the result will be closures and lost employment opportunities throughout the State. One Nation opposes this legislation totally in its present form. I have no hesitation in extending One Nation’s apologies to the business community of Western Australia for its inability to prevent the enactment of this callous and badly improvised legislation. We reject this legislation, and this third reading, on the grounds of fairness, equity and commonsense. Western Australia has a very bleak future to look forward to in employment and small business until some of this legislation can be repealed. HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan) [11.12 pm]: I have listened to some of the opposition speakers tonight and unlike them I think this is a glorious day. As a Labor member and a proud trade unionist I have been waiting for this day since 1993, and I fully support the third reading of this Bill. I am proud to be part of a Gallop Labor Government
12220 [COUNCIL] that looks to reform and to repairing the damage done by the industrial relations agenda of the previous Government. That legislation went too far and stripped workers in this State of their dignity and self-esteem. This Labor Relations Reform Bill seeks to restore that dignity and self-esteem, and to offer hope for workers. It has come about through a detailed process, and I commend the minister for the passion and dedication he brought to his handing of this Bill. My fellow government members would concur with that. This Bill seeks to restore fairness and equity to workplaces, put good-faith bargaining back into the negotiation process and reinstate a safety net that will underpin the minimum conditions of employment. It removes the predominantly anti-worker provisions of the third wave legislation of the previous Government. One thing I note, having listened to a large proportion of the debate on this Bill, is that there has been much talk about the needs of the employer and very little talk about the needs of the worker - the human factor in the workplace, that has been stripped so bare by the previous legislation. I have not heard much talk about how workers on individual contracts have provided for their families or their futures. That is something the Government really needs to focus on, because unless that future is provided for working people, it will not get too far. I never understand why members opposite always seem to think that the economy can only improve through the degradation of workers’ wages. That always seems to be the lynchpin for them. I never hear them talking about trying to reduce the other capital costs of running a business; it always seems to be the soft target of the worker. During this debate I have heard a lot of myths discussed about the work done by the unions. Members opposite have set out to demonise union officials and the work they do. Opposition members should have talked about the need to restore the rights of workers, including their rights to access information, security and protection. Members opposite have not discussed those issues. They have called union officials thugs and all sorts of other dreadful names. I congratulate the State’s trade union movement for its efforts to protect and support the working people of this State over the years. The Gallop Labor Government has delivered its pre-election commitment to the community of Western Australia. Members of the Opposition have said that people did not want it and that union members make up only a minority of the work force. However, I believe that the majority of the population wanted these types of changes in the workplace. They demonstrated that in February last year by removing the previous Government and opening the door for the Labor Government because they knew that these changes would be introduced. I look forward to the passage of this Bill and the positive changes it will bring to workplaces. The working people of this State look forward to the restoration of their rights, privileges and dignity once this legislation is enacted. HON PADDY EMBRY (South West) [11.16 pm]: I rise with a lot of mixed feelings tonight. The three members of One Nation who spoke on this Bill made it clear that we are not an anti-union party. In our slightly mixed-up speeches in the second reading debate, we made it clear that we support responsible trade unionism. I do not apologise for this, but it is very difficult for a relatively inexperienced speaker to follow some of the marvellous speakers in this third reading debate. Members have already spoken about most of the subjects I wanted to raise. Hon Ray Halligan spoke of a meeting at Albany that the Minister for Labour Relations and I attended. When the minister was asked what consultation had taken place outside the metropolitan area, he replied that it had occurred in two mining towns. Any reasonable person would not consider that to be adequate consultation. By “reasonable person”, I mean not the modern use of the word, but the dictionary definition. I will raise a matter in which I was involved; that is, the dirty tricks that the Labor Party used to bring about a most untimely conclusion to the second reading debate. It is fair to say that when members of Parliament use those types of tactics, no-one wins. The bad publicity that the parliamentary process receives affects all of us, including members in the other place who were not involved with it. The harm that that does to the lack of esteem in which the public holds politicians and the way in which we fulfil our public duties means that there are no winners, only losers. That was a very sad day. It was interesting that for a few days afterwards, very few members of the Labor Party would look me in the eye. I think they realised that they had not been as clever as they thought. It was childlike behaviour, and not responsible. People are concerned about going back to the really bad old days. I will recount one incident that involved my family. My family came out to Australia on a cargo boat and I followed three or four months after my parents. My mother wanted to make sure that I wrote to them, because I was a small child, so she went to see the shipping company. They were to reach Australia via the Canary Islands and South Africa, and would then pass through Fremantle, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney before ending up in New Zealand. She left me addressed aerograms in which to write, because she wanted to get it right so that the letters would reach her. The shipping company could tell her the exact dates that the ship would arrive at and depart from ports, but only until it reached Australian waters, because it was well recognised that Australia and New Zealand had the worst industrial disputes in the world. That happened all right. When my parents got to Adelaide, the workers went on strike. The workers were unloading open crates of toilet pedestals and went on strike for embarrassment money. This happened; it is a fact. I know I am older than most members, but I assure the House that it happened. Those are justified concerns. People do not want to return to the bad old days. The PRESIDENT: Before I give the call to Hon Bruce Donaldson, I remind members that this is the third reading debate, and not a repeat of the second reading debate.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12221
HON BRUCE DONALDSON (Agricultural) [11.21 pm]: I will stick to the rules. I totally oppose this Bill for a number of reasons. The best industrial peace Western Australia has had for many, many years occurred between 1994 and now. No-one could argue against that, because it is a fact. There is an old saying: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Of course, the legislation needed some finetuning - all members would readily agree with that. However, what we have seen is not a reform Bill, but a revenge Bill. I have said before in this House that the pre-selection of Hon Kate Doust is safe. Most Labor members have been put where they are through the unions and their heavy voting regime. I guess Hon Kate Doust is safe. I hope Hon Tom Stephens’ colleagues - Hon Tom Stephens: I hope you are going to say something kind and nice to me. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I am going to. I am worried for Hon Tom Stephens because he does not know what this Bill is all about - we have not seen much of him. I hope that his colleagues, especially the minister who has handled this Bill, will sit down with him over the six-week break and explain what this Bill is all about. Our legislation was not anti-worker, as Hon Kate Doust tried to explain. If that were the case, we would have had anarchy among the workers; there would have been protests and marches. No-one from that side can tell me that during the past seven or eight years Western Australia has not had the best industrial peace that it has ever had. This Bill is not about the workers; it is all about union power. The minister can shake his head and frown, but they are the facts of life. Union membership is falling; it is 20 per cent of what it was a few years ago. Hon Kim Chance: It is not falling quite as fast as Liberal Party membership. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I am talking about unions. The coalition’s legislation gave people the right of freedom of association. I thought democracy is all about freedom of association. This Bill will remove that. The unions are trying to claw back their power. The consumers have been the winners out of the coalition’s industrial relations legislation over the past seven or eight years. Many small businesses have been able to operate and to provide services during extended hours because workplace agreements have enabled employees to work on a shift basis. It is pretty disappointing that this Bill is undoing a lot of the good work of the previous Government’s legislation. Regardless of what people may say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that is what actually happened. I would like to turn to the Greens (WA) and to its so-called pillars of democracy and justice. Hon Dee Margetts announced that the Greens had been called anarchists and that she was proud to be called an anarchist. We talked about anarchy and what that really meant. During the abortion debate, both Houses of this Parliament were literally paralysed. If ever there was a good example of what occurs when we do not have parties in the Parliament to run this State, that was it. The conscience vote in the abortion debate was a good example of how not to govern. That debate paralysed the Western Australian Parliament for some time. I find it very strange that the Greens would be proud to be called anarchists. I went to the Pocket Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of the word “anarchy” because I did not think Hon Dee Margetts understood what she was talking about when she said, with a great deal of pride, that she was an anarchist. The definition of anarchy reads - Absence of government; disorder, confusion; We all understand that. Anybody who went to school would know what anarchy means. The definition of the word “anarchist” is better still. Obviously, it is one of the pillars of the Greens party that have been espoused by Hon Dee Margetts in this House. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary definition of anarchist” reads - (adherent of) doctrine that all governments should be abolished; Is this what the Greens stand for? Is this the real reason that they race around the country telling people they are independent and will make up their own minds? Is that why the first thing they did when they got into this House was to form a coalition with the Labor Party? The Government has dangled 30 pieces of silver in front of their eyes: at $11 000 for each piece of silver that adds up to $330 000. The Premier has been very clever, because the Greens will not receive the $330 000 unless this Bill is passed tonight. Then they will see changes in their staffing requirements and the Greens will be well and truly looked after. If anarchy is a pillar of the Greens party - The PRESIDENT: Order! I trust the member will refer to why we should not pass this Bill rather than the record of the Greens. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: Mr President, I am just prefacing my remarks. I am concerned for the Government because its offsiders want to get rid of it. One day many people will understand what some of the draconian measures in this legislation really mean. Therefore, in one sense, I am looking forward to seeing the end results, because it will make it easier for the Opposition to be re-elected to government in 2005. I have said in this House before, and I will say again, that as sure as the sun comes up in the morning and goes down in the evening, this Bill will be repealed. Changes will be made. The people of Western Australia will ask for that to occur. Some of the draconian measures in
