Legislative Council

Wednesday, 29 June 2005

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths) took the chair at 4.00 pm, and read prayers. ALCOA LIQUOR BURNER, KWINANA Petition HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [4.01 pm]: I present the following petition - To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia, respectfully express our deep concern regarding the proposal to re-commission the Alcoa Liquor Burner at Kwinana. Recommissioning of the Alcoa Kwinana Liquor Burner could increase the amount of allegedly harmful pollutants and suspected cancer causing compounds in the Kwinana Air Shed, which could lead to adverse human health impacts on the Alcoa employees and the surrounding residents. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Legislative Council will oppose the proposal to re-commission the Alcoa Liquor Burner at Kwinana. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. The petition bears one signature and I certify that it conforms to the standing orders of the Legislative Council. [See paper 483.] MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMER ADVOCACY PROGRAM Petition HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [4.03 pm]: I present the following petition - To the President and the Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents Western Australia support mental health consumers who are involved in Consumer Representative work. The Mental Health Consumer Advocacy Program provided a unique agency through which mental health consumers’ could contribute to consumer focused systemic reform of the planning and service provision of mental health services in Western Australia. Your petitioners, therefore, respectfully request that the Legislative Council will recommend to the Government that it provide adequate funding to the Mental Health Consumer Advocacy Program so that it is able to continue its contribution to the planning, delivery and reform of consumer focused mental health services in Western Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. The petition bears 51 signatures and I certify that it conforms to the standing orders of the Legislative Council. [See paper 484.] STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO REPORT ON ALCOA REFINERY, WAGERUP Statement by Leader of the House HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [4.04 pm]: I draw the attention of the house to the state government’s formal response to the report by the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs on the inquiry into the Alcoa refinery at Wagerup. Members are aware that the committee inquiry into the refinery at Wagerup began in November 2001. The report of the committee was tabled in the Legislative Council on 28 October 2004, and contained 29 recommendations. The government generally supports 28 of the recommendations, and actions to implement them are already under way. The recommendation that the environmental health foundation membership be expanded to include community representation is not supported because the foundation is a body of expert health professionals. The government’s response was coordinated by the Ministerial Council on Health, Environment and Industry Sustainability, which was chaired by the Minister for the Environment. The response is consistent with the very significant amount of work that has been and is being coordinated through the ministerial council to address issues

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3541 associated with Alcoa’s Wagerup operations. It reflects also the government’s commitment to protect and enhance Western Australia’s lifestyle and the environment. In particular, it means that the environmental and health concerns of people in local communities such as Yarloop are being addressed, and that an integrated long-term approach to wider matters of community concern regarding environmental health issues is being developed. Licence conditions for the refinery also have been tightened regarding dust, noise and emissions. This is also in response to community concerns. Subject to standing order 337, I table a copy of the government’s response to the inquiry by the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report into the Alcoa refinery at Wagerup. [See paper 485.] Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson. ELECTION STATISTICS, ADJUSTMENT Statement by Parliamentary Secretary HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [4.06 pm]: The Minister for Electoral Affairs has received advice from the Acting Electoral Commissioner, Mr Warwick Gately, that following the final review of statistical analysis of the 2005 state general election polling figures, there is a need to make a minor adjustment to the published total voting figures for the Legislative Council’s statistical return for the East Metropolitan and South Metropolitan Regions. These adjustments do not in any way affect the results of the 2005 state general election. At the conclusion of each state general election, the Western Australian Electoral Commission routinely reviews voting figures from each polling place across the state when preparing a comprehensive statistical return as part of the post- election reporting. In the case of the results from one polling place in the East Metropolitan Region, the number of votes cast was found to have been entered twice into the Compuvote program, which distributes and counts votes according to elector intentions. This means that the total valid votes eligible for counting in the East Metropolitan Region must be reduced by 1 958 valid votes. This reduction does not affect the result of the election, but is necessary for numerical correctness in the event that subsequent recounts for the East Metropolitan Region are required. The numerical review work undertaken by the commission across all districts and regions is complete. The only other discrepancy identified amounts to an adjustment of an additional six votes in the South Metropolitan Region, which will be added to the final voting figures for numerical correctness. This adjustment does not affect the result of the election. On behalf of the Minister for Electoral Affairs, I table the initial figures and the correct figures for the two regions for the information of members. [See paper 486.] Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TENTH REPORT Notice of Motion Hon Louise Pratt gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move - That the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs titled “Chemical Use by the Agriculture Protection Board 1970-1985” tabled in the Legislative Council on 21 October 2004 be reinstated as an order of the day for the next sitting. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ELEVENTH REPORT Notice of Motion Hon Louise Pratt gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move - That the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs titled “Alcoa Refinery at Wagerup Inquiry” tabled in the Legislative Council on 28 October 2004 be reinstated as an order of the day for the next sitting. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TWELFTH REPORT Notice of Motion Hon Louise Pratt gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move - That the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs titled “A Petition on the Provision of Mental Health Services in Western Australia - Interim Report” tabled in the Legislative Council on 12 November 2004 be reinstated as an order of the day for the next sitting. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, THIRTEENTH REPORT Notice of Motion Hon Louise Pratt gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move -

3542 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

That the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs titled “A Petition on Primary Midwifery Care” tabled in the Legislative Council on 16 November 2004 be reinstated as an order of the day for the next sitting. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, FOURTEENTH REPORT Notice of Motion Hon Louise Pratt gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move - That the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs titled “An Overview of Petitions and Inquiries - Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament (August 2002 to November 2004)” tabled in the Legislative Council on 19 November 2004 be reinstated as an order of the day for the next sitting. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Motion HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [4.13 pm] - without notice: I move - That motions 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24 be taken before motion 2. By way of explanation, it is my intention, if the house consents to this motion, to move to reinstate as orders of the day each of the committee reports that are dealt with under each of those motions. Those committee reports are currently trapped in motions. It is not until we get them into orders of the day that we will be able to consider the reports that have been tabled. Therefore, this is a machinery action to enable scrutiny of those reports. At this stage I need the consent of the house to deal with that matter before we move on to motion 2, Rally Australia. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [4.14 pm]: This was not quite the way I had anticipated this would happen, but I am prepared to go along with it on the basis that the government at least - I cannot speak on behalf of any members in particular - has no intention of debating these particular motions at this time, because we are already in the middle of debating a motion. My support for this motion is based on the fact that it is a machinery motion, and the issues attached to these motions will be debated when they come onto the notice paper as orders of the day. Hon Kim Chance: Yes, that is the case. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [4.15 pm]: We are happy to support this proposition. It will be good to have the opportunity to debate these reports, because they are about matters in which we have taken a particular interest. I therefore accept this as a method of bringing those motions forward. Question put and passed. Orders of the Day On motion without notice by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House) resolved - That motions 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24 be made orders of the day. RALLY AUSTRALIA Motion Resumed from 23 June on the following motion moved by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the Opposition) - That this house, in expressing its amazement that a Western Australian government would relinquish the rights to hold Rally Australia in Western Australia, calls on the state government to immediately acknowledge that its decision was a temporary error of judgment and advise the world rally governing body - (1) that this state wishes to continue holding the event in Western Australia into the foreseeable future; and (2) that commonsense will prevail in the future. The PRESIDENT: Order! I notice the notice paper reads, “Continuation of introductory remarks Hon Norman Moore”. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [4.16 pm]: The notice paper is not quite accurate in that respect, Mr President, because I am about to conclude my comments on this matter. When I last spoke on Rally Australia I was relaying to the house the advice that had been provided to me under freedom of information. The reason I made an FOI application on this matter was that the answers that were provided to the house by the Minister for Tourism made it very difficult for interested observers such as me to understand the decision- making process within government in respect of Rally Australia. The questions that I asked, and the answers that were provided to me, suggested that the decision to terminate Rally Australia was made by the board of the Western Australian Tourism Commission. The best place to look at what the board of the Tourism Commission may or may not

