Legislative Council

Tuesday, 10 June 2003

THE PRESIDENT (Hon John Cowdell) took the Chair at 3.00 pm, and read prayers. BILLS Assent Messages from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following Bills - 1. Juries Amendment Bill 2003. 2. Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 3) 2002. 3. Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 4) 2002. 4. Acts Amendment (Equality of Status) Bill 2002. 5. Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2002. 6. Censorship Amendment Bill 2002. 7. Public Transport Authority Bill 2003. US NAVY SEA-SWAP OPERATIONS Petition Hon Dee Margetts presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 1 176 persons - To the President and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia assembled. We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia object to arrangements that are being made with the U.S. Navy whereby crews of U.S. warships will be changed over in Western Australia. ‘Sea Swap’ will enable the U.S. Navy to save much time, fuel and cost, giving it greater accessibility to Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly lead to the establishment of a permanent U.S. Navy maintenance base in Cockburn Sound and use of the Lancelin Defence Training Area for U.S. aerial and naval target practice. There are few advantages to our community. Through its Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. has reiterated its reliance on nuclear weapons. It has stated it is prepared to use them against seven listed countries, among which is Iraq. By resorting to military force in its war on terrorism, the U.S. has vastly added to the resentment harboured against it in some quarters. We are concerned that Sea Swap will associate us more closely with the U.S. and its methods, and expose us further to threats of retaliation. We advocate diplomacy and development as peaceful means of responding to the global security crisis, and oppose providing support, via Sea Swap or by other means, for the militaristic strategies of the U.S. Your petitioners respectfully ask that the Legislative Assembly - The PRESIDENT: I trust that the petition will be checked to see whether it is in order; and, if it is, it will be accepted. Hon DEE MARGETTS: I have realised that some of the petitions I have are addressed to the Legislative Council and some are addressed to the Legislative Assembly. I am not sure how I progress. The PRESIDENT: The petition is probably correctly in order, but the numbers may be different. The numbers will be checked. Hon DEE MARGETTS: It continues - 1. consult with the electorate on this issue 2. urgently debate all aspects of the Sea Swap program And your petitioners as in duty bound, will forever pray. [See paper No 1112.] MOORE RIVER ESTUARY DEVELOPMENT Petition Hon Dee Margetts presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 83 persons -

8348 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in the Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia respectfully oppose urban development of pristine coastal and Moore River estuary land without regard for potential consequences on the environment. We are concerned that: (1) Gingin Town Planning Scheme No. 8, Amendment 22 rezoned 557hA of pristine coastal and Moore River estuary land for urban development with a projected population of 13,500 persons; and (2) the impact of so large a population on such an ecologically sensitive area must result in serious degradation of the terrestrial and riverine environment; and (3) the W.A. Planning Commission has given approval to the Outline Development Plan for this development without any formal environmental review at any stage of the approval process. Your petitioners respectfully request therefore that the Legislative Council will investigate whether a proposed urban sub-division is likely to impact negatively on the environment. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. [See paper No 1113.] STANDING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LEGISLATION AND GENERAL PURPOSES Acts Amendment and Repeal (Competition Policy) Bill 2002 -Tenth Report Hon Adele Farina presented the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and General Purposes in relation to the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Competition Policy) Bill 2002, and on her motion it was resolved - That the report do lie upon the Table and be printed. [See paper No 1114.] STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2001 - Twentieth Report Hon Giz Watson presented the twentieth report of the Standing Committee on Legislation in relation to the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2001, and on her motion it was resolved - That the report do lie upon the Table and be printed. [See paper No 1115.] QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE 894, WATER CORPORATION DIVIDEND PAYMENTS Statement by Minister for Government Enterprises HON NICK GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Government Enterprises) [3.12 pm]: On 8 May 2003, I responded to question without notice 894 from Hon Norman Moore, MLC, regarding Water Corporation dividend payments. In answering the question, I gave the House information provided to me by the Water Corporation on 7 May 2003. That information was that the dividend obtained by government in 1998-99 from the corporation was 100 per cent, and that, in addition, there was a special dividend that was in excess of $29 million. During the week commencing 12 May 2003, I became aware that the information provided by the Water Corporation earlier in May 2003 may have been incorrect. I sought an explanation from the managing director, which he provided at a meeting on 29 May 2003. I then requested a written explanation to enable me to clarify the answer at the first opportunity for the benefit of the House. I table correspondence from the Managing Director of the Water Corporation dated 4 June 2003. In this letter, Dr Gill confirms that the original information was incorrect, and, further, that the special dividend paid in 1998-99 was included within the 100 per cent dividend payment figure. [See paper No 1116.] Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon B.K. Donaldson. ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from 16 May on the following motion moved by Hon Nick Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming) - That pursuant to Standing Order No 49(1)(c) the Legislative Council take note of tabled paper No 1027 (2003- 04 Budget Statements), laid upon the Table of the House on 8 May 2003. HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West) [3.17 pm]: It is glaringly obvious that this budget is designed to prop up Labor members in certain electorates. A particular example of this is the electorate of Albany. When I read the

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8349 member for Albany’s speech on the budget, I realised why so much money is being spent in the Albany area. However, I certainly commend the Government for its initiatives - Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Are you saying we should not spend any money there? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The parliamentary secretary came in too quickly, as I said I commend the Government for its initiatives in Albany. Hon Kim Chance: Thank you. However - Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes - however, I now come to the real reasons for these initiatives. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Settle down, members! Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: At least members opposite are awake and listening. Hon Bill Stretch: The roosters are crowing - I thought they were all in Canberra. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: So did I. The PRESIDENT: I think members are referring to the wrong Parliament. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The Albany Regional Hospital has received ongoing funding - this continues from moneys provided when the Liberal Party was in government - to finish its paediatric ward. The past two years have been turbulent times at this hospital with no on-call surgeons being available, and no surgeons at all on many occasions at weekends. The Royal Flying Doctor Service has collected patients from Albany Regional Hospital almost every day, which is totally unacceptable when Albany has such an excellent facility. Many elderly patients with broken bones had to be flown out because no orthopaedic surgeon was available in the area. I am very pleased that this situation has been rectified. However, it took 12 months to provide a surgeon - a South African surgeon will be living and working in Albany. Mental health is a real problem in rural and regional Western Australia, which never have enough qualified staff. That situation needs to be continually looked at. The Denmark community has been allocated $480 000 for a new health facility. I note that the member for Albany was nowhere in sight when I addressed a rally that the entire community attended. Normally, I would not choose to say that, but the rally was a protest about the Government’s lack of commitment to a new hospital. The Liberal Government promised a new $7 million hospital prior to the last election. The allocation of $480 000 is far short of $7 million. However, I recognise that it is a good start in the planning stages. I read the budget speech of the member for Albany in which he ran down a member for not being present at meetings on this issue. I believe he is the one who has been caught out. The good thing about country people is that they do not forget the people who helped them and those who did not. The new police-justice complex will be a magnificent building. I hope the manpower needed to police the district of Albany will be just as well resourced as the building, given that the total cost will be $11 million. Superintendent John Watson, who was formerly of the Bunbury district, has been transferred to Albany to replace Merv Pegler, who has now retired. John Watson was an excellent superintendent for the Bunbury area and is now making his presence felt in the Albany district. On that note, I wish Merv and Erica Pegler a happy retirement. I congratulate the Government for putting money into a regional centre such as Albany. However, as I said in my opening remarks, it is patently obvious why. The member for Geraldton is also being propped up to a fair tune. Hon Kim Chance: It could just be that they are really good local members doing the right thing by their electorates. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: There must be a minister in the Pilbara, because the Pilbara certainly did well. Hon Kim Chance: The Pilbara also is an important regional area. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes, of course. Hon Norman Moore: I didn’t notice. You must have been looking at a different budget. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The track record of the Gallop Government in rural Western Australia is appalling most of the time. Hon Kim Chance: You just said how good it was. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No, I did not say how good it was. I said that the Government is propping up its members, and there is a good reason it is propping up those members. Hon Kim Chance: So you don’t want us to spend that money? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I did not say that either. Hon Kim Chance: You can’t have it both ways.

8350 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Why does Hon Kim Chance not listen? I need only mention the Labor Party’s one vote, one value legislation, which is threatening the very existence of rural representation in Western Australia. Taking eight seats out of the country and putting them into the city is a totally ludicrous proposition. How much money has the Government spent on court costs already? Will the Leader of the House answer me? I do not see that highlighted anywhere in this budget. Hon Bruce Donaldson: No, it is hidden. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It is very well hidden. Hon Tom Stephens: It pales into insignificance in comparison with what you wasted in the High Court on your appeals over native title issues. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Some people should just sit and listen, otherwise they will get themselves into trouble. Several members interjected. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I am just waiting for the member to keep quiet. He will be better off if he keeps quiet. Another section of rural WA that is suffering at the moment is the dairy industry. Hon Kim Chance will have met Mr Arthur Green from Boyanup. He was a huge producer of milk before deregulation. He is not a happy man at the moment, and nor are his colleagues who have dairy farms. Since July 2000, 23 per cent of dairy farms have stopped production. This has led to a fall in total milk production, as well as a drop in the number of cows milked across all the herds. The net farm gate price of milk has remained almost the same and is now 24c a litre. A report commissioned by the dairy farmers collective bargaining group on a sustainable milk price for the dairy industry found that the total milk production in Western Australia has fallen from 412 million litres at deregulation to 393 million litres in 2002, and the number of registered farms has fallen from 411 to 318 farms; that is, some 93 dairy farms have gone. Surely that must be alarming to Hon Kim Chance, because it is alarming to me. Hon Kim Chance: I think that last number actually refers to licence holders rather than farms, but I take your point. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: However, a fair chunk has still been taken out of the industry. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Is there a direct effect on their volumes of milk production? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes, there is a direct effect. Hon Kim Chance: It is not the same quantum, but it is down. Several members interjected. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I will go on to answer the member’s question. A few years ago some research was conducted into how many farms in the Harvey area would cease production and how much money would be taken out of the economy. It indicated that everyone would be affected and the amount involved was some millions, if I remember correctly. Hon Kim Chance: The Shire of Dardanup also did a survey. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It was Dardanup and Harvey. In Western Australia in 2001 on net average prices ranging from 27c to 28.3c a litre, there was insufficient profit to meet interest costs for farms producing either less than 750 000 litres or more than 1.5 million litres. This was despite farms generating an additional $51 000 to $111 000 in trading profit from their beef enterprises. However, some farms do not have a beef enterprise to offset the dairy industry. The cost of producing a litre of milk in this period based on a supply curve of about 1.2 to one ranged from 25c to 26.9c a litre. These operating costs included variable costs, fixed costs, depreciation and imputed labour but not interest or debt reduction. For dairy farms producing more than 750 000 litres, the minimum sustainable price based on a flat supply curve is 31c to 32c per litre net of freight and levies. If the price of milk at the farm gate does not improve, more dairy farmers will go to the wall. I hope that industry and the Government are working towards a solution because now that those farms have gone, we need to maintain the ones that are left. Research has shown that part of the problem is caused by supermarkets. Dr Glenys Hough, the author of the research paper in Western Australia, has said that Western Australian consumers pay the lowest price for fresh milk in the country and that, as a result of the discounting policies of supermarket chains, farm gate milk prices are depressed and processors are arguing that they have no room to move. Tony Pratico, a dairy farmer from my area who is also the president of the WAFarmers dairy section, has said that the current market situation in which processors take turns in offering discounted product could jeopardise the supply of fresh WA milk and have a destabilising effect on the growth of the State’s dairy industry in the long term. He said that the price war must stop if we are to save the State’s dairy industry, because at present Western Australian farmers receive the lowest price of all the milk-producing States. Last week when I visited New South Wales, I went into a supermarket deliberately to see how much it charged for milk. I found that the milk on its shelves was considerably dearer than that on the shelves in WA supermarkets. I will continue with the topic of agriculture because the Minister for Agriculture is sitting across the Chamber from me. I was interested that the two peak agricultural bodies put in their wish lists before the budget was brought down. I note

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8351 what they did not get, but I will refer to what they wanted. They wanted matching funding for salinity. I understand that the Government has put in some money for that. However, the Commonwealth and State Governments are bickering about that money, and it is time the parties sat down and negotiated this money for Western Australia. Hon Kim Chance: So do I. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I do not care which Government is at fault; they both need to sit down and do some more talking. The two peak agricultural bodies also wanted funds for the Department of Agriculture to be increased or maintained. We know that its funding was reduced by $6.5 million. Hon Kim Chance: No, that is incorrect. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Agriculture is very important to this State. Hon Kim Chance: We resolved that during the estimates hearing. Hon Bruce Donaldson interjected. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Yes, by $6.5 million. Hon Kim Chance: No, that is between actuals and budget; you can’t compare actuals with budget. It is apples and oranges. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: It depends on how we look at it. I see it as a loss and the minister sees it as maintaining funding. Hon Kim Chance: It is a matter of whether you are being honest. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Of course I am being honest. Hon Norman Moore: She is always honest. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I am always honest. Hon Kim Chance: Informed or uninformed then. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: This is a good item. Funding for property rights compensation is nowhere to be seen in the budget, yet it should be included. Mr Burns, a constituent who lives in my area, has had awful problems. He has 6 000 hectares of land. If the Government wants him to keep that 6 000 hectares in his own private property, compensation must be paid. The Environmental Protection Amendment Bill being introduced by the Government will be disastrous because it does not contain any provision for compensation; that will be a huge problem for that Bill, but it is a topic for another day. More funding will be necessary for country roads. Everyone has a road they talk about; mine is the South Western Highway. I seem to be on it more than I am in this Chamber, and for obvious reasons I would like to see more passing lanes up and down that highway. I think everyone has a highway they could talk about. There is also funding to improve country power supplies; and drought-proofing money to improve water supplies. Farmers will instead get lumbered with a rain tax, and later I will talk about that rainwater tax. Hon Kim Chance: Nobody is being lumbered with a rain tax. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: That is wrong, because I will tell the minister about a meeting I attended at which the Water and Rivers Commission listed all the charges. The charges are ready to be introduced. Hon Kim Chance: They have not yet been put to government. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The farmers were told, “This is what you will be charged.” When I asked for a draft copy, the commission would not give it to me. That was only two weeks ago. Hon Kim Chance: I can assure the member that it has not yet been to government. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I will talk about that a bit later. The next items include affordable and improved air services throughout rural Western Australia; small local hospitals to be re-opened with funds for attracting doctors to country areas; recognition that regional is not rural; more help to ease the cost burden of education for country children; a reduction in third party premiums for vehicles that do low kilometres; money for hands-on skills training for country youth; relaxation of stamp duty and land tax imposts on farmers. I hope they have better luck next year. Hon Kim Chance: Come on! Farmers have been exempt from intergenerational transfers for seven years. I think Max Evans put that through. They have not even noticed it yet. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: This Government is probably the highest taxing Government we have had for some time. I recall the Premier - Hon Kim Chance: They are complaining about a tax that they have been exempt from for seven years. You must worry about the credibility of that document.

8352 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: This was put out by the two peak bodies. The Pastoralists and Graziers Association and the Western Australia Farmers Federation have been bellowing about this Government. I remember the Premier when he was first elected saying there would be no new taxes and charges, or words to that effect. That is the same type of porky as no child shall live in poverty. Hon Kim Chance: Which taxes are we talking about? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The minister should listen. Taxes totalling $410 million are now being imposed on the taxpayer. Stamp duty and other taxes have increased by $162 million - an amount that will affect families in Western Australia. The Government has increased tax on property conveyancing by 15 per cent. I seem to recall the Government trying to bring in a premium property tax! Why does the Government keep attacking people who are trying to get ahead, mainly young families? The stamp duty on home contents and vehicle insurance has increased by 25 per cent. That is an incredible amount - it is a $1 in $4 increase for a young family starting out. The minister would have to admit that is one steep hill to climb, when it is put together with all the other charges that must be encountered. Hon Bruce Donaldson: Do you think that is disfranchising the young people of Western Australia? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I think young families might be disfranchised. Hon Kim Chance interjected. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Not $212 of extra tax increases for every person in Western Australia - we have never done that. A family of four will be paying $800 a year extra. It is just as well that the federal Liberal Government looks after families. The family payment will go straight into the pockets of the Gallop Government instead of being used for the benefit of the children. It is easy to show how this Government treats families that want to get ahead and purchase a home. As was said in the other place, prior to this Labor Government, stamp duty on the purchase of a house costing $150 000 was $3 980; in the 2002-03 budget it was $4 275; and now it will be $4 905! This Government increases taxes by stealth and is rather sneaky about how it glosses over these items. In the past two and a half years, this Government has increased water, sewerage and drainage charges, motor vehicle registration fees, payroll tax, court fees, land tax, public transport fares, drivers licence fees, motor vehicle third party insurance costs and stamp duty on property vehicles. In the area I come from, this Government has not yet announced timber volumes. This is rather disgraceful. We could already have had a viable furniture industry by now, but no-one is crazy enough to start without a volume resource. I attended a conference in Manjimup before Christmas at which all the furniture makers said they would love to come to Manjimup but they would not until that resource was given. Another project that is being stalled in Manjimup at the present time is the proposed Diamond Tree sky lift, which will be a wonderful tourism asset for Manjimup and surrounding districts. Four partners from Pemberton and Manjimup are involved in this project. They have already put in $1 million and a commonwealth grant of $800 000 has been allocated. The project has come to a halt because of an assignment of lease issue. They have been told that if they on-sell their project any time after construction they must indemnify the new owner. They have $1.8 million and they cannot proceed because of red tape! The Shire of Manjimup and surrounding areas have already been gutted by the timber industry, and some areas of the dairy industry have been wiped out as well, yet here is an initiative that will create employment and tourism advantages, and some government department is holding it up. Perhaps someone listening might see some benefit in this proposal, as we do, and have further discussions with the four parties. They already have $1.8 million in hand and it is worth sitting down and trying to progress that project. The Government could also discuss the sky jetty in the Donnelly Valley at the same time. That would also be a wonderful tourism asset for the district. I now return to the so-called rainwater tax. I addressed the WA Farmers Federation south west zone a few weeks ago when the Water and Rivers Commission gave a presentation. I was absolutely astounded at what I heard, and I was not the only one. The farmers present were an angry mob when they heard about this so-called rainwater tax. The first I heard about these charges was four days before this meeting when Hon Paul Omodei asked a question of the Premier about taxing rainwater. The charges that the representatives put up on the slide projector astounded me. It was a draft copy of charges already laid out. From memory - because I could not get a copy of the draft - the charge will be $300 for a small producer, $500 for a medium-size producer, $1 000 for a bigger producer and $10 000 for a large producer. Talk about working fast to hit people who look after themselves and their water on their property! How long has the Water and Rivers Commission been planning this fee, when it came to my attention only one week before that draft copy of the charges was revealed? How underhanded is that? Members will notice I said “their”; it is something I feel strongly about. I have the old-fashioned view that God sends down the rain; a smart farmer builds a dam and collects that rainwater to use in the drier months. This is commonsense and good farming practice. For example, a dam with 50 cubic metres costs a farmer $100 000, with tax incentives for water conservation - 30 per cent for the first and second years, and so on until depreciation is completed. I am aware of these figures because my family has a marron farm, and we have holes with water in them all over the farm - commonly known as dams. They also have very tasty marron in them. We had an abundance of them until thieves struck, but that is another story for another day. No-one is happy about these charges. It was clear from the meeting that I attended that the Water and Rivers Commission intends to introduce a licence fee for dams, an administration charge and a charge for water usage; that is,

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8353 volumes of water. How can this or any Government try to impose on farmers a cost like that when these people provide their own infrastructure to look after themselves and their families in a businesslike way? What is wrong with this Government? Once again, it is hitting the people who are the backbone of this country - the farmers who look after themselves, the community and their environment. The farmers who attended the meeting were all unanimous in the fact that they were unique. They have looked after the catchment area and all worked in together, and they want to be left alone to do what they have done for the past 30 years. This catchment has been self-managed by the community and the Water and Rivers Commission for the past 30 years, and that should continue. The horticulture industry is rather large in my area. I use the term my area to talk about the immediate area around my home, which is Bridgetown, Manjimup and Pemberton. The towns in the south west have taken the biggest hits with the timber industry being decimated. Now they may have to pay up to $1 000 extra. How much more does the Government think the area can take? If that $1 000 must be given to the Government, from where will it be taken? It will be taken from the community, the children and the families. Does this Government realise what a family is? I do not think it does. It is too concerned with the gay community, prostitution Bills, doping our children as a result of the relaxation of marijuana laws, hitting families with taxes and charges and decimating country areas. I always thought that a Government governed for the good of the whole of society, not just selected groups. I am extremely disappointed. I know that the Government has some wonderful family people on its side of politics. I greatly respect some of the women. They, like me, are family people, and they must despair sometimes at the Government’s policies. I know that having children was the greatest thing to happen to me in my life, and I would do anything for them. Having sat in this place for two years, I know that some members opposite have the same feelings; yet the policies that the Government is proposing will hurt my children. I wonder how members opposite can sit in this place and remain silent, knowing that those policies will also hurt their children. I have veered off the topic just a little because I wanted to point out that the people in the country have a hard enough time, especially farmers. They work extremely hard to make a living - on the tractor all night and working all day. The whole family, including children and wives, works. I am not talking about only the south west but all farming communities. They do not deserve extra charges on something for which they pay anyway. This Government is hell- bent on hitting out at farmers, with not only this rainwater charge but also the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill that will be debated in this House soon. Why is the Government doing this? I understand that many bores in Perth attract no charges. Why hit on country people? I will finish this budget speech by talking about one of my shadow portfolios; namely, women’s interests. In particular, I will focus on the Gordon inquiry. The budget papers state that the report demonstrated an urgent need to strengthen responses to incidents of child abuse and family violence, while at the same time increasing support for vulnerable children and adults at risk. The budget papers also recognise that the number of indigenous persons in Western Australia increased by 15 per cent between 1996 and 2001. Nearly 40 per cent of indigenous Australians are under the age of 15 years. I agree totally with Sue Gordon, who is reported in The West Australian of 7 June as saying - People in WA Aboriginal communities were experiencing all kinds of abuse while the State was focused on the Swan Valley Nyungah Community . . . This Government has an obligation to look at abuse in all Aboriginal communities. I have a question to ask this afternoon that I hope will reinforce just why the Gordon report recommendations need to be in place. I realise that they will take time and money to implement, and I also realise that $75 million has been allocated for this purpose. In the same article, Sue Gordon is also reported as saying that people ask her why the inquiry did not make recommendations on mandatory reporting of child abuse. She replies that it was not in her terms of reference. I remind the Government once again about its comments in the budget papers: the report demonstrated an urgent need to strengthen responses to incidents of family violence and child abuse. Before responses can be strengthened, a system must be in place to detect those incidents, and that system is mandatory reporting, especially by doctors and health workers. Mrs Gordon also mentioned that one of the recommendations was for a children’s commissioner and deputy children’s commissioner, but it had not been followed through by the Government. Hon Barbara Scott has my full support for her motion that a select committee look into the setting up of a children’s commissioner. I believe this Government is negligent in not following that recommendation. I believe it is also negligent in not requiring mandatory reporting of child abuse. I have looked in the budget and have not seen money allocated for a children’s commissioner. Therefore, I realise that this is unlikely to occur in the near future. It is my belief that if this State already had an independent children’s commissioner, set up along the lines of the Queensland commissioner, the Swan Valley camp would not be the issue it has become, because from the minute little Susan Taylor died, the independent commissioner would have investigated, made recommendations and dealt with the abuse at the camp. I am a realist and realise that not all abuse would have stopped - that is the nature of this beast - but controls would have been in place, more so than without the commissioner. This Government needs to have an independent commissioner for all the little Susan Taylors who slip through the Department for Community Development’s gaps. There are gaps. I have worked in the field and know that the workers

8354 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] are under extreme pressure. I am pleased that more Aboriginal workers have been employed by the department - 25 child protection workers and 14 Aboriginal workers. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, but many more are needed throughout the State to work in the Aboriginal communities. The Department for Community Development is still employing young graduates to fulfil a difficult and complex role. This needs monitoring, and is an example of one of the gaps. It has been almost 12 months since the Gordon report was tabled in Parliament, and women and children throughout Western Australia are still subjected to horrific violence. On 22 August last year I spoke about mandatory reporting and the need for it in this State. I believe that Western Australia is the only State that does not have mandatory reporting of abuse. I hope that the Government changes this policy and brings in the requirement of mandatory reporting. Recommendation 187 of the report states - The Inquiry recommends that all medical personnel likely to come into contact directly or indirectly with children under 13 years who have a sexually transmitted disease be obliged to report the presence of the disease to the Department for Community Development. I say to Dr Gallop that “recommends” and “be obliged” are not good enough. The Government needs to revisit this issue for obvious reasons. Not only medical personnel but also the whole community need to be vigilant and aware of all child abuse - mental, physical and sexual. I will deal with domestic violence. In 1998 the freedom from fear campaign was started, and it won the Premier’s award for excellence. It was the first media campaign in Australia to focus on perpetrators and men at risk of perpetrating domestic violence. The campaign message called upon these men to accept responsibility for their behaviour and take action to end the abuse. Part of the action was television commercials showing a father screaming at his wife and a child crouching in the corner in fear with his little hands over his ears, and a men’s help line toll-free number - 1800 000 599. Unfortunately that number does not exist any more. There were other advertisements equally as good as that one. This campaign was extremely successful. More than 6 000 men called the help line. The second phase of the campaign was set to be launched and the television campaign had been produced. However, after this Government came into power the Minister for Community Development decided, early last year from memory, to can it. I have looked through the budget to see whether there are any programs to make men take responsibility for their actions - because that is the heart of the domestic violence problem - and all I can find is the statement - Established a Campaign Advisory Group to advise the ‘Freedom from Fear’ community education campaign with the aim of enlarging its focus on community based initiatives. It might come as a bit of a surprise to the minister to learn that not just sections but the whole community of Western Australia needs to be involved. The television campaign was extremely effective. It put the responsibility back on men and also gave them an alternative. The big initiative for 2003-04 is to coordinate the implementation of the State’s strategic plan on family and domestic violence. The former Government had a similar campaign. However, that is what Governments do: they wrap up policies and repackage them, and they then take the credit. While the minister is taking the credit for this campaign I hope she will run the second television campaign, because it must be sitting on someone’s shelf somewhere gathering dust. Domestic homicides accounted for one in four homicides between 1964 and 1992, and the rate has been increasing since that time. Half of the women homicide victims in Western Australia in 1994 were killed by their partners or former partners. In comparison, only 5.7 per cent of male homicides were the result of domestic violence. This is a horrific problem in Western Australia, as it is throughout most of Australia. A study has found that domestic violence is not spread equally throughout the population. Some groups suffer much higher rates of domestic violence. Police, survey and hospital data indicate that the risks for women below the age of 40 are much higher than for older women. The rates of domestic violence among Aboriginal women are staggering. Although these women make up only about three per cent of the adult female population in Western Australia, they accounted for half of all the domestic violence incidents reported to the police in 1994. That situation continues today. Based on police figures, Aboriginal women are more than 45 times more likely than non-Aboriginal women to be victims of domestic violence. The study found also that women in lower socioeconomic areas were more likely to be the victims of domestic violence than women from more affluent areas. The study states - Better information on the extent and distribution of domestic violence. If intervention and programmes are to be effective they must be targetted on the areas of highest need and their impact must be evaluated - otherwise we could be throwing away money in ineffective programs. I will say again that the freedom from fear television campaign was one of the best in Australia. The study continues - There is a need therefore for thorough and comprehensive data on the true rate of violence in all sectors of the community. These measures need to be continued regularly to allow for the proper evaluation of programmes.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8355

Interventions need to be carefully designed and managed. As the study found, the rate of domestic violence is much higher amongst Aboriginal, rural and poorer women. Intervention strategies need to be designed that are appropriate for those high risk target groups. In particular, men and women from poorer and Aboriginal communities need to be closely involved in the development of strategies designed to address the problem. Intervention strategies need to be informed by a proper understanding of violence in marginalised groups. The higher rates of domestic violence in Aboriginal and poorer communities are, unfortunately, not surprising. These groups suffer much higher rates of all other forms of violence as well. It is likely that all this violence can be attributable to similar factors. A greater understanding of the relationship between disadvantage needs to inform domestic violence intervention programmes so that money is not wasted on simplistic or quick fix solutions. I refer now to an article in today’s The West Australian headed “Big bill for home violence”. The subheading is “Lack of housing for women leaving refuges”. It states - Women and children fleeing domestic violence have been put up in hotels and motels at a cost of almost $70,000 to taxpayers since July last year. When I was working at what was then known as the Department for Family and Children’s Services it would pay for women who were the victims of domestic violence to stay overnight in a hotel or motel. That was not a long-term solution, of course, but it was an immediate solution to get those women away from the violence. The article continues - Women’s Refuge Group of WA executive officer Angela Hartwig said she was concerned about the practice because some domestic violence victims were simply being told “good night” and not getting the support they needed. Without proper support, women were likely to go back to a violent relationship. “You don’t know if you are doing the right or wrong thing once you walk out that door,” Ms Hartwig said. “You need expertise by someone in the area.” WA’s 35 refuges were almost constantly full and many women and children were turned away each month. The group did not keep statistics. In country areas the problem is much worse; there is virtually nowhere for victims to go. There is a refuge in Bunbury called Waratah, and there is one in Albany. They are probably two of the largest regional refuges. The article continues - Ms Hartwig said there was a lack of long-term housing for women once they left refuges. Kedy Krystal, who runs the 24-bed Pat Giles Centre in Joondalup, said about 10 families - which usually involved up to 30 children - were turned away each month. That is 10 families and 30 children who will go back into violent relationships; and we know what effect that has on the children. The article continues - Ms Krystal said she knew of several families who spent the Foundation Day long weekend in motels because they could not be accommodated in refuges. The problem could be worsened by a State Government move to make refuges with a vacancy accept homeless women and children. “If we do agree to take homeless families, we will be tying up beds that women in domestic violence won’t be able to access,” Ms Krystal said. “It can take quite a lot of time to house someone who is homeless.” That is a fair comment. The article continues - Ms Krystal said WA has a shortage of refuge services for young women with babies. Deborah Dearnley, manager of Nardine Wimmin’s Refuge, said it had turned away 10 women and 23 children last month. Here we have the same story - 10 families and 30 children at Joondalup, and 10 women and 23 children last month The article continues - Department for Community Development spokeswoman Pauline Bagdonavicius said it had spent $67,800 on emergency hotel and motel accommodation in 635 domestic violence cases since last July. No figures were available on the number of nights women and children spent in hotels. Some have had to stay almost a week. Hon Tom Stephens: Have you yet made any appeal to your federal colleagues to return that money to Western Australia that they have taken away from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and that enables me to be able to respond to those challenges that are contained in your speech?