12222 [COUNCIL] this Bill are, in one sense, as we have discussed as a party, almost like music to our ears. The quicker this legislation is proclaimed and operating, the better off our party will be, because people will feel the pain. The more pain they feel, the better off we will be. When the Court coalition Government came into power, youth unemployment was over 30 per cent and adult unemployment was over 12 per cent. Look at the situation when we left government. Youth unemployment had dropped to 14 per cent and adult unemployment was about six per cent. When we came to office, the youth unemployment rate in this State was one of the worst in Australia. I think Tasmania might have beaten us. Hon Kim Chance: Don’t kid yourself into thinking that it was your laws that did that. Every other State performed exactly the same. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I have never said that it was entirely as a result - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I think we are departing from the subject matter of the debate, although I am sure the member is about to relate his comments to the reason that we should or should not pass the third reading. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I was trying to relate my remarks to the Bill. I said that it was not only the legislation that was brought in; there were other factors. Hon N.D. Griffiths: This is a pretty long preface. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I thought I should be careful to go through, step by step, what will happen when this Bill becomes law. I know my colleagues would like to say a few words, but I want to put clearly on the public record that I totally oppose the Bill, and I will continue to do so. I will conclude with this message: I was brought up by my late father and mother in a very strong Labor household. I have said once before that my father became very disenchanted during the heady days of Bob Hawke and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, when there was a great deal of industrial trouble across this nation and certain things happened that brought a lot of businesses to their knees. My father believed strongly in unions, and always had. However, he became disenchanted because the union leaders were seeking power. Unfortunately, in any organisation that tends to happen, which is sad. The Greens (WA) have certainly supported the Bill throughout, directed by UnionsWA. As I said before, Hon Dee Margetts makes Kevin Reynolds look like Mother Teresa. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Sorry, what was that? Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I said that because of her absolutely draconian views, Hon Dee Margetts makes Mr Reynolds look like Mother Teresa. I have said, and I will say again, that as far left as the Labor Party is, thank heavens it has had enough brains to ditch everything that the Greens (WA) has tried to foist on Western Australians collectively. I hope that, over the next couple of years, the people of Western Australia will appreciate the different approaches to this legislation by the two parties. I am sure they will. I look forward to seeing this House repeal this legislation one day and reintroducing legislation to allow good workplace agreements. HON BARRY HOUSE (South West) [11.34 pm]: At this last opportunity this third reading should be rejected because the Bill fails the basic tenet of good legislation, which should be in the interests of the majority of Western Australian citizens. It should be also fair and reasonable. This legislation is neither of those things. We have heard about the lack of meaningful consultation and a range of other factors such as the relatively good shape that the Western Australian economy has been in since 1993. I opened the drawer of my desk in this place a while ago and discovered in there an old black arm band. I cannot remember where it came from. Hon Bruce Donaldson: It was to symbolise our rejection of the electoral reform legislation. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I was not sure whether it originated during a rally outside this place against electoral reform or gay and lesbian law changes. In any event, I will wear it until the vote has been held. The nexus between that legislation and this legislation is very clear. It is payback. It is payback for the Greens’ support for the Labor Party and the Labor Party’s support for the Greens. Those two Bills and this Bill are each part of the Government’s trifecta of legislation. The electoral laws involved skulduggery. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Your party voted for electoral reform in the party room and you know it. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Hon Nick Griffith has spoken some garbage in his time but that takes the cake. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Barry House should address this Bill and not be misled by interjections into discussing another Bill. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Thank you, Mr President. This legislation should not be read a third time for a host of reasons. As I said at the outset, it is not in the interests of the majority of Western Australians. It was not compiled following consultation with a wide cross-section of the community; it was compiled out of consultation with a narrow, minority
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12223 set. It reaffirms that this Government is a Government for minority interests, whether they be the gay lobby or the Government’s left wing union lobby. Two things make that very clear. During this debate I tabled a document prepared by the Coalition of Business Associations comprising, I think, 12 peak business associations that were not consulted on the drafting of this Bill. They are horrified at the impact this legislation could have on their businesses. None of the following industry bodies considered that they were consulted: the Australian Hotels Association, the Baking Industry Association, the Combined Small Business Associations, the Electrical Contractors Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Liquor Stores Association of WA, the Master Builders Association, the Motor Trade Association of Western Australia, the Property Council of Australia, the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association of Western Australia, the Western Australian Farmers Federation, the Western Australian Independent Grocers Association and the Western Australian Ship Builders Association. Worse still, that document was tabled during the debate and an open invitation was given to the Government to take some notice of the impact of this Bill on their industries. There is still an opportunity for them to be heard and for the Government to take some of those issues on board. The last say is in a letter to the editor in The West Australian of Tuesday, 25 June from Michael McLean, director of the Master Builders Association of Western Australia, and is headed “Labour relations at crossroads”. Time is short, so I do not intend to quote the article, but I invite members to look at it. The Master Builders Association is expressing the views of the business community generally in Western Australia: firstly, that it was not consulted; and, secondly, that it made an honest attempt to negotiate with this Government on a range of issues that could have been tinkered with at the edges to make this legislation far more palatable but would not have destroyed its whole thrust. During the second reading debate I said that when a new Government comes to power it has a mandate to introduce some changes. I accept that; that is the system in which we live. I am a firm believer in a two-party system, in which the Government of the day has the authority of the people to introduce changes. This Government has introduced some sweeping changes that have represented revenge and vindictive politics. These changes have swung the pendulum much too far to one side and have put the power back into the hands of an element in the trade union movement that a lot of government members do not even trust. During the Cole royal commission we had numerous examples over the past couple of months of the sorts of tactics that this Government will again introduce into Western Australian workplaces. We know that most of those tactics are used in the construction industry of Western Australia, and they will set this State back enormously. The only thing I can be thankful for, in line with what some of the previous speakers have said, is that the sooner this gets into the marketplace and that regime is in operation in this State, the better it will be for the Opposition, because only then will the community realise what draconian legislation this is and how far this Government has pushed the pendulum back to one extreme. Hon Kim Chance: Are you aware that most construction workers are on federal awards? Hon BARRY HOUSE: I am very aware of the sorts of unions that operate in the construction industry in this State. They use thuggery, extortion, blackmail and other unpalatable means that do not belong in the sort of democracy in which we live and which we work so hard to preserve. The Leader of the House should not tell me about those sorts of things. I am very concerned about the future of this State. The mindset that has been used to put this legislation together is turning the clock back 200 years to the old class war, and that will be to the detriment of this State. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [11.43 pm]: Over the past few weeks a great deal has been said about this issue, and there is probably not a lot more to say, but a lot more will be said in the future. I want to touch on a couple of matters that arose during the committee stage of this Bill. I am sorry if that does directly address the third reading, Mr President, but I will speak about this legislation as it emerged during the committee stage, and about one or two points that have just been raised by way of interjection during the course of this third reading debate. My mind goes back to the second reading when Hon Bill Stretch, who is one of the longest-serving members in this place, gave a very good speech, which I invite members to revisit in Hansard. He told us that during his time he has seen this cycle of industrial relations policy come before the House on four or five occasions. He spoke about the enormous swings of the pendulum and how great the arcs were out to one side or the other as the policy values of governments of the day ebbed and flowed. My comment, among others, was that from what I had seen of the passage of industrial relations legislation in this State, which consists of my observance of what went on in this place in 1997 when I was a member- elect and what I have seen during debate on this Bill, more heat than light has been created in our consideration of these affairs. I guess that is the nature of the beast that we are dealing with to some extent. There are significant vested interests, but there is also a large range of very strongly held views. As I also said during my second reading contribution, if people have very strong views, this is the appropriate place for them to be expressed. We gained two things from the committee stage of the Bill. First, there has not been any form of significant change in the Bill itself. A colossal number of amendments were debated and dealt with. As we know, the Government was not inclined to accept amendments to its Bill, and that is its prerogative. During the debate, the various proponents of the amendments argued that the Government should take on board the amendment that was being considered at the time and gave reasons for doing so, and probably suggested at least obliquely that the Government would be a damn fool if it failed to do so. The Government has the control of this legislation and it is determined to implement its policy. I will not criticise now and use words like “intransigence” or “one-sided”. A lot of that has been said before in deciding the policy of the Bill,