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3543 be doing is the minutes of its meetings. I therefore made a request under freedom of information for the minutes of all meetings of the Tourism Commission board that recommended or endorsed the decision to end support for Rally Australia. The information that was provided to me under my FOI application demonstrates that there is a problem. That problem is with either the FOI process, or the minutes of the Tourism Commission board - members can take their pick - because all I got was a series of pages that had been blacked out. Even though I can understand the reason that so much of the minutes has been blacked out, I want to demonstrate to the house what we get when we ask for this type of information under FOI. My FOI application sought the following - 1. Minutes of all meetings of the Tourism Commission Board that recommended or endorsed the decision to end support for Rally Australia. 2. A copy of the confidential file note made on 4 March 2005. What was provided to me was the minutes of the seventh commission meeting for 2004. The minutes show the date, the commencement and conclusion times and the venue. The names of those present have been blacked out, as have the apologies, the observers and the minute taker. The minutes then state that the chairman opened the meeting at 8.42 am. The remainder of that page, and the next four pages, is blacked out. Perhaps I just do not know the right questions to ask; we will find out in due course. We then get to item 5.7, which reads as follows - 5.7 Discussion Regarding Future Major Events - no paper Madeleine Bertelli, Executive Director, EventsCorp joined the meeting for this discussion. • Madeleine Bertelli provided the Board with an overview of Events Corp future major events. Resolution: The Board notes this discussion. There are then more pages that have been blacked out. We then get to item 7, which reads - 7. MATTERS FOR NOTING 7.1 Synopsis of Telstra Rally Australia (TRA) Board Strategic Planning • Discussion was held on the contents of the papers, however, no specific issues were identified for noting. Resolution: That the Board notes the TRA’s Board’s vision for the next five years. That is interesting, because we have since found out that the vision went for only two years. We then get to 7.2, which reads - 7.2 Financial Report - Telstra Rally Australia • Discussion was held on the contents of the paper, however, the Board raised no issues outside those covered in the paper. Resolution: The Board notes the Financial Status of TRS and future options for TRA. The next two pages are blacked out. We then get to 12, which reads - 12. CLOSE The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 12.31pm. Signed as a true and correct record There is then more blacking out. It then reads - ALAN MULGREW CHAIRMAN TOURISM WESTERN AUSTRALIA It is dated 6 September 2005. That does not tell us a lot, other than that EventsCorp had a vision of five years for Rally Australia at that time. The next information that was provided was the minutes of the Tourism Commission meeting of 6 October 2004. I will not go through all the information that is provided other than that which is relevant. It reads -

3544 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

3. STRATEGIC MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION 3.1 Interim presentation on major event, on a matter listed for decision at the 15 October Board Meeting. • The CEO provided a presentation regarding potential future event strategies. • The item was presented to determine whether Board members require further information to make a decision on 15 October. • Board Members put forward several queries, which the CEO will investigate prior to the Board meeting on 15 October. That is all that is provided in the minutes of a meeting of 6 October. The important point to note from that is that the board was provided information via an interim presentation on major events. It provided advice and information to the board to enable it to make a decision at its meeting of 15 October. Members should remember that date because it is quite important in the overall scheme of things. I expected that the next board minutes I would receive under freedom of information legislation would be the minutes of 15 October. However, the next board meeting minutes I received were dated 4 March 2005. I do not know what happened at the meeting of 15 October other than what I learnt in response to a question I asked the other day when I was advised that the board met but it did not discuss Rally Australia. It seems odd that on 4 October the board was given an interim presentation by EventsCorp on the future of major events for those members to be aware of issues so that they could make a decision on 15 October; however, no discussion on Rally Australia occurred at that meeting. I gather from the absence of minutes being provided to me, no further discussion was held within the board itself, at least on the future of Rally Australia, until the meeting of 4 March 2005, which, interestingly, was after the election. I will shortly make some assumptions about that process. The fourth point of the minutes of 4 March meeting reads - 4. MAJOR EVENT STRATEGY The Board had a discussion regarding the major event strategy. 5. CLOSE The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 10.00am. What an extraordinary set of minutes! The board had a discussion regarding the major event strategy, yet no decision is recorded. No information is provided about the major event strategy. The minutes contain no reference to any decision. I am trying to find out when the board made the decision to end its association with Rally Australia. The minutes do not say that the board recommended the closure of Rally Australia. Part of that meeting was focused on a file note dated 4 March 2005 from the chairman, Alan Mulgrew, the subject of which was “Board Meeting 4 March 2005: Agenda Item 4 (Major Event Strategy)”. We should bear in mind that agenda item 4 in the minutes simply said no more and no less than “The Board had a discussion regarding the major event strategy.” The file minute provided to the board reads - 1. Madeleine Bertelli presented the proposed strategy regarding Telstra Rally Australia. The presentation covered: • Performance of 2004 events • Proposed course of action - a managed exit • Legal advice • Transfer/sale strategy • Timeline • Risks • Political • Financial/Economic • Management • Media and stakeholder strategy 2. The Board endorsed the following: This is in the file note but not in the minutes.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3545

It reads - Proposed course of action - a managed exit • March-April: Confirm intent to run event in 2005 and 2006 to all stakeholders. • March-April: Begin transfer/sale discussions with potential brokers. Manage media issues. • November: Conduct 2005 event. • December: Give formal notification of 2006 as last event. Transfer/sale strategy • Approach a consultant to broker event. (State Supply Commission have approved sole supplier status). • Engage a consultant on commission basis (Note: the Board discussed potential quantums of commission and the merits of using an individual due to their relationship with CAMs. The final decision would need to be brought back to the Board for endorsement, to ensure the probity and commercial aspects had been addressed). • CAMS and FIA also share in net profits in recognition of their intellectual property. • If no agreement can be negotiated with consultant, approach CAMS directly to broker, or go to tender with an event management company to vendor the event. Media and stakeholder strategy: • Proactive media strategy - individual, targeted media briefings rather than respond to a leak - aim to avoid story being ‘event stolen’ by another State. Follow with media statement. • Identify possible ‘media supporters’ for decision. I do not know who they would be. It continues. • Ensure strong third party endorsements - TCWA, ATEC (WA), AHA, Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Tourism Task Force. • Ensure sponsors (Telstra, Qantas) are well prepared to make public comment. The chairman, Alan Mulgrew’s name is at the bottom of that note. The important issue is that a presentation was supposed to have been made to the Tourism Commission board at its meeting of 15 October 2004. For reasons unknown to me, it was not discussed, assuming that the minister’s answer to my question the other day was correct, and I have no reason to assume it was not. There is no reference to Rally Australia in any further minutes of the Tourism Commission board from 15 October until 4 March. I can only assume the board met on a number of occasions during that period and for reasons best known to the board, on which I can make an assessment, it decided not to discuss Rally Australia in a pre-election environment. I would be interested to know whether the board was directed by the minister or whether board members took it on themselves to go down that path. On 4 March, after the election, a meeting was held of which a file note was provided, I presume, to all the members of the Tourism Commission board about agenda item 4, the major event strategy, which I have just read out. The recommendation, which was not endorsed or referred to in the minutes of that meeting, seems to me to be - given the strategy - that the Tourism Commission board did not want to proceed with Rally Australia but that it would run it in 2005-06 and manage the exit on the basis that the formal notification of the 2006 event, being the last event, would be made in December 2005. We have not reached December 2005 yet. I would be interested to hear from the Minister for Education and Training when she responds in this debate about the fact that, for some reason or other, on 21 March - a couple of weeks after the 4 March board meeting - the Minister for Tourism made the decision public. When asked who made the decision, the Minister for Tourism said that the decision was made by the Tourism Commission board. There is no reference in the board’s minutes to its having made that decision. I thought, and I am sure that all other members have the same view, that if a decision of this magnitude were to be made, it would be at least recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If I had not asked for this file copy as part of freedom of information, I would not have been given that either. I would have received only the minutes of the meeting of 4 March, which contain no reference to the decision to get rid of Rally Australia, albeit in answer to my questions the minister advised me that, at its 4 March meeting, the Tourism Commission board had recommended to him that EventsCorp should get rid of the event. Subsequent to receiving this information from the Tourism Commission board through my freedom of information application, on 23 June I asked the Minister for Tourism to table the paper titled “Synopsis of Telstra Rally Australia (TRA) Board Strategic Planning”, which was discussed at the Tourism Commission board meeting held on 20 August 2004. I also asked whether the minister would table a copy of the proposed strategy for Telstra Rally Australia presented to the board meeting on