8356 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Why does the minister continually blame someone else? I am pointing out that there are women and children who are being turned away in this State. Can the minister not take responsibility and say how terrible it is that 30 children over here and 23 children over there are being turned away? Hon Tom Stephens: I agree with you, but why will you not help me to get the funds from the Commonwealth Government that we used to have? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The minister has not asked me to help. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Bad workmen always blame their tools! Hon Tom Stephens: You have raised this issue in this House, but you will not look after the State’s interests when it comes to trying to get some money from the feds to help us. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! The minister and Hon Derrick Tomlinson should continue their conversation at a lower volume and elsewhere. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: One thing about being a politician really gets to me. I am telling members that there are 30 homeless children, and 23 children have been turned away from a refuge - Hon Tom Stephens: I have been telling you that for yonks. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: All the minister can do is blame the feds. Would it not be nice if he said, “Hon Robyn McSweeney, why don’t you come into my office and discuss this with me so that we can work together?” Hon Tom Stephens: Hon Robyn McSweeney, why don’t you come into my office and we will discuss this? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No. The minister is being very negative and trying to blame the federal Government. He should not do that. Hon Tom Stephens: I will draft a letter for you to sign and send to your federal colleague Senator Vanstone to seek some funding to house the people who need housing. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: The minister is being very negative again. Hon Tom Stephens: Come into my office and the letter will be ready. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: He is yelling again. That is what I cannot take about people in government. They are ready to carp about other people but they are not ready to say that we should work together. The Minister for Housing and Works has spat his dummy and run. The article continues - She said the department was still liaising with refuges on taking in homeless women, which had been recommended by the State homeless taskforce. The 93 domestic violence services in WA get more than $18 million a year, $12.66 million from joint State- Commonwealth funding. Despite that, the minister was carping about funding. If the minister were still in this place I would reiterate that the freedom from fear television campaign, which is sitting on someone’s shelf, should be pulled out and shown on television for Western Australian males to see. Those advertisements were very good and drove home the responsibility that men have on this issue. I would like to see the advertisements re-run. I would also like to see reinstated the hotline, which received 6 000 phone calls from men in Western Australia who were ready to take responsibility for their actions. Members opposite should think of the negative flow-on effect that family violence has on children. We must think of them. They are the ones who benefit in a peaceful household. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson. CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION BILL 2003 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Nick Griffiths (Minister for Racing and Gaming), read a first time. Second Reading HON NICK GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan - Minister for Racing and Gaming) [4.05 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a second time. At the last state election, Labor made an important commitment to the people of Western Australia to establish a royal commission into police corruption. In this way we would fight police corruption and restore public confidence in Western Australia’s Police Service. For too many years the community’s demands for action were ignored. This undermined public confidence in our Police Service and jeopardised the reputations of honest and hardworking WA

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8357 police officers. The State Government promptly established the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers. In an interim report delivered in December 2002, Royal Commissioner Geoffrey Kennedy, AO, QC indicated that it has been possible at an early stage - to conclude that the identifiable flaws in the structure and powers of the ACC have brought about such a lack of public confidence in the current processes for the investigation of corrupt and criminal conduct that the establishment of a new permanent body is necessary. The Government has accepted Commissioner Kennedy’s advice and consequently this Bill has several major and innovative features. There are many significant ways in which the CCC will be an improvement on the Anti-Corruption Commission. These are set out in detail in the second reading speech of the Attorney General to the Legislative Assembly on 15 May 2003. The CCC will have a new structure. It will have one full-time commissioner. An acting commissioner may be appointed in appropriate circumstances, such as when the workload of the CCC requires more than one commissioner. The Government believes that a corruption-fighting body must have all of the powers, resources and modern techniques that are now available for the investigation of corrupt, criminal and improper conduct. The CCC will therefore have all of the powers of the Anti-Corruption Commission, plus the extensive powers currently used by the police royal commission. In addition to the investigation of police and public sector misconduct, the CCC will have a role in the investigation by the police of organised crime. The Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Act 2002 will be substantially reproduced in this Bill. The CCC commissioner will perform the functions of a special commissioner under that Act. This Bill will also significantly enhance the ability of the police to investigate major crime. Other powers that are available to the CCC, such as assumed identities, integrity tests and controlled operations, will be able to be used by the Police Force against persons associated with organised crime. As with the other exceptional powers, their use by the police will be subject to appropriate safeguards, such as the CCC commissioner first being satisfied that there is a legitimate need for their use. Under this legislation, less secrecy will surround the CCC generally. A person will not be prohibited from disclosing the fact that a particular allegation of misconduct has been referred to the CCC. In certain circumstances, restrictions may, of course, exist under other legislation. For example, section 16(3) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 prohibits the disclosure of information that may identify a person in respect of whom a disclosure of public interest information has been made under that Act. The CCC will also have the ability, when it considers that it is in the public interest, to conduct public examinations of witnesses and reveal details about particular matters and outcomes of investigations. While stringent secrecy provisions will generally apply to a range of “restricted matters”, these matters may be disclosed in certain circumstances, such as if the matter has already been disclosed at a public examination, unless the commissioner orders otherwise. Additional safeguards have been included to protect the rights of persons the subject of complaints. The CCC may recommend that an independent body such as the Director of Public Prosecutions give consideration to prosecution. If it does, it must also give that body all the material in its possession that would be required to be disclosed as part of the prosecution’s statutory obligation of disclosure if that prosecution were to take place. Also, in the event of the independent body then deciding to lay a charge, it must first notify the person concerned of the recommendation from the CCC. The CCC will have an important new prevention and education function. The CCC will take an active role in raising the standards of integrity and conduct of police officers and public authorities. It will provide information to, consult with and make recommendations to public authorities and the general community, and it will report on ways to prevent misconduct. A major function of the CCC will be to ensure that allegations and information about misconduct are dealt with in an appropriate way. The CCC will be able to receive allegations about misconduct from any person and proactively investigate matters even when no formal allegation of misconduct has been made. The CCC will be able to investigate these matters itself or, if it is appropriate to do so, refer them to independent agencies or appropriate authorities so that they can take action themselves or in cooperation with the CCC. The CCC will also have a role in monitoring the way in which those bodies take such action. The role of the Ombudsman in reviewing police conduct will also be transferred to the CCC. The CCC is empowered to furnish reports and make recommendations on the outcome of investigations, and consult, cooperate and exchange information with independent agencies and appropriate authorities. It has the ability to furnish reports for presentation to Parliament on a wide range of matters. The CCC may not make a finding or form an opinion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a criminal or disciplinary offence. Central to the Bill is the appointment of a parliamentary inspector with extensive powers. This is an essential accountability mechanism. The inspector will have completely unfettered access to all CCC information, including

8358 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] operational matters, and, for the purpose of his or her inquiries, all the powers, protections and immunities of a royal commission. The inspector will be able to audit the operations of, and investigate complaints about, the CCC. Additionally, the inspector can assess the CCC’s procedures and report and make recommendations to both the CCC and Parliament. As a further check and balance, the responsible minister must carry out a review of the operations and effectiveness of the Bill five years after its commencement. In recognition of the expanded functions and importance of the success of the CCC, resourcing will be dramatically increased. The budget for the CCC will be more than twice the budget for the ACC. Provision has been made for approximately $21 million in the 2003-04 financial year. Honest public officers have nothing to fear about this legislation or the CCC. The State Government is confident that the vast majority of dedicated and hardworking police officers will welcome this Bill and the creation of the CCC. The Bill will restore the public confidence in the Western Australia Police Service that their corrupt colleagues have eroded. The Government makes no apologies to corrupt public officials. This legislation sends a clear and unequivocal message to these officials. Their conduct will no longer be ignored or tolerated in Western Australia. It will be rigorously investigated and prosecuted. In his interim report, Commissioner Kennedy considered it extremely important for there to be a smooth transition from the police royal commission and the ACC to the new CCC. Consequently, it is imperative to have the CCC established and operating prior to the conclusion of the royal commission, which is expected to occur on 31 August 2003. The Government accordingly urges members to ensure the expeditious passage of this Bill through the Parliament in the current session. Recognising that it is also important that the Bill be given proper consideration by Parliament, in recent weeks the Government has facilitated numerous briefings to interested members of both Houses. It has also endeavoured to accommodate any reasonable concerns and requests to amend the Bill. It is a credit to all concerned that although the Bill contains over 250 clauses, it was passed last week by the Legislative Assembly with unanimous support. With this Bill, members have a unique opportunity to support the creation of an effective corruption-fighting agency. This will demonstrate to the people of Western Australia our resolve not to tolerate the appalling behaviour being exposed by the police royal commission. On behalf of the State Government and the people of Western Australia, I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.

RESERVES (RESERVE 43131) BILL 2003 Assembly’s Message Message from the Assembly received and read notifying that it had disagreed to amendment No 1 made by the Council and substituted a new amendment in its place and had disagreed to amendment Nos 2 to 13. Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the Chair, Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House) in charge of the Bill. Substituted amendment No 1 made by the Assembly was as follows - New clause. Page 7, after line 5 - To insert the following new clause - 13. Expiry of Act This Act expires on the second anniversary of the day on which it comes into operation. Amendments Nos 2 to 13 made by the Council, to which amendments the Assembly had disagreed, were as follows - No. 2 Clause 4, page 2, line 27 - To insert before “Management” - In addition to the circumstances set out in section 50(2) of the LAA, No. 3 Clause 4, page 2, line 27 - To delete “is revoked by force of this Act” and insert instead - may be amended by the LAA Minister from time to time as the Minister considers appropriate No. 4 Clause 4, page 2, lines 28 to 30 - To delete the lines.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8359

No. 5 Clause 5, page 3, lines 1 to 25 - To delete the clause. No. 6 Clause 6, page 3, lines 26 to 29 - To delete the clause. No. 7 Clause 7, page 4, after line 2 - To insert - (1) The powers conferred by this section may be exercised by the LAA Minister in addition to any other powers that the LAA Minister may exercise. (2) The LAA Minister may in writing appoint the Authority as administrator of the reserve in order to secure compliance with the terms of the management order. No. 8 Clause 7, page 4, after line 4 - To insert - (a) the Authority, and except for the purposes of subsection (2), No. 9 Clause 8, page 5, lines 27 to 30 - To delete the clause. No. 10 Clause 9, page 6, lines 1 to 8 - To delete the clause. No. 11 Clause 10, page 6, lines 9 to 13 - To delete the clause. No. 12 Clause 11, page 6, lines 14 to 21 - To delete the clause. No. 13 Clause 12, page 6, after line 28 - To insert - (3) In the event that any - (a) amendment of the management order no. I262262; or (b) appointment of any administrator, is declared invalid, then all acts carried out prior to the declaration shall be deemed to be valid and effectual as if the amendment or appointment had been validly made. Hon KIM CHANCE: I move - That the Council - (a) not insist on its amendments Nos 2 to 13; (b) agree to the amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly in substitution for the Council’s amendment No 1. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Some two weeks ago the Government sought to have legislation of quite significant magnitude passed through Parliament in two days. That was a very unhappy and unsavoury event. This Chamber dealt with this piece of legislation on a Friday. On the agreement of the Opposition, the legislation was debated under a time- management system and the Government was given a piece of legislation by this Chamber after a very thorough and proper debate. Contrary to the belief in the community that the Legislative Council had in fact defeated the Bill, the Legislative Council had amended the Bill. It was the view of the Legislative Council that certain clauses and proposals in the legislation were unacceptable - and they are unacceptable. I said to the parliamentary secretary handling the Bill that had a Liberal Government brought in legislation containing some of the clauses that this Bill contained, 5 000 people would be marching on Parliament House; yet a Labor Government had brought in legislation which contained clauses that this Chamber found to be totally and absolutely unacceptable and, as argued by our colleagues, unnecessary. The Leader of the House in his support of the Bill used a certain element of emotional blackmail by suggesting that if this Chamber did not pass the legislation unamended, we would have the welfare of young women and children on our hands. I found that remark to be totally unacceptable as well. This Chamber debated the legislation thoroughly and properly. I have been here on many occasions when we have had debates of great substance. I cannot recall one that

8360 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] was debated better than this. The contribution of members was quite outstanding, bearing in mind that with the time limits, only a limited number of members were able to speak. I can speak only for the Liberal Party. Within the Liberal Party we made the decision that this legislation should be passed but amended, because we accepted the Government’s proposal that problems at that camp needed to be resolved. Hon Peter Foss moved amendments which we believed would provide the Government with all the power that it needed to deal with the issues at that camp. We were told in no uncertain terms that this was a matter of urgency - absolute, dire urgency. That is why we were dealing with it on a Friday, its having passed through the Assembly the previous day. What did the Government do when it received the Bill back again amended? Dr Gallop in my view is not a person of the substance I once thought he was as a result of his comments on this legislation. He has proved himself to be just a populist, ordinary politician, which is about the worst way one can describe somebody who pretends to be a statesman. He is no better than anyone else. He saw a political issue, and he grabbed hold of it. He said that the Legislative Council had gutted his legislation. He also said that the Liberal Party and others in the Legislative Council were trying to stop him from dealing with a very serious problem in the Swan Valley Nyungah Aboriginal Community camp. Instead of sitting down with members of the Liberal Party and asking whether we could deal with the Bill as amended, and instead of bringing Parliament back in the following week to deal with this very urgent issue, the Premier spent a whole week trying to score cheap political points. He tried to create the impression in the community that, somehow or other, the Liberal Party had denied his Government the capacity to deal with the problem. He knew, as I knew, and as all members knew, that that was not correct. As a result, Mr Chairman, the Liberal Party has made a decision to not oppose this legislation. The Liberal Party will not support the legislation, but it will not oppose or vote against it. It will pass, and Dr Gallop will get his way. He sought to turn this issue into a gross political action. He claimed it was all about the Liberal Party and the Opposition in some way trying to prevent him from carrying out a legitimate action with this camp. Instead of bringing Parliament back to deal with the measure urgently, the Premier sat around and let the matter fester, and he took pleasure in reading in the newspapers and hearing on the radio that the Liberal Party had different views on the matter from those of the Government. The Premier took the political course of action; namely, to let it fester and to allow the situation to continue at the camp, despite his telling us it was urgent. Now, some two weeks later, the legislation is back in this Chamber again. Fortunately, having taken into account the comments of the Leader of the House - he virtually said “blood on our hands” - I am not aware of anything that has occurred in the past couple of weeks in the form of abuse of any women or children; I hope nothing has happened in that regard. I expect the Legislative Council will allow this legislation through at some time today. Liberal members will oppose it, but not vote against it. The Government will get its draconian law. Interestingly, I am not sure what the Government will do with this law. The people involved have moved out. Does this mean that a Bill will be before us next week concerning another piece of land? Does it mean that another Bill will be introduced next week to deprive people of their rights, and that another Bill will mean that another matter cannot be taken to court? I do not know. However, I do know that from here on in, this is the Premier’s problem. The Premier sought to deflect the problem to others for the last couple of weeks. Once this legislation is passed, it will be his problem. He will be responsible for what happens at that camp and for the welfare of every man, woman and child in that community. He cannot blame anybody else for what might go wrong. He will be given all the power he demanded. Therefore, the problem will be his, absolutely and totally. I was a little intrigued by some of the arguments put forward by the Government on this issue. The Premier said that he had to take away people’s access to the courts because similar things have been done in respect of organised crime, and similar things will be done concerning international terrorists. Therefore, it will be done with this Aboriginal community. How unbelievable! How is it that the entire resources of the State Government of Western Australia cannot deal with problems with 35 Aboriginal people led by a 74-year-old man? To be told that police are frightened and that public servants will not go on the site is unbelievable. To be told that legislation of this nature is needed because people are too frightened to do anything about it is unbelievable. Swan Valley is not the only community in which this sort of thing takes place. How many more Bills will be needed to deal with problems in other Aboriginal communities? The Minister for Housing and Works sits opposite. He has spent all his life in politics trying to get land for Aboriginal people. He and I do not always agree, but at least he has been consistent. He is now putting up his hand to support taking some land away from Aboriginal people, and, at the same time, taking away their right of access to the courts. This is the champion of the Aboriginal people of Western Australia - the Minister for Housing and Works. He will put up his hand for this legislation today for a third time - he has done so twice already. [Interruption from the gallery.] Hon Tom Stephens: You will agree that the land is not being taken away from Aboriginal people. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Tell me where it will go and who will get it. The minister can be as pedantic as he likes, but the fact remains that the Government is taking people off land that they regard as their land. These people will be put

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8361 somewhere else, but no-one knows where. If the minister wants to be pedantic about ownership and other matters, he should go for his life. The minister must live with his actions. He is part of the strategy; he can take credit for it. Hon Tom Stephens: You were one of the architects of the statewide extinguishment of native title. Were you not part of the Government that sent the convoy to Noonkanbah? Several members interjected. Hon NORMAN MOORE: One thing that I am on this issue is consistent. I have expressed my views consistently since I have been in Parliament. The Minister for Housing and Works is taking a contrary position to that which he has always taken. I find it surprising. I have some admiration for the minister’s perseverance, if nothing else. The majority of Liberal members will not oppose the legislation. I presume it will pass the House and become a blot on the laws of Western Australia. It contains clauses, as Dr Gallop stated, needed to deal with international terrorism and organised crime. It is a sad day when Parliament is asked in two days to pass legislation of this nature because of the absolute urgency of a situation; however, this Chamber must deal with the same Bill two or three weeks later knowing that the urgency, somehow or other, has disappeared as far as the Government is concerned. We have had two or three weeks of outrageous activity by the Premier, who has proved to us all that Hon Julian Grill was right in his comments before the last election - that is, Dr Gallop is simply a populist; he will get on any bandwagon he can. [Interruption from the gallery.] The CHAIRMAN: Order! I hope members of the public gallery are listening. First, on behalf of all the members, I welcome you to the Legislative Council; we are pleased that you are able to be here today. However, a rule of the Legislative Council is that only elected members have an opportunity to speak on the floor of the House. You are invited to observe the proceedings, but not to participate in them. A few minutes ago the gentlemen on the right of the gallery interjected. I said nothing because the security officer attended to the matter. The gentlemen in the back row now wants to interject. As I said, members are pleased to have you here, but please do not interject. If those in the public gallery continue to interject, I will have those persons removed from the gallery. The problem is that that action could jeopardise the right of all other members of the public to stay in the gallery while this matter is being debated. The least the people wanting to interject can do is be fair to other members of the public gallery by remaining silent. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Let me make it absolutely clear. The Opposition will not tolerate, condone or support in any way the sort of behaviour we believe is taking place at that camp. Debate interrupted, pursuant to sessional orders. [Continued on page 8368.]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS, PHYSICAL THREATS 965. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth: Have any officers of the Department for Community Development been physically threatened by any persons during the past 12 months; and, if so, will the minister provide details of the threats? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Yes. In the past 12 months there were 46 reported incidents involving physical threats against staff. It will require more time to collate the specific details of each incident. The information will be provided to the member within the next seven days. WATER CORPORATION, BURRUP WATER SUPPLY 966. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Minister for Government Enterprises: I refer the minister to the questions on notice supplementary information provided by the minister in response to my questions during the estimates hearings about the Water Corporation’s capital works program and, in particular, to information on investment for the Burrup water supply. (1) Can the minister explain the difference between the figures of $61.1 million on page 3 and $76 million on page 8, both of which refer to capital expenditure for the Burrup in 2003-04? (2) Can the minister confirm whether the figures of $76 million and $4 million for the next two years as shown on page 8 reflect the full capital cost of the Burrup water supply development to the Government; and, if not, from where is any additional funding sourced and how much will there be? (3) Can the minister indicate how much money in 2003-04 and 2004-05 has been included in the Water Corporation’s payments to government as provision for Burrup infrastructure, as per the footnote to table 1, appendix 7, on page 223 of budget paper No 3?

8362 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The figure of $61.1 million represents the 2003-04 estimate of the cost of the seawater pipeline for Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd. The figure of $76 million that applies to 2003-04 is the estimate of the cost of the seawater pipeline and the desalination plant for Burrup Fertilisers. (2) The $76 million for 2003-04 and the $4 million for 2004-05 are the planned costs of the seawater pipeline and the desalination plant to serve Burrup Fertilisers. The Government is meeting the capital cost of the seawater pipeline. Revenue from Burrup Fertilisers will meet the costs of the desalination plant. No additional capital will be required until further expansion of industry on the Burrup Peninsula takes place. (3) The note refers to the inclusion of capital and operating costs and revenue for the Burrup projects in the Water Corporation’s projections. A total of 92 per cent of the profit is included in the dividend projections.

PERTH URBAN RAIL DEVELOPMENT, ABORIGINAL SITES 967. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs: I refer to question without notice 945 regarding registered Aboriginal heritage sites within land and waters affected by the Perth urban rail development. (1) When were discussions and interactions with Aboriginal people and groups undertaken on the Perth station yard area, the Esplanade station area, the Narrows Bridge interchange area and Mt Henry? (2) Who were the Aboriginal people and groups consulted? (3) How many registered Aboriginal sites are affected by the Perth urban rail development? (4) Which sites are they? (5) Are there any sites that have not been the subject of discussion or interchange with Aboriginal people or groups? (6) Will the minister table the consolidated reports that summarise the separate consultations undertaken for each of the sites? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The answer provided is in the following terms - (1) The Western Australian Government Railways Commission engaged consultants Ted Hart and Rory O’Connor in August and September 2002 to undertake consultations in relation to the central business district section. There is no readily available information on the consultation for the Mt Henry area, although it is understood that that was undertaken earlier. (2) According to Hart and O’Connor in 2002, the groups consulted included the combined metropolitan working group native title claimants; the Ballaruk Aboriginal clan, an Aboriginal claimant group; the Jacobs clan; the independent metropolitan environmental group; and the Bibbulmun group, or Colbung clan. (3) It is not possible to provide a response unless a precise definition of the development is provided. However, the section 18 application for the portion of the project in the central business district identifies three registered Aboriginal sites within the influence of the city rail project. (4) The sites listed in the section 18 application are DIA 3536, Swan River; DIA 3702, Esplanade; and DIA 3737, Perth central railway station. (5) See response to part (3). (6) Not until the deliberative process is complete - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Why are you being secretive? The PRESIDENT: Order! The parliamentary secretary will not respond to any subsequent questions. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I am quite shocked by the outburst. (6) Not until the deliberative process is complete and subject to any confidentiality clause.

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM, RELOCATION 968. Hon BARBARA SCOTT to the Minister for Culture and the Arts: I refer to the Western Australian Museum in Francis Street.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8363

(1) What funding has been made available in this budget to relocate the staff, collections and exhibits from the Western Australian Museum’s Francis Street building? (2) Will the funds made available be taken from the forward works allocations for the other arts department organisations; and, if so, what projects have been deferred? (3) Will the Western Australian Museum’s Francis Street building, staff and state collections be relocated to a publicly accessible area with train and bus facilities and appropriate public amenities? (4) Will the relocation of the staff and collections from the cultural centre site be temporary; and, if so, for how long? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) An amount of $7.5 million has been provided in the 2003-04 budget for the relocation of the Museum. (2) No. The available funds are as specified in the budget papers. (3) Yes. (4) The failure of the previous Government to deal with the inadequacy of the Francis Street building as a result of occupational health and safety issues, building limitations and the expansion of the Western Australian Museum on the Perth site has meant the Gallop Government has been faced with an immediate short-term problem of dealing with the Francis Street building. In addressing the immediate needs of the Western Australian Museum, the Government recognises the importance of the Museum to our society and acknowledges the need to develop a long-term plan for the Museum. In doing this, the Minister for Culture and the Arts established a ministerial steering committee to consider the future of the Francis Street building. The work of the ministerial steering committee will be informed by the work currently being undertaken by a number of planning committees involving all relevant stakeholders, including the Department of Culture and the Arts. These committees will be developing a plan which will be cognisant of all planning relating to Perth, including the Perth Cultural Centre and the southern rail project. In the interim, the ministerial steering committee is addressing the priority to relocate the functions currently being undertaken in the Francis Street building. PYRTON SITE, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 969. Hon JIM SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) Can the minister inform the House which government agencies currently retain ownership or management responsibilities for the Pyrton site in Bassendean? (2) Is the Government considering or preparing any development proposals for the Pyrton site? (3) If yes, can she identify the proponents and details of the development proposals? (4) With each development proposal can she indicate if it will be - (a) residential, (b) commercial, or (c) industrial? (5) What guarantees can the minister provide that indigenous groups will have joint management of any development at the Pyrton site and access to their culturally significant locations? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The answer was provided to me in the following terms - Given the breadth of the information requested by the member the minister is unable to provide an answer at this time. The member is requested to place the question on notice. PHOENIX PROGRAM, AUDIT 970. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: In respect of the recent audit of the Phoenix program of the Family Planning Association of WA, I ask - (1) Did the audit recommend removal of funding to Phoenix? (2) If yes to (1), what were the exact words? (3) Did the audit report include the words “There is no evidence to suggest that funds have been misused”?

8364 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(4) Did the audit report include the words “It appears that Family Planning WA (Phoenix) has been producing publications and reporting activities in relation to these publications in accordance with the provisions of the contract”? (5) Did the audit report include the words “It appears reasonable that the FPWA (Phoenix) advocacy work is in accordance with the provision of contract”? (6) Will the minister table a copy of the audit report? (7) If not, why not? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(7) A draft audit report of the Phoenix project was provided to the Minister for Health by the Department of Health. All of the minister’s recent statements regarding the Phoenix project have been consistent with this draft. I am advised that the draft report is now being finalised in consultation with the Family Planning Association of WA, as the contract provider for the project. Once the report has been finalised, that document will be forwarded to the Department of Health’s audit committee and discussed again with FPAWA. The Minister for Health has advised that he will table a copy of the finalised report if requested to do so.

LAND CLEARING, USE OF SATELLITE IMAGERY 971. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: (1) How many full-time equivalent officers and what other resources have - (a) the Department of Conservation and Land Management and (b) the Department of Environmental Protection allocated, or will allocate, to enforce the new clearing control system? (2) Will - (a) the Department of Conservation and Land Management and (b) the Department of Environmental Protection implement a surveillance system utilising satellite imagery from the land monitor project to discover illegal clearing; and, if not, why not? (3) Will the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Conservation and Land Management use satellite imagery to monitor the amount of native vegetation cleared for urban development; and, if not, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following reply - Department of Conservation and Land Management - (1) (a) The Department of Conservation and Land Management has four full-time equivalent officers specifically allocated to the operation of the new clearing legislation. In addition, other central and regional staff will also be involved in the assessment of applications to clear land, and the preparation of management plans, as part of their normal duties, as required. Consequently the total full-time equivalent will depend on the distribution and number of applications to clear vegetation that are received. The department’s budget for its roles in respect of the clearing legislation is $320 000 per annum. (2) (a) No. The monitoring of illegal clearing under the Environmental Protection Act will be the prime responsibility of the Department of Environmental Protection which administers that Act. (3) See question (2)(a) regarding CALM. Department of Environmental Protection - (1) (b) Eight officers. (2) (b) Yes. (3) Possibly - if determined by the Department of Environmental Protection to be practical.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8365

WHEAT STREAK MOSAIC VIRUS 972. Hon JOHN FISCHER to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: A recent article in the The Australian Financial Review dated 29 May 2003, indicated that Australia had lost the battle to stop the spread of wheat streak mosaic virus. (1) As there are no known positive tests in Western Australia, what measures are in place to ensure this imported virus cannot enter Western Australia? (2) If any, do they include restrictions on importing eastern States grain into our State? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) To reduce the risk of the disease entering Western Australia, following its discovery in other States, all known potential carriers of the disease were restricted entry into Western Australia. Following assessment of a range of evidence that the majority of hosts appear to pose minimal risk of transmitting the disease via seed, import restrictions were amended. Import of green hosts that could serve as a pathway for the introduction of the virus and mite vector continue to be restricted. Maize seed for planting, which is known to transmit the disease at a very low level, is restricted. Steps have been initiated to make this disease a notifiable disease under the Plant Diseases Act 1914. (2) Only seed of maize is restricted. REMOTE AREA NURSES, SECURITY 973. Hon PADDY EMBRY to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) What action is the Government taking today to improve security for nurses in remote areas? (2) What action is the Government taking in the longer term to improve security for nurses in these same remote regions? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The security of all hospital employees, including remote area nurses, is a key concern for the Government and is currently being addressed. As the member would be aware, the Minister for Health commissioned a discussion paper on workplace violence and bullying to develop strategies to combat these difficulties that face our hospital staff. The minister has also established a workplace violence steering committee and appointed a chair. The steering committee will consist of representatives directly from the labour force, the union movement, management, consumers and policing. The steering committee will be charged with the responsibility of developing comprehensive policy, awareness and education strategies and management intervention to minimise harm. HOME BUILDING CONTRACTS ACT 1991, SECTION 21 REMEDIES 974. Hon GEORGE CASH to the minister representing the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection: I refer to the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 and in particular the provisions relating to consumer protection. Section 21 provides remedies for a breach of section 15, but is limited in time to three years and in extent to an owner as defined in section 3. (1) Do similar provisions exist in other Australian jurisdictions in respect of a statutory warranty; and, if so, are they limited to an original owner, or do they extend to subsequent purchasers within the relevant time period? (2) Has the Government considered extending the application of section 21 of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 to include subsequent purchasers who have purchased within the three-year period, relevant to section 21? (3) Has this or previous Governments raised this issue with the relevant housing industry associations or representative bodies in recent years; and, if so, what was the response? (4) Would any policy issues prevent the adoption of a course of action to include subsequent purchasers? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided an answer in these terms - (1) Section 15 does not refer to a statutory warranty; it relates to conduct or terms of a contract that are unconscionable etc.

8366 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(2) No, because subsequent purchasers do not have any contractual relationship with the builder. (3) No. (4) Yes, because subsequent purchasers have no contractual relationship with the builder, and the extension of the general provisions of the Home Building Contracts Act 1991 to subsequent purchasers would therefore be inappropriate. The only sections of the Act that do apply to subsequent purchasers are those that are contained within part 3A and which relate to the home indemnity insurance scheme. It is important to note that subsequent purchasers are protected against faulty or unsatisfactory workmanship problems under section 12A of the Builders’ Registration Act 1939, which allows any person to make a complaint to the Building Disputes Tribunal within six years of completion of the building work. The tribunal has the power to order the builder to rectify the work or to pay to the owner of the building such costs of remedying the work as are considered reasonable.

MIDLAND SALEYARDS, RELOCATION 975. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: My question is about the relocation of the Midland saleyards. Is the minister any closer to finalising a decision on the construction of saleyards at Muchea; and is there a date for the removal of saleyard activity from Midland? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: As the honourable member will be aware, a decision has been made by the Government to locate a new livestock facility in the Muchea area and to sell down the Midland asset. I do not have a precise date for the sale of the Midland facility or the way in which it will be sold, because it is held in a number of different titles. Some of those titles can be sold while the saleyard is still in operation. Indeed, negotiations are being undertaken at this stage about one such block, and I believe there may be others. Some of the land cannot be sold until such time as the saleyard is closed, and this includes land that is outside the saleyard precinct. The reason it cannot be sold is that it forms land that is within the buffer zone of the effluent treatment plant for the saleyard. Therefore, regrettably, that land cannot be sold. I will deal with the purchase of the Midland land. The Government is considering whether an option should be taken on a certain piece of land. However, because of the sensitive nature of an arrangement of that kind, I am not keen to go any further with that. The saleyards steering committee has met to discuss issues relating to the expression-of-interest process and other points that go close to the centre of the member’s question. I understand that the committee will meet or has already met with the saleyards liaison committee, which is the industry’s voice in that matter. If that meeting has taken place, I have not been briefed on the outcome of it. The decision-making process is at a critical stage. I hope that I will be able to announce to the Parliament before too long that options have been taken on specific areas of land.

FREMANTLE CEMETERY, TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT 976. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development: Some notice of this question was given yesterday. I refer to the minister’s announcements that management of Fremantle Cemetery will transfer to the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board from 1 July. (1) Will the minister table the evidence on which he bases his expectation that $600 000 a year in operating and administration costs will be saved through such a move? (2) What are the respective fees charged by the Fremantle Cemetery Board and Metropolitan Cemeteries Board for their services? (3) How much will it cost the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board to remove the ashes collection fee of $85, and how will this lost revenue be recovered? (4) What is the ashes collection fee at Fremantle Cemetery? (5) Is it true that the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board performs approximately 5 500 funerals per annum and has a staff of about 73, while the Fremantle Cemetery performs approximately 2 700 per annum with a staff of 26? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1) The Functional Review Taskforce, in identifying merits in amalgamating the Fremantle Cemetery and Metropolitan Cemeteries Boards, included the prospect of generating savings of $600 000 per annum. The prospective savings identified by the task force include - potential to reduce debt levels of the Fremantle Cemetery Board and annual interest incurred. Fremantle has a debt equity ratio of 31.64 per cent compared with the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board debt equity ratio of 0.03 per cent;

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8367

reduced operating cost from greater economies of scale, aggregated purchasing power and rationalisation of office technology; savings through a reduction in the total number of board members and reduced reporting costs; integration of the FCB and MCB to provide for more efficient use of assets and a coordinated approach to planning and project management across all the metropolitan cemeteries. There will be further savings through the elimination of duplication in the provision of services. (2) The following fees apply for core burial and cremation services provided by the respective boards - Metropolitan Cemeteries Board Burial interment fee $710 Cremation fees $612 to $729 Fremantle Cemetery Board Burial interment fee $680 Cremation fees $620 to $710 (3) The removal of the ashes collection fee is estimated to cost the MCB $160 000 in 2003-04, and this will be recovered from accumulated funds. (4) The ashes collection fee was removed from the Fremantle fee schedule from 1 July 2000. (5) The MCB manages approximately 6 100 funerals per annum at five cemetery sites throughout the metropolitan area and maintains 330 hectares of cemetery land. The MCB is also developing a new regional cemetery at Rockingham, and planning and coordinating present and future metropolitan cemetery needs. The staff is 73 full-time equivalents. The Fremantle Cemetery Board manages approximately 2 700 funerals per annum and maintains 46 hectares of land within the Fremantle Cemetery reserve. The staff is 26 FTEs.

ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES, CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE 977. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth: (1) How many Aboriginal communities are in rural Western Australia? (2) What are the reported statistics for each Aboriginal community for child sexual abuse of children - (a) under the age of five; and (b) under the age of 15 in the past two years? (3) How many Aboriginal children in categories (a) and (b) have presented with vaginal lacerations? (4) In the past two years, how many children from these communities have presented at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children for child sexual abuse? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The member is requested to refer this question to the minister responsible for indigenous affairs. (2) Statistics cannot be provided for each Aboriginal community as the Department for Community Development records child maltreatment allegations by the last known address. (3)-(4) The member is requested to refer this question to the minister responsible for the Department of Health.

NEWMAN, GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 978. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: I refer to the former BHP power station site at Newman. (1) Has the minister received complaints about possible ground water contamination due to diesel and oil remaining in below-ground pipes? (2) If yes to (1), what action has the minister taken since being alerted to the situation? (3) Will the minister be requiring BHP Billiton to rehabilitate the site completely and remove these potential sources of contamination? (4) If no to (3), why not?