12224 [COUNCIL] and it will not benefit us now if we revisit the issue in that hostile way. However, I say this to the Government: clearly it believes that the primary responsibility for all aspects of labour relations in this State rests with the union movement, its officials and its members. As I have said, I do not want to get into an argument about that now; we have had all that. I simply state that an obvious key part of the Government’s policy is that it believes that that should be the case. Indeed, that has been a key plank in the platforms of many other Labor Governments at both state and federal levels over the years. I caution the Government that, as a result of what we have seen in the reinforcement of that policy throughout the committee stage, the other interests, which have made themselves known to the Government either directly or through individual members in this place, be they individual workers who have concerns, businesspeople, contractors or representative bodies - a few were mentioned by Hon Barry House - are stakeholders and are vitally interested in what is going on. If they are shut out - effectively they have been - the industrial relations scene in this State will not see the peace that I am sure most of us would like to see. That will happen, and we can anticipate further battles in this place and elsewhere. This Government has not provided a solution or taken a positive step forward. The Bill will pass. Time will tell, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope that the next time the pendulum swings back - I hope Hon Bill Stretch will be here to see it, and I hope it will not be long - we produce something that meets the needs of a larger proportion of the community rather than just one particular interest group, no matter how influential it may be. All Governments say they want to govern for all Western Australians. I do not think there has been a Premier who has not said that on election night, and this one is no exception. Governments must address the wider constituency - not just some sectional interests - and this legislation fails to do that. I also found the attitude of the Greens (WA) during the Committee interesting. This is an issue that will be further discussed. I do not want to have a shot at the Greens. Other people have done that. As I said, I am fed up with the fighting on this issue, and I do not want to start a row. However, I was interested in the points made by the Greens about their various pillars of policy and their attitude to a range of issues other than environmental issues. The term “anarchist” was used to describe its members and, to my surprise, it was accepted as a compliment. That is the sort of thing that the public of Western Australia needs to consider. It is high time that, in the same way it scrutinises the social policies of Labor Governments and the polices of potential Liberal Governments, the wider electorate took a little more notice of some of the attitudes and policies of our minor parties. Maybe that will be stimulated by this debate. In closing, I refer to an interjection by Hon Nick Griffiths. Again, I do not want to enter into any argy-bargy with Hon Nick Griffiths across the Chamber, although I am sure both of us enjoy that on occasion. Hon N.D. Griffiths: I will endeavour to maintain my right to remain silent. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The minister has a right of reply. This accusation is levelled against all Governments from time to time, and probably from time to time all Governments are guilty of it. I have accused this Government of the arrogance that comes from thinking it has power, the capacity to use the numbers, and the ability to know what is right. That positions the Government on a slippery slope. That arrogance and inability to offer solutions for the wider community rather than just a section has been evident in several of the Government’s controversial Bills. This attitude was exemplified by a remark Hon Nick Griffiths made to Hon Barry House during the debate on the lesbian and gay reform Bill. He said that he knew the vote in the Liberal Party room. Was it about that Bill? Hon N.D. Griffiths: You know as well as I do that your party room split 15-16 on the one vote, one value Bill. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It was the one vote, one value Bill. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members, we appear - Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am trying to deal directly with the third reading, and I am trying conclude my remarks. The minister says that he knows the vote in the Liberal Party room on a particular Bill. He tells us that there was a 15-16 split, and that he has proof. I challenge the minister when replying to this debate to take the smug look off his face and put up or shut up. The first thing the minister needs to do is learn how to count. Sixteen and 15 equals 31. There are 28 votes in the Liberal Party room. I will be interested to see the minister’s proof. Perhaps he has a copy of the minutes from our party secretary. I doubt it. What the minister will also find is that this party is dead against the particular Bill that we were arguing against at the time. If the minister has proof to the contrary, and he has just restated that he has, he should put up or shut up; or he stands naked here - I will not say almost as though he were in an interview room - as a victim, caught out by his own pomposity and arrogance. Let us hear what he has to offer. HON BARBARA SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [11.55 pm]: I unequivocally reject the third reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill, for a number of reasons. The so-called Labour Relations Reform Bill is not about achieving or maintaining social justice, because social justice is about equity. Equity in the workplace is about developing and maintaining good labour relations and ensuring that workers, both employers and employees - they are all workers - have a fair and reasonable expectation of reward for their efforts. I suggest that the majority of employers in this State are fair-minded and want this result. This Bill does not echo what I understand to be the basic elements of social justice or equity, because it is about reducing the number of jobs that will be available for Western Australians. It is an anti- jobs Bill. It will reduce the number of jobs in this State and destroy the economy. The Labor Party has expressed a
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12225 commitment to link government with the needs of business and industry, to develop the Western Australian economy to be a better economy, and to encourage investment in the State, so that this State can be competitive in the global economy. None of those elements that this Government has expressed a commitment to work towards will be possible if this Bill goes through this House tonight. I ask members on the other side who have said genuinely that they are there for the workers to think about the workers. There will be no jobs, or at the very least a huge reduction in the number of jobs, if this Bill goes through. The debate on this Bill by members on this side has not been about putting down workers and giving power to employers. I am sorry, but that is a misconception that some people on the other side have. The debate has been about maintaining some balance in the workplace. There is no balance when we expect employers to put up capital, risk their family lives and work extended hours for the sake of providing jobs. For what purpose? This Bill is anti jobs, for a number of reasons. I do not intend to go through the reasons in detail, but one of the elements of the Bill that in my view will make employers think twice about employing people is the extension of the 28-day time limit to make a claim for unfair dismissal. The right of entry into the workplace, which is part of this Bill, is an outrageous imposition on employers. I have no objections to people joining unions and unions supporting workers, but I do not believe there is equity in unions going into a workplace, disturbing the workplace, stopping production and stopping workers and employers from producing what they are there to produce. If there is no profit, there will not be any gain for anyone and there will be no jobs. The proposal for the collection of union fees is taking us back to the 1980s. I find it discriminatory and unacceptable. Are we now to expect employers to collect football fees, netball fees and fees for whatever employees want to do? I find those three parts of the Bill totally unacceptable and not in line with a workplace conducive to job creation - indeed, it is an anti-job Bill. Those parts deal with unfair dismissal, right of entry and collection of union fees. A fourth part is the moving away from a workplace agreement. As a woman, I believe that many women and young people have come to enjoy and be very happy about the flexibility of workplace agreements. Hon Sue Ellery: That is not true. They are worse off under workplace agreements. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Some of them may well be. Women in particular like to have a little flexibility about their working hours. We must get into the new millennium. There is no longer a job for life. Most young people these days, particularly professional people, do not consider that they will be in a job for life. They are quite happy to have projects for two or three years, or whatever. This Bill is about giving unions strength and power and money to fund the Labor Party. I will read one of the many letters I have received about this Labour Relations Reform Bill. The letter is from Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd. The letter is written by Mr Dale Alcock, and reads - As an employer of over 350 people throughout Western Australia, I am well placed to understand the impact these laws will have on our state, and its economy. My concerns are generally that: . employers will be facing massive increases in the cost of administering their workforce, due to the much greater burdens placed on them, . unions will have far too much power to disrupt business in general, even where employees have chosen not to be union members. . any increases in employees conditions, without a corresponding increase in productivity, will be eroding our state’s competitiveness in interstate and overseas markets and causing higher prices for all goods and services sold locally. . the new law seems to make it more difficult for employees and employers to enter into individual agreements, and will therefore put more people under Industrial Agreements and other “collective” arrangements. This is not suitable to many employees. The government does not have a mandate to return this state to the era of wage blowouts and industrial disruption of the 1980’s. That quote captures the views of many large employers in this State today who want to provide jobs for workers and who want to have social equity and social justice in the workplace. Gone are the days when the majority of employers do not value social justice. No member in this Chamber during this debate has denied that, no matter what labour reforms are put in place, there will always be recalcitrant employers. The majority of employers are fair-minded and want their employees to be happy and satisfied in the workplace, otherwise they know they will not have a satisfactory or productive workplace environment. However, employers will be faced with increased labour costs, impediments to employing people - Hon Nick Griffiths may shrug his shoulders, but I am not sure how many people he has ever employed - and problems with unfair dismissal cases. They will have to go through a range of steps to dismiss someone if they do not have enough work for them, and they will have to put up with unions coming in and out of their workplaces under the right of entry provisions and other impediments that the unions will use in workplaces. I ask
12226 [COUNCIL] members opposite to truly consider the issues of social justice that have been raised in this third reading debate, the issues of equity in the workplace and the fact that the Opposition wants good workplaces and fairness for both employers and employees. In the absolute nonsense that was spoken in this Chamber by Hon Dee Margetts, in maintaining that one of the pillars of the Greens (WA) philosophy was social justice, she forgot to mention the other side to social justice. There are two parts to social justice. Equity in the workplace is about fair exchange and fairness, not only for employees. I urge members opposite to consider the elements of this Bill that will make Western Australia a more difficult place in which to get a job. This anti-jobs Bill will not create employment; it will create more unemployment. I do not believe this Government really wants that for the workers of this State. HON BILL STRETCH (South West) [12.07 am]: I oppose the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2001 - as it was previously; it is now the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002 and this legislation will be with us for a few years. I do not believe it should be read a third time for several reasons. The most basic reason is that the aim of social justice, fairness and equity will never be achieved or guaranteed by legislation. It can only ever be achieved by a mind-set of both employees and employers working as a united team for the betterment of the workplace in which they work and as an integral part of the State in which they work. It now appears that the legislation that we are considering will be put in place. It is the inevitable result of a change of Government. As I said a long time ago in the debate - and as Hon Simon O’Brien was kind enough to reiterate for me, thereby saving me some time tonight - the Opposition expected these changes to happen. Hon Barry House spoke of the pendulum of change, which is also inevitable. Within the family of the workplace, as I like to describe it - maybe ideally, but we all have ideals and hopes - there is a swing of the pendulum. In the view of this Government and the union movement, the Court Government swung the pendulum too far. In the view of some Liberals and some employers, maybe the Court Government swung it too far. The interesting thing is that the previous Government did not swing it as far as its legislation allowed. The