3546 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

4 March by Madeleine Bertelli; and, if not, why not. I asked for copies of two documents referred to in the information that I have been able to access through FOI. The answer states - Tourism Western Australia is still in confidential transition discussions and cannot release this information at this stage. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: That is fair enough. Hon NORMAN MOORE: It is not fair enough, minister. When she sat on this side of the chamber, moaner, and asked questions about these issues day after day, week after week, moan after moan, she got very offended by the amount of information that she thought she was not getting. I had the same problem on this occasion that she had on many other occasions, moaner. I think that members on both sides of this chamber would love to know why the decision was made to get rid of Telstra Rally Australia. Some of the minister’s colleagues are very anxious to know the answers to these questions. Why does the government hide behind this commercial-in-confidence - Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You invented it. That was your catchcry. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The minister has an extraordinarily short memory. She was not here during WA Inc. She cannot remember the 1980s. I wish she could. I will tell her how to remember the 1980s. A royal commission was held into the commercial activities of government. I suggest that the minister read that royal commission report from start to finish and learn something. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Get over it! Hon NORMAN MOORE: I have got over it, but I do not intend to stand here and listen to her say that we invented commercial-in-confidence. The Liberal Party never got an answer to a question in the 10 years that the Burke, Dowding and Lawrence governments were in office. They always used the argument that it was commercially confidential; they could not tell us that they were in bed with Laurie Connell or whatever companies they were in bed with during the WA Inc years. The Labor Party invented this particular excuse. Now, for some reason or another, the Labor Party is continuing to use it. I hope that when the minister stands - I presume that she will - she will tell us when the decision was made to get rid of Rally Australia, who made it and why the Minister for Tourism made the announcement in March when the strategy was that it would be announced in December. I hope the minister will tell us the answers to those questions. Will she tell us whether the matter went to cabinet and whether cabinet agreed to get rid of Rally Australia? Was it the subject of a cabinet decision? I am sure that the minister can tell us that. I would also like to know why the matter was not discussed at the meeting of 15 October, given that on 4 October the board was informed that the matter would be discussed at that meeting. I would like to know why reference was made at the 6 October meeting to a major presentation to be given at the 15 October meeting, which did not happen. I would like to know why the matter was not discussed at the meeting of 15 October and why it was not discussed at any other meeting between then and 4 March. I want to know whether the Minister for Tourism directed the board not to discuss the matter and whether he directed the board not to make a decision about Rally Australia prior to the election. Again, as I asked a moment ago, why did the Minister for Tourism make the announcement in March when the strategy, as outlined under the heading “a managed exit” in the confidential file copy of the minutes of the 4 March meeting, referred to the matter being dealt with in December this year? Finally, I also ask where in the minutes of the Tourism Commission board meeting is there any reference to the decision to terminate the event. Why do the minutes not indicate that the board made the decision to terminate the event? The Minister for Tourism has relied on that having been the case in his answers to the questions I have asked. He has said that it was not his decision; it was a decision of the board. Why did the board not record it in its minutes? It is a very simple question. There are more questions than there are answers on this matter, and I hope I will get some answers before this debate is finished. I conclude by suggesting to the government that it seek to keep Rally Australia. It should reverse the decision it has made, because it will run the rally in 2005, as it is obliged and always intended to do. To my knowledge, no-one else had made a submission to run the event in 2006, albeit discussions are taking place. Proposals are being put to the Western Australian government by businesspeople, particularly those who are interested in the rally itself, for a joint venture between the government and these businesspeople to run Rally Australia in the future. I recommend that the government take note of those proposals, try to make them work and do everything it can to ensure that Rally Australia stays in Western Australia for the foreseeable future. I return to the comments I made at the beginning of the debate. When the rumour was spread in 2000 by the Victorian government that Rally Australia would move to Victoria, I was the Minister for Tourism who had to argue that that was not the case. Apart from The West Australian, my biggest critic at the time was the current Minister for Tourism, Hon Mark McGowan, who criticised the then government for losing Rally Australia. The great irony of this debate is that about three weeks after he became Minister for Tourism, he said that we no longer wanted it. I want to know how he reached that decision. The information that has been provided to me so far is not satisfactory. The reason I have raised the issue in the house is that I hope the minister handling this matter on behalf of Hon Mark McGowan will give me the answers to the questions I have asked. I plead with the minister to understand that many people would like this event to stay in Western Australia. A proposition has been put to the government that will save it money. I understand that the cost of the event to the government has increased

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3547 significantly over the years. In my day it cost the state government about $2 million a year, and now we are told that it costs about $5 million. That is a significant increase, but in the overall scheme of things it is a pittance. The event provides significant enjoyment and pleasure to many thousands of Western Australians. It provides an economic benefit that is greater than the outlay that the government must commit to provide. It is my view that the government can do a deal with the private sector to keep the rally in Western Australia, and I urge the government to go down that path. The motion was a sort of tongue-in-cheek motion that was meant to demonstrate that this seems like a very silly decision. Everybody was amazed that the government would relinquish the event, bearing in mind the extraordinary lengths to which Western Australia went to get it in the first place and to keep it. The motion calls on the government to acknowledge that it was a temporary error of judgment. I think that might well have been the case. Certainly, the people who are interested in the event do not think it was something that people had worked on over a period; they think it was a temporary error of judgment. The motion also calls on the government to advise the world rally body that the state wishes to continue holding the event in Western Australia. We hope that commonsense will prevail in the future. Commonsense means that when we get these events, we hang on to them because they are darned hard to get in the first place. HON BRUCE DONALDSON (Agricultural) [4.38 pm]: I was not going to speak on the motion, but I have listened with great interest to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. What he has outlined is of concern to me, because of the process that has taken place to get rid of the event in Western Australia. As he pointed out, the event brings a lot of enjoyment and pleasure to a lot of people. I say up front that I am not a petrolhead, but I have many friends who are. This event has created a lot of interest. The measurement of the return on investment has been very subjective in this issue. I am not sure whether the simple economic return can be used as a basis for scrapping an event. Western Australia, particularly Perth, has been accused over a number of years of being dullsville. I think we are slowly drifting into creating the whole of Western Australia as dullsville. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I am trying my best to change that, honourable member. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I know the minister’s principles, and I know that she will put a very strong argument in cabinet to persuade the minister, Hon Mark McGowan, and the rest of the government to change their mind on this issue. In Western Australia, there is a tremendous amount of interest in mountain bikes among children. Many parks have been developed to which parents can take their little tackers to ride their mountain bikes. We also have dune buggies. Many people say they are not very happy with dune buggies racing around the Lancelin sandhills. However, I am aware of one person who has spent about $100 000 on a dune buggy. That is an awful lot of money, but it actually has been spent in the community. Kids are also interested in go-karts, from the motorised ones to those without motors that just run down hills. Kids have that in their blood. It is inherent in all of us. There is the Barbagallo Raceway, the Kwinana Quit Motorplex, and the Ravenswood Raceway. Motor sport is something to which many people go to be entertained. Those same people could turn around and ask why the government can spend up to $40 million to develop a new athletics stadium. Athletics has fallen away over the years in Western Australia; we do not have the runs on the board. Why should we spend $40 million to put an extra 10 000 seats into Subiaco Oval? Why do we need to spend $100 million on a stadium for certain sports? Yes, it is costing a lot of money to have this event in Western Australia; I recognise that. Another point is that I am not aware that the rally drivers or the companies that are involved in Rally Australia in Western Australia have ever said that they wanted to bypass Western Australia. Hon Norman Moore: They all said that it was the best rally in the world. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: Yes, that is right, and a wonderful part of the rally is that people flock to the city and the forests to attend events that are part of the rally, both on the Perth Esplanade and in rough conditions amongst trees, gravel, rain and dirt, and they have a ball. This phenomenon is worldwide. Consider the number of people who attend races at Phillip Island or Bathurst, and the number of people who sit in front of television sets watching Formula One racing. I personally could not think of anything worse, but I am only one person, and for every one like me there are 100 who enjoy this kind of activity. If the event is losing money - really costing the state - that would have to be analysed. I believe the government’s decision is a political one. If it is a political decision, the government should just come out and say so. Some of the figures are very rubbery and indicate that the government has been subjective about what money the event has put into the Western Australian economy. If a television station or The West Australian were prepared to run a poll asking whether people wanted to retain Rally Australia, I would bet that the answer would be an overwhelming yes. There are many people who may not be interested in car rallies but believe that it is something that keeps Western Australia on the map. It is a tourism promotion in itself, just like the Hopman Cup, and we need to look at the spin-off. People watch the event and talk about it around Australia and around the world, and that in itself has untold benefits to tourism in Western Australia. I add my support to what Hon Norman Moore has been saying. This is something the government should revisit in the best interests of satisfying the wider community involved in the event in different ways. These events should be taken on a collective basis, rather than just focusing in on the activities of the Dockers or the Eagles football clubs, or Perth Glory, or the new Western Force rugby club. We are giving them a great deal of help. Telstra Rally Australia has provided a great opportunity for many Western Australians to enjoy something. If it were taken away from Western