8368 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The Department of Environmental Protection received a fax from a member of the public regarding a possible contaminated site at BHP Billiton Newman on 19 April 2003. The north west region office was informed of the complaint on 23 April 2003. (2) On 28 April 2003 a regional officer contacted BHP and requested information regarding the status of the old power station site. The north west region office is currently waiting on reports from BHP Billiton regarding remediation of the site. On 30 April 2003 the regional officer contacted the Department of Environmental Protection contaminated sites branch advising that this may be a potential contaminated site. On 1 May 2003 the regional office sent a letter via email to the complainant informing it that a preliminary investigation had commenced. (3)-(4) Rehabilitation requirements will depend on the outcome of the preliminary investigation in the context of the contaminated sites legislation and the proposed future use of the site. The investigation is still active. WATER SERVICES COORDINATION ACT, REVIEW 979. Hon DEE MARGETTS to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Can the Minister advise why the report on the review of the Water Services Coordination Act - which should have been available from 1 April 2003 - has not yet been publicly released? (2) Can the minister confirm that the report for this review, which was headed by Tom Parry, chair of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, seriously questions whether an independent economic regulator is the best model for regulating water in Western Australia? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1) As required the report of the Water Services Coordination Act review panel was provided to the minister on 31 March 2003. The minister is in the process of having the report considered by Cabinet prior to its being laid before each House of Parliament. (2) The report associated with the review of the Water Services Coordination Act 1995 does not question whether the proposed model for the independent economic regulator is the best model for regulating water in Western Australia. HAMILTON HILL PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION OF TOWN HOUSES 980. Hon RAY HALLIGAN to the Minister for Housing and Works: Notice of this question has not been given. I refer to Department of Housing and Works tender No 96180/03 for the construction of 22 town houses at lot 2 Caffery Place, Hamilton Hill. Do the tender documents contain a notice prescribing a policy regarding eligibility to tender? Do the documents provide for an exemption to be granted from the policy at the discretion of the director general; and, if so, what information will the director general require to exercise his discretion? What criteria will the director general take into account in exercising his discretion? Given that tenders, the subject of this policy, are open for only a limited period, what action has the director general taken to ensure that a tenderer seeking an exemption is not disadvantaged by a delay in notification of the director general’s exercise of his discretion? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I note that the member has indicated that this is a question that he has not given notice of, but I am more than happy to take the question from him in the form in which he has delivered it to the House and come back to him with a response. MR IAN ALLNUTT, PUBLIC SERVICE MEDAL Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon John Cowdell): I note that in the Queen’s Birthday honours list Ian Allnutt has been awarded a Public Service Medal for his services to this Parliament over a period of 36 years. I am sure all members will join with me in congratulating Ian on this honour. Members: Hear, hear! RESERVES (RESERVE 43131) BILL 2003 Assembly’s Message - Committee Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the Chair; Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House) in charge of the Bill. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Coincidental to the comments I was making before question time, I have just received an answer to a question on notice that I think might be worth reporting to the House. During the debate in the Legislative

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8369

Assembly after the Legislative Council had amended the reserves Bill, the Government sought to create the belief that the circumstances at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp were outrageous and the Opposition should take responsibility for the sort of behaviour that has been occurring at that site. The Minister for Community Development told the Legislative Assembly that an officer from her department had been threatened by Mr Bropho with a heavy wooden stick and that that officer had now taken stress leave. The minister raised that in the other place as an example of the sorts of things that are taking place at this camp and that require this draconian legislation in order to be resolved. As soon as I heard the minister make that statement in the Assembly I asked the question that I have had answered today. The question was - Have any officers of the Department for Community Development been physically threatened by any person during the last 12 months? If so, will the minister provide details of the threats? The answer was that 46 officers have been physically threatened in the past 12 months, but details of where that has happened will be provided to me in the next seven days. That is 46 circumstances similar to the one that occurred at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Are those 46 within the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp? Hon NORMAN MOORE: No. That is within Western Australia. Some of those cases may well be at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp. I do not know, and I will be provided with that detail in due course. I suspect they are not all in that location. One then needs to ask: does this sort of behaviour occur in many other places; and, if it does, what is the Government doing about it? Is it bringing forward legislation to have families or other groups of people removed from where they live in order to deal with this threatening behaviour against officers of the Department for Community Development - 46 of whom have been threatened in the past 12 months? I will be interested to hear the details of those threats so that we can get some indication of where these things are taking place and whether the circumstances at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp are peculiar to that camp. I look forward to hearing the remainder of the answer to that question. As I was saying before the interruption for question time, the Opposition does not under any circumstances condone the sort of behaviour that I believe has taken place at this camp. I cannot prove anything, but I have an understanding from the Gordon inquiry and from other anecdotal evidence that has become available that activities have been, and perhaps are, taking place on that site that are unacceptable and need to be dealt with. The Opposition has no quarrel with that. The Leader of the Opposition, Hon Colin Barnett, agreed to the passage of this legislation on the basis that it was about protecting women and children. No Opposition or self-respecting group of people would oppose a Government seeking to protect women and children. However, this Government introduced a Bill that the Opposition believed was over the top. The Legislative Council gave the Government amended legislation that it believed dealt with the problems and gave the Government the power it needed to deal with the issues. The Government then took at least a week to get Crown Law advice on whether the proposals would work. If it was so urgent, why did the Government not get Crown Law advice overnight? This House deleted clauses from the Bill that are entitled “Exclusion of rules of natural justice”, “Nature of discretion”, “Reasons” and “Immunity from judicial supervision”. No self-respecting upper House could leave those clauses in the Bill. The Opposition argued that they were not necessary to do what the Government believes had to be done at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. This House amended the legislation in good faith and good conscience and gave it back to the Government and said it should use the powers in the amended legislation to deal with the problem. However, the Government sought to make political mileage: it hid the Bill for a couple of weeks and did nothing else but disagree with the amendments and send the Bill back to this place. The Opposition decided, very reluctantly, that it would not oppose the legislation, which would give the Government the power it wanted. However, the Opposition makes the point very clearly to the Government that it cannot now blame anyone else for anything that happens in that community. The Government has all the powers it believes it needs, albeit draconian in the extreme. It is now entirely up to the Premier to deal with the issues and take full responsibility for the consequences. I guess the tragedy of this whole debate reflects the fact that the removal of basic human rights has become acceptable practice by governments if they want to get onto a populist bandwagon. Basic human rights are very fragile. If upper Houses do not preserve them, who will? I do not believe it is necessary for the Government to have the power this Bill provides. However, because it has refused to use the powers provided by this House, and the Opposition believes that something must be done about that community, the Opposition will not oppose the legislation. HON PETER FOSS: I will continue to oppose this legislation. What I have learnt about matters surrounding this legislation in the past two weeks has further disgusted me. One of the direct results of this legislation is that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community is now occupied by only three men. A Bill that was intended to protect women and children has resulted in those women and children moving to another camp. They could just as easily have camped on the grounds of Parliament. I would not be surprised if they did that at some stage. The question then would be, in order to protect them, would this Government throw them off the Parliament reserve where they have no right to be? Is that the way to protect women and children? A question that must be asked is, how does throwing people off a reserve protect them? How do we protect women and children by shifting them somewhere else? How has anyone ever solved

8370 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] a social problem on an individual scale by legislating to affect one group of people? Nobody is denying that there is a social problem in the community. Unfortunately, it is not a unique social problem. How does legislation fix it? What will the Government do now? Women and children are in another camp. If we use this legislation to throw the remaining three males off the site, what will the Government do if they move to Saunders Street? How has it addressed the problem? How does the Government think it has treated those women and children? Does the Government really think it has done the right thing by those women and children? The truth is, this legislation does nothing to protect those women and children; it dispossesses them. This has happened before in our history. I am sure Hon Derrick Tomlinson is far more competent than I am to refer to the previous circumstances in the history of Western Australia when people thought it was in the interests of women and children to dispossess them, particularly children. The nation has roundly condemned the behaviour of those people who at least had one excuse - they thought as people of their time thought. It is one thing to think with a 1905 attitude in 1905; it is a little bit difficult nearly 100 years later, with the experience, knowledge and attitudes we now have, to accept that we can still treat this problem by taking away the children. Regardless of whether the Government thought that was what it would do, that is the result. Those children have been thrown out of that place. Hon Kim Chance: Did you say separated from their families? Hon PETER FOSS: The women and children have been separated. They have been thrown out of the place in which they live. Hon Kim Chance: They’ve been separated from their families? Hon PETER FOSS: The women and children have been removed from their families. Hon Kim Chance: I have not heard any evidence that children have been separated from their families. Hon PETER FOSS: I did not say that. The Leader of the House’s legislation has led those people to be dispossessed. Hon Kim Chance: What in this situation compares with the events of 1905? Hon PETER FOSS: If Hon Kim Chance cannot see the parallel, that is his problem. That is one of the problems people had in 1905. Hon Kim Chance: Children were separated from their families? Hon PETER FOSS: People could not see that a social problem could not be solved by dispossessing people. If Hon Kim Chance thinks that they have not been dispossessed, he should ask them. Hon Kim Chance: I would rather you talk about what is happening than invent something that did not happen. Hon PETER FOSS: No, I am not; I am talking about what has happened as a result of the Government’s legislation. Hon Kim Chance: You are inventing something that has nothing to do with what happened as a result of this legislation. The CHAIRMAN: Order, members! One at a time Hon PETER FOSS: It is nice to know that the Leader of the House is exercising some form of massive self- justification. He seems to think that the women and children at Saunders Street - Hon Kim Chance: I would rather you told the truth. You are on the public record. Hon PETER FOSS: I said that they have been dispossessed. I maintain that they have been dispossessed. They regard themselves as dispossessed. If the Leader of the House does not think that these people, who regard themselves - Hon Kim Chance: You implied that children were taken away from their families. Hon PETER FOSS: No, I did not. I am saying it is the same thinking. Hon Kim Chance: Thank you for clarifying that; because I thought that was what you said. Hon PETER FOSS: The member should listen and perhaps he will hear what I am saying. Hon Kim Chance: You said it is the same as what happened in 1905. Hon PETER FOSS: It is the same concept that by dispossessing people a social problem will be solved. That is why children were taken away in 1905. The authorities thought that by dispossessing them they would solve a social problem. Does the Leader of the House understand that concept? Hon Kim Chance: I cannot see the relevance. Hon PETER FOSS: Hon Kim Chance might not see the relevance, but that is what I said. Hon Kim Chance: I cannot see the relevance. Events in 1905 involved the separation of families. Hon PETER FOSS: Yes, dear man! Perhaps if the member listened to the argument and stopped trying to justify the Government’s behaviour by interjections -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8371

Hon Kim Chance: I am not trying to justify anything. I would like you to tell the truth. Hon PETER FOSS: I am. Hon Kim Chance: I do not think you are, but still, you continue. Hon PETER FOSS: Obviously the Leader of the House has missed the logic. He should listen carefully in case he misses the logic again. The logic in 1905 was that by dispossessing people a social problem could be solved. I believe that is a proper statement of what was done in 1905. The dispossession was to take children away from their parents. This Government’s theory is quite different. Its theory is first to take the male parents away from the rest of the family and later to move the women on. It intended to dispossess everybody. It is the same theory - that dispossessing people would solve a social problem. Hon Kim Chance: Have you not thought about why we might want to do that? Hon PETER FOSS: I have thought about it very carefully. I am suggesting that perhaps this Government’s thinking is about 100 years out. I am suggesting that if the Government wants to solve a social problem, the way to do it is by addressing the social problem. The end result is that because of the Government’s legislation, women and children, the people who are the victims, feel that they have been dispossessed and are obliged to go to a place where they can be as Aboriginal people together - Saunders Street. I have asked the Leader of the House what the Government will do if the men follow them to Saunders Street. How has it solved the problem? Hon Kim Chance: I take it that this logic is built on the assumption that all the families are at Saunders Street. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Do you know where they are? Hon Kim Chance: Within reasonable bounds. Hon PETER FOSS: What is fascinating about this is that it does not matter where they went. The fact is that as a result of the Government’s action they have left the camp and may be joined by the males of the family. Has it occurred to the Leader of the House that that is a possibility? What will the Government do if the males join with them? What has it achieved? It has achieved probably what it intended to achieve; it has shifted the problem out of Lord Street, Bassendean. Hon Kim Chance: Why would we want to do that? Hon PETER FOSS: That is a very good question. Hon JIM SCOTT: The Greens (WA) do not support this motion and will vote against it, not simply disagree with it. We very strongly oppose it because the adoption of the message will do nothing to make the Government’s legislation any more fair or just. It does nothing except give the Government the time to go back to pretending that it is not an extreme right-wing Government after all and in a year or two it can pretend that this never happened. Hon Peter Foss is quite right: this is Administrator Neville returned to haunt us once again. I daresay that he was carrying out a role given to him by a Government. I am not sure which Government it was, and I do not particularly care because the reality is that what happened then was wrong and what is happening now is wrong. It is wrong because for all the pretence of this being for the protection of Aboriginal women and children, no measures have been put in place for their protection. No matter where those people are put, there is no plan to look after their welfare. It is a total cop out. It is also a total fallacy that this was ever to do with the protection of those people. Hon Kim Chance: What do you call moving people out of a position of danger into a position where normal community services can be provided to them? If that is not protection, what do you call it. Hon Peter Foss: That is a nonsense. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: That is absolutely stupid. Hon Kim Chance: That is outrageous. You do not even know where these people are. Hon JIM SCOTT: I would call it a very good thing if it happened, but it did not. Hon Kim Chance: What do you think happened? Hon JIM SCOTT: What I know happened is that those people have moved to another location. Hon Kim Chance: No, they have moved to a range of other locations, some in Perth and some not in Perth. They are all in places where community services people can reach them. If that was not done for their safety, what else could we have done? Hon Robin Chapple: That could have been done under the original legislation. Hon Kim Chance: No. Hon Robin Chapple: I will read the clause in a minute. Hon Kim Chance: Community services people could not get into the community.

8372 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Hon Peter Foss: That is a lie. Hon Kim Chance: That is what the Department for Community Development has said. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: That is a lie. The CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon Derrick Tomlinson! I want to listen to Hon Jim Scott. If others want to speak they will be given time, but the interjections have taken three minutes off the time of the Leader of the House. If we simply listen to each speaker, I am sure that we will make some progress. Hon JIM SCOTT: I can understand the sensitivity of members of the Government, because I know all its members separate from their party. I find it very hard therefore to imagine that all of them support what is happening here. Hon Kim Chance: I do. Hon JIM SCOTT: We have had an attempt by the use of highly insulting language to, I might say, blackmail the official Opposition into conceding on this Bill. The Government has said that opposition members are protecting rapists and molesters of women and children and supporting abuse. I heard some of the minister’s comments. I was absolutely shocked at the insinuation that was made about people who oppose the Bill that this message deals with. We all know that this Bill would never have been put on to any other community in Perth or Western Australia that was not an Aboriginal community. It would not have lasted five minutes. The noise of the outraged people outside the Parliament would have made the walls fall down. We amended the legislation to at least make it fair. I still believe that a certain amount of beat up occurred in what the Government was doing. Like Hon Norman Moore, I too had a question that could not be answered today; it was a question about what was happening to the Pyrton land and whether any developments were proposed for that area of land. It seems that the information cannot be provided to me in time for me to make any sensible judgments about how that might be affecting this legislation that this message deals with. I am very concerned about the Government’s intentions. Given the sensitivity of this legislation, I would have thought that the Government would endeavour to answer that question. By not answering the Government does give an answer. I asked about what development was proposed for that area. I forget the answer, but the gist was that given the breadth of information requested by the member, the minister is unable to provide an answer at this time. That clearly means that some development proposal is being put together for next door. If there were no proposal, the answer would have been a short “No; not relevant.” The Government gave me an answer, and something is being done on the land next door; the non-answer tells me that clearly. The Government does not want to tell us about this proposal during this debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us about the relationship between any development next door and the proposal to throw people off this site. I am concerned. Hon Kim Chance: Are you assuming there has been a change in the ownership of the land in some way? Hon JIM SCOTT: No. It will still be crown land. I refer to the adjacent land. Hon Kim Chance: But it would have to come back to Parliament to change its status. Hon Peter Foss: It is a C-class reserve. Hon JIM SCOTT: That is right. I refer to the Pyrton land. The Minister for State Development said that the land jointly managed by the Aboriginal community and local government will be taken out of the hands of the Aboriginal community and put into the hands of the local government. Also, he said he was considering housing for the area adjacent to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community settlement. Would it not be nice and convenient to move people out for a couple of years while it all went ahead? It would be highly convenient. I do not suppose that proposal has anything whatsoever to do the legislation; however, I cannot help being just a little suspicious. Whatever I have heard about problems at the camp - these problems are happening not only in that camp, but in many camps and many communities, white and Aboriginal, around Australia - some level of improvement appears to have taken place since the memorandum of understanding was developed. Hon Derrick Tomlinson presented some documents to this place during earlier debate on the Bill in this regard. We know that changes have occurred. HON MURRAY CRIDDLE: The approach to this legislation from the very beginning has been anything but good. The Bill was rushed into the lower House, and it arrived here the following morning. Unfortunately, I was not here when it was introduced into this Chamber. I returned to Parliament at lunchtime on that day, and members were considering during that recess how to deal with the legislation. Under a very rushed process, amendments were made that were not accepted by the Government in the other place. I am sure the Leader of the House will remember clearly when I said that the onus for the legislation falls squarely on the Government in its approach to the community. Hon Kim Chance: As it should. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: The Leader of the House agreed at the time to accept that responsibility on behalf of the Government. Having been through the process, and having had a couple of weeks to consider the Bill further, we must know that the Government is absolutely assured that the reasons provided are correct and that evidence exists that maltreatment has occurred in this community. The Government has now put itself in a position of enormous scrutiny in how it handles not only this community, but every other community in the State. That is the essence of the process.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8373

The Gordon inquiry touched only briefly on the Swan Valley community. It stated that difficulties are found in communities throughout the State. If the Government takes action on this community without dealing with the issue across the State - bearing in mind the cultural issues involved within these difficulties - the Government will be condemned into the future. Hon Kim Chance: We already have done so. Be fair. The massive response to the Gordon inquiry has taken on that responsibility. This was a unique set of circumstances that had to be dealt with. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I am pleased that the Leader of the Government said it is a unique set of circumstances. I have knowledge of difficulties in other communities. Hon Kim Chance: Of course. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I refer to very serious difficulties with young people being interfered with in ways that are unacceptable to our way of thinking and to the run of the mill expectation of people’s behaviour. Hon Kim Chance: That is not denied, but at least we have access to those communities. We couldn’t get access to the community in question. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I am very interested in the comments of the Leader of the House. His solution in this case was to put this legislation in place. I take it to be a means of shifting those people from that camp into the general community so that the Department for Community Development can deal with these issues. This problem has been created by a number of people, as was explained when the legislation was last before the Chamber. Some people in that community were acting outside the law. If we shift these people into the general community, the Government must give an assurance that these people will be dealt with and not allowed to access people in the general community and cause the same problems. Otherwise, we will go nowhere. That is the heart of the problem. Such an assurance must be given if the legislation is to have any meaning at all. Otherwise, we will not solve the problem in the community - if, indeed, there is a problem. Members opposite tell me there is a problem. I have spoken to people on this matter. I was stopped on the way into this place in the past hour. Due to an unfortunate circumstance, I arrived a little late. People have approached me and said there is no issue in the community, yet I come in here and am told these issues exist. The Government has a responsibility to clear up the situation, and not only in the Swan Valley community. If people are shifted to other areas, problems must be cleared up in those areas also. No interference can be permitted with families in places to which people are moved. Does the Government have housing to accommodate these people in other environments? Hon Kim Chance: Yes. Hon Peter Foss: Can you guarantee they can be safe there? Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: Hon Peter Foss asks for the same assurance. The Leader of the House is nodding and saying that the Government will deal with the matter, and that the Department for Community Development will be the mechanism for this process. However, it is claimed that current mechanisms can deal with the matter. The Government has chosen this method of legislation, and it is up to the Government to deliver. I ask the Government to deliver not just in this community but also in any other communities in which there is evidence of this sort of activity, and to take on that responsibility. Hon Kim Chance: And that is the Gordon inquiry response. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: The Gordon inquiry response says that. I know the Government has spoken of putting policemen in remote areas in the north, and I understand the budget accommodates that. However, that must not be just the start of it; the Government must deal with the issue. It must clean up those communities. I make the point that this legislation is absolutely useless if it does not solve the problem in the community to which these people will be moved. Finally, the Government has taken on the responsibility and it must deal with this issue. I for one will be watching it, as, I am sure, will a lot of other people. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: In the 1970s a considerable number of camps were closed around the metropolitan area with the purpose of trying to salt and pepper the community, which was the expression used at the time. Certain indigenous communities wanted to stay together, and they have stayed together not only in the Perth area but also in other areas across the State. This legislation sought to deal with a perceived problem by a method that was draconian in the extreme. The relevance of one of the amendments that was made in this Chamber, which is the function of this message, was to deal with clause 8. Clause 8 really worries me, and, I suggest, it should worry every member of the Labor Party, because it excludes the rules of natural justice. Under clause 7(3), an administrator can direct a person not to enter the reserve during a period of time specified in the direction or until such time as the direction is revoked and can direct a person to leave that reserve. Would it not be nice if, because we have established this premise, some Government in the future, of whatever persuasion, determines that this provision is required for every union site in Perth and that the rules known as natural justice, including any duty of procedural fairness, will not apply in relation to a direction by an administrator for any

8374 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] particular site? It is a horrendous piece of legislation, which should not be contemplated in any State or in the Commonwealth of this great nation of ours. I return to what I said before to the Leader of the House when he said that we needed to do this to gain control. The primary effect of the Bill is to revoke the vesting order. The purpose of that is to be able to move people on and off the community site at the direction of the administrator without the right of legal recourse. That could have been done. It was capable of being done pursuant to the power in section 50(2) of the Land Administration Act 1997, so why did the Government not use that method? Hon Kim Chance: Because it is judicial. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Is it because the Government does not want to allow people the right to defend themselves? Hon Kim Chance: In the six to 12 months it is in court; who protects them then? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: So people have no rights! Can the Leader of the House tell me that the Government will not do it to any other community in Western Australia? According to the Sue Gordon report, quite clearly there are similar problems across the State. Hon Kim Chance: I do not see any other community in these circumstances. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I will tell you the names of 10. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will allow my colleague opposite to deal with that. Hon Kim Chance: That is nonsense. There is not one community that is parallel to this one. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: There are 10. Hon Kim Chance: That is what unique means. Hon Dee Margetts: However, let that not make a difference to the kinds of decisions that the minister will make. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I thank members for their interjections. Earlier Hon Robyn McSweeney asked a question about the reported statistics of child sexual abuse in each Aboriginal community. One presumes that if this raft of evidence is before us, the minister who answered the question would have been able to give some statistics. The answer to that question states that statistics cannot be provided for each Aboriginal community as the Department for Community Development records child maltreatment allegations by the last known address. Where was the last known address of most of the people living at the Lockridge camp? One presumes that it was the Lockridge camp, so the Government should be able to provide some statistical information. In the briefings that we were given there was a great deal of generalisation. Where is the evidence? If it exists, let us see it. Show me the money! Hon Kim Chance: You are quite happy to just let it go on happening. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, I am not happy. Hon Kim Chance: Run your property rights argument; go for your life. You were just going to let it happen. Hon Peter Foss: You don’t have any figures. Hon Derrick Tomlinson says that there are another 10 and you say not, but you do not have the figures. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon Robin Chapple has the call. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I now move on to our illustrious Premier. Recently, there was a bit of a shemozzle about this place. According to the transcript of the ABC news on 27 May 2003, the Premier, when referring to this Chamber, said - “I think there is a bloody mindedness developing amongst some of the Legislative Councillors as they try to block government legislation. Look our view is the Legislative Council is a house of review not a house of obstruction” Did we get a chance to review this legislation? No; absolutely not! It is obscene. In doing that, the Premier stated that the legislation he considered we were holding up was legislation to introduce measures to close the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I suggest to members and colleagues opposite that two days in which to draft, introduce and pass through this Chamber a piece of legislation was not holding up the legislation in any way, shape or form. If we had had due process, which I thought the Leader of the House would have wanted to fulfil, the legislation would have sat on the Table at least for the normal week and then we could have dealt with it in Committee so that we could have established the validity of any of the information that was being bandied around in the community of which we have not seen any evidence. We had a briefing, as did members opposite, but at no time were we shown evidence. Show me the money! Hon Peter Foss: He also said that the Leader of the House should get his upper House under control. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes, and under control we are. Interestingly, I refer to Hansard of Tuesday, 3 June 2003, after our raft of very good amendments moved by my colleague opposite were sent to the other House. Dr Gallop, the Premier, stated -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8375

As members know, the Government was presented with evidence that there were continuing problems in relation to the safety of women and children living at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community and that unacceptable levels of risk are associated with that community. I am still waiting to see the evidence. I have no doubt that the Government has a genuine intent, but it should use due process; it should not create a monster that will hang around and haunt it into the future. As my colleagues opposite said, when these people go into other communities, will the Government say that those people in those other communities are at risk and will it therefore introduce the same legislation? We must remember why these communities came about. They came about because certain groups of indigenous people wished to remain together in the community as extended families, which is one of the functions of Aboriginality. The community went down this path and went through a great deal of pain and effort to get the Lockridge site in the first place. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Let us not lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of the action taken by the Government is to protect the women and children of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community from physical violence and sexual abuse. Like Hon Robin Chapple, when Liberal Party members were briefed on the Bill, I asked if we could be given examples of the sorts of matters the Government was concerned about. I was given two examples: the first was of a 13-year-old girl who had sought the protection of the Department for Community Development and she was in the care and protection of the DCD; the second example was a youth treated for broken limbs - at first it was legs and arms - who it was alleged had had his legs and arms broken when he was trying to escape from the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. That is very, very serious. I made my own inquiries. The 13-year-old girl in question has never lived in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I will not give members her address at the time, but she lived in a street in Lockridge. Before that she had lived in another street in Lockridge. Before that she had lived in Ashfield. Her mother was deceased. I will not tell members about the relationship of the mother to Robert Bropho. This girl lived with her father and she constantly ran away from home. The Kiara and, before that, the Lockridge Police Stations were constantly receiving reports that the child was missing. She refused to live at home with her father; I will not speculate why. At the time in question she had run away from home and had gone to an aunt in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. From there she went to another aunt in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community, where she was living with the aunt, her husband and their children. I am told that the DCD said, “That is the best place for her until such time as we can make other appropriate arrangements.” The father created such a fuss that the two people with whom the young 13-year-old was living, in discussion with DCD officers - I am told - and certainly with Sergeant Jim Clarysse of the Kiara Police Station, agreed that she could no longer live with them in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. It was agreed, at her request, that she be taken to another aunt in Forrestfield. She was taken from the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to Forrestfield by Sergeant Jim Clarysse, the sergeant in charge of the Kiara Police Station, who yesterday in the Queen’s Birthday honours list was awarded an Australian Police Medal. Last year he was nominated Police Officer of the Year for the Western Australia Police Service. I think he could be described as a good cop. Sergeant Clarysse took the young girl to live with her aunt in Forrestfield and described her at the time as cheerful, happy and willing. What happened thereafter I am not certain, because one story is that she left the house as soon as the police car was around the corner, and another is that she left the house two days later. She was, to the best of my knowledge, living with her 22-year-old sister, whom I will talk about shortly. I now refer to the youth treated for broken limbs. I asked Sergeant Clarysse if there had been an incident involving a boy who had had his limbs broken when trying to escape this community. Sergeant Clarysse’s answer was, “There has not been an assault occasioning those sorts of wounds in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community in the last 18 months, certainly not since the Gordon report was brought down.” The 13-year-old boy is the brother of the 13-year-old girl. He did break two legs. He broke two legs while climbing an electric transmission pylon in Ashfield. He fell and broke both legs. He certainly did visit the Swan Valley Nyungah Community - in a wheelchair - but he was not assaulted in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The third example is of a 22-year-old, which example was interestingly leaked to The West Australian newspaper. We were told this 22-year-old woman was living in a safe house and that she is the sister of the 13-year-old girl. She has not lived in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community since 1991. She sought and was given assistance by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. ATSIC found a house for her and, during the week in question, she was moved from one house to another, until eventually ATSIC found her a permanent home. It is my understanding that the 13- year-old now lives with her. When those matters were given to me as examples of what was happening in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community - and none of them did occur in that community - I was concerned. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: As I was indicating before the dinner suspension, the information that I had been given was not consistent with the information that had been given to me by the Government’s policy advisers. The other matter that has been given considerable prominence in this debate is access by relevant government agencies to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. This issue was also given considerable prominence in the coronial report by Mr Alastair Hope into the death of Susan Ann Taylor. Mr Hope cited, for example, evidence from Senior Sergeant

8376 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Brett Lee that the police were intimidated, and evidence from the Department for Community Development that its officers were intimidated, when going into the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I can tell members that the police are not fearful about entering the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. Certainly before 1999 the police used to describe the Swan Valley Nyungah Community as a hellhole. Before 1999 they would not go in there with a single police car but would go in with two police cars. Before 1999 they would chase stolen cars as far as the gate and go no further, the same as they did at Cullacabardee. I asked Sergeant Clarysse whether he or his officers from the Kiara Police Station have had any problem with access to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. His answer was that he and his officers have free and open access and are unimpeded in going about their duties within the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. He said that as a courtesy, he always reports to the office and lets them know that he is there. He does that for a very practical reason. There are 16 houses in the community - I call them houses - and there are seven families, and at any time those seven families move among those 16 houses. I am told that is not unusual in Aboriginal communities. I look to Hon Tom Stephens for advice, because he is better versed in this than I am. Sergeant Clarysse said that he would go to the office so they could tell him where the people he wanted to interview were at that particular moment, because otherwise he would not know where they were. I notice Hon Tom Stephens is nodding his head. I hope that is in agreement. Hon Tom Stephens: It may or may not be. I am actually nodding my head to Hon Nick Griffiths. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: That is very important, because one of the matters that was raised in the letters from Tara Gupta, the DCD legal officer, and from the chief executive officer of the Department of Health, Mike Daube, which I read during the second reading debate, was that the management agreement put forward by the Swan Valley Nyungah Community requested two things; namely, that visitors to the community come to the office, and that they properly identify themselves. That is nothing more than a courtesy, but it becomes an important practical issue when we want to find the people we wish to speak to. What Sergeant Clarysse said about free and open access to the community was confirmed by Acting Superintendent Bob Mumme, who is in charge of the Midland Police District. Hon Kim Chance: Was this confirmed by the Department for Community Development? Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Let me get to the Department for Community Development. I will save that. Do not anticipate me. I will take perhaps half an hour to get there, but I will get there. I asked Bob Bropho, in the presence of Sergeant Clarysse, whether the community has the same relationship with the DCD, and he said no. Sergeant Clarysse said that the DCD officers are afraid to come into the community unattended; therefore they always contact him and he accompanies them to the camp. He said that is also very convenient because it gives him a reason to be in the community as well. He said he follows the practice of going to the office with the DCD officers, and they then go their separate ways and he is unimpeded in his duties. I make no judgment about the DCD officers, because I do not know, but they have not built the same bridges as the Police Service. The issue of access is very important, because it was one of the seminal issues raised by Mr Hope in his report on the investigation into the death of Susan Taylor. It was also one of the seminal issues raised in the Gordon report. The report of the Gordon inquiry, titled “Putting the picture together - Inquiry into Response by Government Agencies to Complaints of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Aboriginal Communities” states in recommendation 141 on page 380 - The Inquiry recommends that urgent steps be taken to develop Memorandum of Understanding between the Swan Valley Nyungah Community and those government agencies which may reasonably seek access to that community. In developing those Memoranda of Understanding, the conclusion of the Inquiry as to the good faith of service providers and the legitimate exercise of government function, ought to be taken into account. The Government’s response to the inquiry, titled “Putting People First”, is silent on that issue. Robert Bropho wrote to the Premier on 17 October 2002 and said, in part - We have seen no understanding by you and your Ministers and Government agencies of the suffering of our People either before or after this inquiry. If the Government is serious in aiding the children, young people, women and men of our Community and all Aboriginal communities in Western Australia then we ask your Government now to begin negotiating Memoranda of Understanding with us. We want this help that the Gordon inquiry recommended to you. We don’t want the continuation of attacks from your Government. Robert Bropho, as the spokesperson for the community, wrote to the Premier and asked to commence negotiations for the memoranda of understanding that the Gordon report had recommended. However, the Premier did not reply. Robert Bropho wrote to the Premier again on 5 November 2002 - We are writing to you once again as Mainstream Aboriginal People. This is our second letter of concern with the Memoranda of Understanding between the Government and Aboriginal communities which were recommended by the Gordon inquiry. We have come to the conclusion that we, the Mainstream Aboriginal People and Aboriginal Communities must outline to you the way these Memoranda of Understanding have got to come from the Aboriginal Communities.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8377

Robert Bropho then laid down what could be described as an ambit claim. He said that any memorandum of understanding for access by any agency - the Department for Community Development, the Police Service, the Department of Health - must be culturally appropriate. He did not use the buzz term of government agencies; he spoke in his own language. However, he was saying that any memorandum of understanding for access must be culturally appropriate to all communities in Western Australia. The Premier did not reply. There is no memorandum of understanding negotiated with the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. There has been no memorandum of understanding negotiated with the Swan Valley Nyungah Community by any government agency, in spite of the very strong recommendation of the Gordon inquiry; yet I heard this Leader of the House boast, “We have done so much.” What has the Government done? It has put police officers into remote communities; it has put DCD officers into remote areas; but it has not entered into negotiations so that there can be dialogue in culturally appropriate terms. Hon Kim Chance: What a load of nonsense! Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Is it a load of nonsense? Hon Kim Chance: Yes. There was - Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: I am so pleased to hear that. Hon Kim Chance: Hang on! Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: I am reading it from the people behind you. Go ahead. Hon Kim Chance: You have read it incorrectly. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Have I? Hon Kim Chance: A new management order was created post Gordon in consultation with the community. The management plan arose from that. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Let us be quite clear about the difference between a management order and the management plan. Hon Kim Chance: It was about guaranteeing access. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Let me finish! I gave the Leader of the House a chance. Hon Kim Chance: You are talking a load of nonsense. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: I gave the Leader of the House a chance, so he should shut up and listen. Hon Kim Chance: Go on talking nonsense then. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. I am prepared to let this debate run as members want it run but I do not want that sort of interchange. If we are to have that sort of interchange, every member is entitled to be involved in it. I draw the attention of members to a small matter of procedure. We are dealing with Assembly message No 77 and the motion moved by the Leader of the House. It is not a repeat of the second reading stage of the debate. We are in the Chamber to vote either for or against a proposition by the Legislative Assembly not to insist on amendments 2 to 13 and to agree to an amendment in substitution for Council’s amendment No 1. That is what the debate is all about and we will be on safe ground if members address their comments to those issues. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will continue to explain why I cannot accept the message from the Legislative Assembly and why I cannot accept this Bill. In passing, I will distinguish between a memorandum of understanding between each agency and the Swan Valley Nyungah Community - because that is clearly what the Gordon report recommended - the management order that is registered with the Department of Land Administration, which is required to be complied with, and the response by the Swan Valley Nyungah Community, which was received in May this year. Six days before the Bill was brought into the House, opinions were given by Tara Gupta, the Director of Legal Services for the Department for Community Development, and Mike Daube, the Director General of the Department of Health, that the community’s response to the management order was inconsistent. The Government’s response was to come into the House with legislation to revoke the management order. I distinguish quite clearly between a management order and a memorandum of understanding. I now move to an issue that is pertinent to the Bill; that is, the protection of women and children. For the purpose of argument, let us accept the proposition that 60 per cent of boys over the age of 10 in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community are regularly sodomised. Let us accept the proposition that there is not a single virgin female over the age of 10 in that community and that they have been deflowered either consensually or violently. I will give some background to those propositions. I draw the attention of members to the case of a two-and-a-half-year-old child who was raped by a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old. The 15-year-old pleaded guilty and was imprisoned. The 19-year-old, when he was 22, pleaded not guilty, went to trial, was found guilty and was imprisoned for 14 years. The rape of that child was an abominable act.