other side of the House has pointed out that the legislation had several parts that were never proclaimed, or if they were proclaimed they were not used. This Government has used that as an excuse to repeal parts of that legislation, and that is fine. There are also what my side of politics, employers and fair- minded businesspeople see as draconian provisions in this legislation. We hope those provisions are never used, although they will probably be proclaimed. I hope those provisions will never have to be used. If we are to build an ideal work force and an ideal workplace to carry this State forward - which I believe is the dream of all of us - we have to retain the reasonableness that keeps us all within the swing of the pendulum. I am realistic enough - and as Hon Simon O’Brien said, I have been here long enough - to recognise that the Government will win this debate and pass the legislation. As such, I wish the Government well. The Government and the unions will enjoy their hour of triumph. Good luck to them; they have worked hard for it and has earned it. Members opposite should remember that with those rights comes great responsibilities. As Hon Barbara Scott said, the Government has not won this fight on behalf of the Parliamentary Labor Party or the union leadership; it has won it on behalf of the entire work force of Western Australia. There is, no doubt, some good in this legislation. I believe that many government members spoke with great sincerity. I have worked with Hon Kate Doust on committees and I know she is a sincere and well-meaning person. When she says that some people have been oppressed and downtrodden in the workplace, that is probably true. However, it is also true that some employers have been victimised and targeted by certain unions because they too have stood up for their principles. They are included in the swing of the pendulum, as I have described it. They are all part of the toing-and- froing. We are all human beings full of frailties. There is a healthy element of competition and ambition in all of us. There is also a certain amount of greed in all of us. I always hope it can be kept to reasonable and healthy levels. That is the price of progress; that is the way society develops and builds. We cannot deny human frailties; they will be apparent whatever we do in legislation. The Government will never achieve the nirvana it is looking for through legislative means. A lot has been said about social fairness and equity. Whenever Parliaments get into the area of social fairness and equity, in my experience they get it wrong because they ignore the human factor. They try to make everyone in their own image, but that just does not work, because they are dealing with such a huge diversity of thought, opinions, effort, intelligence and ability. People should not expect too much from this legislation. There will always be a majority of people who want to work but there will always also be a minority of people who, for whatever reason, want to better their position at the expense of the majority. Those people are often in positions of great power, both politically and through machinations in the organisations, on both sides of the political divide, in which they work. The greatest threat I see to society in the direction the Government in is taking is the element of hate that is sadly embedded in certain sectors, on both sides of politics. It has never been more viciously brought to the surface than in the recent statement by Mark Latham, a Labor member of the federal Parliament, who has gained headlines recently for his rather animalistic preoccupation with the nether end of humanity, to put it in a kindly way. Far worse than that was his statement that he hates the Liberal Party, he has always hated the Liberal Party, and the longer he spends in Parliament the more he hates the Liberal Party. For a mature person elected from an electorate with a mix of people of various political persuasions, that is an untenable statement. If he believes that, I suggest to his colleagues that they do not want him. Hon Ken Travers: I take it you will not be voting for Hon Graham Kierath in the Liberal Party’s upcoming presidential election.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12227
Hon BILL STRETCH: I do not believe that Hon Graham Kierath - The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are departing from the subject matter before the Chair. Hon BILL STRETCH: The reason I believe this Bill should not be read a third time is my fear that it will be driven by sentiments such as those just expressed by Hon Ken Travers, in that facile, high school debating smart remark about a former colleague of mine who, I might remind him, had a work force of 70 people in a cleaning business, which is a very tough environment. Hon Graham Kierath is not a person of hate. I know him, his family and his values. If Hon Ken Travers wishes to bring the Mark Latham level of debate into this Chamber, I suggest he take a good, hard look at his basic values and where he is going. That pendulum will always be there. The previous Government’s legislation included provisions that were not proclaimed and were not used. They probably went too far. This Government’s legislation has provisions that go beyond what most people see as reasonable. I hope the Government will not have to proclaim or use those either. Providing the Government can keep in check the people on whose behalf it brought this legislation, and keep the debate at a reasonable level, it will do quite well with it. There is no point in the Opposition’s opposing this legislation. I oppose the third reading, but I am a realist and I know what will happen. I just implore the Government, now that it has unleashed its dogs of war, to make sure that it knows the limits of decency and behaviour. It is in no-one’s interest to allow this to develop into industrial anarchy. It does not help the workers. It may punish a few employers the Government wants to get square with, but it does not help the Government’s people one little bit. I do not like the legislation and its extreme measures. We have had a reasonably fair debate. Both sides have made a lot of sense. The Government now has the great responsibility of making the legislation work for the benefit of the State, not for the Labor Party’s paymasters. HON ALAN CADBY (North Metropolitan) [12.20 am]: I do not support the third reading of the Bill. This Bill has been introduced for only one purpose: to bring back the relevance of the unions. The Labor-Greens (WA) coalition has not considered working people as individuals but only as fodder for collectives. They have shown that their belief in individual freedoms is a fallacy. They believe in individuals only if they belong to a union monopoly. As a new member in this House, I have found the debate on this Bill to be fascinating and engaging and I have learnt a great deal about the parliamentary process, for which I am truly grateful. I will finish with a quote by Charles Dickens from A Tale of Two Cities that aptly describes our engagement in this House over the past few weeks - It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness . . . it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us . . . HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Racing and Gaming) [12.21 am]: I am conscious of the time. This is an important Bill and an important part of the Government’s legislative program. A primary concern of Labor Governments and the reason we are the Labor Party is that we have always been concerned to ensure that there is a good industrial relations climate so that employees and employers alike can have a fair go in Australia and Western Australia. To do that, we need a good legislative framework that acknowledges the very important role of trade unions and the very crucial role of the Industrial Relations Commission. That is why this Bill should be read a third time. I am conscious of the fact that we have been dealing with this Bill for a considerable time, not only in terms of weeks but also hours of debate in this Chamber. I invite members opposite to consider that they might just be wrong in their views about trade unions and they might just be dwelling in the past. Perhaps they might wish to engage in discussions with the trade union movement to find out what it is about and what it wished to achieve in this Bill. I am assured that UnionsWA would welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue with members of the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation to see whether a better understanding between them could be achieved. Hon Barry House: For some of them we would have to bring our own baseball bats. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: I do not think that is an appropriate interjection. I acknowledge the contribution of Hon Ray Halligan. All members involved will agree that it has been a very difficult debate. This has been a very complex Bill. I must say that I have not found it easy. I thank Hon Ray Halligan for his very proper and courteous contribution. He served his side well. I will return to his contribution to the third reading debate. Hon Ray Halligan and his fellow opposition speakers have a very pessimistic outlook. The fact is that this Bill will promote flexibility. Hon Ray Halligan mentioned the plight of the disabled. That matter is being attended to by employers and UnionsWA. The Bill allows for the appropriate flexibility. That sort of flexibility has been occurring nationally for many years. Hon Ray Halligan referred also to the economic performance of the State, unemployment, workplace agreements and the like. Again, a study of the recent economic history of Australia refers to cycles. The economic fortunes of Western Australia have moved in tandem with the economic fortunes of the rest of Australia. It has had nothing to do with the workplace agreements regime, but is more to do with the basic operation of our system - the so-called laws of supply and demand. Others may have a different view. The Premier, Dr Gallop, has on many occasions acknowledged the
12228 [COUNCIL] role of Hon Richard Court in promoting our trade relations with China. He has done that publicly on many occasions and I am sure he will continue to do so. We often concentrate on where our parties differ. We on this side of the House acknowledge that we do not have a mortgage on wisdom. I know that many members opposite also acknowledge that in a reciprocal way, but let us not get too carried away in drawing the battlelines. Governments in Western Australia change. We do not have revolutions; we have elections. In reference to economic wellbeing, both sides work in tandem and tend to build on each other’s achievements, even though there are major differences between the parties. That is as it should be, because people should have a choice. Pre-strike ballots were never used, so I do not know why an issue was made of that. Hon Norman Moore made a number of observations, which I understand from his point of view. I certainly acknowledge, as does the Government, the right, and frankly the duty, of an Opposition to properly scrutinise legislation. As I said during another debate tonight, we would be a poorer society if that did not occur. The circular thing about politics is that we sought to scrutinise the previous Government and the Opposition now seeks to scrutinise our Government. So be it; that is the function of Parliament. Hon Murray Criddle made a number of observations. Industrial practice in Western Australia has for almost 100 years required the keeping of proper records. It is not a difficulty. It has not been a difficulty for a long time and should not be so in the future. The brethren did not express any difficulty with the pre-1997 situation, and frankly I do not see what the big deal is now. I note the contribution of Hon Dee Margetts in the course of this debate. The Greens (WA) have pursued a different course from that of the Government on that issue, as is their right. The Greens (WA) are a separate party from the Australian Labor Party and we are not a coalition. However, they have voted with us against the views of the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation. That is the political spectrum in this Chamber on these issues. Hon John Fischer made a number of observations. It is clear from what he said that, from Hon John Fischer’s point of view, One Nation does not support employees. However, I do not think that is the view commonly held by all members of One Nation. Hon Kate Doust made a great contribution. Her speech demonstrates her commitment, capacity and competence. I am looking forward to many more speeches from the member. When she spoke, as she did on a number of occasions in the course of this Bill, as have a number of her colleagues - I am singling the member out because she spoke in the third reading debate - she demonstrated a calibre that the Government should be using more in debate. We will move along and do that with respect to Hon Kate Doust and her other colleagues as we progress through this Parliament. Hon Paddy Embry spoke from his