3548 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

Australia they would lose that, because the cost of going from A to B is very significant for Western Australians. No doubt Victoria, New South Wales or South Australia would jump at the opportunity to host this event. It is the responsibility of the minister representing the Minister for Tourism in this house, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, to say to the minister and her cabinet colleagues that this decision should be reassessed. The process of Tourism WA has not identified this decision as a political statement. If it is a political statement, that is fine. The government is entitled to do that; it has the mandate, and has come back into government. However, it should not hide behind Tourism WA. That is what it is doing, and that has been well spelt out in the information presented to the house during this debate by Hon Norman Moore. I urge members of this house to get behind this motion. Hon Norman Moore is speaking on behalf of many people in the wider community who would like to see this event retained. The government could get out of this quite easily by carrying out a poll. It should let The West Australian or one of the television stations run a poll asking whether we want to get rid of Telstra Rally Australia. I can tell members now that the answer would be a resounding no. People want to keep it. An opportunity should be provided for those people who are involved and interested in the event to come forward and say that they want the event to be continued. We are seeing Western Australia and Perth sliding into this dullsville image that is being put about by a lot of people who believe we are just getting rid of everything and that nothing is happening in Western Australia. We know that is not the case, but that is the perception that is being given to the rest of Australia and the rest of the world. I would like to see the Minister for Tourism, when considering the economic benefits to Western Australia, take into account the advertising of Perth and Western Australia that comes from holding the event. HON MURRAY CRIDDLE (Agricultural) [4.49 pm]: I support Hon Norman Moore’s motion, not from the point of view of Telstra Rally Australia, but from the point of view of bringing sporting events to Western Australia of which Rally Australia is one. When we have these events, it quickly becomes obvious that the radio coverage and televising of the event spreads the word widely across Australia and around the world. It is cheap advertising. We can talk about $2 million of advertising, and I understand that is what the event costs the government. Ironically, recently the Western Australian government provided $2 million for the Australian Tourism Exchange event at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre. The immediate spin-off from the multiplier effect of approximately 1 700 tourist operators and 630 companies was $10 million. That is a remarkably good investment for the government to make. The whole of the community in this country embraces sporting events. I am not a great petrolhead but I have had the opportunity to watch the cars whizzing around parts of the city and the south west. They certainly create a spectacle that people want to watch. There is nothing like people who want to get behind the wheel of a car and have a bit of a whiz around. I understand the minister made this decision very quickly upon becoming appointed to his position. I know that negotiations with some of the companies takes quite some time, and good negotiating skills when meeting with private enterprise are necessary to embrace all the people who want to be involved. I imagine that with this event a range of people would like to become involved and see the event fostered. Of course, small businesses will benefit enormously from the spin-off from an event like this. Therefore, from the point of view of not only the rally, but also the promotion of the state through radio and television coverage, without expense, this event should continue. I have seen these events on the television and they have certainly been reported around Australia on radio. There is nothing like that sort of advertising. I would like this government also to recognise some of the events that promote tourism and opportunities around the state. I go back to my old portfolio and my responsibility for roads. Once a road is built into a particular area, people can then enjoy the outcome. A small investment of $2 million is required for this event. The government has a $530 million surplus, having manipulated that to a certain extent and having spent $450 million through the Treasurer’s Advance before the end of the financial year. It appears that the government certainly has the funds required to expend this money to get some really positive advantage for business in Western Australia. Small business, hotels and all types of companies benefit when people visit Western Australia. Opportunities like this do not present themselves every year. Sadly, we have lost some events; for example, the golf tournament. Obviously, these sporting events do become expensive to run, but in good times when money is available there is an opportunity to maximise the spin-off from these sorts of events. This is one of those events that could have been maximised. I look forward to the minister’s explanation of the reasons for the decision not to expend the money to continue with this event. Western Australia is one of those states in which we have an advantage. We have a climate that allows these events to be run without concern about the conditions the events will be conducted in. We have a great state and the opportunity for these things to happen. I will listen with interest to the reasons the minister made the decision not to go ahead with this particular event. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan - Minister for Education and Training) [4.55 pm]: The government will not support the motion. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that this is a cheeky motion in terms of what he is asking this house to do; that is, to express amazement that the Western Australian government would relinquish the rights to hold Rally Australia in Western Australia. Hon Norman Moore is the only member amazed - he spoke for three hours, Hon Bruce Donaldson spoke for about five minutes and Hon Murray Criddle probably did a little better than that.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3549

Hon Murray Criddle: You know I do not speak for long. I get my point across quickly. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: That is true. The point I am making is that if opposition members are so amazed at the profound impact that not holding this event will have on this state, surely they would be stirred up into action to voice their opinion to get it on the public record. However, it seems to be another quiet day at the ranch, particularly on the other side of the house. It is often a quiet day on that side, and nothing has changed. The motion calls upon the state government to immediately acknowledge that its decision was a temporary error of judgment. For goodness sake! Hon Simon O’Brien: All right, it is a permanent error of judgment on your part. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Really, what a stupid motion to ask the government to admit that it was a temporary error of judgment. It is like saying one was temporarily insane for a few minutes when this decision was made. Hon Norman Moore: That is another explanation I did not put there. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: When we were on that side of the house - Hon Norman Moore: Groan. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I do not remember that. I was always very constructive. Hon Murray Criddle: Do you agree that the budgetary situation is different from what it was five years ago? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: At the end of the day, I admit that it is up to the government to determine where it puts the money in the interests of the Western Australian public. There are competing priorities. The idea that we would admit to a temporary error of judgment - there is no temporary error of judgment. Hon Norman Moore: Put that to one side and say it is a mistake. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is not a mistake. It was endorsed by the Western Australian Tourism Commission board, and I am sure it thought it was a very sensible decision. Hon Norman Moore may not think that. I make the point that when I was on that side of the house and the opposition was in government, the number of times that I expressed dissatisfaction about a decision that had been made, and there were many of them, the then government’s continual response was, “When you are in government, you can govern.” Hon Norman Moore: That is right, but you must accept criticism when you make the wrong decision. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Hon Norman Moore may not like it, but we are in government and we will govern. Members opposite may not like that, but it will not change. Obviously members opposite do not like it because they bring forward motions like this. Although members opposite might think that commonsense will prevail, I am sure that the minister believes he has exercised very good judgment by supporting the board, and he has made a very sound judgment in respect of this matter. I do not doubt that there are people who are revheads, but like Hon Bruce Donaldson I am not one of those people. I cannot think of anything more boring than an idling motor. Having said that, there are many people who enjoy this sport. I think my colleague to my right may be a bit of a revhead. I know that he gets enormous pleasure from motor sports and rallies. The state government has confirmed that it is seeking an end to its contract with the motor event, Rally Australia, in 2006 in light of concerns over the economic liability of the event. Hon Norman Moore made an interesting point that the costs have gone up. Obviously that needs to be a consideration. This decision was communicated to the event’s contracted party - major sponsors, volunteers and the Western Australian public - last month. Rally Australia no longer delivers a sufficient return to Western Australian taxpayers and the event will be discontinued in this state. This decision is not without its supporters; it is like any issue that is of interest to the community and/or particular stakeholders. People have a variety of opinions about decisions made by government. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 3558.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 416. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources: Do we know who that is? Hon Barry House: It could be anybody. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The question ought to be: can somebody do something about that? My question is - (1) Will the minister table the Water Corporation’s May 2001 source development plan for the integrated water supply system; and, if not, why not?