8378 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

What I now say I say with considerable caution, because the people who told me the story are fearful of retribution. I am waiting for the attention of the Leader of the House. The people who told me this are fearful of retribution from the Department for Community Development. If there is retribution, I will shout it from the hilltops. Hon Kim Chance: I am sorry, we did not hear. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: I will shout from the rooftops if retribution is exercised on a particular family by the Department for Community Development. Did the Leader of the House hear me? Hon Kim Chance: Thank you, I heard then. I am not too sure though what the retribution is for. We have heard about two criminal acts and two convictions. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: I have given that caution to the Leader of the House. On the night that the two-and-a-half-year-old child was raped, she was in bed with a 10-year-old boy, to the best of my knowledge quite innocently sleeping. The 15-year-old and the 19-year-old raped the child and stuffed her in a cupboard. They both then raped the 10-year-old boy. After they had left, the 10-year old boy followed a trail of blood to where the two-and-a-half-year-old girl was in the cupboard. He bundled her up and took her to Robert Bropho, who called an ambulance and the child was taken to hospital. Thereafter, the boy was regularly sodomised by the 15 and 19- year-olds. When the boy’s mother was imprisoned, he was taken into care by the Department for Community Development. He has a brother who was taken into care and subsequently placed into the care of the same family. I will not describe his condition when he was unceremoniously dumped with that family by the DCD officers. The foster parents sat with him for 36 hours while he detoxified from substance abuse. To the best of my knowledge, that boy is now 12 or 13 years of age. As a result of the policy of the Department for Community Development, he is now living in suburban Perth with his mother. No legal action against the rape and sodomy has been taken. It was his disclosure that led to the imprisonment of the 15-year-old and the 19-year-old. He gave a detailed disclosure to two police officers after disclosing what had happened to his foster mother. No action has been taken. In that disclosure he described in detail, and drew a map of, the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. He also described sexual and physical abuses that defy the civilised imagination. To the best of my knowledge, his statement is still with the police and no action has been taken. If we were to follow the consequences of that story through, we would find that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community does not have offenders and victims; rather, it is a community that offends against itself. It is a community in which everyone is an offender and everyone is a victim. It is a community in which a wife is regularly beaten by her husband; where a husband ties a chain around his wife’s neck and drags her around the house like she is a dog, continually kicking her. To say that that is a dysfunctional community is an understatement. It is an anomic community; it has none of the norms of a contemporary society. It is a community that is totally oppressed by a few. It is a community in which people offend each against the other. It is an oppressed community. That type of scenario was given as evidence during the coronial inquiry into the death of Susan Taylor. Such evidence was accumulated by the Gordon inquiry but never reported, because the Gordon inquiry was not asked to report on it. It is the type of disclosure that the DCD has received many times over. How do we break that cycle of offending? The Government’s solution is to dispossess these people and to take from them the one thing they hold onto as real - their land. I do not want to enter into an argument about land rights; nor do I want to enter into an argument about Aboriginal people’s genealogy. I want the Government to accept that the one thing that is real to these people is the land that was given to them. It was offered to them as freehold by the previous Government. That offer was rejected; instead, they asked for a reserve. This Bill will take away that reserve. The second thing that the Bill will do is remove four men from the camp, whom I will not name. Two of them have families who will be immediately relocated into housing in Midland. The other two men do not have families and appropriate accommodation will be found for them. The Department of Housing and Works will find alternative housing for the other five families; it has already identified some appropriate housing. An administrator will be introduced to the community and he will negotiate the future use of that community with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority. The Government believes that the immediate closure of the community is the best way to help the women and children. It wants to remove them from the one place where they have an identity and put them into Homeswest housing - whether in the metropolitan area, Northam, Moora or Merredin - where they will continue to receive services. Fat chance. The moment the Government disperses that family - I say that family because it is the Bropho family - we will lose every chance of connecting with that family. I will tell the Government the preferences of the DCD and the Gordon inquiry Midland implementation group. Assistant Superintendent Mumme agrees that it is important that the oppressors leave the community and that more progress could be made if they are not in the community. He stated that progress has been made - in fact, the last meeting of the Gordon inquiry Midland implementation group was scheduled to be at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community on 28 May - but more progress could be made. He asked that the community not be disbanded because we have a better chance of working with those people as a community. The DCD - I have had discussions with the chief executive officer - has stated that the extent of the damage caused to the people in that community is a big unknown. However, it also stated that the best chance to deal with the situation is to make a connection with the women because every Aboriginal community throughout Australia that has redeemed itself has done so because its women have been

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8379 empowered to do so. That is irrefutable fact. DCD says its best chance is to connect with the women, and then start dealing with them as a community. It needs to interact with them as a community, and then start to deal with the children. If it does that, it might make some progress. It does not know how damaged those children and women are, and it is a little pessimistic about redeeming the life chances of any of them, but it says its best chance is to work with them as a community within the community, with the oppressors out. It may then be possible to relocate them. I asked how long that would take, and the answer was, “How long is a piece of string?” The department does not know how long it will take because it does not know what it is dealing with or how it will deal with it. However, it knows that its best chance is to work in that community and engage with the women and children as a community. It needs to empower them and enable them to speak. The disclosures will be traumatic and will probably cause additional dislocation. The cycle will continue, but the department must try to work within the community and as a community. I wonder if the Premier met with the superintendent at the Midland police station or if he sought the advice of the Midland implementation group of the Gordon inquiry. I wonder if the Premier spoke to the Department for Community Development. I know that the Premier made the decision to close the camp on the Friday before the legislation was introduced into this place. He made the decision in consultation with three officers, one of whom I know. Mick Gooda is not even an officer of a Western Australian government department; he is the state director of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I can only assume that one of the other officers represented the Department of Health. I do not know. The Premier’s decision was made six days before the legislation came into this place. The Premier’s decision was to close that camp and relocate the people; in other words, to dispossess them of their land, the one thing that they hold real - I will not argue about the possessive pronoun. The Premier will dispossess them of that land but pretend he is protecting the women and children. Hon Peter Foss told us the obvious truth. Those people will be put outside that camp. They will be moved away from the protection of the administrator, the fence around the camp and the protective services the administrator is authorised to employ. They will be dispersed throughout the metropolitan area. That will result in not the resolution of the problem but the dispersal of the problem. It will be impossible for DCD, the Police Service and the Department of Health to protect those women and children. The worst- case scenario I put to this Chamber is that this is a community in which there are no offenders or victims but in which each person in each of the families in each of the houses offends against the other. There will be the continuation of brutal bashings and violent sexual abuse of the women and sodomy of the boys. The sodomy is perpetrated not by the men against the boys but by the boys against the boys. That is why I cannot support this Bill. It will deny those people every fundamental right an individual has. It will dispossess those people. It will deny them their rights before a court and take away their fundamental human rights. I cannot countenance that against anybody. I do not care what people have done or who they are, every person in our society has rights. The Birnies had access to the courts, and what they did was beyond imagination. The Greenough murderer retained those rights. In that case it was not a DCD officer who took sick leave because frail 74-year-old Robert Bropho ran at him waving a waddy; the superintendent of forensic services in the Police Service resigned because he was so sickened by what he saw that he could not stand it any more. The Greenough murderer was not denied his rights. Hon Kim Chance: Nor has anybody in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community who has been charged. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: Nobody in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community has been charged, but the Leader of the House and his Government have judged those people guilty. What are they guilty of? When the Government received a disclosure that a 10-year-old boy had been raped, it put him back in the care of his mother. That is a disgusting offence on the Government’s part. Hon Kim Chance: That is assuming that what you say is truthful. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: He says to me that it is disgusting, assuming what I say is true. The Government has asked this Parliament to deny 35 people their fundamental human rights on the basis of its word, and it is now saying to me that it does not trust what I am saying. I have demonstrated that what the Government said to us was patently false. Hon Kim Chance: You demonstrated nothing. You just made a fool of yourself. Hon DERRICK TOMLINSON: I not only do not support the message from the lower House, but also will vote against it. I supported the original amendments and voted for the Bill, but had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for even the amendments. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I found that particularly emotional statement of the member opposite very difficult to follow; however, one thing the member alluded to was the value of community. I will read briefly from a statutory declaration made by the Swan Valley Nyungah Community on the sixth day of the fifth month of 1985 about how the people there wanted to manage their community. Members need to understand it in the light of what Hon Derrick Tomlinson said about the value of community. The CHAIRMAN: Does this relate to the amendments? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: It certainly does relate to the amendments; it is fundamental to why we must oppose the message sent from the other House. The declaration states -

8380 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

It was agreed that we the fringedwellers of the Swan Valley, Saunders Street and Lockridge, that there was to be no committee set up among us, that we the fringedwellers would stay as a body of people and that decisions would be made through all of us. In other words every member of the community is the committee. It is very important for members to understand this. I am sure that if Hon Tom Stephens were here, he would be able to account for the value of community. I refer to a letter that goes to the thrust of this Bill and also the message received from the Legislative Assembly. The letter, dated 29 April 2003, was sent by the ATSIC board, not its administration, and was signed by Gordon Cole, Chairperson, Perth Noongar Regional Council, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It was sent to Richard Curry, Director General, Department of Indigenous Affairs, and states - Dear Richard INDIGENOUS URBAN SETTLEMENTS PROJECT At the April 2003 meeting of the Perth Noongar Regional Council, a paper was presented to the Council advising that DIA is seeking ATSIC advice on the Council’s position on the future of four urban settlements: Cullacabardee, Henley Brook, Nyoongah Community Inc; and Swan Valley Nyungah Community. After considering the paper and engaging in considerable discussion, the Council made the following decision (decision no 022): “That the Perth Noongar Regional Council strongly oppose the wholesale closure of Cullacabardee, Henley Brook (Saunders Street), Nyoongah Community Inc Gnangara and Swan Valley Nyungah Community, and supports a review by ATSIC and DIA of the four settlements to include but not be limited to the following matters: We are told that the message and the original Bill relate to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. Quite clearly, the ATSIC Perth Noongar Regional Council, not the ATSIC administration or Mick Gooda, was well aware in April 2003 that plans were afoot. If the Leader of the House has any knowledge of this matter, I want him to deny that there are any plans to close any other communities, because, quite clearly, the ATSIC regional council was aware of this plan back in April 2003. I await the minister’s answer on that matter. Hon Kim Chance: I know of no such plans. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will table the letter so that the minister can become fully aware of the situation. Hon Kim Chance: Table what you like; there are no such plans. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I seek leave to table the letter. Leave granted. [See paper No 1118.] Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will refer to an element of the Bill on which the message is based and ask a further question of the Leader of the House. Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the revocation of management order No I262262 and its effect. Subclause (2) states - The revocation, under subsection (1), of management order no. I262262 has effect as if it were a revocation of a management order under the LAA section 50(2). Section 50(2) of the Land Administration Act states - If, in the absence of agreement or non-compliance referred to in subsection (1), the Minister considers that it is in the public interest to revoke a management order, the Minister may by order revoke the management order. Subsection (3) states - On the revocation of a management order or an order made under section 33 of the repealed Act or section 42 or 43 of the Land Act 1898 - Subsection (3) basically goes on to state that compensation is payable - I will not read it all to get to that point. If compensation is payable for the loss of property - not the loss of land - does the minister concede that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community Aboriginal Corporation should be paid compensation for its assets? The federal Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has raised concerns about the assets of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The property I refer to is 13 houses, two wind turbines, a battery house, solar panels and an inverter, which were funded by the State Government, the Perth International Centre for Application of Solar Energy, the Office of Energy and ATSIC. That property is worth approximately $1.5 million. The Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations is very concerned, on an administrative level, about what will happen to the property owned by the Swan Valley Nyungah Community Aboriginal Corporation on that land. It will be very interesting to see whether the Government, in response to the passage of the amended legislation that has come up from the Legislative Assembly, will pay that level of compensation. I will be very interested to hear what the minister has to say on that point.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8381

Hon Derrick Tomlinson earlier raised the issue of community and of communities in other areas that are perhaps dysfunctional. In that context I refer to an article that appeared in The West Australian of Saturday, 7 June 2003. The article quoted Sue Gordon, who, when speaking at a family violence networking morning, said that many communities were going through horrific periods. Taking those points on board, does the Government intend in the future to consider any other communities, as identified by Sue Gordon? The end of the article is interesting. It refers to Ms Gordon’s report and states - Ms Gordon said one of the recommendations was for a children’s commissioner and deputy children’s commissioner but it had not been followed through by the Government. Hon Derrick Tomlinson was alluding to the fact that we are trying to - The CHAIRMAN: Order, members! I will say it again: we are dealing with the amendments that relate to message No 77. I will have the amendments distributed if members require them. If any member raises an issue with a clause, it must relate to the amendments sent to the Legislative Assembly. At the moment, members are getting into a second reading debate. I will send Hon Robin Chapple a copy of the amendments that were sent to the Assembly, so that when he relates his comments to clause 4, he speaks about why lines 28 to 30 should be deleted. That is the question concerning clause 4. I have given members a fair bit of latitude because I know they want to express their views generally. However, members cannot re-run the second reading debate. I do not want to restrict the member because, more than other members, he is referring to the issue before the Chair. Occasionally, if members mention a clause, it would make me feel as though we were in committee. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In dealing with this whole sorry affair, the issue is that in many cases the Parliament is not following the recommendations of the Gordon report. I believe we are setting an extremely dangerous precedent. The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to cut off Hon Robin Chapple, but Hon Frank Hough is the next speaker. He has sought the call three times. However, I must insist that members - as Hon Robin Chapple was doing, although he was not relating his comments to specific clauses - must relate their comments to the amendments that have been rejected by the Legislative Assembly. Hon FRANK HOUGH: One Nation will support the Labor Party on this Bill. Our major concern is for the children of the camp. The history of this issue has been bigger than a Barnum and Bailey Circus. The Liberal Party did not take the bull by the horns years ago and do what the Premier has had the courage to do. Rightly or wrongly, it had to be done. I have spoken about this Bill with my Nyoongah friends. They are divided 50-50 on it. If someone does not make a move, the situation will continue forever. Geoff Gallop, the honourable Premier, has had the courage to make the move. I ask the Premier to consider the women and children of the camp. The Labor Party’s social agenda supports families, which is why I am confident that it will support the women and children in this situation. The Bill does not deal with the four or five people who perpetrated these horrific crimes. I suggest that the Premier should talk with the Police Service, take the evidence to the camp, place it on the table, arrest the offenders and have them dealt with accordingly. That would stop the hoo-ha of who is right and who is wrong. The camp must be closed. It has become a Barnum and Bailey Circus. We can all be emotional about this issue. The Premier has had the courage to stand up to those people in the camp. I am not a Labor supporter, but at least the Labor Party has done something about the issue. Having listened to the rhetoric of the previous speakers, it appears that the Liberal Party will support allowing the camp to stay open. Hon Norman Moore: You should have listened to what I said. The Liberal Party will support the Government’s legislation. Hon FRANK HOUGH: That is very good. I was listening to the rhetoric and I must have been lead down the wrong track. This has been one of those social and emotional issues that has got in the gut of every Western Australian. For some time, everyone has been asking why the issue has not been addressed before today. In my opinion, it is now being addressed. I place my confidence in the Labor Party. I believe that the Labor Party’s social policies will ensure that it supports the women and children in the camp and that it will do the right thing by them. I do not think that the Labor Party would kick those families out onto the streets and expect them to fend for themselves. I am confident the Labor Party will stand by them. There would be a public outcry if the Labor Party threw those people onto the streets. The Labor Party is smart enough to address that matter. I hope the Labor Party is smart enough to address the issue of the people who have committed crimes in the camp. They should be brought to justice. It is most important to do that. If it is not done, people will believe that the Labor Party has made this popular decision to cover up for its industrial relations and gay and lesbian Bills. The Leader of the House will say that is not true. He will say that the Government is serious about closing the camp, placing the families in care and addressing the needs of those people. Some Nyoongah people have told me that the main reason for closing the camp is so Morley Drive can be built through it. They say the Government wants to reclaim the land. I do not think that is true, but time will tell.

8382 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Every three to six months I hear that Robert Bropho, a 75-year-old man, keeps police out of the compound and will not let them fulfil their duties. I find that rather amusing. Robert Bropho is a nice old fellow - he is an old fellow at least. People would not shake in their boots if he came at them with a club. I do not see any great problems with Robert Bropho. However, I do not know about his sons and cousins. I do not think Robert is a pariah when the police go into the camp. Before the amendments were made to this Bill, an arbitrator should have gone into the camp to manage it. The perpetrators should have been arrested and then the needs of the women and children should have been considered. They could have been placed in appropriate accommodation in the community. I believe that having lived too closely together, familiarity has bred contempt. The residents have come to hold each other in contempt. They should be separated when they go to live in the broader community. They could still visit one another on the weekends. The contempt will disappear over time. As I said, One Nation will support the Labor Party. The minister has written down our concerns. I hope that they are fully addressed. Hon PETER FOSS: I will relate to members the reasons that the Legislative Assembly’s amendments should be rejected. This matter started off on the wrong foot when the Government sought to pass the legislation through the Parliament so quickly. No matter how good a measure might be - I am not saying this is a good measure - I do not know of any measure that has been improved by haste. There were problems with it, because it was clear that the drafting was very late. A briefing was cancelled on the Thursday because the drafting of the Bill was not complete. The Opposition had 10 minutes in which to draft the proposed amendments. I am pleased to say that Greg McIntyre has said that he cannot believe how well they were drafted in the 10 minutes we had. However, that is not the ideal way to look at a Bill, to test the reasons given for it, or to amend it. The ideal way is to take some time and do it properly. It is interesting to hear the argument from the Leader of the House who is suggesting that he has all his facts right while Hon Derrick Tomlinson has all his wrong. I am not sure that it is the role of Parliament to engage in decisions between parties about who is right and who is wrong in a factual dispute. That is something more properly dealt with by courts than by Parliament. We are not really triers of fact. However, if we intend to rely on these facts as the basis for passing this legislation, rather than the principle - I prefer the principle - at least there must be some process by which we can test those facts. We do have those processes in this Parliament. We have committees with the capacity to not only consider legislation in detail but also test the facts, if that is what we believe this is about - a conflict of facts. I happen to think that Hon Derrick Tomlinson has a great advantage, because he has gone out and talked to the people on the ground, not only Robert Bropho but also some of the people who say they are victims. They claim that not only are they victims, but also they cannot get the support of government agencies. It might be said that they are wrong and that they do not understand the system. Only a very brave person would claim to understand it. The facts in this matter are in dispute, and Hon Derrick Tomlinson, who is one of the few people in this Chamber who has talked to the police and the Department for Community Development officers on the ground, has been out and looked at the area and talked to the victims and the alleged perpetrators. He at least has had the opportunity, better than any of us, to test the facts directly. He is not relying on a briefing note or what the head of a department told him, or what he has discussed with other executives; he is relying on the fact that he has been out there and looked. He gave a very balanced view. He was not saying that it is all rosy out there; he is saying that the facts the Government gave us in the briefing are wrong, and I believe him. He tells us there are other facts that are as horrific, if not more so, and I believe him. Hon Derrick Tomlinson cannot be accused of is being a fool, gullible or insincere. I believe him. I am still worried about the way in which we have gone about this. This message should not simply be rejected outright; it should go further. This Parliament has processes, but we have hardly followed one of them. I admit the amendments by this House were made in haste; we were given no alternative. We were bound by an undertaking to deal with the legislation in two days. Following the amendments, the first thing the Opposition did was say to the Government that we would be prepared to discuss the matter; if our amendments did not meet the Government’s requirements we would be happy to make further amendments that would not dishonour the principles we considered important. We were not wedded to those words; we were wedded to the principles. It took a week before the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, Hon Colin Barnett, could obtain such a meeting. It was made quite clear by the Premier’s office that I was not welcome at that meeting. That does not seem like a very good start for a meeting seeking to arrive at some sort of agreement. Members should keep in mind that the Houses are equal. The Legislative Council is not a House that, as the Premier suggested, the Leader of the Opposition in this House should get under control. It may be that that is the way the Premier regards his upper House members, but if I were a member of his party in the upper House, I would be insulted by the suggestion that we were under the control of the leader in another place. Point of Order Hon KIM CHANCE: I believe the honourable member is straying beyond what would reasonably be accepted in a second reading contribution. In my view, we are far from the point of the motion before the Committee. The CHAIRMAN: It is interesting that the member should raise that, because I have been listening carefully to Hon Peter Foss, who has been more focused by far on the question before the Chair than any speaker so far. Hon Peter Foss is referring to some meetings that either did or did not happen to discuss the amendments. The honourable member is

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8383 thus directly relating his argument to the amendments that have been rejected by the lower House. I therefore do not uphold the point of order. Debate Resumed Hon PETER FOSS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. These meetings were an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition in the lower House, Hon Derrick Tomlinson and me - had I been permitted to attend - to arrive at some sort of agreement between the Houses. At that meeting it became quite clear that the point of difference was a legal argument. It descended into a case of the Government’s lawyers saying one thing and the Opposition’s lawyers saying another. It was not a matter of being opposed in some way, but rather whether the legal points could be resolved. It was agreed that there should be a meeting between the Government’s lawyer, me and Hon Derrick Tomlinson. We understood it was to happen very soon. Hon Colin Barnett’s office rang the Premier’s office regularly to find out when this meeting was to occur. It had not taken place by Thursday and I then said that it was urgent that it take place, because two weeks had passed and the chance was passing for the lower House to come back. At my insistence the meeting took place on Friday. This meeting was to see whether we could come up with some words that would give the Government what it needed without violating the principles. It happened not because the Government was prepared to do it but because the Opposition insisted on it. Interestingly, the day before the meeting occurred, the Government released an opinion it had obtained from Crown Law. Members should keep in mind that, the day after the amendments were passed, the Premier rejected the amendments out of hand saying that they would not work. It took two weeks to get a legal opinion to prove it. We were given 10 minutes to write the amendments while the Government needed two weeks to say that it disagreed with them. That opinion was given to the entire media of Western Australia before I got it. It consisted of the wringing of hands about how things could not be guaranteed, and nit-picking points of drafting. As I said all along, we were quite happy to deal with that. It became clear during the meeting that we could address every single point that was raised. For instance, the Government raised the question of the relative positions of the administrator and the management company. How was any possible conflict of responsibility to be resolved? We were quite happy to address that. In fact, a week before Hon Colin Barnett’s meeting with the Premier, I suggested to him something that dealt with that. I said we were happy to make it quite clear that the right to manage the camp during the period of the employment of an administrator is suspended but that other responsibilities and accountability continue. That seems clear enough, does it not? It was suggested that if the wording was not liked we could come back with something else. The second point that came up - which I also suggested for the meeting with the Premier - was what happens if they obtain an injunction? One of the furphies in all this is that everything will get locked up in court. The real furphy is that it may well get locked up in the High Court. Nothing we could enact can stop an application to the High Court that alleges, in particular, that the legislation is void, because of section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution, because it is inconsistent with the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. Frankly, I think it is. Hon Kim Chance: You really are a joke. You pretend to be a lawyer and you come out with nonsense like that! Hon PETER FOSS: It is not nonsense. Let me tell the minister something. We cannot stop a person going to court and alleging it. Hon Kim Chance: A court would hear that argument? Hon PETER FOSS: Yes. Definitely. Hon Kim Chance: Would it expedite it? Hon PETER FOSS: Who knows? It might grant an injunction to stop the Government acting on it in the meantime. That is what the Government told us it was worried about. The only excuse given by the Government as to why it did not act under the management order was that it was worried about being tied up in court. It said it could not act in the meantime because of being tied up in court. We said we were quite happy to allow an amendment that states there will be no interim injunction. So long as there is judicial supervision we are quite happy that if someone is ordered to leave the camp he should not be able to be held up in the meantime because of an interim injunction. Ultimately, a court must decide whether it is right or wrong. Surely it is a basic right that people should be able to go to court. I agree that it would be inconvenient if an interim injunction were granted. The Opposition was prepared to give the Government a further amendment that would not allow interim injunctions. That would appear to address the concerns of the Government given to the Opposition as its justification. The concerns given were the reason for rejecting the message. Given that sort of offer, a person would expect a Government to come back with a counter offer, not total rejection. Is that not the process of this Parliament? The Government could have accepted the suggestion and taken up the offer. It did not. We have heard nothing more. During the course of the meeting it was made quite clear that the Government had no intention of negotiating. It was not a meeting; it was a Clayton’s meeting because it was quite clear what was happening. The Government was meeting for the benefit of the public. The meeting was held because the Government did not want us to go one more day saying that we were ready to meet the Government but that it would not meet us. We never heard anything back. Our final words were that if there was any other matter that concerned the Government legally that we could address, it should get back to us. A person would expect that if there were still legal concerns he would hear back. Have we heard? No. Instead, we have had mouth-frothing attacks from the Minister for Indigenous

8384 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Affairs who made extraordinary claims. I suspect the whole business was set up because the Government knew, before this was brought in, that Robert Bropho was going to be charged again with very old charges and the Government would be asked what it had done. It knew it would be asked what it had done in line with the Gordon report and this particular camp. It would be asked if it had entered into the memoranda of agreement. The answer would be no. It would be asked what the Government had done in respect of the camp. The answer would be nothing. There is a way of offsetting that. The decision was made by the Premier, chief executive officers, and the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission without consulting people in advance. I received a telephone call from ATSIC commissioners meeting in Broome. They were very keen to make me understand that the actions of Mr Gooda were not authorised. They said he was acting on his own and had not consulted the commissioners. As far as they were concerned, they did not want to be associated with his actions. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: And fearful of a precedent being established. Hon PETER FOSS: They are not the only ones. I will state why I find this a strange piece of legislation and why I find it very hard to understand the Government. Hon Derrick Tomlinson has made it very clear that our concerns are exactly the same as those of the Government. We have further concerns about all actions taken on the spur of the moment without consulting the Government’s officers or anyone else, and taken without due process. The actions are dispossessing people. The Government knows that, although it likes to say they are not. The Government likes to say that the Land Administration Act states it is not a property right. When someone is being dispossessed what really matters is how he feels about it. The people concerned feel they are being dispossessed. I happen to agree with them; the Government is dispossessing them whether it likes it or not. The Government may have the best of reasons but the worst things have been done to Aboriginal people for the best of reasons. Some of the worst things with long-term effects have been done for the best of reasons. People have always been well-meaning towards Aboriginals but, time and again in their well-meaning, they have dispossessed them, deculturalised them, thrown them out and treated them like second-class citizens. The Government could not do this unless Robert Bropho was the most unpopular Aboriginal in Western Australia. Every white person in Western Australia loathes Mr Bropho. The Government knows, from a populist point of view, that this action will be popular. The Government knows it can get away with it. It is wrong in principle. It is racist because the Government knows the prejudice against Aboriginals who claim property rights and the prejudice against Mr Bropho. This legislation is plainly against Mr Bropho. I have no time for Mr Bropho. He has caused me at least as much grief as I think he will cause the Government. My concern is that I do not believe this Parliament should pass legislation to deal with one person or one group of people, to take advantage of the fact that it happens to be a reserve and not freehold land, to throw the people off the land without a clear view of how those people will be restored. No legislation has ever solved a social problem. I hope that the Government never suggests that this legislation will. The people charged with the duty have serious concerns as to whether anything will solve the problem. If this problem is merely dispersed and continues unobserved; if the people are isolated in individual Homeswest houses and the abuse continues but their voices are no longer heard; if the attention of the public is diverted from the Swan Valley Nyungah Community; and if we are merely sweeping the problem under the mat, the Government may have solved its political problem but it will look at its conscience at some stage and see that it has deserted the very principles that the Labor Party has espoused. I have no idea how the left wing members of the Labor Party have allowed this to occur. Hon Kim Chance: As a member of the left I can tell you that I am entirely comfortable with it. Hon PETER FOSS: I concede that that may well be so in the case of the minister. The Labor Party does not allow dissent in the way that our party does, but I know that there are people in the left wing of the Labor Party who are not happy. The minister will have to live with this, and there will come a time when he will have to think about what he achieved in the Parliament and what he did in government. The minister will realise one day that what he did was to sweep this problem under the mat. He will realise also that he listened to people without finding out the real facts in the way that Hon Derrick Tomlinson did. In many ways Hon Derrick Tomlinson has painted a picture that is worse than the picture the Government has painted for us. I happen to think Hon Derrick Tomlinson’s picture is better researched. The Government will merely push these people out of the community and create in them a just reason to complain against white people and their treatment of Aboriginal people in this country. Government members cannot say to themselves honestly that they have dealt with the problem in a way that is just and that is equitable with all the other communities in which this problem exists, because I can assure the Government that the police believe that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community is not isolated. The minister may say that it is. I am not sure where he got that information from. Hon Kim Chance: I did not say it is isolated. I said it is unique. Hon PETER FOSS: The police do not agree. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: ATSIC says there are 10 such communities. Hon Kim Chance: There are a lot of other communities with problems, but in all those other communities we can get in. Hon PETER FOSS: The police say they have access. The police say the DCD has access.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8385

Hon Kim Chance: It does not have access. Hon PETER FOSS: Perhaps it should have spoken to the police. Hon Kim Chance: The DCD says it does not have access. Hon PETER FOSS: It is interesting. It depends on to whom we talk in the DCD, I suppose - whether we talk to the people at the coalface or the people who are in charge. The reality of the matter is also that the police say they believe they have a bigger problem in these other camps. The minister need not believe me, but if the police say it, surely he should be concerned. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission says there are 10 similar camps. What will the Government do about them? Has it merely got something off the media agenda or has it solved a problem? If the Government is going to be media-driven - Hon Kim Chance: Come on! Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking this - Hon Kim Chance: You are making an absurd assumption. I have told you what drives the Government’s view on this. If you choose not to believe it, that is fine, but you are wrong. Hon PETER FOSS: I accept that the minister does not accept my view. That is clear. That is one of things that unfortunately happens in government. However, I will continue to talk on the basis of my observations. The Government was not prepared to take the time to put this Bill through properly. It was not prepared to look at or discuss our amendments. For a week, it was not prepared to meet with the Leader of the Opposition and for two weeks it was not prepared to meet with me, except at my insistence. It was not prepared to come back to me on my attempt to give the Government legislation that would satisfy what I know are my principles and what I thought were also the Government’s principles, and that would address the Government’s concerns. If the Government is not prepared to do any of those things, then I have to draw the conclusion that what we have is not a partnership attempt to solve the problem but a dictatorship that says it will be done the Government’s way. It may be that that is what the Government believes has to be done. It may be that the Government thinks the Parliament should be brought under control and do as it is told. It may be that we will be expected in future to pass legislation whenever the Government says it is essential for the good of the country or for the good of women and children. Sorry, but I do not buy that. My observation is that the Government has been talking to us through the media. It has refused to deal with us directly. When we have had meetings with the Government, it is almost as though we are not there. It is like we are talking to a brick wall. The Government is there not to try to reach agreement and understanding but to go through the motions. When eventually the Government agreed to meet with us I purposefully refrained from making any criticism of the Government. After our meeting I refrained from even commenting on the meeting. However, old mouth-frother, the Hon Minister for Indigenous Affairs, then came out with his usual maniacal exaggeration and intemperance. I must say my patience was slightly tested, but I have tried, because I have been hoping against hope, especially now that the women are no longer in the camp, that the Government will see its way clear to try to deal with this issue in a manner that does not violate some of the most fundamental principles. Surely the urgency has gone. Why cannot the Government look at and respond to the amendments? That is the normal way that Governments deal with amendments. The amendment that the Government has suggested it will accept is only the sunset clause. I reject that. A sunset clause after the Government has been given the power to dispossess people is not a sunset clause at all. In two years the camp will be gone. What is the point of a sunset clause on a final act? It is like giving a person a sunset clause after he has been executed. It is like saying we will repeal a person’s sentence of execution after we have cut off his head! This sunset clause is a mockery. The mere fact that the Government is saying that it will accept it is almost adding insult to injury. The Government is almost treating us as dumb, in the same way that it seems to think the public is dumb and uninformed. What is the point of it? Frankly I would rather take out the sunset clause so that we do not give the false impression that we are doing something when we are not. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It makes a mockery of the legislation. Hon PETER FOSS: It makes a mockery of the sunset clause. The legislation will be over and done with as soon as it is passed. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Think of the implications in two years. Hon PETER FOSS: Yes. I think the minister might have got the point that I am very disappointed in this Government. I believed that the Government had some capacity to act honourably and that when this House made amendments it would say in detail what changes it could live with; and that when we suggested further amendments we would at least hear back from the Government. I have said - Hon Derrick Tomlinson will vouch for this - that if there is anything else that we can do to make the Government more legally certain about the Bill, it should let us know. We cannot give total certainty, because as you would know, Madam Deputy Chairman (Hon Adele Farina) probably better than most people in this Chamber, if people go to court they go to court. We cannot say to people that they cannot go to court. We may say to the court that it has no jurisdiction, but we cannot stop people from going to court. We often cannot stop a court from saying it agrees with what the Parliament says but the Parliament does not mean it in this way. I believe that the

8386 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] alternative we gave was a better one, because what the Government is stuck with now is that because it did not cut out interlocutory orders, the court can say that it is not allowed to give final orders but it can give interlocutory orders while we debate the point. My clause is better than the Government’s clause. Was the Government not told that? Good one! I actually gave the Government a better solution so that there would not be a delay. The Government has a hole in its legislation, and I hope Mr Bropho will take advantage of it. That will serve the Government absolutely right, because it has not been prepared to sit down and talk to the Liberal Opposition, the Greens (WA) or anyone else to see whether we can do something with this legislation to make it worthwhile. I assure the Government that we went into the Chamber with that intention. I am disgusted by this Bill but I took my best chance to make it work and to make it acceptable. Unfortunately, only one group of members tried to play the game the correct way and, unfortunately, it appears that we are stuck with the Bill. However, like my colleague Hon Derrick Tomlinson and the Greens (WA), I will be voting against it. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: I reject the message from the Legislative Assembly. Although the Bill does not affect my electorate and it is not an area in which I have any shadow portfolio responsibility, I believe that every member of the House has a responsibility to speak tonight on this matter because it is such a serious subject. It is incumbent on every citizen of Western Australia to understand the issues in this Bill and what the debate is about tonight, which go to the heart of the way in which this State is currently governed. Three and a half weeks ago, when we last debated the Bill and amended it substantially, which has given rise to the Assembly message this evening, I recall having a feeling that is, unfortunately, quite rare in this place. My feeling was: thank goodness for the upper House and that there is a House of Review in this place to do a decent job of curbing the excesses of Executive Government. I felt that very strongly and that we had collectively done that almost spontaneously, because we had very little warning and very little time to be fully briefed on the matter. The outrage by members of this place at the Bill and the radical amendments that the Greens (WA) supported, indicated the belief that any Parliament would find it unacceptable for a civilised Government to pass a Bill such as this. I am disappointed at the passage of politics three and a half weeks later and the Opposition’s decision not to join the Greens this evening in rejecting the message from the Assembly. In debate on the amendments to the Bill, it was a revelation to me and a novel experience - other members may completely disagree - to see the Liberal Party apply the principles of human rights in this place and to take a strong stand in defence of human rights. It was a revelation to see the place that the Liberal Party can come from when provoked by such legislation. It is therefore very disappointing that we will not be voting entirely together to oppose this Assembly message, although I understand the political position in which the Liberal Party has been put. I understand also the Leader of the Opposition’s motives for wanting to put the entire responsibility for the outrage that the Bill has provoked into the lap of the Government. I can understand why he wants to do that; nevertheless, it is a pity that we are unable to stand together again to totally reject the Assembly message and, therefore, the Bill, which will mean that the Bill will not contain the very considerable amendments passed by this House. What is happening right now is a very low point in our history and a very dark hour for the Labor Government. It is astounding that the provisions invoked by this Bill came from a Premier who is a renowned student of history. I am astounded that a learned man like the Premier could come up with something so low and so apparently thoughtless. I will briefly refer to another matter that other members have referred to; that is, the horror of the notion that the people of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community be dispossessed of their land. One thing that contributed to the sanity of the people in that community, despite their life experiences and the appalling situations that continue to plague their lives, was a sense of connection to the land, being near the river and knowing that, because it is designated a reserve, it will be there for them forever. It is very upsetting to know that they have been ripped apart from that country and have now departed the land. Because of the possibility of dispossession, the amendments we passed very much improved the original Bill by not revoking the lease but, instead, providing for amendment to the lease. That was the fundamental distinction between the Bill as amended and the Bill that has returned in this Assembly message. It held out to the people of that community the possibility that they could return to the land, it held out to them the hope that their lives could come back together, and it held out to them the emotional strength that the land to which they could aspire to return would be there in the future. The Government’s having removed the possibility of the community returning to the land, I cannot imagine what hope is left for them. The amendments that we made to the Bill, which have been rejected by this Assembly message, would have removed the extraordinary clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill, which basically denied this community the human rights that are normally protected by the rule of law in this State. I am again astounded that a Labor Government could craft and put before us legislation that contains the kind of provisions that we sought to remove by amendment and about which some of my colleagues have reminded the House. Some members have provided important new evidence tonight supporting the fact that the Government’s position has been refuted by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. There has also been new evidence about the people who provided the Government with the justification it needed. All of that further strengthens my resolve to wholeheartedly reject the message from the Legislative Assembly. Thank goodness for the upper House. This matter serves to remind us how we can sometimes rise above the fog of politics and do something really important. Hon PADDY EMBRY: I will be relatively brief in outlining the reasons that I cannot support the clauses we are dealing with tonight. The Government wants us to believe its evidence even though that evidence has not been