perspective. I thank him and note his contribution. Hon Bruce Donaldson made reference to industrial peace under the current law; the law has not been changed yet. The trends with industrial peace and the movements up and down over the past decade are no different in Western Australia from the rest of Australia. I note in that context that Hon Bruce Donaldson opposes the Bill, and I can assure him that he did not surprise me in his opposition to the Bill. Hon Barry House sought to portray a nexus between this Bill and other pieces of legislation that the Government has introduced and the House has seen fit to pass, namely, that very important legislation dealing with bringing democracy to other Western Australian Bills. There is a nexus; that is, those were very good laws. The rest of it, frankly, is a matter of fantasy on his part. Hon Simon O’Brien sought to make a number of points. This Government acknowledges the very beneficial role of the union movement. With regard to the division in the Liberal Party, I think I am wrong about the 16-15 vote. When I go home tonight I will check my records and note what the numbers were. However, the division was won by one vote. The member can read my memoirs - when I get around to writing them - and he will see what transpires. Hon Barbara Scott gave a view that she honestly holds from the perspective of an employer. I think she wears very rose-coloured glasses. Hon Bill Stretch gave a typical Hon Bill Stretch speech full of good will for our community; a speech full of optimism rather than the pessimism that tends to characterise a number of speeches that are given in this place. Having said that, I disagree with a number of things he said - he would expect that. He used a number of phrases. He is perfectly correct that if this Bill passes tonight - I am paraphrasing - the Government and those who voted with us - the Greens (WA) have supported us through this - will have won the fight for the work force of Western Australia. We will be very proud to have done that because, as far as Labor is concerned, that was the primary election commitment. Reference was made to the politics of hate. I have no interest whatsoever in the politics of hate. I am not interested in any notion of a class war. The Government and I want to achieve a society that will operate in harmony. Hon Bill Stretch mentioned - again, I paraphrase - the benefits of cooperation of employers and employees working together. The Government’s view and my view is that this Bill will facilitate that environment. Hon Alan Cadby made observations about the role of unions. I differ from his view. He has a misplaced view of the role of the unions. I invite him to sit down and engage in dialogue with UnionsWA. Unions do not exist to dictate;
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12229 they serve. Their role is to look after the interests of their members - employees. This Bill provides a balanced approach to the interests of employers and employees. Insofar as it does that, it facilitates, quite properly, the role of unions. I conclude by thanking all members who have contributed to the third reading. I am aware that there have been difficulties in the course of the debate. Members opposite are entitled to their views, and they have put them with passion from time to time. I acknowledge their contributions, but I believe it is time to draw the debate to a close. It has been a very long debate. The Government and the Australian Labor Party trust that the House will see fit to support this Bill, because this was a primary objective of the Australian Labor Party in government. We want a better industrial environment for Western Australia so that employers and employees alike will have a better future. Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (17)
Hon Kim Chance Hon Jon Ford Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple Hon Graham Giffard Hon J.A. Scott Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Hon Kate Doust Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Christine Sharp Hon Sue Ellery Hon Dee Margetts Hon Tom Stephens Hon Adele Farina Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ken Travers Noes (16)
Hon Alan Cadby Hon John Fischer Hon Barry House Hon Barbara Scott Hon George Cash Hon Peter Foss Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Bill Stretch Hon Murray Criddle Hon Ray Halligan Hon Norman Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Paddy Embry Hon Frank Hough Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller) Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and returned to the Assembly with amendments. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE On motion without notice by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House), resolved - That the House at its rising adjourn until 12.50 am on Friday, 28 June. House adjourned at 12.45 am (Friday) ______
12230 [COUNCIL]
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
WAGERUP REFINERY EMISSIONS, HEALTH EFFECTS 663. Hon Jim Scott to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development In regard to a letter from the Minister for State Development to Mr Ian McDonald Grant on June 28 2001 (ref 10-3313), the Minister stated that a review carried out by the physician, Dr Brian Galton-Fenzi, found that the evidence ‘does not support an association between exposure to those types and quantities of atmospheric contaminants experienced at Wagerup, and the onset of your Goodpastures syndrome’, and I ask - (1) Who are the independent doctors and the toxicologist mentioned in the letter who concluded that exposure to refinery emissions would not cause long-term health effects? (2) What qualifications does each of these individuals have to assess and provide medical advice on human health effects of these industrial emissions? (3) Is the Minister aware that other employees at Wagerup are suffering long-term health effects as a result of workplace exposure? (4) Did Dr Galton-Fenzi measure the emissions from the fire at the Wagerup refinery that was extinguished by Mr Grant on July 28 1999? (5) If yes, what compounds were in those emissions and at what levels were they measured? (6) Did Dr Galton-Fenzi measure dust, volatile organic compounds and other contaminants that Mr Grant was exposed to when he fitted sound-proofing equipment in the liquor burning unit (LBU) stack? (7) If yes, what compounds were present in the emissions and at what levels were they measured? (8) Was Dr Galton-Fenzi acting as a consultant for ALCOA at or before the time Mr Grant’s illness was reviewed? (9) Will the Minister table the review report and supporting documents from the toxicologist? (10) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: (1) Dr Roger Drew and Professor Bill Musk. (2) Dr Drew was Adjunct Professor of Biochemical Toxicology at RMIT University, Victoria and has been a toxicological consultant to Australian Federal and State Authorities. Professor Musk is Professor of Clinical Medicine and Public Health at the University of Western Australia. He consults at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands. (3) The Minister is very aware of employee concerns relating to possible health effects from workplace exposure. (4) No. (5) N/A (6) No. (7) N/A (8) Dr Galton-Fenzi had acted as a consultant to Alcoa prior to the review of Mr Grant's illness, but at the time of that review was not contracted to Alcoa. (9) Alcoa have advised they will provide the report if approached by the Hon. Member. (10) N/A
FORESTS AND FORESTRY, LOGGING ROADS 664. Hon Christine Sharp to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries In relation to logging roads in State forest and timber reserves - (1) Who is responsible for their construction and maintenance? (2) Who pays for them?
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12231
(3) Who decides which contractor will be awarded the tender? (4) Who decides if a road is required? (5) Who decides where it will be located? (6) Who decides what standard is required? (7) Are logging industry representatives involved in the decisions in (3), (4), (5) and/or (6)? (8) What is the estimated - (a) length; and (b) area of these roads? (9) Of the roads included in (8), what is the estimated - (a) length; and (b) area that will be retained as permanent roads? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Forest Products Commission (2) Forest Products Commission (3) Forest Products Commission (4) Forest Products Commission (5) Forest Products Commission and the Department of Conservation and Land Management (6) Forest Products Commission (7) No, although roading contractors may give some informal and practical advice in the field with respect to questions 4, 5 and 6. (8)-(9) The road network in south-west forests has been built over many decades for a variety of purposes including public roads through the forest area, dedicated haul roads, strategic forest roading and a range of in-coupe roads and "snig tracks". The database currently available on the road network cannot provide the information requested. FORESTS AND FORESTRY, LOGGING ROADS 665. Hon Christine Sharp to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries For each of the two financial years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 - (1) What was the charge per cubic metre and per tonne paid by buyers of native forest logs for the construction and maintenance of logging roads in State forests and timber reserves, the roading charge? (2) Do all buyers of - (a) native forest logs; and (b) plantation logs, pay the same rate of roading charge? (3) If not, what are the different charges and the reasons for the difference? (4) What was the full amount paid to the Forest Products Commission (FPC), or its predecessor, from the roading charge paid by buyers of - (a) native forest logs; and (b) plantation logs? (5) What was the full cost to the FPC or its predecessor for the construction and maintenance of logging roads in State forests and timber reserves? (6) How much of this amount was paid to roading contractors? (7) Does this amount include payment for - (a) all work done by FPC staff; and (b) all material and/or equipment provided by the FPC? (8) If not, what was the additional cost to the FPC for (a) and (b)?
12232 [COUNCIL]
(9) Does the roading charge imposed on log buyers cover the full costs of constructing and maintaining logging roads? (10) If not, what is the shortfall? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) I would like to table the schedule of roading, inforest and administration charges for 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001. [See paper No 1549.] (2)-(3) All buyers of the same grade and species of log from the same region pay the same roading charge. Different roading charges apply to different classes of log grades and some regions. The different roading charges are shown in the schedule of charges tabled. Roading charges have been set by different mechanisms over the years. Differences in native forests are caused by a differential in road costs between the northern jarrah forest and the southern jarrah and karri forest. Differences in plantations reflect the changing log product mixes as the plantation matures. They are subsequently indexed and periodically reviewed. There is intended to be full cost recovery from native forest logging roads at the time of harvesting, whereas plantation roading costs are intended to be recovered over the life of the plantation. Roads may also be used for a range of harvest and management uses. (4) The full amount paid to the Forest Products Commission from customers for roading charges in State forest and timber reserves. (a) 1999-2000 $4,449,003.00 2000-2001 $5,113,136.00 (b) 1999-2000 $360,591.08 2000-2001 $337,191.86 (5) The full cost to the Forest Products Commission or its predecessor for the construction and maintenance of logging roads in State forests and timber reserves was: Native Forests 1999-2000 $5,283,643.00 2000-2001 $3,901,248.00 Plantations 1999-2000 $612,216.00 2000-2001 $693,744.00 in the case of plantations this includes roading on fee simple land. (6) The amount paid to roading contractors: Native Forests 1999-2000 $3,516,736.00 2000-2001 $2,715,917.00 Plantations 1999-2000 $482,647.00 2000-2001 $487,905.00 (7) The answer provided in Question 5 includes the cost for all work done by Forest Products Commission contractors and staff and the cost for all material or equipment provided by the Commission. Question 6 is the cost of the FPC contractors only. (8) Not applicable. (9)-(10) Yes, although in the case of plantations the recovery of the initial road cost in the younger plantation is recovered over the life of the plantation as the plantation matures with several different harvests or during subsequent rotations using the same roads. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CPR COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PTY LTD 687. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services (1) Have you, or any of your Departments or Agencies been lobbied by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd?