3550 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

(2) What was the planned IWSS dam inflow for the year period 2004 to April 2005? (3) Will the minister explain why the development of Gingin groundwater is estimated to cost $439 million, or more than the south west Yarragadee option, and why it would need between five and 10 years to develop? (4) Will the minister explain why the Water Corporation believes no further water supply development will be required after the desalination plant is commissioned until 2014 on a 170 kilolitre per capita scenario? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. The minister has supplied the following answer - (1) The document will be available for tabling by the next sitting day. (2) 105.7 gigalitres. (3)-(4) The proposed Gingin groundwater system is physically complex. Up to 50 bores and at least 80 kilometres of collector main will be required to access this resource compared with about seven bores and 35 kilometres of collector main for the Yarragadee project. The impact of abstraction on nature reserves and national parks within the proposed extraction area is yet to be investigated and may further increase project costs. The process to gain environmental approval and gain a water allocation licence for this project is expected to exceed the time currently being taken for the Yarragadee project as there is already strong competition for access to the existing water resource. The Water Corporation’s current plan is to proceed with both a water trade agreement with Harvey Water and the south west Yarragadee project, or a second seawater desalination plant, after the Perth seawater desalination plant is commissioned. With this plan, supply capacity would exceed demand in 2011-12 under the 170 kilolitre per capita scenario mentioned by the member. WESBEAM AGREEMENT 417. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry: I refer the minister to the Wesbeam agreement. (1) What was the volume of pine timber supplied to Wesbeam in 2003-04 and the estimated supply for 2004-05? (2) What is the expected supply to Wesbeam for next year? (3) Was all the timber supplied to Wesbeam sourced from the Gnangara-Yanchep pine plantations; and, if not, what is the volume and source of other supplies? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) 2003-04 - nil; 2004-05 - the estimated supply is 60 000 cubic metres. (2) The expected supply for 2005-06 will be approximately 144 000 cubic metres; however, this figure is yet to be finalised. (3) All timber is supplied from Gnangara, Pinjar and Yanchep plantations except for 1 989 cubic metres which was supplied from a salvage of a plantation area burnt in a hills fire during January 2005. SYNERGY REGIONAL LTD AGREEMENT 418. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the minister representing the Minister for State Development: I refer the minister to the government’s deal with Synergy Regional Ltd. (1) Will the minister table the due diligence report prepared for the government prior to the agreement; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister table the agreement between the government and the company; and, if not, why not? (3) What contribution did the South West Development Commission make to the call centres and what was the value of the contribution? (4) Did any other regional development commission make any further contribution to the establishment of the call centres by Synergy Regional Ltd; and, if so, will the minister provide details? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) Yes. The document will be tabled during the current session of Parliament. (3) $800 000. (4) No.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3551

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS’ STAFF ENTITLEMENTS 419. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the Leader of the House: My question is without notice and it is regarding an announcement made by the Premier in the other place today. I understand that the Legislative Assembly members’ staff entitlements will be increased to two full-time equivalents, and that other benefits, including car phone kits, will be provided. Can the leader confirm that this applies to Legislative Assembly members but not members of the Legislative Council; and, if so, why? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think the answer is yes and no, because two issues are involved. One relates to the provision of an additional 0.6 FTE that does apply to only members of the Legislative Assembly. Currently all members have 1.4 FTEs; members of the Legislative Assembly will have 1.4 plus 0.6; in other words it takes the research officer position to a full-time equivalent. That does not apply to members of the Legislative Council, so the question is correct. Hon Norman Moore: Why not? Hon KIM CHANCE: I am here to tell members only the facts, not the whys. With regard to the provision of the car phone and other arrangements, I think those additional services are available to all members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. I will have to check that, but I am 99 per cent sure that is the case. LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS 420. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment: I refer to clearing of land since 1 July 2004, when the new regulations came into force. (1) How much land in the metropolitan regional scheme area has been cleared since 1 July 2004? (2) How much land in the Peel regional scheme area has been cleared since 1 July 2004? (3) How much of the land described in (1) has been cleared under exemptions? (4) How much of the land described in (2) has been cleared under exemptions? (5) How much land has been cleared in total in WA? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The minister has provided the following response - Information is not available in the time required and I therefore request the honourable member to place this question on notice. GERALDTON 200 TONNE BOAT LIFTER PROJECT 421. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE to the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry; the Midwest and Wheatbelt: I refer to the massive regional development benefits that have been identified for Geraldton if the proposed Geraldton 200 tonne boat lifter project proceeds - that is, over the next 10 years up to 600-plus direct and indirect jobs will be created and $15 million will be injected into the local economy each year. (1) Has the government committed or will it commit to the $1.5 million required by the consortium for the hardstand development? (2) Has a provision been made in the 2005-06 budget for this $1.5 million commitment? (3) If not, why not; and when will the $1.5 million be made available? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member providing notice of the question. (1) No funding has yet been committed by the government for the development of the hardstand area. Geraldton Boat Lifters Ltd, which is an industry consortium, has lodged an expression of interest for funding from the state regional infrastructure funding program. (2) No. (3) This is a project that I am very keen to progress on behalf of the Geraldton community. I will make representations to the government for the project to be funded in the 2006-07 budget, contingent upon the outcome of any applications that may be made to the regional infrastructure funding program. PEEL DEVIATION PROJECT, COST 422. Hon GEORGE CASH to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) What amount has been included in the 2005-06 budget for the Peel deviation project?