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8387 produced. The Government says it has good evidence to support the view that children have been mistreated. By mistreated I refer to serious actions such as rape, carnal knowledge and savage abuse. I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government has good evidence to support the described mistreatment. Hon Kim Chance: Of course it does. People have been sent to jail because of the offences that we have mentioned. People are not put in jail without a court having first been convinced of the evidence that something like this has happened. Hon PADDY EMBRY: If yes, then at least some of these acts would be described as serious criminal acts. During the second reading debate, I asked the parliamentary secretary whether government agencies such as the Police Service have the power to enter the settlement. He replied that they did not. I find it strange, to say the least, that in the case of a fire emergency, for example, the fire brigade cannot enter the premises. That is what the parliamentary secretary was insinuating. Hon Derrick Tomlinson speaks in a persuasive way and anyone who listened with an open mind will acknowledge, as Hon Peter Foss did, that this is a subject about which Hon Derrick Tomlinson has considerable knowledge, passion and feeling. Approximately one year ago he gave the House a memorable dissertation about his studies of the treatment of Aboriginals. He had a huge pile of books and dropped them one by one on the floor. If I remember correctly, he referred to the studies he had done in Adelaide. This subject is close to the honourable member’s heart. I am seldom impressed by bureaucracy. Once again the bureaucrats have strongly erred in their recommendations to the Government. I believe very strongly, as Hon Derrick Tomlinson described, that if this problem is not cured it will disperse and will no longer be contained in a relatively small area. There is no excuse that this problem was not sorted out many years ago. This problem will go underground and multiply, and the situation will happen in more cases than the 10 that the - Hon Kim Chance: You are arguing that we should do nothing about the molestation of vulnerable people. Hon PADDY EMBRY: No; what I said, honourable leader, is that it is a disgrace that something was not done about this problem years ago. It is no good trying to erect a building on poor foundations, yet that is what the Government is doing in this situation. It has rushed this legislation through. The Bill has not been properly considered. The Government is not laying sound foundations and it will be a miracle if it is able to construct something solid. From what I have heard tonight, and from what I have read and heard about on other occasions - I am far from the best informed person on his subject - it is no wonder I am absolutely horrified by this measure, and there is no possible way I can support the Government. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is not my wish to be aggressive in my response. Hon Norman Moore: You shouldn’t be either. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have every reason to be aggressive. Please do not press me on this. Hon Norman Moore: You have been restrained; however, if you do not want to sit for the next six months it will help if you remain that way. Hon KIM CHANCE: I have been sitting very quietly and I will try to remain restrained. Ironically, it is what Hon Paddy Embry said that has caused me to respond. I respect what Hon Paddy Embry says and I have high regard for his values and the way he applies those values to his life and to those around him. It seems to me that if the Government cannot convince Hon Paddy Embry that what was going on in that community was intolerable and required direct substantive action by the Government, we have failed to get our message across. I have sat here - sometimes a little tense - thinking about why the Government introduced the legislation in the first place and why we are in this position. The Government was confronted with a situation in which its agencies told it that certain people in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community were vulnerable to horrific kinds of exploitation. I will not go into those kinds of exploitation because Hon Derrick Tomlinson has already done so. I respect what he had to say. The government agencies - the bodies we rely on for advice in regulating our society - told us that the safety of some people in the community could not be guaranteed to the extent that we expect to be able to guarantee the safety of people in Western Australia. What does a Government do when it is confronted with advice like that? What does a Government do when the agencies that advise it on social conditions state that the safety of certain people in the community cannot be guaranteed? We asked why that was so and they told us that, notwithstanding all of the things we have done post the Gordon inquiry, and notwithstanding the $75 million commitment that was made by the Government post the Gordon inquiry to resolve these very problems, the safety of some people in that community alone could not be guaranteed to the extent that we want to guarantee the safety of Western Australians. It is not an absolute guarantee because there are no guarantees with anything in life. God knows we have found that out in the past couple of days. The circumstances of which we were advised were such that failing to act in a direct and decisive way would have been to fail in our duty as a Government. The member can argue about whether it was the right action. He can argue questions of property rights. I do not think property rights count for much when vulnerable people are at risk. Members can make all kinds of arguments. They could say in this place that the community had a lease. It did not have

8388 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] a lease. It had a management order over a reserve. The nature of the land has not changed. It is still a reserve. Of course those people will be able to go back to the community at some time in the future. The situation has been portrayed as the Government somehow trying to seize control of the land so that it can put a building development on it. What a nonsense. It is a reserve, and it will stay a reserve. Hon Norman Moore: Nobody is arguing that. Hon KIM CHANCE: They have argued it. Hon Norman Moore: It is the land next door that will be developed. You keep forgetting about the Pyrton land. Hon KIM CHANCE: In all fairness, what does the land next door have to do with it? This is a debate about one particular reserve. Members have asked questions, and I think they deserve answers. They could not be reasonably expected to know the answers. I will do my best to answer some of those questions. It has been suggested that all the families have gone to the Saunders Street camp. Of seven families, three have gone to Saunders Street. The rest have moved to different areas, and are now being contacted and provided with alternative accommodation. Already, four have moved from direct physical contact with Mr Bropho. One has gone to Forrestfield and another has gone to Geraldton. Two are still determining their final location, and they are working through that with DCD. Government agencies visited Saunders Street today with the cooperation of the Saunders Street community leader. Government agencies spoke to another of the families yesterday to make arrangements about its housing options. The important thing is that all the people who have left the Swan Valley Nyungah Community are now in close and, above all, private contact with the appropriate government agencies. That could not happen at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp. People from the Department of Health and DCD were not able to access the residents of that community in a proper and private way. The police may have been able to enter the camp. DCD officers may have been able to enter the camp with a police escort, but is that the way a government agency should have to deal with a citizen? A government agency should have access to our citizens and, above all, our citizens should have the right of private contact with government agencies. These people were denied that right. These people were not only abused and exploited but also denied the right to direct contact with the government agencies whose task it is to help them. A range of issues has been raised. Hon Derrick Tomlinson was quite powerful in the way he raised those issues. Hon Frank Hough sought reassurance about an example given by Hon Derrick Tomlinson. I reassure members that if crimes are alleged to have been perpetrated by persons and sufficient evidentiary material is available, those persons will be charged. It is not true to say that the Government failed to act in the case referred to by Hon Derrick Tomlinson. Hon Derrick Tomlinson was talking about a current police investigation. He quoted from a confidential police investigation file. Matters are under investigation. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Let me correct that. I have not quoted from any current police file. Hon KIM CHANCE: Perhaps he could have. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I could have but I did not, and I ask you to correct that. Hon KIM CHANCE: Very well. If the member has not done so, I withdraw that statement. He could have quoted it. I say that only because there are matters under current police investigation. I have not seen the file so I cannot compare anything. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Neither have I. I am very encouraged that it is under investigation. Hon KIM CHANCE: It is under active investigation. We have talked about protection for these people’s rights. Somehow the Government’s action in seeking to protect the very lives of these people has become an issue of aggression. When we talk about the protection of these people, members talk about notions such as the protection of their property rights or their rights to natural justice. No person in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community who is charged with an offence will be denied the right to a defence. This is simply about who holds the management order on a reserve. Hon Robin Chapple: They will be removed by an administrator without any reason. Hon KIM CHANCE: If the member has listened to everything that has been said and still believes there is no reason for this Bill, I will not be able to help him. I am sorry. If he believes justice lies with those people, that is fine. I do not think so. I have a different view. I think that what has happened in that community is bloody disgraceful, and that to do nothing about it is similarly bloody disgraceful. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: What have you done? Hon KIM CHANCE: We were told that it was unsustainable to maintain those people in that community. Hon Robin Chapple: By whom? Hon KIM CHANCE: By the government agencies concerned. It was necessary to get those people out of that community - that is, out of that high-risk environment - into an area where the State’s agencies could meet with them in

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8389 private and face to face and where they could enjoy the same right as any other Western Australian to protection by a government agency. Yes, the legislation was extraordinary and perhaps over the top with its denial of natural justice. However, will members put those issues above the capacity of a Government to protect these people? Hon Dee Margetts: It has not protected them. Hon KIM CHANCE: On the contrary, we have. Hon Dee Margetts: Rubbish. Hon KIM CHANCE: Perhaps the member was not in the Chamber when I referred to the relocation, so I will repeat this information. Not all the families are at the Saunders Street camp. Of seven families, only three have gone to Saunders Street. The rest have moved to different areas. They are being contacted and provided with alternative accommodation. Already, four have been removed from direct physical contact with Mr Bropho. One family is in Forrestfield and another is in Geraldton. We are still in the process of finding out exactly where two of the families are, but they are liaising with DCD. Today, government agencies visited Saunders Street with the cooperation of the Saunders Street community leader. Yesterday, government agencies visited another of the families to talk about its housing options. These people are now in direct contact with government agencies, whose job it is to protect them. They are no longer living in a cycle of fear and violence. They are now physically removed from Mr Bropho’s presence. They now have the same access as any other Western Australian to the government agencies whose charter it is to protect people. They are now as protected as any other Western Australian. They were not protected before. That is the point. The Government had to act, and it did. If members want to argue that questions of property rights need to be resolved, the Government will have to resolve them later. What the Government could not do was to allow those vulnerable people to remain as vulnerable and as exploited as they were. It is taking a little while to get that message through to people. To be fair, nobody has seriously suggested that that should have happened. Nothing I have read or heard in the debate has suggested that that situation could have continued. Nobody is really challenging the Government’s responsibility to do what it did or to do something akin to what it did, except that some have said that the community should have been left together. How in hell could that be done when a community is living in fear and intimidation? That is nonsense. It had been tried, and it failed. The Government had to do something. Nobody has seriously questioned that this needed to be done. Hon Robin Chapple: In its very early days the community stated in a statutory declaration that the one thing it wanted was to stay together. Hon KIM CHANCE: Who wrote that on behalf of the community? Hon Robin Chapple: The community. Hon KIM CHANCE: Signed by Robert Bropho, presumably. Hon Robin Chapple: No; it was signed by everybody in the community. Hon KIM CHANCE: Nobody seriously believes that that situation should have continued. We have heard from Hon Derrick Tomlinson, more eloquently than anybody else, what was going on in that community. We have heard of the horrifying situation that existed. It could not be allowed to continue. For a Government to allow that situation to continue - Hon Ed Dermer: It would be a dereliction of duty. Hon KIM CHANCE: It would be a dereliction of duty. Hon Norman Moore: You are quite right; we agree with you. Hon KIM CHANCE: I know, and I truly appreciate the fact that opposition members have concurred with that view. The Government’s fundamental difference with the Opposition is the way in which it was done. I concede that there are questions about property rights. Hon Norman Moore: Let’s get on and do it. Hon KIM CHANCE: Again, I could not agree more with the Leader of the Opposition. I have said what I had to say. I truly believe in what the Government is doing. Someone asked how Labor’s left could live with this. I will close with this statement: I am a member of Labor’s left and I do not have a problem with this at all. Somebody asked how the Labor Party could possibly do a thing like this. My question to members is: how could the Labor Party possibly ignore what was going on and not act in the way in which it did? Hon DEE MARGETTS: I do not intend to speak for very long. In the six years that I was in the Senate, Mingli Wanjurri Nungala regularly came to my office. One of the things she has dedicated her life to is dealing with issues of systematic violence and abuse within Nyoongah communities. Putting that aside, one of the most important aspects of my ongoing communication with Mingli was to find out just how much human tragedy ordinary Aboriginal families were having to deal with on a daily basis. My comments relate directly to the message that has come from the other

8390 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] place. When the stolen generation report was released at a federal level, it was responded to very emotionally by a number of people. However, bureaucratically and politically, many of those very powerful messages appear to have been forgotten. Multigenerations of systematic abuse, institutional abuse, disorientation and removal from family kin and country has created, in general, a quite dysfunctional community. From listening to these stories on a daily basis I believe that the stories we are hearing today are not peculiar to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The concept that the removal of this community from its base would somehow protect its members from the implications of the stolen generation, generations of institutional abuse and the substance abuse and alcoholism associated with that is a clear nonsense. I am certain that social services has greater access to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community than to other dispersed and dysfunctional Aboriginal communities that resulted from the stolen generation and the dispossession of people from their land. It is a very dysfunctional generation for a variety of reasons. The concept that members of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community will be protected by taking away that sense of place is a nonsense. The Greens (WA) are not denying that there are enormous problems or that the community is dysfunctional. What we are arguing about, apart from the racial discrimination attached to this Bill, is that the Bill does not address what is happening in many communities. If these people are taken to another place, the Government might know where they are for a week. However, that does not mean that those families would stay together for very long. They might not stay together for a variety of reasons, including the predatory nature of people outside the indigenous community. To suggest that the Government has somehow done something good and protected members of that community by forcing them out of the community is a nonsense. On a person to person, hour by hour and problem to problem basis, I am sure that social services have had more access to members of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community than to many other people. Social services may not know where those other vulnerable people within our society are or what is happening to their children. I refer to self-determination. How much has the Government worked with people who are trying to find the answers to this problem? We suspect that that process has not occurred. We all understand the emotions that are involved. This is a racially discriminatory way to achieve an outcome. It will not and cannot protect those family groups from what the Government says this Bill is supposed to protect them. Hon JIM SCOTT: One of the disappointing aspects of this message from the Legislative Assembly is that at no stage have the amendments to the Bill put forward by this House been properly addressed by the Government. Instead, the Government has said that it is trying to help these people by moving them, because there are perpetrators in their midst who are causing all the problems. How will it do that? Despite the passion with which the Leader of the House put his position, he did not say why the amendments put forward by Hon Peter Foss prevented those things from happening or why the amended Bill did not allow for the people who are causing the problems to be removed from the area while at the same time not taking away the rights of people to natural justice or access to the law. They are fundamental rights. Hon Kim Chance said that it might have been fairly draconian - or some such word - and that the measures in the Bill were going a fair way. They did go a fair way and do not need to go that far. The matter could have been addressed in another way. I do not believe any additional problems would have arisen that would have been worth taking away people’s citizenship. That is what this legislation does. It is going back to the days when some people were citizens and others were not. The Government is saying that people must earn their right to citizenship. The Government is taking away people’s rights to common law and natural justice. That is fundamental. Government members in the Legislative Assembly poured personal abuse on people and insinuated what the Liberal Party stood for. In fact, it was in this House, not the other place, that the Liberal Party did the right thing. While I am talking about that, the media have been absolutely pathetic. They have presented this issue as a split in the Liberal Party or this or that. They have not addressed what this Bill does. It has not talked about the Bill taking away people’s rights. It has not mentioned that if this happened to any other sector of the community, members in this place would be in huge trouble. We would all be out on our ears. The media have acted terribly on this issue. It is not as though members of this Chamber have not informed them or sent them copies of the Bill and asked the media to look at it. The media’s actions are deliberate. They know that this is a sensational issue. Sex and violence sells newspapers. I am saying to not only the Government but also the media that they should get off their butts, give us some truth and provide some real analysis of what is going on. I have seen only pathetic journalism so far. I am concerned also that members of this Parliament have been misled by some statements. Hon Derrick Tomlinson referred to some examples that have been shown to be false. That is not good enough. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I don’t think they were statements to the Parliament; they were statements in briefings. Hon JIM SCOTT: We were misled in briefings, and I am not happy about that. The reality is that when the Parliament makes important decisions about whether to take away people’s rights, it must be done on the basis of truth rather than on a pile of rubbish that is designed to con us into agreeing to a decision the Government wants. That is not good enough. We are living through a very difficult period. I have seen real changes in the world. People are being bombed in another country because they supposedly have weapons of mass destruction, yet the person who organised the whole thing, Mr Wolfowitz, said yesterday that it was a bureaucratic exercise and that really just the oil was needed. We are

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8391 living in a time when people are being locked up at Guantanamo Bay under the pretence that that is not illegal because America has huge amounts of power and can do it, not because there is any rationale, fairness or justice in it. We are also living in a time in this country when people who come here trying to seek help are being locked up in concentration camps even though they are genuine refugees. I do not want to see any further erosion of our rights. This is a very serious time for all of us. If we do not stick up for what is correct, fair and just, and protect human rights, we will all go down the gurgler together. Bill after Bill has been passed by Australian Parliaments that are gradually eroding people’s rights. This legislation is a doozey for Australia. It goes a long way. I am upset because I care about what happens to those women, children and men from the Nyoongah community. I am distressed about those terrible things that have happened. However, it is no good trying to deal with it in the way the Government has. That is my concern. The Government says that we cannot see that these people are under threat. We can see that they are under threat. However, we do not accept that the Government’s way of dealing with the problem will fix it. I congratulate Hon Peter Foss and Hon Derrick Tomlinson because they have been very brave. I understand why the Liberal Party has been browbeaten on this issue because the Press has failed to tell the truth. The Press is more concerned with headlines about splits in the Liberal Party and so on. It should recognise that it has taken Hon Derrick Tomlinson and Hon Peter Foss some courage to take the stand they did. The Minister for Education and Training and the Premier have branded people who have taken a similar stand as being akin to their giving assistance to rape and violence. I wish that the Liberal Party as a whole had more courage and threw out this Bill. That would make the Premier have to come back with reasonable legislation that could be passed through this House that was fair but still did the job. We could have done that after proper discussion, even if members were not happy with the first result. However, the Premier wants to win, crush his opponents and make political mileage out of this. If he did not want to do that, he would not use the language he did and he would talk about ways he could resolve the matter with which everybody would be happy. He could have found solutions that did not impinge on people’s rights. I continue to oppose the Government’s message because it is not only unjust but also sets a precedence that makes the future of this country very insecure. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again. [Continued on next page.] SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE - EXTENDED AFTER 10.00 PM HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [9.49 pm]: I move - That the House do sit beyond 10.00 pm. It is unusual to sit beyond 10 o’clock, although our sessional orders provide for occasions of this nature provided there is an absolute majority. It is my intention that the House sit only until the conclusion of the Bill before the House. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [9.50 pm]: The Opposition will reluctantly support this motion. As far as I am concerned, this matter must be resolved today. I have read recently that the Government intends to do something tomorrow. I do not know whether that is still the Government’s intention. I am talking about the situation at the camp. I refuse to accept responsibility for something not happening tomorrow as a result of this House delaying passage of this legislation. I will support the motion, and strongly argue that we should deal with this matter tonight. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): To be passed, this motion requires the concurrence of an absolute majority. There being a dissentient voice, it is necessary for the House to divide. Division taken with the following result - Ayes (22)

Hon George Cash Hon Adele Farina Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Tom Stephens Hon Kim Chance Hon John Fischer Hon Norman Moore Hon Bill Stretch Hon Bruce Donaldson Hon Peter Foss Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Kate Doust Hon Graham Giffard Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ed Dermer (Teller) Hon Sue Ellery Hon Nick Griffiths Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Paddy Embry Hon Frank Hough Hon Barbara Scott Noes (5)

Hon Dee Margetts Hon Christine Sharp Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple (Teller) Hon Jim Scott Question thus passed with an absolute majority.

8392 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

RESERVES (RESERVE 43131) BILL 2003 Assembly’s Message - Committee Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the Chair; Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House) in charge of the Bill. Hon JOHN FISCHER: I will make my remarks brief. This issue does not affect my electorate, but I see many similarities with the situation there. Many important issues have been raised here tonight, and I have listened carefully as they have been raised. Hon Murray Criddle raised some points that were the most pertinent of the many I have heard tonight. Some of the points raised have brought forward the necessity for very serious consideration, and some have bordered on being totally hypocritical. In his previous contribution, Hon Jim Scott referred to what he considered to be the abrogation of responsibility by The West Australian. I am certainly not one who would very often stand up and defend the Press of this State. However, the issues raised by the Press are totally driving the public issue we are now discussing. When I travel around my electorate and see some of the absolutely shocking conditions affecting people of indigenous descent, I wonder about the inference we are discussing tonight. By saying that, I do not detract from the importance of those issues and the necessity to do something about them, to draw a line in the sand and improve some of the conditions. There is no doubt that the conditions have existed for a long time. There is also no doubt that the reserve is not the only one affected. There are many such areas in Western Australia. Unfortunately, many more are outside the metropolitan area. They do not get the attention they deserve for the simple reason that the Press does not mention them. I defend the attention the Press has given to this issue because it has made a lot of people aware of what is going on. We have heard some horrific tales tonight that cannot be left unattended. The Government has made a very courageous decision. It is not very often that I agree with the policies put forward by this Labor Government. In general, it leaves a lot to be desired. Hon Jim Scott: It is good to see there is a meeting of minds between One Nation and the Labor Party on this! Hon JOHN FISCHER: I do not think the member would see that anyway because he looks at things through rose- coloured glasses and the pixies at the bottom of the garden distort what is the real situation! The Greens (WA) always bellyache about everything; they do not come up with any answers. They always have a faraway view of some utopia that does not exist. It is a pity they do not get more realistic and realise that sometimes hard decisions must be made. The Labor Government has made a hard decision. I have no doubt that it has made it with its interests focused on the fact that it is the best way to go. The Government could have made a decision to just remove the troublemakers from the reserve and put in an administrator to run the camp with the rest of the people there. A lot of people have left the camp of their own volition prior to that happening. There is no doubt that the decisions that will be made on this issue have weighed on everyone’s mind about whether it is right or wrong, whether things have gone too far, and whether things should be addressed in this manner. The Government has made a tough and courageous decision. I will look with very close concern and interest at the result of the Government’s decision. If it has problems in the future by moving people into various parts of the community, the Government will have to wear that. No matter what happens, other hard decisions will have to be made. Quite frankly, most people in this State will congratulate the Government on its courage to stand up and be counted and for doing something about this. For many years no-one has done anything about this issue at all. It has been put into the too hard basket and left. The result of this decision and the way it has come about may well not solve the problems. We would be too hopeful to believe that any individual or decision will solve the problems. Anyone willing to travel through my electorate will see problems that have been building up for the past 50 to 60 years. We have gone backwards, not forwards. A lot of it is because we have not been prepared to take the tough decisions when necessary. I fully concur with my colleague. I support this legislation with the view that the Government will continue to make the necessary decisions. Although such decisions may not always come to fruition in the manner that the Government hopes, I have no doubt that what it hopes for in this instance is what most Western Australians hope for. They hope for a result that is to the benefit of the people directly concerned. Hopefully, we will see the tough decisions flow into other areas and be carried on so we can step forward on this issue and throughout the State. HON GIZ WATSON: I will be brief because the Chamber has covered this ground quite thoroughly. However, I wish to put my position on the record that this is one of the worst Bills we have dealt with in this Parliament in the six years that I have been a member. It is of great concern to me that this Bill comes from a Labor Government that came to power with a lot of promises and commitments for a new approach to relations with indigenous people. I have listened very carefully to members on this debate. The issues surrounding this Bill are of the utmost importance as they involve the abuse of women and children. We are also examining what processes deal with such abuse and the human rights of all people involved in this issue. Nothing I have heard has convinced me that this legislation, as proposed by the message from the other place, is necessary. Members have heard a lot of evidence from briefings and what has been said tonight. If there is evidence that the issue is urgent, and it is evident that it requires us to pass legislation like this that removes people’s basic rights, why is there

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8393 not enough evidence to lay criminal charges or issue restraining orders? There is no way that this type of legislation would be used against a white community. There is no way the Parliament would pass legislation of this nature - there would be riots in the streets. As has been said by other members, nothing will provide a guarantee of protection for the women and children who have been dispersed to other places. As far as I am concerned, the matter of domestic violence is extremely important. It is a neglected area. There is no way that the domestic violence and abuse would be dealt with in this manner if it involved the general community. I am concerned that this legislation will set a precedent for other Aboriginal communities. A list of other communities that could well be next in line has already been mentioned. Fundamentally, this Bill has been aimed at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I have not been presented with any evidence sufficient to prove that the level of abuse and violence is not happening in other places as well. This Bill is therefore about getting at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I find that exceedingly disturbing. I have worried about this Bill enormously. Pressure has been put on all members of Parliament that they will be implicated in the event that a tragedy occurs because they have not acted in a certain way and have not given the extraordinary level of control asked for in the Bill. That was the most appalling way in which to deal with a serious and distressing issue. I continue to be absolutely clear that this Parliament should in no way deal with this issue in legislation such as this and I will therefore oppose the motion. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: I ask the Leader of the House to answer two questions. In response to remarks of Hon Paddy Embry a short while ago, the Leader of the House referred to the matter of dispossession. His reply was that of course these people would be allowed to return to the land. Will the Leader of the House guarantee to the Chamber that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community, and the management organisation that holds the management order that the Bill will revoke, will be allowed to return to the land after two years when the proposed sunset clause will cancel the Bill? If the Leader of the House agrees that is a good outcome and offers the Chamber that guarantee, will he reinforce the guarantee with a commitment that the Government will make this reserve an A-class reserve? I understand that it is currently a C-class reserve, which means under the provisions of the Land Administration Act the reserve can be cancelled at any time, even overnight, by a statement in the Government Gazette. There is, therefore, no surety such as the Leader of the House implied when he said that these people would be allowed to return and that the land would be protected because it is a reserve. Members would appreciate a clear statement in response to both questions. Hon KIM CHANCE: The answer to the first question is that, because of the purpose of this reserve, there is nothing to prevent at least some of the people who used to live at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to return at some stage. I have never heard it suggested that they could not return. This Bill is about dealing with a situation. Clearly, people will again live on that land and clearly it will be used for the benefit of indigenous people. Hon Christine Sharp: Are you guaranteeing that if they want to, they can return? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have never even heard it suggested that it might be otherwise. Hon Christine Sharp: Yes or no; is the Leader of the House guaranteeing that? Hon Robin Chapple: We were advised in a briefing by Mick Gooda of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission administration that it would take over the land for the purpose of hostels for visiting indigenous people. Hon KIM CHANCE: I know nothing about that. All I know is that the purpose of its zoning will not change. If the land is there for Aboriginal people to use and to live on, I see absolutely - Hon Christine Sharp: That is not the guarantee that this community wants. Hon KIM CHANCE: Guarantee is the honourable member’s word. I have told the member that of course they can go back; I see absolutely no reason that they cannot. Hon Christine Sharp: Do you guarantee that they can if they want to? Hon KIM CHANCE: No, they are the member’s words. I am saying that I see absolutely no reason that some of those people who were living there cannot return. Nobody has suggested to me that there is any reason that in the future some of those people cannot return there. The answer to the second question is yes, of course the land can become an A-class reserve. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure can gazette a C-class reserve an A-class reserve. Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (19)

Hon George Cash Hon Adele Farina Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Barbara Scott Hon Kim Chance Hon John Fischer Hon Norman Moore Hon Tom Stephens Hon Bruce Donaldson Hon Graham Giffard Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Bill Stretch Hon Kate Doust Hon Nick Griffiths Hon Louise Pratt Hon Ed Dermer (Teller) Hon Sue Ellery Hon Frank Hough Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich

8394 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Noes (8)

Hon Paddy Embry Hon Dee Margetts Hon Christine Sharp Hon Giz Watson Hon Peter Foss Hon Jim Scott Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Robin Chapple (Teller) Question thus passed. Report Resolution reported, the report adopted, and a message accordingly returned to the Assembly. HON DERRICK TOMLINSON Personal Explanation HON DERRICK TOMLINSON (East Metropolitan) [10.22 pm] - by leave: I shall be brief. During the debate we have just completed it was suggested that I have had access to police records. I want to put on the public record that in relation to these matters at no time have I had access to any public record. I certainly have not had access to any police file. I have not had access to any files that relate to ongoing investigations in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I have not had access to any files from any government department. Nobody in any government department other than those about whom I spoke in my address have given me confidential information. The information that I have gathered was given to me by people who approached me - they are not public officers - and voluntarily, but fearfully, gave me their information. I wish to make it quite clear that I did not have access to police files. House adjourned at 10.25 pm ______

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8395

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

NATIVE TITLE CLAIMANTS, PILBARA, UP-FRONT PAYMENT 4. Hon John Fischer to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Deputy Premier (1) Will the Government advise whether they are offering an up-front payment to the Ngarluma-Injibandi, and/or Yaburarra-Mardudhunera, and/or Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo Native Title Claimant Groups in the Pilbara Region in return for those groups, or a combination of two of them, entering into an agreement allowing for development of part of the Burrup Peninsula, the Maitland Industrial Estate, and certain commercial and residential land in Karratha? (2) If so, what sum is being offered as an up-front payment? (3) If the groups in question, or a combination of two of them, enter into such an agreement, what sums of money will be contributed to them by Government over the next five years? (4) I am advised by certain Members of my Aboriginal constituents that a sum of $500 000 has been committed by Government for the production of a Management Plan for the Burrup Peninsula non-industrial land in the event of the above agreement being signed - (a) can the Government confirm that the consultant has already been chosen to design the Management Plan and that his name is already mentioned in the agreement which the Government requires the Aboriginal groups to sign; (b) can the Government detail the process whereby the consultant in question was chosen; and (c) can the Government assure the taxpayers of Western Australia that there has not been a breach of normal State Supply Commission Procedures, or other relevant regulations, by the selection of this consultant without formal advertising of the position and calling for tenders? (5) Can the Government itemise the proposed expenditure for physical Management of the Burrup Peninsula over the next five years, in the event of two or more of the native title groups entering into the above agreement? (6) Can the Government detail the compensation plans for that native title group or those native title groups that do(es) sign the above agreement, in the event of all three groups not signing and the proposal to vest the non- industrial land on the Burrup Peninsula in the Aboriginal groups falling through? (7) Is the Government aware that Methanex Australia Pty Ltd has commissioned an independent investigation into the likely effects of industrial emissions from their Plant on the Burrup Peninsula petroglyphs, which indicates that the deterioration period suggested by international rock art expert Robert Bednarik was extremely conservative? (8) Is it the intention of the Government’s task force researching the effects of industrial emissions on the petroglyphs of the Burrup Peninsula to call for public submissions from interested parties? (9) Is the Government aware that Ms P Cooper signatory to the Yaburara-Mardudhunera native title claim, has not been consulted in any way, shape or form by Government Agencies or by multinational company Methanex Australia Pty Ltd regarding the Aboriginal heritage values of the leases upon which the Methanex Plant is to be sited? (10) Is the Government aware that Ms P Cooper signatory to the Yaburara-Mardudhunera native title claim, has not been consulted in any way, shape or form by Government Agencies or by multinational company Methanex Australia Pty Ltd regarding the proposed agreement between the State of Western Australia and the Aboriginal Native Title Claimant Groups in relation to the industrial land on the Burrup Peninsula, the Maitland Industrial Estate and the commercial and residential land in Karratha? (11) Is the Government policy to support a multinational company such as Methanex Australia Pty Ltd in their endeavours to force Aboriginal Native Title Claimant Groups to abrogate their heritage responsibilities by forcing them into a judicial arbitration process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1) Yes. (2) Under the agreement that the State has entered with the Ngarluma Yindjibarndi, the Yaburara Mardudhunera and the Wong-goo-tt-oo native title claim groups there was a payment made of $2,000,000 upon execution of the agreement. A further $1,500,000 is payable by the State on a date linked to the first lease issued over the Burrup Industrial Estate. These payments will be held in trust by the State until the Approved Body Corporate is established.