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12233
(2) If so - (a) in each case, on whose behalf was the lobbying conducted and what were the issue/s or the subject of the approach; and (b) what was the outcome of each approach? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: The resources required to answer such a general and ill-defined question would involve an unjustified expense. If the member has a specific question relating to a particular meeting, an answer can be provided.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CPR COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PTY LTD 688. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Have you, or any of your Departments or Agencies been lobbied by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd? (2) If so - (a) in each case, on whose behalf was the lobbying conducted and what were the issue/s or the subject of the approach; and (b) what was the outcome of each approach? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: The resources required to answer such a general and ill-defined question would involve an unjustified expense. If the Member has a specific question relating to a particular meeting, an answer can be provided.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CPR COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PTY LTD 689. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development (1) Have you, or any of your Departments or Agencies been lobbied by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd? (2) If so - (a) in each case, on whose behalf was the lobbying conducted and what were the issue/s or the subject of the approach; and (b) what was the outcome of each approach? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: The Minister for State Development has known one of the principals involved in CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd and sees him from time to time at functions. The Minister does not keep a record of the times he sees him or the matters discussed. Department of Industry and Technology (1) Yes (2) (a) CPR Communications has approached the Minister's office on behalf of Canning Vale Weaving Mills (CVWM) a major textile manufacturer in Western Australia. CVWM is seeking State Government support to expand the company's production capabilities and to request an amendment to the existing financial assistance agreement between the State Government and the company. (b) The Minister has requested the Department develop a recommendation in regard to the final financial assistance agreement milestone yet to be achieved by the company. No further financial assistance beyond that committed by the previous Government has been offered. Department of Mineral & Petroleum Resources 1. The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources has no record of any approach being made by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd to this Department or any of its agencies 2. Not applicable. 3. Not applicable.
12234 [COUNCIL]
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CPR COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PTY LTD 690. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Tourism (1) Have you, or any of your Departments or Agencies been lobbied by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd? (2) If so - (a) in each case, on whose behalf was the lobbying conducted and what were the issue/s or the subject of the approach; and (b) what was the outcome of each approach? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: See the Minister 's answer to No. 689 of 2002. I am also advised: (1)-(2) The Western Australian Tourism Commission has no record of any payment made to CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd or any account held with them. The Western Australian Tourism Commission also has no knowledge of any lobbying conducted or approaches made. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CPR COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PTY LTD 691. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Small Business (1) Have you, or any of your Departments or Agencies been lobbied by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd? (2) If so - (a) in each case, on whose behalf was the lobbying conducted and what were the issue/s or the subject of the approach; and (b) what was the outcome of each approach? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: See the Minister's answer to No. 689 of 2002. I am also advised: (1)-(2) The Small Business Development Corporation has not been lobbied by CPR Communications and Public Relations Pty Ltd. (1) Not applicable. GTL RESOURCES PLC, BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT WITH US ENRON CORPORATION 702. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development Re GTL Resources PLC, can the Government confirm that GTL Resources PLC was reliant on a business arrangement with the US Enron Corporation? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised : Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources: The company has informed the Minister for State Development that its off-take agreement with Enron has been replaced by an arrangement with Vitol Holdings of Switzerland, a major international shipper and trader of petroleum products. Vitol is the world's largest independent oil trader. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY The Department of Industry and Technology has not had any dealings with GTL Resources PLC and is unable to provide any advice regarding that company and the US Enron Corporation. MINING LEASES, FIMISTON I AND II TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITIES 703. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to question on notice No. 556 of Tuesday, April 9 2002 and the answers provided -
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12235
(1) Can the Minister provide the specific date, the specific text of the previous questions and the previous answers provided given the Minister has stated ‘The issues raised by the Hon Member’s questions have in many cases been raised and answered before’? (2) If not, why not? (3) Has the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources provided incorrect and misleading information in advising the Minister ‘The issues raised by the Hon Member’s questions have in many cases been raised and answered before’? (4) If not, why not? (5) If yes to (3), will the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources apologise and ensure that this does not happen again? (6) Can the Minister give an approximate date when he will provide answers to all the questions? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: In regard to questions on Notice 703, 704, 707, as the Hon member is aware the Minister for State Development recently announced that Mr Tony Cooke will be carrying out an independent inquiry into the issues associated with the impact of mining in the Kalgoorlie area. The terms of reference for Mr Cooke's inquiry will adequately cover the issues you have raised. It is therefore appropriate to wait until Mr Cooke has completed his inquiry and made his recommendations before a response to these particular questions is provided. MINING LEASES M26/39 AND 26/261, TENEMENT CONDITIONS 704. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to question on notice Nos 554 and 552 of Tuesday, April 9 2002 and the answers provided - (1) Can the Minister provide the specific date, the specific text of the previous questions and the previous answers provided given the Minister has stated ‘The issues raised by the Hon Member’s questions have in many cases been raised and answered before’? (2) If not, why not? (3) Has the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources provided incorrect and misleading information in advising the Minister ‘The issues raised by the Hon Member’s questions have in many cases been raised and answered before’? (4) If not, why not? (5) If yes to (3), will the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources apologise and ensure that this does not happen again? (6) Can the Minister give an approximate date when he will provide answers to all the questions? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: In regard to questions on Notice 703, 704, 707, as the Hon member is aware the Minister for State Development recently announced that Mr Tony Cooke will be carrying out an independent inquiry into the issues associated with the impact of mining in the Kalgoorlie area. The terms of reference for Mr Cooke's inquiry will adequately cover the issues you have raised. It is therefore appropriate to wait until Mr Cooke has completed his inquiry and made his recommendations before a response to these particular questions is provided. MINING LEASE 26-353, PROSECUTION FOR BREACH OF CONDITIONS 707. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to question on notice No. 260 of Thursday, September 27 2001 and the answers provided - (1) Can the Minister explain why the Department was factually of the view that a breach may have occurred? (2) If not, why not? (3) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the Department had the factual view that it was of a sufficiently minor nature as to not warrant prosecution? (4) If not, why not?
12236 [COUNCIL]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised : In regard to questions on Notice 703, 704, 707, as the Hon member is aware the Minister for State Development recently announced that Mr Tony Cooke will be carrying out an independent inquiry into the issues associated with the impact of mining in the Kalgoorlie area. The terms of reference for Mr Cooke's inquiry will adequately cover the issues you have raised. It is therefore appropriate to wait until Mr Cooke has completed his inquiry and made his recommendations before a response to these particular questions is provided. MINING, KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES PTY LTD, DAMAGE TO OVERHEAD POWER LINES 709. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to question on notice No. 514 of Wednesday, March 20 2002, answers provided and a media response from the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources which I understand is dated April 18 2002 titled ‘Kalgoorlie Miner Questions (Rob Newton) about electrical arcing incident’ - (1) Can the Minister explain what specific procedures and KCGM supervision were in place for the registered mine manager and various supervisors responsible at KCGM to most thoroughly ensure that the minimum required distances required by Regulation 5.28(1)(c) were strictly maintained for the powerlines in order to prevent a incident such as this from occurring? (2) If not, why not? (3) Will the Minister ask his Department to reinvestigate this entire matter with a view to prosecuting the Registered mine manager, any supervisors and each responsible person at the mine from KCGM for not maintaining the minimum clearances required by Regulation 5.28(1)(c)? (4) If not, why not? (5) Will the Minister table a copy of the media response dated April 18 2002? (6) If not, why not? (7) Can the Minister provide the tenement number where the incident occurred and table a scaled plan indicating the approximate location? (8) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: (1) The specific procedure in place was the KCGM document OHS.10 titled Power line Safety. This provides the requirements for employees and contractors working or travelling in the vicinity of overhead power lines. (2) N/A. (3) No. (4) This incident has already been adequately investigated. (5) Yes. [See paper No 1551.] (6) N/A. (7) Yes – the tenement number is M26/86. (8) N/A. GOLDFIELDS HIGHWAY-PROSPECTORS AND MINERS HALL OF FAME, ROAD CONSTRUCTION 710. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to question on notice No. 384 of Wednesday, December 19 2001 and question on notice No. 545 of Tuesday, April 9 2002 and the answers provided - (1) Can the Minister explain how did the Main Roads Department or other Departments establish that the driveway servicing the Prospectors and Miners Hall of Fame covered mineral leases owned by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd and will the Minister table this information? (2) If not, why not? (3) Can the Minister table a copy of all the survey and design drawings for the new intersection and driveway servicing the Prospectors and Miners Hall of Fame held by the Main Roads and the Department of Land Administration?