3552 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

(2) What is the current anticipated cost of the Peel deviation project? (3) By how much has the cost of the Peel deviation project increased over the past three years? (4) What are the reasons for these increases? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The 2005-06 state budget and forward estimates includes an allocation of $85.3 million for the state contribution of $170 million for the new Perth to Bunbury highway project. (2) The preliminary estimate is $340 million. Main Roads is currently finalising the cost estimates and scope of the works for the project. The revised figures are expected to be available shortly. (3)-(4) Refer to (2) above. SCHOOL DRUG EDUCATION PROJECT 423. Hon PETER COLLIER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) What is the current status of the school drug education project and will the minister outline the achievements of the SDEP for the current financial year? (2) What amount was expended on the SDEP in each of the past five financial years? (3) What is the budget allocation for the SDEP for 2005-06? (4) Given that the SDEP project officers enjoy only one-year employment contracts, what is the government’s policy on the long-term tenure of the SDEP? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The SDEP has just completed the first of a three-year service agreement with the government. The project achievements for 2004-05 include the engagement of 1 242 teachers and relevant school support staff in professional development training. Staff were representative of 713 schools from across the state. This brings the total to 70 per cent of all Western Australian schools involved in the project since 1997. The redevelopment of the existing K-12 curriculum resources was commenced to bring them into line with current best practice in curriculum material. Five regional officers were employed to support schools in which distance, the number of schools located in the area and the size of the schools and other factors have made it difficult to engage the program. Officers have been placed in the Esperance, midlands, mid-west, Narrogin and Albany education districts. (2) State government expenditure for the SDEP over the past five financial years was $900 000 in 2004-05, $835 000 in 2003-04, $1.045 million in 2002-03, $1.05 million in 2001-02 and $1.1 million in 2000-01. (3) The SDEP budget allocation for 2005-06 is $900 000. (4) In line with government policy, non-government organisations were provided with three-year service agreements from 2004-05. The SDEP is administered through an intersectoral management group, and the service agreement is with the Catholic Education Office, which is a non-government organisation. At the completion of the 2003-04 financial year, the government offered the CEO a three-year service agreement. Like all NGOs, employment terms are set by the contracted employing authority. In this case it is the CEO. The CEO has recently completed a review of all SDEP employment contracts and will offer all current project staff two-year contracts effective from 1 July 2005. The employment contracts will run for the remainder of the current service agreement. ALCOA’S WAGERUP ALUMINA REFINERY, HEALTH IMPACTS 424. Hon PAUL LLEWELLYN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the highly publicised and ongoing health problems suffered by the communities of Yarloop, Hamel and Cookernup that are linked to Alcoa’s Wagerup alumina refinery. (1) Given these known health problems, why was the community health-monitoring program and its services at Yarloop terminated? (2) Will the government commit to establishing an independent, systematic health-monitoring program in the Waroona, Yarloop and Harvey areas to assess the impact of Alcoa air pollution events? (3) Will the government delay the expansion of stage 3 of the Wagerup refinery until comprehensive health- monitoring reports are available?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3553

(4) If unacceptable health impacts are shown to exist as a result of Alcoa’s refinery operations, will the government take actions to relocate and fully compensate affected individuals, households and communities to prevent a repeat of the Wittenoom situation? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The clinic was a fixed-term project to gather data on health issues in the area. The cohort of community members reporting to the clinic had stabilised. By December 2003, inquiries had declined substantially and it was no longer viable to maintain the position. (2) Alcoa has committed to conduct a health survey prior to the commissioning of the plant as one component of its environmental review management program. The government will closely examine the data from this survey prior to reaching a decision on the need to implement a long-term health-monitoring program. (3) The Environmental Protection Authority is currently undertaking its independent assessment of Alcoa’s proposed Wagerup unit 3 expansion. Along with a number of other stakeholders, the Department of Health will make a submission to the EPA on the proposal. All submissions will be taken into account by government on the planned expansion before a final decision is reached. (4) The government will make its final decision when all available information has been received and considered. It is premature to speculate on what actions will result. WORKING WITH CHILDREN PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES 425. Hon BARBARA SCOTT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Community Development: With reference to the working with children legislation passed last year, I ask - (1) When will the minister provide details of the protocols and procedures associated with the introduction of the working with children clearance card? (2) Will the minister describe what information a worker or a volunteer who works with children will need to provide to an employer or a sporting club regarding their criminal history? (3) What charges or spent convictions will be considered? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Regulations are currently being developed and will include phasing-in details for people who work with children under the conditions set out in the act. Business systems, including protocols and procedures for applying for the check, are being developed. (2) A worker or volunteer in child-related work will need to provide the employer or sporting club with proof that the worker or volunteer has either lodged an application for a check or holds a current assessment notice under the act. If a worker or volunteer in child-related work has a relevant change in criminal history as defined in the act, the worker or volunteer must notify the employer of this fact but is not required to provide the employer with details of the relevant change. The employer must then notify the working with children screening unit of this change, and a reassessment will be carried out. (3) Any spent conviction may be considered as part of a check under this act. Non-conviction charges and pending charges can be considered in relation to the offences listed in schedules 1 and 2 of the act. CHICKEN LITTER, USE BAN 426. Hon RAY HALLIGAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the government’s decision to ban the use of raw chicken litter by horticulturalists in the Wanneroo area, and ask - (1) What is the current situation regarding seasonal bans on the spreading of chicken litter? (2) What efforts have been made to provide a viable alternative? (3) Has composting of the litter been successful? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Is the government monitoring complaints about the stable fly problem? (6) If so, how many complaints have been received and what have been the outcomes? (7) If not, how does the government gauge the success or otherwise of the current practices?

3554 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Bans on the spreading of chicken litter apply to 13 local government districts as set out in the Health (Poultry Manure) Regulations 2001. Chicken litter may be distributed in these districts during 1 May to 31 August each year. (2) The Department of Agriculture and the composting industry have been promoting the use of compost to the horticultural industry in the form of pelletised manure, synthetic fertiliser and windrow composted material. (3) Yes. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) Not applicable. (7) The Department of Health is in the process of organising a meeting with local governments to assess the current status of stable fly nuisance and the use of poultry manure. LIVE EXPORTS, SHIPPING SUPPORT 427. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry: Would the minister and the Labor Government be prepared to publicly support the shipping of live exports from Western Australia on a continuous basis that would allow confidence in investment in this industry both here and overseas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Yes. As the member would be aware, I have recently answered a question without notice in similar terms. However, I am happy to reiterate the government’s position. The government supports the humane trade of animals within, or from, Western Australia and notes that the live export industry provides substantial economic and employment benefits, particularly in rural areas. The government recognises the importance of the live export trade to livestock producers and others involved in the industry and notes the lack of capacity in existing abattoirs to process all the livestock currently exported from Western Australia. In terms of continuity of live exports, the government recognises that the trade is subject to the pressures of worldwide supply and demand, and the decisions of importing countries, which may vary from time to time. The government also recognises that animals are exported from Australia under the provisions and legislation of the Australian government. The Australian government is negotiating with trading partners with regard to security of access of livestock shipments. The Australian government has also recently introduced the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock as a further component in ensuring that livestock exports meet trade and community expectations in relation to animal health and welfare. REID HIGHWAY EXTENSION BETWEEN WEST SWAN ROAD AND GREAT NORTHERN HIGHWAY 428. Hon DONNA TAYLOR to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: I refer to the extension of Reid Highway between West Swan Road and Great Northern Highway. (1) What total funding has been committed to complete this extension? (2) Of that total funding, what funding has been allocated in 2004-05 and 2005-06, and in the forward estimates for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09? (3) What is the expected date of completion of this extension? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The total funding is $27 million. (2) Funding for the project is allocated in the following years under the Safer Roads program: 2005-06, $1.5 million; 2006-07, $5.5 million; and 2007-08, $20.2 million. (3) Completion is expected in 2008. SOUTH FREMANTLE TIP 429. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY to the minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development: I refer to the old South Fremantle tip site, referred to as the South Fremantle landfill site, which operated for approximately 50 years to take household and industrial waste.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3555