8396 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(3) Over the first 5 years of the agreement up to $4,050,000 (including the up-front payments referred to in response to question 2) will be paid directly to an Approved Body Corporate for the benefit of the contracting native title parties. Those benefits are to be used for community purposes set out in the agreement. (4) (a) Yes. (b) All parties in the negotiations agreed that Mr Szabo should be the consultant to prepare the proposed management plan. He is highly qualified for the position as he has extensive experience in land management, and has worked for a number of years for CALM and Environment Australia. (c) Yes. (5) Once a management plan is in place, the Government will provide $450,000 per year for 5 years (i.e. a total of $2.25M) for the management of the Burrup Peninsula non-industrial land in accordance with the management plan. The Government will also provide $8 million within the first 5 years for the construction of: - office buildings and other facilities for the management of the Burrup Non-Industrial Land including a visitors and cultural centre; and - roads, tracks, trails and other infrastructure. Expenditures in relation to management and infrastructure for the conservation of the Burrup non-industrial area were contemplated in the Burrup Land Use Management Plan completed in 1996. (6) All three native title claim groups have signed the Agreement. (7) The Government understands that Methanex has not commissioned an independent investigation. Methanex’s consultant as part of its environmental assessment process undertook a desktop review of previous published reports. The Government has established a four-year Burrup rock art monitoring study to investigate the possible impacts of emissions from new and existing industrial development on indigenous rock art, located on and adjacent to the Burrup Peninsula. (8) The Burrup Peninsula Rock Art Monitoring Management Committee invited key stakeholders to a meeting in Dampier at the end of March 2003 to discuss the direction of research. The committee is using the outcomes of the meeting to decide on the research which will be undertaken by eminent Australian scientists following the standard Government tender process. The outcomes and direction of the research will be discussed at least annually with the community. (9) During the negotiations of the agreement between the State and the three native title claim groups the Government ensured that full and proper consultation occurred between its representatives and the solicitors on record representing the Yaburara Mardudhunera native title claim group. Ms Cooper is a member of the Yaburara Mardudhunera native title claim group. The Government understands that Ms Cooper had independent legal counsel who was kept informed of developments by the solicitors on record for the Yaburara Mardudhunera native title claim group. (10) During the negotiations of the agreement between the State and the three native title claim groups the Government ensured that full and proper consultation occurred between its representatives and the solicitors on record representing the Yaburara Mardudhunera native title claim group. The Government understands that Methanex also consulted with the solicitors on the record representing the Yaburara Mardudhunera native title claim group. Ms Cooper is a member of the Yaburara Mardudhunera claim group. The Government understands that Ms Cooper had independent legal counsel who was kept informed of developments by the solicitors on record for the Yaburara Mardudhunera native title claim group. (11) No. The results of any arbitral determination by the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) would not have prevented the operation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA). The arbitration proceedings before the NNTT have been terminated as the matter has now been resolved by agreement with all three native title claim groups. PORT CATHERINE RESIDENTIAL MARINA DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING APPLICATION 563. Hon Jim Scott to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) What measures has the Minister put in place to ensure there is no conflict of interest in the WAPC assessing the planning application for the Port Catherine residential marina development proposal while controlling the majority of the land? (2) Does the proposed Port Catherine residential marina development comply with the normal 100 metre coastal setback? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: 1. The WAPC is not currently assessing a planning application for Port Catherine.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8397

As for the issue of conflict of interest, the WAPC is acting as the Government’s agent under the Port Catherine Project Agreement (the State Agreement) for the purposes of co-ordinating the remediation and disposal of government owned land contaminated through past industrial use. The provisions of the State Agreement are separate to, and in no way fetter the WAPC’s discretion or statutory planning obligations, which it has exercised and will continue to exercise impartially in the consideration of planning and land use matters relating to Port Catherine. 2. The Government recently released the State Coastal Planning Policy which provides, inter alia, that as a “general guide a total setback in the order of 100 metres from the horizontal setback datum (HSD) will be expected but each proposal must be assessed having regard to this Policy”. With regard to the proposed development of Port Catherine, Part G of Schedule 1 to the Policy states that setbacks shall be applied to all coastal developments with the exception of, inter alia: “Industrial and commercial development that is demonstrably dependent on a foreshore location. Such development may include, for example, marinas, cage based aquaculture operations, port facilities and associated infrastructure.” In any event the Port Catherine development is the subject of an extensive series of agreements going back many decades and which give to the developers legal entitlements. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SEA-SWAP TRIAL, TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE 643. Hon Giz Watson to the Leader of the House representing the Premier Will the Premier table all correspondence with representatives of the US Government or US Navy pertaining to the SeaSwap trial, to and from - (a) any Members of the Government; (b) any Ministerial office; and (c) any Departmental office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I am advised that: Premier; Minister for Public Sector Management; Federal Affairs; Science; Citizenship and Multicultural Interest: Department of the Premier and Cabinet (a)-(c) There is no such correspondence in the Premier’s portfolio, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier. Anti-Corruption Commission (a)-(c) No correspondence. Governor’s Establishment (a)-(c) No correspondence. Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (a)-(c) No correspondence. Deputy Premier; Treasurer; Minister for Energy: (a)-(c) The only correspondence the Office of the Deputy Premier or agencies and departments have received was an invitation to attend a ‘change of command’ ceremony on the 23rd January 2003 between two crews of the USS Fletcher to which the Deputy Premier declined. Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; the Midwest, Wheatbelt and Great Southern: (a)-(c) No correspondence. Minister for Housing and Works; Local Government and Regional Development; the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne: (a)-(c) No correspondence. Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection: (a)-(c) No correspondence. Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West: (a)-(c) No correspondence. Minister for the Environment and Heritage: (a)-(c) No correspondence.

8398 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Minister for Police and Emergency Services: (a)-(c) The Western Australia Police Service is in receipt of complimentary correspondence from the US Navy for the assistance provided during the SeaSwap Trial. This Agency is not in possession of any other correspondence from the US Government or Navy which pertains to SeaSwap. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: Fremantle Ports is the only agency under the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure's portfolio to have any contact with representatives of the US Government or US Navy pertaining to the SeaSwap (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) Fremantle Ports received correspondence in terms of a Berth Application from the agents for the US Navy for the one SeaSwap visit. Minister for State Development; Tourism; Small Business: (a)-(c) The Department of Industry and Resources have identified a thank-you letter from the Minister for State Development to the US Ambassador in Australia and 3 emails between departmental and US officers about the WA delegation’s visit to the US in 2002. Minister for Education and Training; Sport and Recreation; Indigenous Affairs: (a)-(c) No correspondence. Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth; Disability Services; Culture and the Arts: (a)-(c) No correspondence. Minister for Health: (a)-(c) The Minister for Health received a verbal invitation to attend a seminar on Bilateral Relationships and SeaSwap which he declined. In addition he received an invitation to attend a 'Change of Command' reception with the officers of the USS Fletcher that was also declined. Minister for Racing and Gaming; Government Enterprises; Goldfields-Esperance: (a)-(c) No correspondence. NEERABUP NATIONAL PARK, ACQUISITION OF PRIVATELY HELD LAND 644. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure In the debate of the Reserves (Neerabup National Park) Bill 2000 on November 21 2000, the Government stated that ‘to compensate for the lands earmarked for excision, it is proposed that approximately 525 hectares of privately held land be acquired and, together with approximately 47 hectares of existing reserve lands, be incorporated into the reserve.’ - (1) Has the Government acquired this privately held land? (2) If yes to (1), has the Government incorporated the two areas mentioned in the Neerabup National Park? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) If no to (1), when will the Government acquire this land? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) No (2) N/A (3)-(4) All the land is reserved on the Metropolitan Region Scheme for Parks and Recreation or proposed to be reserved for that purpose under Clarkson - Butler Amendment 992/33. One property of 38ha is currently the subject of proceedings before the Supreme Court to establish the purchase price for the land. The Western Australian Planning Commission will purchase the land in due course (the major landowner is not resident in Australia. There is no fixed timetable for acquisition. In the meantime, when approached by affected landowners, the land is protected from further development by virtue of its reservation for Parks and Recreation. WINDIMURRA STATION, MR DALE ZADOW 645. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to numerous correspondences between the Minister’s Departments and Mr Dale Zadow, and ask -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8399

(1) Did DOLA receive a fax from Dale Zadow of Windimurra Station on March 11 2003, requesting permission to sell the Windimurra pastoral leasehold? (2) If yes to (1), when can Mr Zadow expect a reply? (3) Did the Minister receive a fax from Dale Zadow of Windimurra Station on January 18, 2003 regarding the revised management plan and a request to meet with the Minister or one of her advisors? (4) If yes to (3), when can Mr Zadow expect a reply? (5) Did Max Cameron, the Chairman of the Pastoral Board receive a fax from Dale Zadow of Windimurra Station on November 30 2002 requesting permission to sell the Windimurra pastoral leasehold? (6) If yes to (5), when can Mr Zadow expect a reply? (7) Did Max Cameron, the Chairman of the Pastoral Board receive a letter postdated September 10 2002 from Dale Zadow of Windimurra Station on November 30 2002, seeking advice on how to resolve the situation and requesting permission to sell the Windimurra pastoral leasehold? (8) If yes to (7), when can Mr Zadow expect a reply? (9) Does the Minister intend to enter into any communication with Mr Zadow whatsoever? (10) If no to (9), why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1)-(10) There has been extensive correspondence between Mr Zadow, the Hon Minister, DOLA and the Pastoral Lands Board (Board) over a considerable period of time addressing a range of matters associated with Windimurra. The latest correspondence received from Mr Zadow coincided with the initiation of legal proceedings by the Board. Acting on legal advice, it was determined that it would be inappropriate for the Minister to respond on this occasion. MINING, CROESUS SHAFT SITE VISIT 647. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to a file note which I understand is dated March 8 1990 signed by J Jance, Senior Technical Engineer to the Assistant Director Research and Technical Services titled ‘Croesus Shaft Site Visit - 2 March 1990’ - (1) Is it correct that this file note exists on departmental files and in part states ‘In concluding I feel obliged to state the following - (a) There is evidence of verbal directions and approvals being given by the Inspectorate. There are dangers associated with that practice and steps should be taken to reduce or eliminate that approach. (b) Non Compliance with regulations does not necessarily mean a situation is dangerous. Action taken must be commensurate with the assessed level on non-compliance. Common sense should prevail at all times. (c) The lack of confidence shown by the Inspectorate in assessing this particular situation and dealing properly with it must be viewed with concern.’? (2) If no to (1), will the Minister table the file note? (3) Can the Minister explain what are the dangers of verbal directions and approvals being given by the Inspectorate? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Can the Minister explain why the lack of confidence shown by the Inspectorate in assessing this particular situation and dealing properly with it must be viewed with concern? (6) If no to (5), why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1)-(6) The Member's questions are numerous, often relate to detailed events in the past, and require an enormous amount of research and investigation within the Department. This work has to be undertaken by the very people who have the responsibility for regulating safety in the mining industry. While they are undertaking this historical research to assist the Minister for State Development in responding to the Member's questions, these people are not able to do their job of ensuring that safety standards are being maintained in the industry. The Minister considers the Member's constant detailed questioning to be a very significant cost burden on the Department and a distraction from their proper work.

8400 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

For these reasons, the Minister asks the Member to indicate how his questions are relevant to the cause of safety in the mining industry today. MINING, CROESUS SHAFT SITE VISIT 648. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to a file note which I understand is dated March 8 1990 signed by J Jance, Senior Technical Engineer to the Assistant Director Research and Technical Services titled ‘Croesus Shaft Site Visit - 2 March 1990’ - (1) Is it correct that this file note exists on Departmental files and in part states ‘On Friday, 2 March I was instructed, by the D.S.M.E, to make an urgent trip to Kalgoorlie to assess the reported problems associated with the operations at the Croesus Shaft which is managed by K.C.G.M. The events, and my observations, whilst in Kalgoorlie on that day were as follows - (a) The R.M.E was not clear on the matter of who gave the direction to prohibit the use of the cages at the shaft. This apparent direction resulted in ten miners having to climb some 500 metres of ladders to the surface. (b) The two inspectors who where at the shaft when the alleged direction was given (the mechanical engineer and the District Inspector) both denied giving such a direction. They both assumed the direction was given by the R.M.E. (c) There was no evidence of the direction by a Record Book entry. The R.M.E apparently failed to check that facet of the matter. (d) The underground manager for the shaft indicated that he was verbally directed by the District Inspector to cease using the cages and that miners would have to climb to the surface. (e) It was pointed out that the Registered Manager for the Shaft contacted the R.M.E and showed his concern about the miners having to climb to the surface. The D.M.E did not react positively to that concern and certainly did not inspect the site to assess the situation first hand. (f) Overall, there appeared to be a high degree of confusion about the whole matter. Nobody was prepared to accept the responsibility for the events.’? (2) If no to (1), will the Minister table the file note? (3) If yes to (1), can the Minister state the names of the D.M.E (District Mining Engineer) and the R.M.E (Regional Mining Engineer) who were involved with these matters? (4) Is it correct that Mr Jim Boucaut was the Regional Mining Engineer (R.M.E) involved in this matter? (5) If no to (4), then who was? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1)-(5) The Member's questions are numerous, often relate to detailed events in the past, and require an enormous amount of research and investigation within the Department. This work has to be undertaken by the very people who have the responsibility for regulating safety in the mining industry. While they are undertaking this historical research to assist the Minister for State Development in responding to the Member's questions, these people are not able to do their job of ensuring that safety standards are being maintained in the industry. The Minister considers the Member's constant detailed questioning to be a very significant cost burden on the Department and a distraction from their proper work. For these reasons, the Minister repeats his earlier answer and asks the Member to indicate how his questions are relevant to the cause of safety in the mining industry today. BROOME BOAT HARBOUR SITE SELECTION REPORT 672. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure With regard to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure's 'Broome Boat Harbour Site Selection Report - (1) Will the report be provided to the Steering Committee and Community Reference Group members? (2) If yes to (1), when is the report to be provided to the Steering Committee and Community Reference Group members? (3) Will the report be provided to the Kimberley Land Council and native title claimants for the areas proposed as options in the report, and if so when? (4) Will the report be available to members of the Broome community via means other than that of a Web Page download?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8401

(5) If no to (4), why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) Yes. (2) A copy of the final site selection report was sent to all members of the Steering Committee and Community Reference Group on or about 3 April 2003. (3) A copy of the report has been provided to the Kimberley Land Council. Copies of the report have not been separately sent to native title claimants. If native title claimants wish to receive a copy of the report they may request one by contacting the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) Yes, a printed copy of the report has been sent to the Shire of Broome and to the Broome Community Library. A copy of the report is also available for viewing at the offices of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure in Broome. (5) Not applicable. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PROGRAMS FOR ABORIGINES 673. Hon Peter Foss to the Minister for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne (1) What programs are conducted in the Minister for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne’s portfolio, and related agencies, to assist and advance the welfare of Aboriginal persons? (2) What are the details of these programs? (3) What funds are made available to these programs? (4) What is the source of those funds? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: Kimberley Development Commission and Pilbara Development Commission (1) All programs of the Kimberley and Pilbara Development Commissions are made available to Aboriginal persons and communities, with the only specific program for Aboriginal persons being the Aboriginal Economic Development Program. (2) The Aboriginal Economic Development Program provides assistance to Indigenous communities and organisations with commercial development projects. (3) KDC: $100,000 PDC: $80,000 (4) The Department of Industry and Resources and the Development Commissions. The Gascoyne Development Commission (1) All programs of the Gascoyne Development Commission are made available to Aboriginal persons and communities. Specifically the Commission manages the Aboriginal Economic Development Officer (AEDO) program and provides support to the Aboriginal Economic and Employment Development Officer (AEEDO) program and the Piyarli Yardi Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural Centre (PYAHCC) project. (2) AEDO · To assist Indigenous people to identify, take up and sustain enterprise opportunities and to consider how these can contribute to meeting economic, environmental, social and cultural outcomes for Indigenous people within the region; · To enhance the business and management competencies of owners, directors and managers of Indigenous businesses within the region; · To maximise access by Indigenous businesses to programs and services available from State and Commonwealth Government agencies as well as non-government and industry resources; and · To promote a cooperative and integrated approach to Indigenous economic development throughout the region. AEEDO · To promote and assist the involvement of Aboriginal communities and organisation in developing locally based enterprise, employment and training initiatives. · To maximise Aboriginal employment in rural and remote communities. · To assist local Aboriginal community groups and individuals with enterprise development.

8402 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

· To assist Aboriginal people in remote and rural communities to access appropriate training to facilitate access to mainstream employment or enterprise development. · To increase the skills of the Aboriginal labour force. PYAHCC · To revive and share the traditions, culture and heritage of Indigenous Australians. To empower and strengthen Aboriginal people spiritually, physically, intellectually and economically and become unified together with mutual respect for each other. (3) AEDO $91,000 AEEDO $31,672 PYAHCC $4.7 million (4) AEDO Office of Aboriginal Economic Development and the Gascoyne Development Commission AEEDO Western Australian Department of Training PYAHCC Capital Funds State Government GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PROGRAMS FOR ABORIGINES 675. Hon Peter Foss to the Minister for Housing and Works (1) What programs are conducted in the Minister for Housing and Works’ portfolio, and related agencies, to assist and advance the welfare of Aboriginal persons? (2) What are the details of these programs? (3) What funds are made available to these programs? (4) What is the source of those funds? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Department of Housing and Works (1)-(4) The Department’s entire housing operations are targeted at assisting and advancing the welfare of low to moderate income earners in Western Australia. All programs are available to and are accessed by Aboriginal people. However, specific programs that operate with a focus on assisting Aboriginal people are:- Subsidised Public Rental Accommodation Rental accommodation is provided to low income families and individuals with rent charges based on no more than 25% of income. The Department’s mainstream public housing program includes housing located in metropolitan and rural areas for exclusive tenancy of Aboriginal families. This ensures that Aboriginal people on Homeswest waiting lists are provided with priority housing and culturally appropriate housing where available. Includes public housing construction, maintenance and management of public housing stock. Program funds: Approximately $340 million Source funding: Department of Housing and Works Consolidated budget1. Urban Construction Program The Urban Construction Program provides for construction or purchase of Aboriginal rental housing properties in urban locations throughout Western Australia to respond to the ongoing demand for accommodation by Aboriginal people. Approximately 60 units are constructed per year. Program funds: $8.395 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement)2 1The Department of Housing and Works’ consolidated budget comprises a range of funding sources including Commonwealth State Housing Agreement Funding, Consolidated Revenue Fund, State Matching and Departmental income. 2The Agreement stipulates State and Commonwealth funding contributions which total $48.73 million in 2002/03. Aboriginal Tenants Support Service The aim of ATSS is to provide culturally appropriate support and information to Aboriginal tenants or prospective tenants in regional areas of WA, to help tenants understand their rights and responsibilities, obtain housing and maintain their tenancy.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8403

Program funds: $0.3 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Community Construction The Community Construction Program provides for the design, tender and construction of new housing and selective maintenance within discrete Aboriginal Communities where no other housing assistance can be accessed. The communities have a major input into the design and siting of their housing, and there are also training and employment opportunities for community members associated with the construction, repair and maintenance of buildings within their community. Program funds: $8.291 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Fixing Houses for Better Health Program, The Fixing Houses for Better Health Program was established to meet the need for urgent repairs of safety or health hazards in housing provided under various Indigenous housing programs, in order to overcome the backlog of maintenance needs and to maintain housing conditions. Program funds: $0.86 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Town Reserves Regularisation Program The aim of the Town Reserve Regularisation Program is to upgrade essential (power, water, and sewerage) and municipal (roads and communal facilities) services to Town Reserve communities, and transfer the responsibility for this infrastructure to the relevant utility or local authority. Program funds: $0.477 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Remote Area Essential Services Program The Remote Areas Essential Services Program (RAESP) provides a vital repair and maintenance service for power, water and wastewater infrastructure in 67 remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. Program funds: $6.95 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Management Support Program The Management Support Program (MSP) focuses on developing the skills within Aboriginal Communities in housing repairs and maintenance, and developing appropriate housing management systems and skills to enable the effective management of housing stock. The Management Incentive Program (MIP) is focussed on improving the capacity of Aboriginal communities to maintain and manage their housing stock. Funding is available to support housing management, not general office running costs or coordinator’s wages. Program funds: $7.012 million for 2002/2003 Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Indigenous Housing Management System The Indigenous Housing Management System is a computer package designed to assist discrete communities in managing their housing stock. It will also provide reporting data for the Department (for Commonwealth reporting purposes) when fully implemented. Program funds: $0.2 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement).

8404 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Roebourne Enhancement Scheme The Roebourne Enhancement Scheme under the control of the Pilbara Development Commission is a wide- ranging venture designed to improve the town and the well being of residents. The Scheme involves the local authority and all government agencies. The Aboriginal Housing and Infrastructure Unit’s role in the project is directed at upgrading of housing, construction of new housing and asbestos removal in the town. Program funds: $4 million Source funding: $2 million in State funding and $2 million under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. Aboriginal Communities Strategic Investment Program The Aboriginal Communities Strategic Investment Program (ACSIP) seeks to achieve sustainable improvements in the health, living standards and quality of life of people in remote Aboriginal communities. Key initiatives include roads being sealed, new homes, staff housing and council offices being built, drainage improved and other community facilities being upgraded or replaced, with community members involved in all aspects of planning and progressing the works. Program funds: $6.36 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Aboriginal Home Ownership Scheme Designed to help Aboriginal people make the transition from renting to home ownership. The loans are provided on a minimum $1000 deposit and at an interest rate which commences at 6.5%. A shared equity option is also available with the Department purchasing a 30% share in the property. This Scheme provides an excellent avenue through which Aboriginal people can break the welfare dependency cycle and escape the social problems that are sometimes attached to this lifestyle. $5 million has been allocated for loans under this Scheme in 2002/03. Program funds: $5 million per year. Source funding: Department of Housing and Works consolidated budget. Supported Housing Assistance Program Aims to provide tenants with access to appropriate skills development and support to enable them to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities as tenants. The support includes regular property visits, financial counselling, family and child support, home skills, and drug and alcohol counselling. Program funds: $1.7 million in 2002/03 increasing to $2.2 million in 2003/04 Source funding: $1.2 million provided from the Department of Housing and Works consolidated budget and $0.5 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund ($1 million in 2003/04). The Homeswest and Department of Community Development Tenant Referral Program Operates similar to the Supported Housing Assistance Program in that support is linked to rental arrears, poor tenancy standards, antisocial behaviour and wider social problems which are impacting on the success of the tenancy. Homeswest and Department of Community Development work with the tenant to examine the problems affecting the tenancy and will agree on specific goals, timeframes and strategies to deal with the problems and will work towards stabilising the tenancy. The program has been expanded to now include the referral of all tenancies, where children are involved, to the Department for Community Development where legal action has commenced. This is designed to ensure all efforts are made to save the tenancy and prevent placing families and children in housing poverty. Program funds: No specific funding is required for this program, with support provided by existing FTE. Source funding: Not applicable. Transitional Housing Program This involves the Department utilising the services of community organisations prepared to undertake headleasing arrangements with tenants who have a poor tenancy history with Homeswest. Under this arrangement, a community organisation takes responsibility for the tenancy and provides extensive tenancy support to assist the tenant in meeting his or her tenancy obligations. Program funds: No specific funding is provided to this program however, properties are provided on a peppercorn rental representing approximately $3,500 per property per year in rent forgone. Source funding: Not applicable.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8405

Financial Counselling To assist tenants to maintain their tenancy where they have fallen into arrears, an agreement has been reached where financial counsellors across the State that they will give priority to Homeswest tenants at risk of eviction. Program funds: No specific funding is provided to this program as it only links tenants with support services. Source funding: Not applicable. Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Protocols The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is administered by the Department of Community Development and provides funds through which organisations can provide short term housing options for clients faced with housing crisis. The Department of Housing and Works and the Department for Community Development have established formal protocols designed to improve the outcomes for people requiring assistance under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program and to improve the quality of services provided. These Protocols commit both Departments to work together in the development of strategic policy and planning, program planning and management and service delivery. They compliment other Protocols in place with government departments like Centrelink and non-government organisations like the Women's Refuge Group. Field officers and senior managers from each Department meet regularly to share information. Referral processes within Departments have been streamlined to allow clients requiring urgent accommodation assistance to be assessed in a more timely manner. This initiative is particularly designed to assist people escaping domestic violence situations. The Department of Housing and Works’ commitments in regard to SAAP clients has been expanded to now include the granting of housing on a priority basis for clients vacating SAAP accommodation. Program funds: No specific funding is provided to this program as assistance is provided through improved processes and coordination. Source funding: Not applicable. Aboriginal Cyclical Offending Program This program involves a number of agencies including Department of Justice, Police, Department of Community Development working together through an appointed co-ordinator to provide services and assistance to Aboriginal people. From a housing perspective it is for them to maintain their tenancy, to obtain priority assistance or to ensure that the housing provided meets the cultural needs of Aboriginal people. Pilot programs are currently operating in Geraldton and Midland. Program funds: This program is funded across government through participating agencies. The DHW contribution is $22,000 per annum. Source funding: Department of Housing and Works consolidated budget. Strong Families Program This program operates under Safer WA and involves intersectorial collaboration in dealing with families having problems in the community and this includes Homeswest tenants. The program is being piloted in Albany and Midland. Program funds: This program is funded across government through participating agencies and through an allocation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The DHW contribution is $25,000 per annum. Source funding: Department of Housing and Works consolidated budget. Indigenous Family Program The Indigenous Family Program is managed by an Aboriginal organisation operating in partnership with DHW, Family and Children’s Services and a coalition of other Aboriginal agencies. The Program supports Aboriginal families who are experiencing difficulties in sustaining existing tenancies. The philosophy of the program is similar to that of the SHAP program although it strives to develop intersectorial collaboration between agencies. Program funds: This program is funded across government through participating agencies. The DHW contribution is $55,000 per annum. Source funding: Department of Housing and Works consolidated budget. Tenant Employment Program Since 1996, the Department has endeavoured to create employment opportunities by way of traineeships and apprenticeships. These initiatives are listed below:

8406 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

1. DHW since utilising the Aboriginal Traineeship Agreement between the Public Sector Management Division (PSMD) and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) have had (over) 150 Aboriginal people gain training and employment within the Department. This number has increased by 13, with the current intake of trainees for 2003. 2. The requirement of tenders for cottage residential contracts to provide the names of apprentices when awarded a tender above the value of $150,000 or two units. 3. Compliance with the State Governments Priority Access Policy for training by the Departments non- residential Works projects. 4. Undertaking special projects, such as the Mid- West Apprentice and Traineeship Group Training Company's on-site construction project in Geraldton. Since 1196, 22 Aboriginal trainees and apprentice outcomes have been generated. 5. Providing opportunities for four Aboriginal apprentices employed by the West Australian Group Training Company using host-employers on the Department's New Living Projects. Program funds: No specific funding is provided through these initiative they are funded through the Department’s day to day operations. Source funding: Not applicable. Halls Creek Task Force In April, 2002, a service agreement, for community and housing management in the Halls Creek area, was signed by the DHW, Department of Indigenous Affairs, ATSIC, the Shire of Halls Creek and the Ngoonjuwah Council Aboriginal Corporation. This service agreement covers the areas of Lundja, Mardiwah Loop, Nicholson Block and Yardgee Aboriginal Communities. The Halls Creek Task Force assists Aboriginal communities to achieve better community management outcomes and better administration and management of housing stock. Through this Task Force, the service agreement also aims to ensure agencies have a clearer understanding of their roles and responsibilities and will undertake a commitment to, and agreed action in relation to planning, management, support and service delivery. The Aboriginal Housing and Infrastructure Unit has a central coordinating role in administering and implementing both the Agreement and the Task Force. Program funds: $0.3 million Source funding: Funding is provided through the new Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia July 2002-June 2007 (Agreement). Government Employees Housing Authority (GEHA) GEHA provides accommodation for Government employees in country and remote areas to service the general community, which includes Aboriginal people. In particular the Departments of Education, Community Development, Police, and Justice, work with Aboriginal communities in remote locations and GEHA facilitates this work by providing housing for employees of these Departments. In addition, GEHA will be providing accommodation in response to Agency requests, in order for the recommendations of the Gordon Inquiry to be addressed. Program funds: $56.6 million Source Funding: Funds are sourced from the rents GEHA charges client departments. Country Housing Authority (CHA) The CHA Housing Development Incentive Program offers incentives to Indigenous Communities in remote areas of the state that are involved in business activities to provide housing for their workers. Program funds: $400,000 Source Funding: The Regional Infrastructure Funding Program State Supply Commission (a) The Government’s Buy Local Policy recognises that one of the key objectives in the Government’s Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy is to achieve a sustained increase in the level of supply of services to government by enterprises that employ, or are owned and operated by, Aboriginal residents of Western Australia. The Buy Local Policy requires “government agencies to encourage bids from, and give priority to, tenderers who are Aboriginal (solely or in partnership) or have in place or are prepared to consider implementing employment strategies and programs for Aboriginal people.” (b) Nil

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8407

(c) N/A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PROGRAMS FOR ABORIGINES 681. Hon Peter Foss to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Federal Affairs (1) What programs are conducted in the Minister for Federal Affairs’ portfolio, and related agencies, to assist and advance the welfare of Aboriginal persons? (2) What are the details of these programs? (3) What funds are made available to these programs? (4) What is the source of those funds? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to the response provided by the Premier for question on notice 683 of 9th April 2003.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PROGRAMS FOR ABORIGINES 682. Hon Peter Foss to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Public Sector Management (1) What programs are conducted in the Minister for Public Sector Management’s portfolio, and related agencies, to assist and advance the welfare of Aboriginal persons? (2) What are the details of these programs? (3) What funds are made available to these programs? (4) What is the source of those funds? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to the response provided by the Premier for question on notice 683 of 9th April 2003.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PROGRAMS FOR ABORIGINES 683. Hon Peter Foss to the Leader of the House representing the Premier (1) What programs are conducted in the Premier’s portfolio, and related agencies, to assist and advance the welfare of Aboriginal persons? (2) What are the details of these programs? (3) What funds are made available to these programs? (4) What is the source of those funds? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I am advised that the following programs to assist and advance the welfare of Aboriginal persons are conducted in the Premier’s portfolio and related agencies: Department of the Premier and Cabinet (1) Aboriginal Employment Strategy (2) The aim of this Strategy is to increase the number of Aboriginal people employed in the public sector. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) employs a Coordinator to facilitate this employment program. Candidates are recruited into a 12-month training program. The traineeship program is competency-based employment that can be a combination of both on and off the job training. Upon successful completion of the traineeship participants may obtain ongoing employment within the employing agency. Candidates are also eligible to register for Entry Level contract positions through the public sector database registration. (3) Under the Aboriginal Employment Strategy, funding is available for 45 Trainees over the financial year for public sector agencies. Funding assistance for the employment of 10 Aboriginal people into permanent Level 1 non-technical or specialised/professional positions in regional areas during the current financial year is also available. Agencies are paid a salary subsidy up to $9,300 for each trainee during the course of the 12-month Traineeship. (4) The source of the funds is provided through a joint funding agreement between the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and DPC. (1) Community Partnerships Fund (2) This fund will be made available for Aboriginal community and agency partnership projects that will be identified through local and regional planning processes. The goal of the program is to support strategies that

8408 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

enhance collaboration across Government, community and business sectors. The goals and criteria for funding will be designed over the next three months. (3) $1.6 million over four years is available for this initiative. (4) Funding is from appropriations. (1) Community Futures Foundation (2) DPC is coordinating the creation of a Community Futures Foundation that will, in conjunction with private enterprise, academic institutions and philanthropic groups, support creative initiatives to develop Aboriginal leadership. (3) Seed funding of $400,000 over 2 years has been provided. (4) Funding is from appropriations. (1) Community Building and Security Needs Program (2) This is a program for Aboriginal communities that will incorporate a ‘place management approach’, which is a ‘joined-up’ Government framework to: facilitate local responses to local needs and build on local strengths; address collaboratively the long and short term security needs of communities and work with local people to develop early intervention and prevention strategies. (3) This program has been provided with $6.125 million over four years. (4) Funding is from appropriations. (1) Crime Prevention Funds (2) The Government quarantined part of this fund for initiatives to specifically assist Aboriginal communities. (3) $300,000 from the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership Fund – Indigenous Account will be used to fund Indigenous projects that support the Government’s Response to the Gordon Inquiry priorities. (4) Redirected from already allocated Crime Prevention funds. Anti-Corruption Commission The Anti-Corruption Commission has provided the following information: (1) No programs conducted by the ACC. (2)-(4) Not applicable. Governor's Establishment (1)-(4) Not applicable to the Governor's Establishment. Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner The Commissioner for Public Sector Standards advises as follows: (1) The following programs are managed by the Office of EEO ~ The Equity and Diversity Plan for the Public Sector Workforce 2001 – 2005 ~ Indigenous Employment in the WA Public Sector – Valuing the Difference (2) The Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are joint sponsors of the Government's Equity and Diversity Plan which was released in January 2001 and identifies objectives for employment of people from equity and diversity groups across the public sector as a whole. The Plan includes employment objectives for improved representation of Indigenous Australians at all levels of employment. As part of the Plan public sector agencies have identified objectives for their agency that will contribute to the achievement of these sector objectives. To assist agencies to achieve these objectives the Office of EEO has developed strategies based on consultation with Indigenous employees. These have been included in the strategy, Indigenous Employment in the WA Public Sector – Valuing the Difference which was distributed to agencies in December 2002. (3) These programs are included in the normal functions of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment who has a role to assist agencies to achieve improved equity and diversity in public employment. The output for the Director has an anticipated budget for 2003-2004 of $1,169,000 . (4) Funding is from appropriations.

MAIN ROADS WA, ROADSIDE TREE REMOVAL POLICY 691. Hon Dee Margetts to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure With regard to Main Roads’ policy on roadside tree removal -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8409

(1) What is Main Road’s current policy on roadside tree clearing? (2) What guidelines does Main Roads follow in the determination of the width of the roadside reserve necessary to clear? (3) Does Main Roads liaise with other Government departments such as the Department of Environment and Heritage, Department of State Development and the Department of Agriculture to ascertain whether the clearing on roadside trees and vegetation is carried out with a consideration of salinity salt levels, soil and land conservation and biodiversity issues in mind? (4) Has Main Roads contracted the removal of roadside trees to private company? (5) If yes to (4), is this contract applicable to roads throughout the States? (6) If yes to (4), what company/companies has/have been contracted to carry out this work? (7) What guidelines do the contracted company/companies follow when clearing roadside trees and vegetation? (8) What tonnage of vegetation has Main Roads cleared from roadsides throughout Western Australian over the last six months? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: 1. Main Roads’ Environmental Policy Statement has a statement of intent to protect and enhance the environmental values of road reserves and has specific objectives and targets for maintaining or improving the quality of vegetation within the road reserve network. Tree clearing is only undertaken where it is unavoidable for the installation of new works or to maintain clear zones for the safety of road users. In some instances, such tree clearing is offset by re-vegetation measures which minimise any loss of environmental values. 2. Main Roads utilises guidelines which reflect these environmental policy objectives in specifying the clearing requirements for new works or on-going maintenance of the road network. 3. Main Roads meets all its statutory requirements in conducting its formal processes for environmental assessment and approval of any of its activities. This process and accompanying procedures has been developed in close consultation with the Department of Environmental Protection. Specific projects involving clearing of greater than one hectare are referred to the Commissioner for Soil and Land Conservation. These procedures require that liaison occurs with other Government agencies as appropriate to the nature and scale of the impacts. 4. The requirement to maintain clear zones adjacent to the road is included in statewide Term Network Road Maintenance contracts supervised by Main Roads. 5. The maintenance requirement is included in the eight Term Network Contracts cover the State Road Network and National Highways throughout Western Australia. It does not apply to local roads. 6. The following companies have been awarded either one or two of the Term Network contracts: CSR Emoleum, RoadCare, McMahons Contractors Pty Ltd, BGC Contracting and Best Roads Group. 7. The Term Network Maintenance contractors follow the guideline specifications outlined in (2) above. Templates showing clearing profiles for regrowth are contained in the contract specifications. 8. This information is not collected, however most cleared vegetation is mulched and returned to the roadside. The Minister is currently reviewing this practice. LAND, LOTS 5 AND 49 GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY, BELMONT, CHARITABLE TRUST 703. Hon Jim Scott to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Attorney General In regard to the charitable trust that covers the dealings with land at Ascot formerly known as Grove Farm and comprising lots 5 and 49 Great Eastern Highway, Belmont - (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the terms of the trust requires the land to be used for the purposes of ‘public recreation and enjoyment and for those purposes only’? (2) Is the Attorney General aware if the Belmont City Council (BCC) has sold or attempted to sell all or any part of the trust land for purposes at odds with the terms of the trust? (3) Will the Attorney General confirm that the BCC lawyers are negotiating a variation to the trust scheme with the Crown Solicitor’s office? (4) Will the Attorney General agree to a variation that allows the land to be sold for development purposes? (5) What, if any, public process has been or will be followed to allow public input to any variation of trust terms? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Please refer to response to Question Without Notice No 885 dated 7th May 2003.