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12237
(4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) As advised in response to Question 545, details of mineral leases are held by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources. In regard to Question 384, I am advised that Main Roads accessed the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Tengraph database which indicated that the driveway in question crossed Mineral Leases M26/113 and M26/353, both of which are held by Barrick Gold of Australia (formerly Homestake Gold of Australia) and Kalgoorlie Lakeview Pty Ltd. Barrick Gold and Kalgoorlie Lakeview form KMA Joint Venture which is understood to be managed by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines. (2) Not applicable. (3) I take leave to table a copy of Main Roads Drawings 9905-5017 and 9905-5018 detailing the intersection of the driveway with the Goldfields Highway. [See paper No 1552.] (4) Not applicable. CORAL COAST MARINA DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD, AGREEMENT OR MEMORANDUM 738. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Has any Agency of the Western Australian Government signed any agreements or memoranda with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd? (2) If yes, - (a) what are the titles of any such agreements or memoranda; (b) when were they signed; (c) who were the signatories; (d) for what purpose were they undertaken; and (e) will the Minister table any such agreements or memoranda? (3) If no to (2)(e), why not? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: With regard to agencies for which I have responsibility: (1) No (2)-(3) N/A
CORAL COAST MARINA DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD, AGREEMENT OR MEMORANDUM 743. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services (1) Has any Agency of the Western Australian Government signed any agreements or memoranda with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd? (2) If yes, - (a) what are the titles of any such agreements or memoranda; (b) when were they signed; (c) who were the signatories; (d) for what purpose were they undertaken; and (e) will the Minister table any such agreements or memoranda? (3) If no to (2)(e), why not? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: The Fire and Emergency Services Authority 1) No 2) N/A 3) N/A
12238 [COUNCIL]
The Western Australia Police Service 1) No 2) N/A 3) N/A CORAL COAST MARINA DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD, AGREEMENT OR MEMORANDUM 748. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Small Business (1) Has any Agency of the Western Australian Government signed any agreements or memoranda with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd? (2) If yes, - (a) what are the titles of any such agreements or memoranda; (b) when were they signed; (c) who were the signatories; (d) for what purpose were they undertaken; and (e) will the Minister table any such agreements or memoranda? (3) If no to (2)(e), why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: (1) The Small Business Development Corporation has not signed any agreements or memoranda with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. CORAL COAST MARINA DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD, AGREEMENT OR MEMORANDUM 749. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development (1) Has any Agency of the Western Australian Government signed any agreements or memoranda with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd? (2) If yes, - (a) what are the titles of any such agreements or memoranda; (b) when were they signed; (c) who were the signatories; (d) for what purpose were they undertaken; and (e) will the Minister table any such agreements or memoranda? (3) If no to (2)(e), why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY (1) The Department of Industry and Technology has not signed any agreements or memoranda with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd. (2) (a-e) Not applicable. (3) The Department has had no involvement with any negotiations with Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd. DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL & PETROLEUM RESOURCES 1. The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources has no involvement with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd 2. Not applicable. 3. Not applicable.
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12239
CORAL COAST MARINA DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD, AGREEMENT OR MEMORANDUM 750. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Tourism (1) Has any Agency of the Western Australian Government signed any agreements or memoranda with the company Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd? (2) If yes, - (a) what are the titles of any such agreements or memoranda; (b) when were they signed; (c) who were the signatories; (d) for what purpose were they undertaken; and (e) will the Minister table any such agreements or memoranda? (3) If no to (2)(e), why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: The Western Australian Tourism Commission: (1) The Western Australian Tourism Commission has not signed any agreements or memoranda with Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. Rottnest Island Authority: (1) The Rottnest Island Authority has not signed any agreements or memoranda with Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. SCHOOLS, REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS ROOFS 760. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Education With regard to the programme to remove asbestos roofs from Western Australian Schools, I ask the Minister - (1) How many schools have had asbestos roofs removed? (2) Are there still more schools scheduled to have their asbestos roofs removed? (3) If yes, how many? (4) If yes to (2), will the Minister urgently consider implementing a programme of routine inspections to be carried out by qualified personnel at all schools subsequent to asbestos removal work being carried out? (5) Is the Minister aware that scientific studies indicate that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos fibres? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) 250 schools. (2)-(3) Yes. Two small projects still remain to be completed. (4) The contracted facilities manager for the two schools referred to in (2) above will be responsible for issuing a certificate of practical completion in terms of the specifications outlined in the contract. (5) The Department of Education relies on advice from the Department of Health that there is no elevated health risk in schools with asbestos-cement roofs.
NATIVE TITLE, ALICE SPRINGS-DARWIN RAILWAY RESERVE 771. Hon George Cash to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Treasurer (1) Given the apparent expeditious action in dealing with native title claims involving the Alice Springs-Darwin railway reserve, what process was used? (2) Could this process be used to expedite the resolution of native title claims in Western Australia?
12240 [COUNCIL]
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: (1) The process that the Northern Territory Government used to deal with native title claims involving the Alice Springs – Darwin railway was a future act process under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, namely Subdivision P (the Right to Negotiate provisions). This process did not resolve the native title claims in the Northern Territory. (2) As this is a future act process, it cannot be used to expeditiously resolve native title claims in Western Australia. GOVERNMENT ELECTRONIC MARKETPLACE, STATUS AND FUNDING 774. Hon George Cash to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development (1) What is the current status of the Government Electronic Marketplace (GEM)? (2) What funding has been applied to the development of GEM to date? (3) How many persons are employed on the GEM project? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I am advised: (1) The current status of the Government Electronic Market (Gem) is as follows: Gem is designed to encompass the full breadth of Government procurement, which is now more than $5 Billion per annum; all Public Authorities covered by the State Supply Commission now use Gem to publicly advertise tenders above $50,000; all Public Authorities covered by the State Supply Commission are now required to record the award details on Gem for all contracts valued above $10,000; there are currently 8,900 registered users on the tenders system, and there have been over 25,000 users since the system was introduced in 1998; over 65 percent of tender documents from the Department of Industry and Technology (DoIT) are now routinely issued electronically; the electronic tender lodgement facility was fully tested during the recent SPIRIT tendering process, with over 100 suppliers successfully submitting their tenders online; there are 7,800 businesses now included in the registry of supplier organisations, of which 2,200 are from regional WA; nearly all common use contracted suppliers are now connected to Gem with an online catalogue, using Open Buying on the Internet (OBI) standards; there are 2,100 individual buyers (from across 111 buyer organisations) registered in the purchasing system, which has exceeded the target of 1,500 set for June 2002; the contracting system, which is designed to facilitate the development of public tender documentation, the awarding of contracts, and their subsequent contract administration, is in test mode, and will become operational for DoIT's contracting in July 2002; Gem is designed to improve risk management processes, and support consistent application of State Supply Commission Policy and Guidelines; Gem provides our local industry with a very practical and efficient introduction to electronic commerce, using standards that have been agreed nationally through the Australian Procurement and Construction Ministerial Council; Gem improves the transparency and accountability of Government procurement; Gem offers significant opportunity to deliver efficiency improvements. Emerging evidence is that savings of over 5 percent may be possible due to re-engineering of procurement processes. If Gem can achieve efficiency improvements across all Government procurement of as little as 2 percent, this translates into potential savings of $100 Million per annum; Gem has been recognised nationally and internationally as one of the leading successes in e-marketplace development. (2) The Gem system development has occurred in stages over the last four years. It was initially developed and managed by the Department of Contract and Management Services (CAMS) and now the Department of
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12241
Industry and Technology is responsible for Gem. Funds applied to the development of the Gem system has totalled approximately $8 Million to date. (3) There are 26 staff now employed on Gem, involved in implementation, business development, and ongoing support, in servicing the 19,000 current users. This staffing is resourced from within the approved staffing level for DoIT.
WESTERN POWER, COAL STOCKS 775. Hon George Cash to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for Energy Western Power in its 2001 Annual Report noted that coal stocks were at maximum levels - (1) What are the current coal stocks held by Western Power? (2) Does Western Power have a take-or-pay contract for the supply of coal? (3) If so, what amount of coal is required to be taken each year? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1) Current physical stock of coal is 1.03 Mt at the end of May 2002. In addition, Western Power has 1.065 Mt of coal that it is obligated to take, but it has deferred the delivery of this coal into the future. (2) Yes, Western Power has take or pay coal contracts with both Wesfarmers Premier Coal Ltd and Griffin Coal. (3) Western Power is contracted to purchase 3.2 Mtpa in 2001/02 from Wesfarmers Premier Coal Ltd and 2.0 Mtpa in 2001/02 from Griffin Coal.
ALBANY WIND FARM AND EXMOUTH WIND TURBINES, COSTS 776. Hon George Cash to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for Energy (1) What was the cost of construction and completion of work associated with the Albany wind farm? (2) What is the generation cost per megawatt from the Albany wind farm? (3) What is a status of the Exmouth wind turbines? (4) What is the anticipated cost of this project to completion? (5) What is the generation cost per megawatt for the Exmouth wind farm? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1) The Albany wind farm cost $43M. This includes all hardware, civil engineering, underground transmission cabling, fibre optic communications to Perth, control equipment, upgrade to tourist roads and the Bibbulmun track and the building of tourist infrastructure at the site. (2) The installed cost of the Albany wind farm per MW is $1.99M. (3) The Exmouth wind farm is fully operational. (4) The Exmouth wind farm cost $500,000. (5) The installed cost of the Exmouth wind farm per MW is $8.3M. This project was only financially justifiable for Western Power as a grant was received from the Australian Greenhouse Office, due to the project's research nature, which contributed to its capital cost.