(1) Will the minister detail the known contamination that has been found in the ground at this tip site? (2) Will the minister detail what chemicals have been found at this tip site? (3) Has there been any ground water contamination at this tip site; and, if yes, what has it been contaminated with? (4) Has medical waste been dumped into this tip site? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Local Government and Regional Development has provided the following answer - (1)-(4) I have requested the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to seek a response from the City of Fremantle to the member’s question. I will reply further to the member when the city’s response has been received. SHIRE OF CUNDERDIN, FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES 430. Hon ANTHONY FELS to the minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development: I refer to the recent exposure of the financial difficulties being experienced by the Shire of Cunderdin. (1) When did the government become aware that the Shire of Cunderdin was experiencing financial difficulties? (2) What steps did the minister instruct the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to take to rectify the situation? (3) Did the Western Australian Treasury approve a loan application from the Shire of Cunderdin to purchase an Ettamogah hotel franchise without receiving an appropriate business plan from the shire? (4) Did Treasury provide any advice on the viability of the hotel venture? (5) If yes to (4), why did Treasury advance the loan if it believed the project was not viable? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Local Government and Regional Development has provided the following answer - (1) When the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of Cunderdin, Mr Michael Keeble, met with officers of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development on 19 April 2005 to discuss the current financial problems of the shire, the DLGRD was invited to conduct a financial health check of the shire on 20 April 2005 by the shire president. The DLGRD undertook this as a high priority. (2) The minister did not instruct DLGRD to rectify the situation. However, the DLGRD prepared a report on the financial situation of the shire for the council’s consideration. The minister was kept informed of progress on the matter. The minister met with council members and affirmed the need for immediate action to address the issue. (3) The Local Government Act 1995 provides local authorities with the power to borrow. The application for the loan was approved by the Department of Treasury and Finance consistent with the provisions of section 6.21 of the act. This section provides for approval to be conditional upon the local authority certifying that it has met the requirements stipulated under the act. These include the requirement under section 6.20 of the act for the inclusion of borrowings in the annual budget for the financial year. Section 6.21(2) stipulates that the security of any state lending to local authorities is over the general funds of the local government; for example, rate revenue. In addition to the requirements under the act, guidelines were provided by DTF to all local authorities to assist them to comply with the requirement for the application and approval of loans. These were provided directly to all local authorities in September 2002. These guidelines stipulate that - . . . in line with the objectives of the Local Government Act 1995, you - That is the local authority - will be fully accountable and responsible for your borrowing/re-borrowing decisions. In short, the local authority is required by both the act and the guidelines for the exercise of borrowing powers under the act to be fully accountable for its own decision making. (4) No, as under the act, the certification required by the CEO of the local authority requires the local authority to comply with the act and the DTF guidelines. (5) Not applicable.

3556 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

KALAMUNDA DISTRICT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, OBSTETRICS SERVICES 431. Hon HELEN MORTON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: Further to question without notice 406 in which the minister confirmed his support for competent GP obstetricians and midwives to undertake planned, low-risk deliveries in some metropolitan hospitals in Western Australia, I refer the minister to the document titled “Clinical Services Consultation 2005”, section 10, titled “Women’s Services”, and the table headed “Level of Service - Obstetric Services”. Specifically, I draw the minister’s attention to the tenth line, which relates to Kalamunda District Community Hospital and indicates that a level 3 obstetric service is currently in operation but it is proposed to have a nil service by 2015-16. (1) Was the model of competent GP obstetricians and midwives undertaking planned, low-risk deliveries considered to be an ongoing service at Kalamunda hospital in the development of this table? (2) If yes, why was it dismissed and the table developed showing a nil obstetric service as at 2015-16? (3) If no, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The model of competent GP obstetricians and midwives undertaking planned, low-risk deliveries has been generally considered and accepted as an alternative model of obstetric care for women in this state. (2) The Reid report, in line with the obstetric review by Cohen in 2003, recommended reconfiguration of obstetric services to fewer hospitals. This will ensure sustainability and a critical mass, which will ensure that quality and safety-practice guidelines are met. (3) We are currently waiting for the result of the clinical services feedback to review maternity services in this state. OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION, POLICY 432. Hon ED DERMER to the Minister for Education and Training: Will the minister further advise the house about the policy pertaining to the curriculum framework and outcomes-based education? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. I am committed to the application of outcomes-based education in years 11 and 12. I have a very firm view about proceeding towards that implementation. I looked at the opposition’s policy on this matter because my position is quite clear. Yesterday, when I asked Hon Barry House about his position, he made it clear that the opposition does not support outcomes-based education. In that light, I refer members to 1997 when we debated the Curriculum Council Bill. In his second reading speech Hon Norman Moore made the following points - The curriculum framework will cover kindergarten through to year 12 and will be mandatory for all schools, whether government or non-government, and for home schooling. The framework will not be limiting on a school or a system. It will set out exactly what students should know, value and be able to do as a result of programs built around the curriculum framework. The curriculum framework will utilise an outcomes based approach. This represents a major shift away from a focus simply on educational inputs and timetables towards one which emphasises the desired results or outcomes of schooling. By making known at the outset the intended outcomes or expected results, the appropriate components and the time required can be identified and included in the curriculum rather than simply loading the curriculum with unnecessary material and classroom sessions. In espousing that view, the honourable member goes on for pages and pages. I will now take the house - Point of Order Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: Will the minister identify that document and the date on it? The PRESIDENT: Order! The member can ask the minister to identify the document but whether she gives the date is a matter for her; it might be part of its identification. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am very happy to identify the document. It is page 2968 of Hansard dated Wednesday, 14 May 1997, containing the second reading speech of the Curriculum Council Bill, which commenced at 5.43 pm. Questions Without Notice Resumed Hon Norman Moore: Who was the Minister For Education in 1997?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3557

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The Minister for Education at the time was the former leader of the Liberal Party, Hon Colin Barnett. I am aware of the time and I want to say something else. It gets worse. I refer members to the recent pre-election period. The Liberal Party’s position statement on education prior to the last election reads - Parents were also provided with more detailed student reports through the implementation of the outcomes- based Curriculum Framework and schools were encouraged to produce annual reports. This is the opposition’s policy during the last election. Honourable Barry House has told the house that he does not support outcomes-based education. Brendan Nelson supports outcomes-based education. Do members opposite know how I know that? I had to sign a quadrennial agreement, of which outcomes-based education was one of the significant components. I repeat: the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, supports outcomes-based education. Liberal Party policy supports - Hon Kim Chance: Current policy. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Current Liberal Party policy supports outcomes-based education. There has been no shift. Hon Barry House, the opposition spokesperson on education and training, unilaterally, does not support outcomes-based education. I say to members, what is this world coming to and what is the opposition spokesman about? Where is his head? I am sure Brendan Nelson will come looking for him because he is the one that got away. He is out there on his own - miles and miles away. What a disgrace he really is. PROTEST RALLY, DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSION 433. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Disability Services: (1) What instructions or other correspondence has been forwarded to the Disability Services Commission by government about the political protest rally in Northbridge on 30 June 2005, particularly about staff attendance at the rally? (2) What arrangements have been made for continuity of service in the absence of staff members attending the rally? (3) Will the minister table a copy of any such communication? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) On 20 June 2005, the Department of Consumer and Employer Protection advised that, with cabinet endorsement, the Premier had approved reasonable paid time off work for public sector employees to attend the rally on 30 June 2005. Reasonable paid time off work is subject to agency operational needs and maintenance of services to the public. I seek leave to table the letter from the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection. [See paper 487.] PATIENT ASSISTED TRAVEL SCHEME, ADMINISTRATION TRANSFER 434. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) Has the administration of the patient assisted travel scheme - Hon Ken Travers: You need only look at your budget. Hon BARRY HOUSE: No wonder Hon Travers cannot get a job. (1) Has the administration of the patient assisted travel scheme been transferred from local south west hospitals to Leederville? (2) Has this change been made only for the South West Area Health Service and, if so, why? (3) What are the reasons for centralising the service? (4) How will these changes enhance customer service? (5) Will this involve the re-allocation of employment to Perth? (6) What costs or savings are associated with these changes? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1) Yes. The patient assisted travel scheme is administered by the South West Area Health Service utilising the services of a call-centre operator, McKesson Asia-Pacific, based in Leederville. (2)-(4) The South West Area Health Service decision to centralise the service in Leederville was made to provide a better service. Consumers are now able to complete their application over the phone with the assistance of a call-service representative. Additional benefits include reduced stress and confusion in completing forms,