8410 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY, POLLUTION EMISSION FIGURES 704. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Does the Department of Environmental Protection check or oversee emissions figures reported by industry to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI)? (2) If yes to (1), can the Minister describe the oversight regime? (3) If no to (1), does the Minister consider the NPI to provide an accurate representation of Western Australian pollution emission figures? (4) If no to (1), does any other agency or body, State or Commonwealth, fulfil this role? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) Yes. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) performs a series of checks on emission estimates provided by Western Australian industry, and these are detailed in response to Question 2 below. NPI figures reported by industry represent estimates of what has been released from a facility. The figures do not represent what the public and the environment may be directly exposed to in specific locations. The accuracy of NPI emission estimates varies according to the emission estimation technique used by the industry facility. Techniques include engineering calculations, direct measurement, mass balance, emission factors, and approved alternatives. In some areas including major cities, the Government reports estimates of emissions from community based non–industrial sources such as motor vehicles and domestic fuel burning, to put industry emissions in context with certain non-industry emissions. For example, motor vehicles are a leading contributor to emissions of substances such as carbon monoxide, lead, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide in urban areas. (2) Emission estimates reported by Western Australian industry to the NPI undergo a number of checks which are outlined below. The DEP examines each NPI report received from a WA industry facility to check that: · Mandatory administrative details are present (for example: registered company name, facility name, main activities of the facility, location coordinates, certification sign-off by facility occupier). · Emission estimates have been provided for NPI substances which apply to that facility. · The emission estimation technique used for each estimate has been reported (engineering calculations, direct measurement, mass balance, emission factors, or approved alternatives). If any of the above data is missing, the facility is alerted to supply the data. I now seek leave to table a National Pollutant Inventory Reporting Form and an Example DEP Checksheet for Facility Reports. [See paper No 1117.] Emission estimates for each facility for the current year are compared by the DEP against previous year’s emission estimates from that facility, and, where found to be significantly different, the company is contacted and queried. Corrections to data are made if necessary. It is important to note that there can be many reasons for differences in NPI data from one year to the next, ranging from different production rates at a facility, improved pollution control methods, improvements to emission calculation methods and changed processes at the facility. Also the number of substances to be reported increased for the 2001-2002 period. Before publication on the Internet, WA facility emissions estimates are compared by the DEP against emissions estimates from facilities in other States and Territories, and where anomalies are found, the facility is queried about the data. The Commonwealth, which operates the NPI Internet site www.npi.gov.au, also checks WA NPI facility data for mandatory information and formatting. The DEP conducts onsite audits of some WA facilities to ensure that the process of NPI reporting is being carried out according to requirements. The DEP compares NPI emission estimates from facilities which have a licence under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 against emissions reported under licence, and where anomalies are found, follow up enquiries are made. (3) Not applicable.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8411

(4) Not applicable. DRIVERS LICENCES, FUNDING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO LEARN TO DRIVE 705. Hon Alan Cadby to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to a promise made by the Government that it would provide funding to assist those young people who were eligible to learn to drive, but because of their family situation there was no motor vehicle or valid tutor for private tuition, and neither could they afford to pay to learn to drive through a driving school. Can the Minister please advise - (1) Has money been allocated by the Government for this purpose? (2) If so, how much money was allocated, and in what financial year? (3) If so, what is the nature of the grant per individual, and by what process is it allocated? (4) If so, how many young people have been the recipients of this scheme? (5) If funding has not yet been allocated by the Government for this process, can the Minister advise why not? (6) Further, if funding has not yet been allocated by the Government for this process, can the Minister make a commitment that she will do so, and when? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: 1. Yes 2. Funding was allocated as follows from the Road Trauma Trust Fund (RTTF). 2000/2001 $ 100,000 2001/2002 $ 100,000 2002/2003 $ 25,000 3. The Learner Driver Assistance Scheme (LDAS) was developed to ensure access and equity for learner drivers who may experience problems regarding access to a suitable supervisor and/or vehicle. The LDAS project was to establish and support a network of volunteers throughout the State to supervise learner drivers that may be having difficulty completing their minimum compulsory 25 hours of supervised driving experience through genuine hardship. There is an administration process in place for the volunteer supervisor and the learner driver. Each must meet certain criteria to access this scheme. The volunteers would be using their own vehicle and would be reimbursed through the scheme for mileage. There have been enquiries by young people for access to the LDAS. However, discussions with them have identified that they can meet the requirements of the 25 hours of compulsory supervised driving experience through other means. Expenditure from funds allocated to LDAS from the RTTF, has therefore not been required. 4. No young people have been recipients of the LDAS. 5. N/A 6. N/A MOTOR BIKE LICENSING, RESTRICTION OF TIMES 706. Hon Alan Cadby to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to a decision made to restrict the times in which motor bike licensing could be conducted to the hours of 7am to 11am. I understand this decision was for the Occupational Health and Safety protection of licensing instructors, to minimise their sun exposure. Can the Minister please advise - (1) What were the previous available working hours for motor bike licensing? (2) What is the total number of access hours lost per week because of this restriction based on existing staff numbers? (3) Have additional staff been employed to maintain levels of service to the public? (4) If so, - (a) how many staff have been employed; (b) for how many hours a week; and (c) at what additional cost per week? (5) Have the working hours of the existing licensing instructors been reduced to part-time hours accordingly? (6) If not, what duties are these licensing instructors performing in the extra hours per day? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: This situation has been addressed and the restriction is no longer in place.

8412 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Motorcycle assessments are currently available during regular hours of operation at all metropolitan licensing centres. Notwithstanding the above, answers to the Hon Member’s Questions are provided below: (1) 7.15 am to 3.55 pm (2) At the time the restriction was in force, approximately 140 hours per day. (3) No (4) N/A (5) No (6) The assessors conducted assessments for other classes of motor driver’s licence outside the hours of the restriction, when this was in place.

LOT 2 BURNS BEACH ROAD, STATUS OF APPEAL 708. Hon George Cash to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure What is the current status in respect of the appeal relating to Lot 2 Burns Beach Road (MRS Amendment No. 992/33 Clarkson-Butler)? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage determined the appeal on 28th March 2003, lodged pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, in relation to Lot 2 Burns Beach Road on 28 March 2003.

DEPARTMENT OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT TRADING ENTERPRISE 710. Hon George Cash to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to Question without Notice No. 293 of 2002, and ask - (1) Has the review and consultation been completed? (2) If so, does the Government intend to create any part of the Department of Land Administration as a Government Trading Enterprise? (3) Is enabling legislation required to meet the Government’s objectives? (4) If so, when will this legislation be introduced? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) The review and consultation referred to in the previous question dated 29 October 2002 were completed in April - May 2002. (2) Following this consultation, in October 2002 Cabinet made an in-principle decision to establish a statutory authority with commercial powers to undertake the land titling, valuation and land information functions currently provided by the Department of Land Administration (DOLA). This is currently the subject of further consultation with DOLA staff, the Union and stakeholders. (3) Yes. (4) It is envisaged that legislation will be introduced in the autumn session of Parliament in 2004.

ROADS, NATIVE VEGETATION CLEARED FOR ROAD WORKS 717. Hon Christine Sharp to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Does Main Roads Department have records of the amount of native vegetation cleared by the Department or its contractors for road works in the last three years? (2) If so, could the Minister please table the information in whatever format it is available? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) Vegetation cleaning is only undertaken by Main Roads where it is unavoidable for the installation of new works or to maintain clear zones for the safety of road users. In some instances, such tree clearing is offset by re-vegetation measures which minimise any loss of environmental values. Information is not collected on the volume of vegetation cleared, however most cleared material is mulched and returned to the roadside. (2) Not applicable.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8413

WARREN FOREST REGION, LOGGING ROADS 718. Hon Christine Sharp to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (1) Can the Minister confirm whether the Forest Products Commission or the Department of Conservation and Land Management is responsible for the cost of maintaining logging roads in the Warren Forest Region? (2) Can the Minister confirm that logs from Crowea 6/7 and 12/13 were transported to Pemberton Saw Mill and Diamond Chip Mill using MacAlpine, Cedarman and Wheatley Coast Roads and the South West Highway? (3) Why were the logs not transported on the dedicated logging roads? (4) What is the Forest Product Commission’s current policy on the use and maintenance of dedicated logging roads in the Warren Forest Region? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) The concept of 'dedicated log roads', that is roads established and maintained for the principal purpose of log haulage, in the Warren Forest Region that arose as a result of the Wood Chipping Industry Agreement Act 1969 is no longer applicable. In general, the management of all roads on land vested in the Conservation Commission is the responsibility of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (Departmental roads). The Forest Products Commission is responsible for maintenance of Departmental roads where and when that maintenance is for, or required as a result of, harvesting, log haulage or regeneration operations. (2) Logs were transported from Crowea 6/7 and 12/13 to Diamond Chip Mill using McAlpine, Cedarman and Wheatley Coast Roads and the South West Highway. Logs from the same coupes were transported to the Pemberton Saw Mill via a different route. (3) In this specific case the logs were not transported entirely on Departmental roads because some sections of the network were too steep for use by the truck configurations involved. (4) The Forest Products Commission nominates 'approved transport routes' for all harvest operations. Where practical these routes will make maximum possible use of Departmental roads. Where other roads, such as those that are the responsibility of Main Roads WA or the relevant local authority, are used, that use will be in accordance with all relevant legal requirements, just as applies to other road users. JARRAH AND KARRI, LOGGING 721. Hon Christine Sharp to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Further to Question on Notice No. 130 of 2002 - (1) Would the Minister please give the indicative and actual sawlog volumes for jarrah and karri from nominated coupes and compartments in which on the date that question was answered logging was not completed but has since been completed? (2) For some coupes, why are the indicative data originally in cubic metres subsequently converted to tonnes and what conversion figure was used? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I refer the Hon Member to the answer I provided to Question Without Notice 831. SOUTH BEACH URBAN DEVELOPMENT, COCKBURN/FREMANTLE 724. Hon Jim Scott to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Regarding the South Beach Urban Development in Cockburn/Fremantle - (1) On what date did the WAPC approve in-fill for the northern portion of Lot 100? (2) To what level, AHD, did the WAPC approve in-fill for the northern portion of Lot 100? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: 1. The Western Australian Planning Commission has not issued approval to fill the northern portion of Lot 100. 2. N/A. SHEPPERTON ROAD CAUSEWAY, VICTORIA PARK, VEHICLE NUMBERS 725. Hon Jim Scott to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure What was the daily average number of vehicles travelling across the Shepperton Road Causeway in Victoria Park/Perth in the years -

8414 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(a) 1998; (b) 1999; and (c) 2000? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: The annual average weekday traffic volumes for the Causeway are: (a) 1998/1999 107 712 vehicles per day. (b) 1999/2000 73 032 vehicles per day. (c) 2000/2001 No valid results are available for this period due to roadworks on the Causeway from July 2000 to March 2001. However, traffic volumes in 2001/02 show 59 200 vehicles per day. PERTH BICYCLE NETWORK, COMPLETION 726. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Is the Government committed to the completion of the Perth Bicycle Network? (2) Is the construction of the Perth Bicycle Network running to schedule? (3) When will Stage 2 of the Perth Bicycle Network be completed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) Yes, the Government is committed to the completion of the Perth Bicycle Network (PBN). The Government recognises the importance of establishing a comprehensively planned cycle network to increase safety, accessibility and to promote cycling as a sustainable transport option. (2) Yes, the construction of the Perth Bicycle Network is running to schedule. The Swanbourne to Grant Street Principal Shared Path (PSP) is currently under construction to be completed this month (June 2003). In December 2002 the Government also completed the East Parade to Maylands Station PSP and I am pleased to inform the Parliament that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, recently signed a contract for the extension of this facility from Maylands Station through to Bayswater Station. Planning and Design work on other PBN Stage 2 projects is in progress. (3) The State Government is reviewing the order in which the elements of the PBN are completed in order to get better integration with new public transport developments. NEERABUP NATIONAL PARK, TREATMENT PLANT 727. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure In the debate on the Reserve Bill on October 14 1997 ‘the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority agreed to the excision of 8 hectares from Neerabup National Park for the purpose of a treatment plant only on the condition that the Water Corporation purchases an equivalent piece of land to the south or east and incorporates it into the national park’ - (1) Has the Government acquired this land? (2) If yes to (1), has the Government incorporated the land in the Neerabup National Park? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) If no to (1), when will the Government acquired this land? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1)-(4) I refer the Member to the answer to Question on Notice 644 dated 9 April 2003. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is responsible for acquiring the private land that is to be incorporated in the Neerabup National Park for land previously excised for various public works. The Water Corporation will recoup the WAPC for the cost of acquiring 8ha of land excised for the treatment plant. LOT 2 BURNS BEACH, REDUCTION IN CONSERVATION VALUE 729. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Further to Question without Notice No. 1012 of February 19 2002, the answer to question (2) states that the Environmental Protection Authority has advised that Lot 2 Burns Beach has vegetation and landform features that represent in a single contiguous block much of the physical and biological diversity of the Quindalup dune systems - (1) Does the Minister’s recent decision to permit development of 146ha of this site split up this contiguous block? (2) If yes to (1), will the Minister quantify the reduction in conservation value of this ‘single contiguous block’?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8415

Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1)-(2) The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has agreed with the Minister for the Environment's determination of environmental appeals, lodged pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, in relation to urban development on Lot 2 Burns Beach Road. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is satisfied that the determination of those appeals sufficiently preserve the environmental value and integrity of the land and its associated physical and biological diversity. NATIONAL HIV STRATEGY, IMPLEMENTATION 730. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health (1) Is the State Government committed to implementing the principles of harm minimisation as stated in the National HIV Strategy? (2) If so, how? (3) Is the State Government committed to supporting the model of peer education as outlined in the National HIV Strategy? (4) Will outreach services for street-based sex workers be allocated any funding in the 2003 budget? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) If yes to (4), which peer-based agency will be allocated these funds to deliver these services? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: 1. Yes 2. Harm reduction encompasses a wide range of policies and programs aimed at reducing harm. The Department of Health funds services and peer-education programs that engage with high risk groups in order to minimise the harm that may occur to themselves and others. 3. Yes 4. Whilst it is likely that funding will be continued for outreach services, internal allocations have yet to be determined. 5. Not applicable 6. Not applicable FIRE AND EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT TRAINING 733. Hon Dee Margetts to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services With regard to Fire Emergency Risk Management training - (1) Can the Minister outline what kind of emergency risk management training the Fire and Emergency Services Authority provides Local Governments in Western Australia? (2) Who was responsible for writing/designing this training program? (3) Was the creation of this training program informed by research undertaken by bushfire prevention and natural resource management specialists from Western Australia? (4) If yes to (3), who were the specialists and what reports or research findings influenced the creation of this training program? (5) Does this training program include any components or objectives relating to ecological and weed management? (6) Does this training program include any components or objectives in relation to the importance of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation in relation to pre-emptive burning? (7) How often is the training program updated? (8) How often are rangers/officers in local shires expected to update their skills through subsequent training programs? (9) How many rangers/officers have received FESA’s Emergency Management training in Western Australia? (10) What responsibilities does this training enable local shires to bestow upon their rangers? (11) What discretion do rangers have in relation to the classification of hazardous fuel loading? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The Fire and Emergency Services Authority advise:

8416 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

1. FESA provides a series of emergency risk management training to Local Governments throughout Western Australia with the assistance of the Commonwealth agency, Emergency Management Australia. The training includes: Core Emergency Risk Management Training Program: - Introduction to Emergency Risk Management - 1 day and flexible learning - Emergency Risk Management Phase 1 - 4 days - Emergency Risk Management Phase 2 - 4 days - Emergency Management for Local Government - 3.5 days AWARE Training Program: - Emergency Risk Management Project Management Workshop - 2 days FESA also makes other fire related emergency risk management training available to Local Government personnel, including the Fire Control Officer Training Program and the Incident Control System. 2.-4. Emergency Management Australia coordinated the development and design of the Core Emergency Risk Management Training Program with consultation from all States and Territories. FESA contributed to the development of all courses including the development of the emergency risk management competencies which are part of the Public Safety Training Package. FESA coordinated the development of a flexible learning package for the Introduction to Emergency Risk Management course which is available to all interested emergency managers. The Emergency Risk Management Project Management Workshop is restricted to Local Governments who have engaged the emergency risk management process. 5. There is limited ecological training in the Machine Supervisors and Fire Control Officers courses. There is also some training provided in the Wildfire Suppression modules 2.28 and 3.17, but these are based on hazardous fuel loadings. 6. Module 3.17 Prescribed Burning provides guidance in relation to the prescribed hazard reduction burning, fuel loads and vegetation. 7. All training programs are regularly reviewed and updated to meet current practice and needs. Generally, updating is undertaken after each training activity using feedback from participants and trainers. Emergency Management Australia and FESA engage a continuous improvement process that ensures the training program meets the needs of Local Governments and other agencies. 8. Specific local governments would need to advise their requirements in relation to this question. 9. A total of 212 local government officers attended emergency management training in the 2001-2002 financial year. FESA estimates that a similar number will complete emergency management training in the current financial year. 10. Section 38 of the Bush Fires Act 1954 empowers Local Governments to appoint persons as bush fire control officers, providing such persons with statutory powers and responsibilities under that Act. 11. Rangers are constrained by the policy and practices of the Shire. Local Governments, under section 33 of the Bush Fires Act 1954, may initiate measures to prevent the outbreak or spread of a bush fire. GNANGARA MOUND, EAST OF YANCHEP CAVES, PINE PLANTATION CLEARING 734. Hon Dee Margetts to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage In the Minister’s answer to a previous question on Wednesday, December 18 2002 it was stated that the Government’s analysis ‘ …shows that about 100 hectares of pines east of the Caves might be expected to raise water levels in monitoring bores close to the caves within approximately four years. By comparison, thinning of the pines in this area would show no positive gains in water levels near the caves in this timeframe.’ Given that, as the Minister also stated in that answer that ‘Groundwater levels on the Gnangara Mound are declining, putting significant pressure on groundwater dependent ecosystems.’ - (1) Since the analysis of the impact of 1000 ha of pine plantation clearing referred to above was undertaken, has any of pine plantations east of the Yanchep Caves on the Gnangara Mound, been cleared yet? (2) If the answer to question (1) is yes, what total area of pine plantation has been cleared so far, since that analysis was undertaken? (3) Has an agreement between the relevant Government agencies been reached to clear 1000 ha of pine plantation east of the Yanchep Caves on the Gnangara mound, since the above mentioned analysis was undertaken? (4) If the answer to question (3) is yes, when is this clearing scheduled to occur?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8417

(5) If the answer to question (3) is no, why not and has an agreement between the relevant Government agencies been reached to clear any area of pine plantations east of the Yanchep Caves? (6) If the answer to question (5) is yes, what total area of pine plantation clearing east of the Yanchep Caves has been agreed to, and when has it been scheduled to be cleared? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) Yes (2) Two hundred hectares of pines east of the Yanchep caves were cleared by the Forest Products Commission (FPC) in July/August 2002. (3) No (4) Not applicable (5) The FPC had concerns that any further clear-felling of pines would reduce timber volumes on the Gnangara Mound to the point where it would jeopardise FPC’s ability to meet the State Agreement Act commitments to supply timber to Wesbeam over the next 25 years. The FPC carried out an inventory in late 2002 to check existing timber volumes on the Gnangara Mound and is currently conducting modelling to analyse whether the volumes will be sufficient to meet the State Agreement Act commitments. Preliminary results of the modelling indicate that any additional premature clear-felling of pines in the Yanchep caves area will render the FPC unable to meet its commitments to Wesbeam. The FPC is currently estimating the potential economic cost of not meeting its the State Agreement Act commitments, if it is required to prematurely clear-fell around the Yanchep Caves. The relevant agencies are waiting on the outcome of the FPC’s analyses before negotiations on further clearing can proceed. Given the four year period before any response to clearing could be expected, the State agencies are trialing artificial maintenance of groundwater levels near the caves. (6) Not applicable LAND CLEARING, BLOCK CG 3819, NORTH OF OLD PLAIN ROAD 735. Hon Dee Margetts to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage With regard to the clearing of trees and vegetation on block CG 3819, north of Old Plain Rd adjoining Newdale Road - (1) Has a notice of intent to clear trees and vegetation on block CG 3819 been submitted? (2) If no to (1), what action does the Minister intend to take in response to the clearing of this vegetation? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) A Notice of Intent to clear was submitted for the property in 1994 and a “no objections” was issued by the Commissioner for Soil and Land Conservation. The property has since been sold and there is no current approval for land clearing on the property. (2) Based on the information provided, the Commissioner for Soil and Land Conservation will investigate the clearing. If the Commissioner finds there has been a failure to notify under Regulation 4 of the Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992, then the clearing will trigger the Transitional Clearing Provision under the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2002. Under the Transitional Provision, once the Bill is passed the Department of Environmental Protection may issue a revegetation notice to the land owner. LANCELIN SEWERAGE PROJECT, INFRASTRUCTURE 736. Hon Dee Margetts to the Minister for the Midwest, Wheatbelt and Great Southern In the Minister’s press release of March 18 2003 the Minister said that the Lancelin Sewerage Project will ‘provide infrastructure necessary for existing businesses to expand and capitalise on the town’s tourism potential’ - (1) What kind of infrastructure is the Minister referring to and which local businesses will be the beneficiaries of this new infrastructure? (2) Besides the State Government and the Shire of Gingin, what other companies or organisations are contributing to this project?

8418 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(3) Can the Minister outline the waste treatment technology that will be used in the Lancelin Sewerage Project? (4) Who will be responsible for the treatment of the sewerage in the Lancelin Sewerage Project and what level of treatment will be utilised? (5) Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no ocean outfall from this project? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) Gravity sewer pipes, pressure sewer pipes and a pumping station. Existing and potential new tourism businesses in the catchment area will benefit. (2) A number of private developers have pledged to contribute funds. These developers have an interest to expand/enhance their existing businesses or to establish new tourism ventures. (3) The new catchment area will feed into the existing wastewater treatment facility that uses aerobic and anaerobic treatment. (4) The treatment of sewerage in Lancelin will continue to be undertaken by the Water Corporation. (5) The current treatment facility does not have an ocean outfall. The new project will not have an ocean outfall. FORESTS, LOGGING, MEETINGS WITH FORMER MINISTERS OF BURKE GOVERNMENT 740. Hon Christine Sharp to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Has the Minister or any person from the Minister’s office held a meeting or discussion with any former Minister of the Burke Government relating to logging levels or allocations of logs from State forest? (2) If yes, who attended the meeting(s) or held the discussion(s)? (3) When did the meeting(s) or discussion(s) take place? (4) On whose behalf did the former Minister approach the current Minister or person from the Minister’s office? (5) What matters were discussed? (6) Did the Minister or person from the Minister’s office make any commitment(s) and/or give any undertaking(s) to the former Minister? (7) If yes, what was (were) the commitment(s) and/or undertaking(s)? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: Dr Judy Edwards MLA (1) Yes. (2) Jason Argo, John Loney, Dr Wally Cox, Keith Low, Jeremy Henderson, Michelle Downey, Ross Belton, Peter Quinn, Teresa Gepp, Alan Walker, Gavin Wibrow, Caris Bailey, Kim Taylor, Peter Dans, Tim Daly, Michael O’Connor, Bob Pearce, Minister Chance, Minister Brown, Tish Campbell, Geoff Bertolini, Nick Oaks, Tony Lovett, Steve Newman, James Malone, Ron Adams, Trevor Richardson, Keiran McNamara. (3) There were 8 meetings involving Minister Edwards: (i) 21 February 2001 attended by Bob Pearce, James Malone, Ron Adams, Trevor Richardson, Ross Belton, Jason Argo, Keiran McNamara and Dr Wally Cox. (ii) 17 May 2001 attended by Tim Daly, Michael O’Connor, Bob Pearce and Jason Argo; (iii) 18 June 2001 attended by Bob Pearce, Minister Chance, Minister Brown, Dr Wally Cox, Jeremy Henderson, Michelle Downey, Keith Low, Jason Argo and John Loney; (iv) 18 April 2002 attended by Tim Daly, Bob Pearce, Tish Campbell, Geoff Bertolini, Ross Belton and Jason Argo; (v) 12 June 2002 attended by Tim Daly, Nick Oaks, Bob Pearce, Tony Lovett, Peter Quinn, Teresa Gepp, Alan Walker and Gavin Wibrow; (vi) 14 August 2002 attended by Tim Daly, Steve Newman, Bob Pearce, Nick Oaks, Peter Quinn, Caris Bailey and Kim Taylor; (vii) 19 March 2003 attended by Bob Pearce, Nick Oaks, Tim Daly, Peter Quinn and Peter Dans; and (viii) 1 May 2003 attended by Bob Pearce, Nick Oaks, Tim Daly, Peter Quinn, Ross Belton and Caris Bailey. (4) The Forest Industries Federation (WA) Inc / Australian Worker’s Union (AWU)

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8419

(5) The matters that were discussed in the meetings with Minister Edwards: (i) 27 February 2001 – WA Sustainable Timber Industry (ii) 17 May 2001 – Restructure of the Timber Industry (iii) 18 June 2001 – Ferguson Report and Royalty Review (iv) 18 April 2002 – Forest Management Plan Roundtable (v) 12 June 2002 – Forest Management Plan and Firefighting (vi) 14 August 2002 – Dalgarup, Forest Management Plan and Donnybrook Chip Mill (vii) 19 March 2003 – Forest Management Plan, Forest Inspections and Community Forest Audits (viii) 1 May 2003 – Forest Management Plan, Funding from the Commonwealth Government and Outcomes of Forestry Implications (6) No (7) Not applicable. Mr John Loney, Project Direct, Department of Conservation and Land Management (Mr Loney is based at the Ministerial Office) (1) Yes (2) Bob Pearce, Max Evans, Ray Carey, John Mitchell, Brian De Russett, Graeme Stephens, Ian Hearn (3) There were 10 meetings involving Mr John Loney (i) 3 May 2001 attended by Bob Pearce; (ii) 21 June 2001 attended by Bob Pearce; (iii) 10 August 2001 attended by Bob Pearce, Max Evans, Ray Carey, John Mitchell, Brian De Russett, Graeme Stephens; (iv) 16 August 2001 attended by Bob Pearce; (v) 5 April 2002 attended by Bob Pearce; (vi) 15 January 2003 attended by Ian Hearn, Bob Pearce; (vii) 21 February 2003 FIFWA Timber Forum (viii) 15 April 2003 FIFWA Timber Forum (ix) Regular fortnightly Timber Industry Assistance Review Committee meetings (x) Regular monthly Native Forest Products Ministerial Advisory Committee meetings (4) The Forest Industries Federation (WA) Inc / Australian Worker’s Union (AWU) (5) The matters that were discussed in the meetings with Mr Loney (i) 3 May 2001 – Timber Industry Restructure process (ii) 21 June 2001 – Timber Industry Restructure process (iii) 10 August 2001 – Business Exit Assistance process (iv) 16 August 2001 – Business Exit Assistance process (v) 5 April 2002 – Business Exit Assistance process (vi) 15 January 2003 – Planning for Forest Industry Forum (vii) 21 February 2003 – Forest Industry Forum chaired by Mr Loney, no individual discussion (viii) 15 April 2003 - Forest Industry Forum chaired by Mr Loney, no individual discussion (ix) Regular Timber Industry Assistance Review Committee meetings – Individual applications for Business Exit Assistance - no individual discussion (x) Regular Native Forest Products Ministerial Advisory Committee meetings – Minister Chance’s advisory committee - no individual discussion (6) No (7) Not applicable

8420 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

Mr Peter Quinn, Chief of Staff, Office of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Yes (2) Tim Daly, Bob Pearce, Jason Argo, Nick Oakes, Tony Lovett and Caris Bailey. (3) There were 3 meetings involving Peter Quinn: (i) 5 July 2002 attended by Bob Pearce and Tim Daly. (ii) 30 August 2002 attended by Bob Pearce, Tim Daly and Jason Argo. (iii) 18 September 2002 attended by Bob Pearce, Tim Daly, Nick Oakes, Tony Lovett and Caris Bailey. (4) The Forest Industries Federation (WA) Inc (5) The matters that were discussed in the meetings with Mr Quinn: (i) 5 July 2002 – Forest Management Plan. (ii) 30 August 2002 – Forest Management Plan. (iii) 18 September 2002 – Forest Management Plan. (6) No (7) Not applicable ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY, FORMAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 741. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage I refer to the EPA/DEP current formal assessment process outlined in current EPA publications. It is stated that at the end of the process the ‘Minister Publishes report (Delegated to EPA)’, then ‘Appeals to the Minister’ are received, then ‘Minister determines appeals’, followed by ‘Minister consults with DMAs (decision-making authorities) to seek agreement on whether or not and in what manner the proposal may be implemented’ - (1) Why is the agreement of DMAs sought after the proposal has been through all its formal assessment processes in which the views of the relevant DMAs have already been sought? (2) Is there any specific list of DMAs that are to be consulted at this final stage of the process and if so will the Minister provide that list? (3) Can the Minister provide a list of those DMAs that she has consulted with at this final stage of the process? (4) What roll do these DMAs have in determining if a project should be supported or not and can they at this late stage of the project alter the final outcome of whether a project should be implemented or not? (5) In relation to the formal assessment process, does the Sustainability Unit have any role to in play in assessing projects and at what stage? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) Section 45 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (the EP Act) requires that after the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) report has been released, I consult with decision-making authorities on whether or not the proposal to which the report relates may be implemented, and what conditions and procedures should be applied. (2) No. Section 3 of the EP Act defines “decision-making authority”. The decision-making authorities for each proposal are determined in accordance with this definition and may vary from proposal to proposal. (3) Answered by (2). (4) Decision-making authorities advise whether they consider a proposal may be implemented or not, and on conditions and procedures which should be applied. (5) It is presumed this question relates to the Sustainability Unit in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The Unit may make a submission to the EPA during the assessment process. WOODSIDE PETROLEUM LTD, BURRUP LNG PLANT, EMISSIONS 742. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development With regard to Woodside’s Burrup Peninsula Gas Processing facility, can the Minister advise - (1) What are the contents of discharges from the stack and from all other discharge points at the facility in terms of - (a) chemicals;

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8421

(b) particulars; and (c) other pollutants? (2) Annually, what quantity of each of the emissions in the response to (1) is discharged? (3) Annually, what quantity of each of the emissions in the response to (1) can be safely discharged without posing a health risk to people both on-site and at more distant locations? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1)-(2) National Pollutant Inventory data for Woodside’s onshore gas facility summarises both the types and quantities of emissions. The emissions for 01-Jul-2001 to 30-Jun-2002 are provided in the following table. Substance Total (kg) Air (kg) Water (kg) Benzene 1,000,000 1,000,000 Vinyl ethylene 5 5 Cadmium and compounds 150 150 Carbon monoxide 440,000 440,000 Cyclohexane 1,300,000 1,300,000 Ethylbenzene 20,000 20,000 n-Hexane 4,600,000 4,600,000 Hydrogen sulphide 19,000 19,000 Lead and compounds 380 380 Mercury and compounds 0.50 0.50 Oxides of Nitrogen 11,000,000 11,000,000 Particulate matter 10.0 um 140,000 140,000 Sulphur dioxide 30,000 30,000 Toluene 1,900,000 1,900,000 Total nitrogen 350 350 Total phosphorus 130 130 Total volatile organic compounds 38,000,000 38,000,000 Xylenes (individual or mixed isomers 1,100,000 1,100,000 Zinc and compounds 3 3 3 The current ground level concentrations have been shown by modelling and by actual measurement to be well within appropriate standards and the implications of any proposed increases in emissions would be assessed following appropriate modelling studies. PEARL FARM LEASE, ENCOUNTER COVE, KIMBERLEY 743. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries In a letter of April 22 2003, the Minister rejected an appeal lodged by myself against the Executive Director’s decision to grant a pearl farm lease to Paspaley Pearling Company Pty Ltd in Encounter Cove. In this letter the Minister wrote ‘You have raised some important matters regarding the inadequacies of marine planning processes in the Kimberley region, which I intend to discuss further with my Parliamentary colleagues’. Can the Minister advise - (1) Which of the matters I raised regarding the inadequacies of marine planning processes in the Kimberley region does the Minister consider to be important? (2) Did he in fact have further discussions regarding these matters with the Minister’s Parliamentary colleagues? (3) Did any such discussions reveal new information pertinent to the original grounds of appeal lodged by myself? (4) How does any such information affect the Minister’s original decision to grant the lease at Encounter Cove? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) With respect to the inadequacies of marine planning processes in the Kimberley region, the Minister considers the following matters to be important: · There is no plan for the overall and sustainable management of the Kimberley coast; · There are no agreed guidelines on how ‘wilderness areas’ are to be designated or managed. · Western Australia has no marine planning legislation that would give statutory backing to any plans that were prepared. · In the absence of a suitable legislative and planning framework, the Minister for Fisheries and the Executive Director of Fisheries must make decisions within the constraints of the powers conferred to them under the Pearling Act 1990. · The Pearling Act is primarily a fisheries management Act and was not drafted as a comprehensive planning tool.