WESTERN POWER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 777. Hon George Cash to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for Energy (1) What regime is in place to ensure that the intellectual property owned by Western Power is accurately documented? (2) When was this regime implemented? (3) What regime is currently in place to ensure that appropriate reviews are carried out to ensure that the intellectual property register is updated on a regular basis? (4) Does the intellectual property owned by Western Power represent an asset? (5) If not, why not? (6) Is a value attributed to the intellectual property owned by Western Power? (7) If not, why not?
12242 [COUNCIL]
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1) There is no corporation-wide regime currently in place which focuses specifically on intellectual property. However, background information has been distributed to managers to assist with the identification and management of intellectual property. Intellectual property constitutes a diverse range of assets and concepts and documentation of such assets and concepts is not appropriate in all cases. Western Power is represented on the State Government's Intellectual Property Council and is contributing to the development of the State Government's policy on intellectual property owned by the State Government and State Government entities. (2) Not Applicable. See above. (3) There is no intellectual property register, per se. Internal Audit conduct reviews. (4) Yes. (5) Not Applicable. See above. (6) No. (7) Accounting policies and guidelines do not require valuation of intangible assets such as intellectual property. FREMANTLE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL PRECINCT REDEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION COMMITTEE 786. Hon Jim Scott to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure In relation to the Fremantle Waterfront Commercial Precinct Redevelopment - (1) Who is on the Evaluation Committee? (2) What organisation does each person represent? (3) How many expressions of interest were received by the Evaluation Committee? (4) What is the proposed timeline for the evaluation and development? (5) At what stage will the evaluation and development process be open to full public input, comment and scrutiny? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1)-(2) Chris Leatt-Hayter, Fremantle Ports Ian Johnston, Department of Housing and Works Ray Glickman, City of Fremantle Ian Baxter, Heritage Council John Longley, Fremantle Chamber of Commerce Stephen Seward, Knight Frank (advisors to Fremantle Ports ) (3) Six (4) The proposals are currently being evaluated by the Committee with a view to a short list of proponents being chosen within approximately a four to six week period. The short listed proponents will be required to develop their proposals in more detail as part of the second stage of the evaluation process. The timeframe for the second stage has yet to be determined. The timeframe for development will not be known until a preferred proponent is chosen. (5) The process for community consultation will be determined during the second stage of the evaluation process. EDUCATION SERVICES BUDGET 789. Hon Christine Sharp to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Education Given that Division 62 Education Services of the 2002-03 State Budget, page 1062, Item 99 headed Amount Provided Administered Grants, Subsidies and Other Transfer Payments lists an Appropriation for 2002-03 of $175 577 000 - (1) What is the expenditure as grants to non-Government schools by - (a) purpose; (b) school; and (c) per capita funding per school year? (2) What is the expenditure as loans and other transfers to non-Government schools by - (a) purpose (b) school; and (c) per capita funding per school year? (3) What is the expenditure on Government schools by -
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12243
(a) school; and (b) per capita funding per school year? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1)-(2) Please see attached. [See paper No 1553.] (3) Questions (a) and (b) do not come under Division 62. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET FOR YOUTH PROGRAMS 790. Hon Christine Sharp to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth (1) What is the total expenditure in the 2002-03 Budget on youth specific programs as part of the Department for Community Development Budget - (a) by individual program or project; (b) by program area; (c) on internal DCD policy coordination; (d) on interdepartmental policy coordination; and (e) on interdepartmental program coordination? (2) What was the expenditure, by year, for the years 1993-2002 for the above breakdowns, including existing and previous programs? (3) What projects are funded by the Department that have a youth component, but are not identified as youth specific? (4) How much is each project funded - (a) by one-off grants; and (b) as recurrent expenditure? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) Expenditure figures are not available until the end of the financial year. Total allocations exceed $14 million for funding of services. Additionally the Department for Community Development provides direct services to young people in the areas of child protection, placement services, hostels, counselling etc. (a)-(b) The 2002/03 allocation for funding of services included: Cadets WA $2.500 million Funded community youth development services $1.200 million Youth Coordinating Networks $0.060 million YouthSpaces $0.480 million Youth Grants WA $0.300 million Youth Advisory Councils $0.095 million Services for young people $3.063 million Youth counselling $0.728 million Youth supported accommodation services $6.100 million Leaving care services $0.217 million Youth Development Holiday Program $0.200 million (c)-(e) Children's and Young People's Policy $1.038 million This does not include work undertaken by other areas of the Department for Community Development. (2) The Office of Youth Affairs was established in 1996. Information on expenditure from 1993 is not readily available at the level requested. More specific information can be provided for specific questions. (3)-(4) 11% of the Department for Community Development customer base comprises young people between 12 and 18 years old. Much of the work of the Department impacts on young people. More specific information can be provided for specific questions. YOUTH POLICY, EXPENDITURE 791. Hon Christine Sharp to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth (1) For the year 2002-03 what will the total expenditure on youth policy be? (2) What was the total expenditure by year for the years 1993-2002 on youth policy?
12244 [COUNCIL]
(3) What was the structure and pay scales for the Office of Youth Affairs in the year 2001-02, including unfilled positions? (4) What was the structure and pay scales for the Family and Children’s Policy Office in the 2001-02, including unfilled positions? (5) What will the structure and pay scales of the proposed Office of Children and Young People’s Policy be? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) In 2002/03, expenditure on children's and young people's policy coordination, policy advice, analysis and information will be $1.038 million. It is not possible to disaggregate 'youth policy' from this Output. (2) The Office of Youth Affairs was established in 1996. Information on expenditure for out-years is not available at the level requested. (3) Office of Youth Affairs structure and pay scales – January 2001. CLASS 1 1 Level 9 1 Level 8 1 Level 7 4 Level 6 1 Level 5 8 Level 5 part time 2 Level 4 6 Level 3 1 Level 3 part time 1 Level 2 1 Level 1 1 (4) Family & Children's Policy structure and pay scales – January 2002 CLASS 1 1 Level 8 1 Level 7 1 Level 6 1 Level 5 1 Level 5 part time 1 Level 3 1 Level 2 1 (5) Structure and pay scales will be determined in the context of the corporate strategy and organisational structure proposed for the Department for Community Development and after consultation with key stakeholders and the community. OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S POLICY, STAFF 795. Hon Christine Sharp to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth Given the Minister’s announcement on May 23 2002 of the creation of an Office of Children and Young People’s Policy - (1) What process will be used to fill the staff positions within the proposed Office of Children and Young People’s Policy? (2) Will staff previously employed within the Office of Youth Affairs and Family and Children’s Policy Office be given preferential employment treatment? (3) Will staff from other departments containing programs or policies concerning or focussing on youth be seconded to the new office? (4) How will the new office coordinate youth policy across Government? (5) What coordination methods or mechanisms will be used to coordinate youth policy across Government? (6) In respect of youth policy, will DCD Office of Children and Young People’s Policy have the final say on youth policy matters across Government? (7) Will any Department or Office have an overriding say on youth policy matters? (8) If so, which ones?
[Thursday, 27 June 2002] 12245
(9) If none, what mechanism will be used to ensure consistency within youth policy? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1)-(3) Staff will be appointed in accordance with established public sector human resource management standards and best practice principles. (4)(5) A range of formal and informal consultative and coordination mechanisms with stakeholders will be used. (6)-(9) Agencies with an interest in young people will have input in policy development. Significant policy development will be discussed at the Cabinet Standing Committee on Social Policy. RADIATA PLANTATIONS, STATE MANAGED 797. Hon Christine Sharp to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (1) What area of land is covered by State managed radiata plantations? (2) Of the total area what percentage is freehold title? (3) Is the rest State Forest? (4) If not, what other land categories are managed as State radiata plantations? (5) What are the equivalent answers to the above question for 1993? (6) Have the freehold titles for radiata plantations been transferred from the ex-Director of CALM to the Forest Products Commission? (7) If not, is this title change intended and when is it likely to occur? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) 44,159 hectares as at 31 December 2000 (2) 45 per cent, including those on private land under Timber Sharefarming Agreements. (3) No (4) Pinus radiata plantations also occur on 5(g) reserves under the Conservation and Land Management Act, conservation reserves, nature reserves, National Parks, timber reserves, other miscellaneous reserves and unmade road reserves. (5) It is difficult to accurately reconstruct the tenure by plantation status as it would have been nine years ago. Since 1993 there has been a loss of plantation estate in the south-west due to the sale of freehold titles, construction of public utilities such as water treatment plants, powerlines and dams. The total area of Pinus radiata plantation fell by 249 hectares between the data presented in the Department of Conservation and Land Management's Annual Reports of 1993 and 2000. Further losses have been experienced more recently. (6) No (7) The change of vesting was agreed between the Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the Acting General Manager of the Forest Products Commission in 2001 as part of the division of assets and liabilities between the two organisations. Liabilities, including the debt associated with the purchase of land and planting of trees, were transferred to the Commission. As it has been agreed that the re-vesting of these titles is possible, the transfer is proposed to proceed as soon as there is final agreement about the individual titles to be transferred. ______