8422 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

· A review of the Pearling Act is currently underway, but it is not envisaged that the primary objective of sustainable fisheries management will change. (2) There has been correspondence between my parliamentary colleagues regarding the matter. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES, COST OF ELECTRICITY 744. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for Energy With regard to the cost of providing electricity to remote Aboriginal communities, I ask - (1) Can the Minister explain the reasoning behind the uniform tariff policy as it relates to energy prices in Western Australia? (2) Is the Minister committed to retaining this policy whatever the outcome of the electricity reform process? (3) Can the Minister provide a justification for why some remote Aboriginal communities appear to be exempt from this policy, in that they are forced to expend significant sums on fuel to run community power stations, to the detriment of other priorities? (4) Can the Minister describe whether or not such communities will be any better off under the Government’s proposed desegregation regime? (5) If so, how? (6) Does the Minister consider that such sites are prime candidates for renewable energy systems? (7) If so, outline how these options are being pursued? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: 1. The uniform tariff policy applies to all customers supplied by Western Power and ensures that all comparable Western Power customers are supplied power at the same price irrespective of their location. This is the rationale behind this Government's restoration of the L2, K2 and M2 tariffs in regional areas in January 2002. As a consequence regional tariffs are now equivalent to the corresponding tariffs that apply in the South West Interconnected System. 2. Yes, Government has consistently stated it is committed to uniform tariffs. 3. Remote Aboriginal communities are not currently supplied by Western Power and therefore fall outside the scope of the uniform tariff. However, as indicated in the recent State Budget, the Government has committed funds to pilot Power Supply Projects in five remote communities (Warmun, Bidyadanga, Bardi, Beagle Bay and Djarindjin/Lombadina). In addition to upgrading the quality of electricity services in these communities, they will be charged the uniform tariff under the pilot program. Subject to the successful implementation of the pilot project, the Government will consider extending the project to include other large remote Aboriginal communities with the objective of further extending the provision of regulated power at the uniform tariff. Under a State/Commonwealth agreement, remote Aboriginal communities receive a fuel subsidy from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth also provides some funding for capital works and upgrades to the energy infrastructure in these communities. The State is currently responsible for the repair and maintenance functions to designated remote communities. 4/5. Remote communities will be more effectively served by the new Regional Power Corporation. The Regional Power Corporation will have an important role to play in the State's Aboriginal and Remote Communities Power Supply pilot. Disaggregation of Western Power will involve creation of independent State Generation, State Networks and State Retail businesses. A separate and dedicated Regional Power Corporation will also be established in recognition of the significance of regional areas. Disaggregation will not involve privatisation of any of the new businesses. The Regional Power Corporation will be established to operate in the North West Interconnected System and Western Power's regional non interconnected systems, and will focus specifically on the needs of regional power consumers. It will have incentives to operate efficiently and lower its cost structure whilst having regard for positive social, regional development and environmental outcomes. It will also participate in the Aboriginal and Remote Communities Power Supply Project. The Government's proposed Tariff Equalisation Fund will ensure that the Regional Power Corporation remains commercially viable. The new business will also have an obligation to ensure it has sufficient generation

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8423

capacity to maintain reliability at the lowest efficient cost. In addition, the Regional Power Corporation will also be subject to technical and safety regulations to ensure adequate reliability, quality and security of supply in regional areas. 6. Yes. 7. The pilot Aboriginal and Remote Communities Power Supply Project which is being progressed in five remote communities will consider renewables as part of the energy mix for the community. This approach has been reinforced by a recently completed study commissioned by the Sustainable Energy Development Office on the feasibility of incorporating renewables in the pilot communities. The Government's pre-election commitment to connect Warmun to Ord Hydro is being explored and facilitated through the Aboriginal and Remote Communities Power Supply Project. However, the paramount objective for these communities is the provision of a high quality, reliable and affordable power supply.

PORTMAN MINING EXPANSION, VIABILITY OF TETRATHECA PAYNTERAE 745. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage I refer to the studies undertaken by the Department of Conservation and Land Management on the viability of populations of Tetratheca paynterae, which will be impacted if the proposed Portman Mining expansion into the Windarling and Jackson tenements goes ahead - (1) Will the Minister table copies of all documents relating to studies of this plant, including recent work by CALM and the WA Herbarium? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(2) The Department of Conservation and Land Management has not undertaken any specific studies into Tetratheca paynterae. Genetic work has been undertaken by the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, and a copy of this report can be made available, but this only determined the genetic status of this species and did not relate to the viability of the population per. se. The comments made by CALM in relation to the viability of the population of this species in relation to the proposed mining by Portman Mining were based on population information prepared by Portman Mining, and included in reports prepared by that company, as well as the field knowledge of Departmental staff.

HERITAGE CONSULTANTS, BROOME 748. Hon John Fischer to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs Further to question 842 on April 9 to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs - (1) Can the Minister advise me of the names of the Heritage Consultants for the Broome area who - (a) were responsible for the Heritage Survey Reports pertaining to Yardagarra 1 and 2 (17756) and Yardagarra 3 (17757); and (b) provided Heritage Survey Reports for the Broome area for 2002? (2) For the information of the DIA, who claimed no knowledge of Reference number AU-RPGSR-47755#, it appears on the top right hand corner of the Register of Aboriginal Sites of the Aboriginal Affairs Department on a report run on April 16 2002 at 4.32pm. Can the Minister advise if the same heritage consultant/s, queried in part (1) of my question, were responsible for the placement of informants’ names on the Broome register of Aboriginal sites bearing this reference number? (3) The Minister also stated that the Perth Department of DIA had not received a complaint from Aboriginal people in the Broome area regarding being registered as informants of Aboriginal sites. My information is that such advice, dated March 21 2003, was sent to the Premier with a copy to the Director General, Department of Indigenous Affairs, PO Box 7770, Cloisters Square 6855, via express post and was scanned in for delivery by Australia Post on March 26 2003 at 1.54pm at Cloisters Square, Perth (Tab CW3130874). Can the Minister explain how the Department was not aware of mail it has obviously received? (4) In light of the apparent reluctance, or lack of ability, of the DIA to answer straight forward questions, will the Minister express confidence in this Department? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: 1. a. Dr Moya Smith was the author of the Heritage Survey Reports pertaining to Yardagarra 1 and 2 (17756) and Yardagarra 3 (17757).

8424 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

b. In 2002 heritage survey reports authored by the persons set out below were received by the Department of Indigenous Affairs (the Department) relating to the ‘Broome area’ (treating this term as including the whole area for which the Broome local government authority has responsibility): Rory O’Connor Gavin Jackson Garry Quartermaine Donald Lantzke Water Corporation 2. None of the heritage consultants named in answer to question 1 above were responsible for placing the informants’ names on the Register of Places and Objects (generally known as the ‘Sites Register’) (there is no ‘Broome’ Sites Register). 3. It now appears that, at the time that Parliamentary Question 842 was answered on April 9 2003, the Department had received a copy of a letter sent by Mr Edward Roe to the Premier, raising concerns about certain Aboriginal people having been recorded as informants for sites in ‘the Broome area’ about which they had no knowledge. I am advised that the officer who answered the first Parliamentary Question was unaware of the existence of the letter at the time. 4. The Minister has confidence in the Department and its staff.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, ELECTORATE OFFICES 751. Hon Peter Foss to the Leader of the House representing the Premier (1) How many members who were first elected to Parliament before the 2001 election (‘old members’) have relocated their electorate offices since the 2001 election and who are they and when did they relocate? (2) How many old members have opened a further electorate office since the 2001 election and who are they? (3) Of the members who were elected for the first time at the 2001 election - (a) how many moved into the office occupied by their predecessor member and who were they; (b) how many moved into a new office and who were they; (c) how many have since relocated to another office, and who are they and when did they move; (d) how many have opened more than one electorate office and who are they and where are those offices? (4) Of those referred to in answer to questions (1) and 3(c), what was the - (a) total rent at the previous office; (b) total floor space at the previous office; (c) total rent at the new office; and (d) total floor space at the new office? (5) Of those referred to in answer to questions (2), 3(d), what was the - (a) total rent at the office; (b) total floor space at the office; and (c) reason that the member was permitted to open a further office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) See table below (2) Nil (3) See table below (4) See table below (5) See table below (6) Nil (7) See table below. Rent figure shown is for March 2001 (8) See table below (9) See table below. Rent figure shown is for May 2003 (10) See table below (11) Not applicable

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8425

MEMBER ELECTORATE Q1 Q3a Q3b Q3c Q4ac Q4b Q4c Q4d $ m2 $ m2 Ainsworth Roe Mar-03 1080.99 72 1777.92 125.5 Andrews Southern River Yes Dec-01 2696.58 127 1581.78 164 Birney Kalgoorlie Yes Feb-02 2456.36 139 2500.00 159 Bowler Eyre Yes Sep-02 1176.50 160 1228.06 128 Cadby North Metro Yes Chapple Mining & Pastoral Yes Nov-01 No Rent 59 2389.80 153 Dean Bunbury Yes Dec-01 3358.20 169.07 3260.91 153 D'Orazio Ballajura Yes Oct-02 3757.94 111.3 4724.76 125 Doust South Metro Yes Edwards, Jamie Greenough Yes Ellery South Metro Yes Feb-02 1602.23 71 4677.92 108.8 Embry South West Yes Farina South West Yes Fischer Mining & Pastoral Yes Nov-01 1372.61 92.5 2007.50 109.5 Ford Mining & Pastoral Yes Giffard North Metro Yes Griffiths East Metro Mar-02 1267.67 150 1350.00 135.5 Grylls Merredin Yes Guise Wanneroo Yes Hill Geraldton Yes Feb-02 1642.20 111 1845.23 135 Hough Agricultural Yes Nov-01 1372.61 92.5 2007.50 109.5 House, M Stirling Aug-01 1004.12 81 402.50 67 Hyde Perth Yes Jan-02 1728.37 116 2083.33 154 Kucera Yokine Yes Feb-02 4026.59 129.3 1476.15 144 Logan Cockburn Yes Margetts Agricultural Yes Nov-01 No Rent 59 2389.80 153 Martin Kimberley Yes Jan-02 No Rent 110 3904.99 168.5 McRae Riverton Yes Jan-02 2734.60 79.5 3816.45 110 McSweeney outh West Yes Moore Mining & Pastoral Nov-02 4112.88 103.83 2727.28 109.69 Murray Collie Yes O'Gorman Joondalup Yes Jul-02 3149.72 129 2104.77 162.94 Pendal South Perth Dec-02 2150.73 149.7 2602.62 128 Pratt East Metro Yes Quigley Innaloo Yes Sep-01 950.00 135 1904.32 132 Quirk Girrawheen Yes Nov-01 3605.49 102 3000.00 119.5 Radisich Swan Hills Yes Templeman Mandurah Yes Waldron Wagin Yes Walker Nedlands Yes Watson, P Albany Yes Whitely Roleystone Yes Woollard Alfred Cove Yes SOUTH BEACH URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SITE REMEDIATION AND VALIDATION REPORT 756. Hon Jim Scott to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage Further to question on notice No. 627 lodged on April 1 2003 regarding the South Beach Urban development and the Site Remediation and Validation report - (1) Is the Minister aware that groundbreaking activities occurred in the northern section of the site prior to the lodging of the Site Remediation and Validation report? (2) What action has the Minister taken to ensure that regulatory departments require developers to lodge the necessary reports on time? (3) Does the Minister consider it acceptable that significant activities can occur prior to the DoE assessing the required reports? (4) Is the Minister’s refusal to table a copy of the Site Remediation and Validation report an example of the Government’s ‘right to know’ commitment? (5) If the Site Remediation and Validation report contains information relating to public health threats arising from contamination, does the Minister still consider the report to be confidential? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) Yes. Decommissioning of site infrastructure, remediation and validation works took place at the site from November 2002 to March 2003, with the submission of the Site Remediation and Validation report to the DoE on 4 April 2003.

8426 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(2) I am unclear as to what you mean by “lodging necessary reports on time”. There are no timeframes set for lodging reports regarding contamination. In relation to the Metropolitan Regional Scheme Amendment No. 1008/33, the scheme specifies sequences of events rather than the setting of timeframes. (3) The works were undertaken in accordance with a Site Investigation and Management Plan which was approved by the DoE in 3 September 2002. Completion of the works, the Site Remediation and Validation report was submitted to the DoE, the purpose of which was to validate the remedial works undertaken. Remediation and validation reports are always submitted after the site works are complete. (4) Due to the confidentiality of the reports, copies of all site reports are available through application via the Freedom of Information officer at the DoE. Alternatively, you may wish to approach the developer to request a copy of the report. (5) I am reluctant to respond to your hypothetical question however, I will say that the information submitted to the DoE to-date suggests that soils at the former Wesfarmers Woolstore site do not appear contaminated as a result of previous activities on the site. Groundwater beneath the site is still under investigation. MINERAL TITLES APPLICATIONS, PROCESSING 757. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer the Minister to the issue of mineral titles processing and ask - (1) How many exploration and mining leases did the Government approve in each of the four years from 1999- 2000 to 2002-03 inclusive? (2) How many mineral titles applications for prospecting, exploration and mining leases are awaiting to be processed as at the latest available date? (3) How do these numbers compare with the status as at February 2001 and can the Minister explain any large variations? (4) What are the ‘final solutions’ concerning native title, referred to in the Budget papers on page 828 of Volume 3, that are expected to result in increased mining industry activity? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) Details of exploration titles and mining leases granted in each of the past 4 years are: Prospecting Exploration Mining Licence Licence Lease 1999/2000 868 971 138 2000/2001 693 653 221 2001/2002 369 493 120 2002/2003 438 539 92 (2)-(3) Details of exploration titles and mining leases awaiting finalisation as at February 2001 and 30 April 2003 are: Prospecting Exploration Mining Licence Licence Lease 09.02.01 1743 3052 5333 30.04.03 2615 3625 5090 Prospecting Licence and Exploration Licence numbers increased in the period leading up to the High Court handing down its decision (8 August 2002) on appeal in case of Ward –v- Western Australia on whether the enclosure of pastoral leasehold land extinguished native title. (4) Two Working Groups with membership from relevant Government Departments, mining industry/prospector/resource lawyers, peak groups and Native Title Representative Bodies are in the process of: (i) reporting to Government with recommendations for amendments to the Mining Act, 1978 which will facilitate a reduction of the current backlog of mining lease applications and address the cause of the backlog; and (ii) developing agreed Regional Heritage Protocol Agreements which will result in protection of Aboriginal Heritage and facilitate the early grant of mineral exploration titles. FINANCE BROKERS CONTROL ACT, REVIEW 758. Hon Dee Margetts to the Leader of the House representing the Premier I refer the Premier to question without notice No. 175 of June 13 2001 and question without notice No. 199 of June 14 2001 relating to a Cabinet-endorsed recommendation to the former Coalition Government to repeal the Finance Brokers Control Act, and ask -

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8427

(1) What is the current status of this recommendation? (2) Has the National Competition Council accepted the Labor Government’s views relating to the inadequacies of the National Competition Policy legislative review process on this legislation which was followed by the previous Government, and the now clear public interest issues associated with self-regulation within this industry? (3) If not, is the Finance Brokers Control Act part of any current negotiation with the National Competition Council and the Federal Government regarding National Competition Policy Tranche payments? (4) Will the Minister table all communication between the State Government, former and current, the National Competition Council and Federal Government relating to this legislation review? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) The recommendation to the former Coalition Government has not been accepted. (2) The Western Australian Government published revised Public Interest Guidelines in November 2001 that take account of social, environmental and regional issues in the assessment of the public interest. The National Competition Policy Review of the Finance Brokers Control Act 1975 has not been raised by the National Competition Council as a priority for the 2003 assessment. (3) Not applicable. (4) This is not necessary. The National Competition Council assessment reports of progress against National Competition Policy are published on the National Competition Council website at www.ncc.gov.au and the State's progress reports are published on the Department of Treasury and Finance's website at www.dtf.wa.gov.au. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING FUND GRANTS PROGRAM, REVIEW 761. Hon Jim Scott to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Has the Government carried out the required review of the Waste Management and Recycling Fund’s Grants program? (2) If yes, who carried out this review? (3) Was this an independent review? (4) Were public submissions sought? (5) If not, why not? (6) What were the main findings of the review? (7) When will these findings be released for public comment? (8) When will the Waste Management and Recycling Fund Grants program, suspended for the period of the Review, be reinstated? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) Yes. (2) The Waste Management Board is currently undertaking a review of the Waste Management and Recycling Fund (WMRF) in accordance with the statutory requirement. The review includes the grants program, the rebate scheme and the landfill levy itself. (3) Yes. The Waste Management Board is considering two separate consultants’ reports into various aspects of the WMRF. One consultancy considered the grants program. The other covered the rebate scheme and the landfill levy. The Board will incorporate findings from both of these consultants’ reports into a final review document. (4) The consultants sought input from a range of stakeholders in this area. The Waste Management Board’s final review document will be released for public comment. (5) Answered by (4). (6) The Waste Management Board’s review is nearing completion and the main findings are not yet available. The public discussion document will outline the findings of the review and will propose recommended changes to the levy, grants program and rebate schemes. (7) It is anticipated the public discussion document will be released by the end of July 2003.

8428 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(8) There will be no advertising of rounds of grant funding before the review of the Waste Management and Recycling Fund is complete. The timing will depend on the response to the public discussion document. WASTE TO LANDFILL LEVY, REVIEW 762. Hon Jim Scott to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Has the Government recently carried out a review of the levy on waste to landfill in the metropolitan area? (2) Who carried out this review? (3) What were the main findings of the review? (4) Where can the public obtain a copy of this report? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) Yes. (2) The review is being carried out by the Waste Management Board (WMB), in accordance with the statutory requirement. The Board is considering two consultants’ reports into various aspects of the WMRF. One of these reports considered the grants program. The other covered the rebate scheme and the landfill levy. The Board will incorporate findings from both of these consultants’ reports into a final review document. (3) The WMB’s review is nearing completion and the main findings are not yet available. (4) The WMB will release its review in the form of a public discussion document which will be publicly released and will also be accessible on the WMB’s website. This document will outline the findings of the review and will propose recommended changes to the levy, the grants and rebate schemes. Following the public consultation period, the WMB will submit the review document, with any agreed amendments incorporated, to the Government for consideration. SOUTH METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL, COMPOST TRIALS, GRANT 763. Hon Jim Scott to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Has the Minister recently approved a grant of $600 000 from the Waste Management Fund to the South Metropolitan Regional Council for compost trials? (2) What are the specific objectives of this project? (3) Is the Minister aware that this compost is likely to be contaminated with broken glass, batteries and toxic materials? (4) Was the EPA asked to assess this project before funding was approved as it is likely to cause pollution? (5) Who will pay for the decontamination of the sites where these trials are going to take place? (6) What is the Government’s preferred strategy for the disposal of municipal solid waste? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) A grant of $800,000 has been awarded to the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council for a two-year project to develop a municipal solid waste compost market development program. (2) To create a demand for compost within the farming industry, by establishing 50 compost trials within a 100 kilometre radius of Perth. (3) Special conditions have been included in the Waste Management and Recycling Fund contract to address this issue. All compost must meet the relevant Australian Standard. Monitoring programs are to be incorporated into the project to detect heavy metals and results of any testing are to be reported to the Waste Management Board. (4) The facility underwent EPA assessment before it was established. The EPA’s assessment report was released in June 1999. (5) Contamination from these compost trials is unlikely because the compost will be produced to meet Australian Standards. (6) The strategic approach to waste management in this State is to recover resources in a manner which best conforms to the waste management hierarchy: reduce, reuse, recycle, recover energy and finally to dispose.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8429

For municipal solid waste, the process adopted by Southern Metropolitan Regional Council is seen to be a good fit in the hierarchy. Dry recyclables are collected and processed separately to ensure the residual organics are uncontaminated and are suitable for reprocessing into compost. Composting of the organic fraction of municipal waste fits sustainability principals by returning organic materials to agriculture. The process of composting has the added benefit of redirecting as much as possible organic waste away from landfill. WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, ESTABLISHMENT 765. Hon Jim Scott to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Has the Government now considered the merits of setting up an independent Waste Management Authority as it promised in its 2001 Election Platform? (2) What conclusion has it reached on this issue? (3) Is a report available which contains the analysis and conclusions on this issue? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) The Government considered the merits of establishing an independent Waste Management Authority as part of the Machinery of Government Review. (2) A non-statutory Waste Management Board was established in January 2002 to provide the Government of Western Australia with independent advice on waste management issues in Western Australia. The Government is considering the establishment of a peak body for waste management within the proposed Resource Recovery and Waste Avoidance Bill. (3) No. However, the development of new legislation to manage waste in Western Australia will examine the necessary structure to achieve the waste vision of “towards zero waste by 2020”. KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES PTY LTD, ENVIRONMENTAL BOND 770. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to a document titled ‘Rights, Responsibilities and Obligations, A Code of Conduct for Public Servants’ dated June 1988 and question on notice No. 485 of March 11 2003 - (1) Given that the above code of conduct for public servants in part states ‘It is important also, for fairness and the possibility of external review, that decisions affecting individuals should be properly documented, setting out the evidence and the reasons for the decision made’ can the Minister explain why the departmental briefing notes and files do not contain properly documented evidence and the reasons for the decision made concerning Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd environmental bond? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I refer the member to the answer to Question on Notice 485 of 2003. MINING, REGULATION, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 771. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to question on notice No. 485 of March 11 2003 and the answers provided - (1) Can the Minister factually explain what does he consider to be relevant and meaningful information to be provided to the member? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Given that the Minister has not provided a concise yes or no answer and explanation for parts (2) and (3) can the Minister now provide a concise, relevant, free from argument or controversial matter answer to these questions? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: (1) Information that is relevant and meaningful to the regulation of the mining industry today. (2) Not applicable. (3)-(4) I refer the member to the Standing Orders regarding the asking of questions.

8430 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES, RECORDS OF DECISIONS AND ACTIONS 772. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development (1) Can the Minister state the specific month and year in which good records of departmental decisions, actions and the reasons for them commenced within the former Department of Mines and Department of Minerals and Energy? (2) If no to (1), will the Minister or the Director General immediately request an independent external investigation as to why good records of departmental decisions, actions taken and the reasons for them have not been carried out as part of the obligations and responsibilities of officers within the department? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: The Minister for State Development is happy to arrange a briefing by the Department of Industry and Resources to address any concerns the member has with the Department's record keeping. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND RESOURCES, RECORDS OF DECISIONS AND ACTIONS 773. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development (1) Does the Minister and Director General of the Department of Industry and Resources support the principle that if the reasoning behind a decision taken by the department as part of the obligations and responsibilities of the department cannot be demonstrated, then its integrity cannot be demonstrated? (2) If yes to (1), can the Minister explain the reasons why? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) Does the Minister and the Director General of the Department of Industry and Resources support the principle that transparency of decision making demands that the public must be able to obtain independent review of government decisions and that this cannot take place without sufficient good records of decisions, the actions taken and the reasons for them? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) If yes to (4), can the Minister explain the reasons why? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I refer the member to the answer to Question 772 of 2003. ABORIGINAL RESERVE 24574, KALGOORLIE-BOULDER, DRILLING 776. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs I refer to question on notice No. 568 of March 20 2003 and answers provided - (1) Can the Minister provide a scaled map indicating the approximate position of the drilling on the reserve? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Can the Minister explain how the department was able to establish that there is evidence of drilling on the reserve and the specific date this was discovered on the reserve? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: (1) No accurate scaled map can be provided immediately, however, the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) is negotiating for a staff member to return to the Reserve to obtain coordinates to assist in the preparation of a scaled map showing the location of the drill hole mentioned at question 3. (2) Not applicable. (3) DIA staff inspected the Reserve on or about 31 October 2001 and no evidence of recent drilling activity could be found. Evidence of one drill hole was found, which was many years old. (4) Not applicable. KALGOORLIE CEMENT WORKS, VERBAL DIRECTIONS ON SAFETY ISSUES 777. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection I refer to question on notice No. 585 of March 20 2003 and answers provided - (1) Can the Minister specifically state what were the verbal directions provided to Mark Posa from the Kalgoorlie Cement Work in relation to a number of safety issues before the inspector left the work site?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8431

(2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Can the Minister specifically state what were the safety issues that were identified by the Inspector and subsequently verbally directed to be remedied before he left the work site? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: (1) On 14 March 2003, verbal directions were given in relation to safety issues that required the proprietor of Kalgoorlie Cement Works to rectify them before the WorkSafe Inspector left the site. These directions were given in relation to: · safe use of flexible electrical cords; · protection of electrical installations from damage; and · provision of a capacity chart for a forklift. In addition, WorkSafe gave verbal directions by telephone on 13 March 2003 in relation to drums storage and dust. (2) Not applicable (3) See response to (1) (4) Not applicable LOONGANA LIME, BREACH OF LICENCE CONDITIONS 778. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage I refer to question on notice No. 583 of March 20 2003, answers provided and a letter I understand is dated August 22 2002 sent by Tim McAuliffe, Acting Director Pollution Prevention Division from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to the Manager, Loongana Lime Pty Ltd - (1) Is it correct that part of this letter states ‘Under section 58 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, it is an offence to contravene a licence condition. This offence carries a penalty of up to $125,000 with a daily penalty of up to $25,000. The Department considers that a breach of this section, or any other section, of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to be extremely serious’? (2) If no to (1), will the Minister table a copy of the letter dated August 22 2002? (3) Can the Minister explain why the DEP misleads the general public through the licence issuing process into believing that a breach of a licence condition or any section of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 is considered by the department to be extremely serious given that on many occasions when breaches of licence conditions are identified, the DEP conveniently accommodates the offences for the polluter by stating ‘The breach is considered to be minor …’ or making a statement which is completely contradictory to when the licence was first issued? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response: (1) Yes, this is a standard paragraph on all licences issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). (2) Answered by (1). (3) The DEP considers any breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 as serious. Once the DEP has established a breach has occurred, appropriate enforcement actions are taken as per the DEP’s Enforcement and Prosecution Guidelines. The decision as to what level of enforcement is applicable to a particular breach will be based upon a range of factors, including the seriousness of the incident having regard to the damage to the environment caused or likely to be caused and what actions were implemented to mitigate any damage and prevent recurrence. The DEP will continue to scrutinise Loongana Lime in relation to its operations and the prevention of pollution. Issues with this site will be referred to and discussed at the proposed Community Reference Group for the Kalgoorlie area. (4) Answered by (3). WORKSAFE WA, IMPROVEMENT NOTICES ISSUES TO ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION 784. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection (1) Can the Minister quote the specific text of all the WorkSafe Improvement Notices issued in May 2002 to the Anti Corruption Commission and the justification as to why they were issued?

8432 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Is it correct that the validity of the Improvement notices issued in May 1992 were affirmed on March 18 2003? (4) If yes to (3), can the Minister explain how these improvement notices were affirmed? (5) If no to (3), can the Minister explain what transpired? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: (1) One improvement notice was issued to the Anti Corruption Commission. Text of the notice is as follows: “In relation to intimidation, verbal abuse and bullying At 66 St Georges Tce Perth 6000 on 17 May 2002 My investigation, documents and discussions with the employer, employees and other persons indicate that over a period of time, from 1999 until present, employees have been intimidated, verbally abused and bullied by other employees in your workplace giving rise to the risk of stress-related injury. Having knowledge of the behaviour you have failed to take effective steps to prevent this happening. You are required to remedy the above by no later than 20 June 2002 at 1400 hours. You are directed to take the following measures: implement practices and systems to prevent intimidation, verbal abuse and bullying in the workplace. For examples of practices and systems I refer to correspondence dated 21st May 2002 to Mr Charlwood, Chief Executive Officer, Anti-Corruption Commission with Ref. No ACC/173.” (2) N/A (3) The notice issued in May 2002 was subsequently appealed and later affirmed on 19 March 2003. (4) In accordance with Section 51(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, the WorkSafe Western Australia Commissioner inquired into the circumstances in which the notice was issued. This included consideration of the information available to the inspector, the matters raised in the Anti Corruption Commission’s submission , seeking legal advice as to the validity of the notice and the inspector’s response to those matters. (5) N/A JUVENILE JUSTICE TEAM REFERRALS 789. Hon Peter Foss to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Attorney General (1) How many referrals to a Juvenile Justice Team did the Department of Justice receive in - (a) 2001; (b) 2002; and (c) to date 2003? (2) In each given year were all orders fully satisfied? (3) If not, what are the numbers of orders not fully satisfied and the reason for this? (4) In each given year were any orders not actioned by the Department of Justice? (5) If orders were not actioned how many were not and what is the reason for this? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: (1) (a) 3550 (b) 3225 (c) 1090 (2) No (3) Number of Action Plans not fully satisfied:- (a) 185 (b) 166 (c) 21 Action Plans are not fully satisfied when a juvenile has not complied with the agreed requirements of their Action Plan. (4) No (5) Not applicable

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8433

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING, SELF-PROMOTION CAMPAIGN 792. Hon Peter Foss to the Leader of the House representing the Premier I refer to the Government’s current State Budget self-promotion advertising campaign and ask - (1) Was this campaign at the initiative of the Public Service or of the Cabinet (by which term I include persons employed as advisers)? (2) If by the Public Service, who within the Public Service recommended it? (3) Are any similarly politically initiated advertising campaigns planned for the period between April 30 2003 and December 31 2003? (4) If so, which portfolios are involved and what is the focus of each of the campaigns? (5) What media will be used and what is the estimated cost of each of the campaigns? (6) What provision has been made in the current budget to pay for these advertisements? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) The Member’s suggestion that the Budget is a self promotion campaign is without foundation. The campaign informs the community about the State Budget and directs them to a website for further information. The advertisements are factual and neither the radio or print advertisements make reference to the Premier, or the Labor Government. While Budget advertising has occurred in this State for many years, there are significant differences in the current Government’s approach. The Gallop Government’s Budget promotion is less costly, and has never contained photographs of the Premier or political statements. Further, every year the Government has volunteered to the Parliament the estimated cost of its Budget promotion prior to the delivery of the Budget. Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4)-(6) Not applicable.

KALGOORLIE CEMENT WORKS, BREACHES OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH LEGISLATION 796. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection I refer to an email with attaching photographic evidence dated May 14 and 15 2003 sent to the Minister’s office, copied to the Premier of Western Australia from a complainant concerning Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) operated by Mark Posa in Kalgoorlie Boulder and a press release dated May 1 2003 titled ‘Major Crackdown on Dangerous Worksites and Dodgy Bosses’ - (1) Does the Minister consider it acceptable and permissible as a safe workplace that the operator of the above site repeatedly operate a forklift moving materials while at the same time using a mobile phone? (2) If yes to (1), why? (3) Does the Minister consider it acceptable and permissible as a safe workplace that the operator of the above site operate forklift controls, while standing alongside the forklift talking on a mobile phone? (4) If yes to (3), why?

8434 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003]

(5) Will the Minister ask or direct WorkSafe to contact the complainant with a view to obtaining evidence concerning all of the matters raised in the email dated May 14 and 15 2003 with a view to prosecuting the operator at KCW? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) Can the Minister state when is WorkSafe going to finally crackdown on this dangerous worksite and dodgy bosses by prosecuting the owner for breaches of Occupational Health and Safety Legislation given that WorkSafe has previously - (a) issued a prohibition notice on the March 14 2003 when a safe system of work was not being maintained in relation to the forklift; (b) issued a prohibition notice on the August 14 2002 when young untrained persons were operating a skid steer loader; and (c) issued many improvement notices in relation to many other safety matters? (8) If no to (7), why not? (9) Can the Minister state what is the purpose of stating in a public press release ‘While you cannot put a price on a human life, existing penalties are obviously not high enough and I will be taking a package of tougher penalties to cabinet in the next two months.’ when the existing penalties available through prosecution at the above work site are not even being currently utilised by WorkSafe? (10) If no to (9), why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: (1)-(10) Ongoing allegations have been made by Mr Right with respect to the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. WorkSafe has conducted a number of investigations at the site between November 2001 and March 2003. WorkSafe takes action to prevent dangerous work practices and appreciates their attention being drawn to such practices. WorkSafe will continue to respond to complaints in accordance with its published Enforcement and Prosecution Policies. The Hon Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has advised Mr Right, with respect to the specific concerns he has raised to date, that he believes WorkSafe is dealing comprehensively with them. Unfortunately Mr Right remains dissatisfied with WorkSafe’s response. The Hon Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection is happy to arrange a briefing for the Hon Member on the actions taken to date.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, INACCURATE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE MINISTER 797. Hon Robin Chapple to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Public Sector Management I refer to a document which I understand is titled ‘Rights, Responsibilities and Obligations, A Code of Conduct for Public Servants’ and a covering foreword letter dated June 1988 signed by F.J Campbell, Commissioner Public Service Commission - (1) Is it correct that part of this document under a side sub heading of Provision of Inaccurate Advice it states in part ‘Similarly, in the event that an officer is either asked by a senior officer to convey inaccurate or misleading information to the Minister, or, is aware of such information being supplied by other officers, he or she should bring the matter to the attention of the relevant Chief Executive Officer. If this fails he or she may approach the Public Service Commissioner for further action or advice.’? (2) If no to (1), will the Minister table the entire document? (3) Can the Minister quote the specific text of the current Public Sector Code of Ethics, which clearly covers the provision of inaccurate or misleading information being provided by the Chief Executive Officer to any Minister? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Is the provision of inaccurate and misleading information being provided by any public sector employee to their Chief Executive Officer regarded as a breach of discipline? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If yes to (5), can the Minister state and quote the specific section of the current Public Sector Management Act and the text of the current Public Sector Code of Ethics which covers this?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 10 June 2003] 8435

(8) Can the Minister state what is the penalty, if any, under the Public Sector Code of Ethics for a Chief Executive Officer providing inaccurate or misleading information to a Minister who then repeats this information in the Parliament? (9) If no to (8), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) The document titled ‘Rights, Responsibilities and Obligations, A Code of Conduct for Public Servants’ has been superseded by provisions in the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act), the Administrative Instructions and the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics. Together with this, public sector agencies are expected to develop codes of conduct which include policies, rules or guidelines defining what specific action or procedures are applicable to employees. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Code of Ethics states that to meet the minimum standards of conduct and integrity, all public sector bodies and employees must be honest. They must be conscientious and scrupulous in the performance of public duty. Under section 9 of the Act employees are to act with integrity in the performance of official duties and are to be scrupulous in the use of official information, equipment and facilities. (4) Not applicable. (5) An employee, who contravenes any public sector standard or code of ethics or is negligent or careless in the performance of his or her functions, commits a breach of discipline. (6) Not applicable. (7) Should employees provide inaccurate and misleading information to a Minister they could be subject to the provisions in section 79 the Act, Substandard Performance, or section 80, Breaches of Discipline, depending on the intent and seriousness of the matter. (8) In the event of a breach of discipline the person may be reprimanded, fined, transferred, demoted or dismissed. (9) Not applicable. MINING, GREENFIELDS EXPLORATION, GUIDELINES 800. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development I refer to questions on notice Nos 338, 337, 336 and 335 of November 27 2002 - (1) Has the Department of Industry and Resources and the Minister considered/investigated all of the issues raised in the above questions? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), on what specific dates were they considered/investigated? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I refer the Member to the answers to questions on notice 338, 337, 336 and 335. ______