3558 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

immediate assessment of eligibility under the PAT scheme, immediate assistance with travel and accommodation arrangements if required, immediate assessment of financial assistance requests when required, reduced delays in making payments to consumers through the offer of electronic funds deposits to their accounts, reduced time in registering for subsequent PAT visits, as the details are available from the previous application. (5) There is no re-allocation of employment to Perth. All South West Area Health Service employees previously involved in supporting the PAT scheme have been redeployed. (6) It is anticipated there will be a reduction in costs for the PAT scheme, with a high level of service being provided to customers. Full costs and benefits of the arrangements are being evaluated but will be relevant only for comparison purposes after a reasonable assessment of usage. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [5.38 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 138(d) I table a summary of those questions due today that will be answered when those answers become available. Every effort is being made to process and answer the questions in a timely fashion whenever possible. Pursuant to standing order 138(d), I inform the house that the answer to questions on notice 1844 and 1845 asked by Hon Ray Halligan on 17 May 2005 of me, representing the Minister for Justice, will be provided tomorrow on 30 June 2005. [See paper 488.] QUESTION ON NOTICE 1847 Answer Advice HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral - Minister for Fisheries) [5.39 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 138(d), I inform the house that the answer to question on notice 1847 asked by Hon Ray Halligan on 17 May 2005 of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services will be provided in the near future. QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE 409 Supplementary Information HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral - Minister for Fisheries) [5.39 pm]: I seek to clarify the answer to a question without notice asked yesterday by Hon Bruce Donaldson about the status of the Department of Fisheries’ Hillarys research complex. The Hillarys complex is operational in the sense that the department’s fisheries research division has moved into this state-of-the-art building. Staff from the corporate community relations branch and the Hillarys district office have also been relocated. I am advised that the centre’s so-called life-support system, a salt- water intake pipe 400 metres off the coast, is not fully operational as yet. Other dedicated facilities for public education programs are being finalised and are due to come online later in the year. This is a $16 million facility that will provide a major boost for marine science in this state and ensure the sustainable management of Western Australia’s fisheries. The building is designed to accommodate 160 people. Currently, 140 full-time equivalent fishery staff are located in the building. As well as departmental staff, there is also capacity to host 14 visiting researchers and postgraduate students. This area is currently vacant. I am told that the research that is carried out at this facility will place the state at the forefront of fisheries science internationally. QUESTION ON NOTICE 1785 Answer Advice HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.41 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 138(d), I inform the house that the answer to question on notice 1785 asked by Hon Ray Halligan on 17 May 2005 of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Community Development will be provided on 30 June 2005. RALLY AUSTRALIA Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [5.41 pm]: The Minister for Education and Training had to leave the chamber to get her files. Mr President, I am sure that if you did not notice she was not here for a moment, she would be here before you could notice her. The PRESIDENT: I am just about to give the call to the Minister for Education and Training. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am assured that she is on her way. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan - Minister for Education and Training) [5.41 pm]: Are we continuing on that motion? I have just taken my file back to my office. I am sorry, Mr President.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3559

The PRESIDENT: The minister has the call. If she has concluded her remarks, I will give the call to someone else. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am quite happy to continue my remarks. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has some concerns with the government’s position on this matter. Hon Barbara Scott: What matter? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The matter in relation to the motion that we are discussing. Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I understand that we will go into committee after the dinner break. Hon Norman Moore: I reckon that you should know how the house operates. Hon Kim Chance: No, I misinformed the minister. I’m sorry. Hon Norman Moore: We are on the Rally Australia motion. We have 14 minutes left before the time for motions expires. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I apologise to the house. I thought we were dealing with the motion on Rally Australia, but I was informed by Hon Kim Chance that we had moved on. I had concluded my remarks on the matter before question time. People have divergent views on events of this type. Clearly, some people are supportive because they obviously think the money could be used in a more cost-effective way, while others do not consider the event should be done away with, irrespective of the cost, because they love the sport. The state government obviously has made a decision. It was obliged to give notice of its intentions following the rally event in November this year. However, the government decided to inform the public at an earlier stage to give people as much notice as possible. The government will meet all its contractual obligations in full. Tourism Western Australia has had constructive discussions with its Rally Australia partners, particularly the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport and the Fédération Internationale de L’Automobile, in the past few weeks to outline the reasons for its decisions and to work together to harmoniously relocate the event in Australia. Over the past 15 years the government has put more and more money into the event in comparison with the amount it could get from other events. It was the view of the Tourism Western Australia board that it was receiving diminishing returns. It cost Western Australian taxpayers $5.9 million to stage last year’s event, but it generated only $9.3 million, representing a return of $1.60 for every dollar spent. Some people will argue that that is not a bad return; the government almost doubled its money. The point is that other events have a considerably higher return. The question is how the government makes a decision on that matter. Hon Norman Moore commented on the decision made by the Tourism Western Australia board. He alleged that the decision was not made by the board, because some information was not made publicly available to him through the freedom of information process. I am a great master of the FOI process. When I made FOI applications in opposition, I used to get reams of information that were blacked out of because of commercial confidentiality. Hon Norman Moore: Most of the stuff that was blanked out was about other issues, and I acknowledge that. What I raised by way of a matter of interest was that there was no decision in the minutes about the rally, which is what the FOI related to. I want to know why the decision was not recorded in the minutes. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I cannot help the Leader of the Opposition with that specifically. Hon Norman Moore: Can you find out and write me a letter? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I can certainly find out for the Leader of the Opposition. However, on the matter of whether the decision was made by the board, the simple fact is that the Minister for Tourism is on record as saying that the decision was made by the board. If the Leader of the Opposition is questioning his integrity or accusing him of telling untruths - Hon Norman Moore: I want to know why the minutes do not indicate that the board made the decision. If that is the case, why was it not recorded? It would have made a lot of sense, because the minister could have said that it was in the minutes and there would have been no argument. I also asked whether cabinet made the decision. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is not for me to reveal what goes on in cabinet. Hon Norman Moore: I am not asking what was said; I want to know whether it was a cabinet decision. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is not for me to comment on matters raised in cabinet. Hon Norman Moore: You are allowed to talk about what cabinet decides. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am telling the Leader of the Opposition that I do not intend to do so. I am responding to the motion in a representative capacity, and it is not my intention to go down that path. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is very aggrieved by the course of events. I know that he is a great supporter of Rally

3560 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

Australia. I know that he takes great pride in the contribution that Rally Australia has made to the state. The simple fact is that the game has changed. Obviously, a group of people, particularly the Tourism Western Australia board, do not share the view of the member opposite. However, having said that, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution, but I advise the house that the government will not support the motion. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [5.48 pm]: I thank the minister who dealt with this item of business. She has provided, through this simple and discrete motion, a quite stunningly accurate metaphor for the government’s performance on a wide range of other matters. It is a government that is at sixes and sevens and that does not know where it is going, and, therefore, does not know how to get there or what to do next. However, it had better not let anybody know that it does not know what it is doing, where it is going or what it will do next; it had better try to cover up and use disingenuous argument, or just plain bluster, to avoid dealing with the issues that have been raised. That has been the case in this debate on this discrete motion about Rally Australia, in the same way that it has been in other matters. I am just readying myself, at this time, in case I have the opportunity to address the budget, to expand on that theme. However, if I do not have the opportunity either today or tomorrow, there will be other occasions. This discrete motion about an issue of the day has been used beautifully by the minister to illustrate the distress that the government is in. The minister did not even know that the house was about to resume debate, and that she was to review her own remarks on this matter. She has some notes outside the house, and some notes in the house, and then the Leader of the House puts her off at the last minute. This is the sort of thing that, in due course, I am sure they will be able to laugh about. In the meantime everyone else is laughing about it. Hon Kim Chance: We are only trying to cheer you up. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: If the minister wants to berate and browbeat the house, as she does, she cannot come out with that sort of performance and maintain any credibility. She is letting down the whole government. More relevant to this side of the house, she is demonstrating that the government does not know what it is talking about. I thank the minister for that. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Hon Ken Travers should pick his dummy up and keep quiet, unless he intends to speak on this motion. Hon Ken Travers: I might just do that. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I look forward to him doing that, when he picks his dummy up - Hon Ken Travers: What do you mean pick my dummy up, you bozo? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Oh dear, we are down to name-calling. Does this pass for razor-sharp wit? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister for Education and Training, we are debating this motion, and we have only a few minutes left. I understand that the house has some important business that may need to be transacted later tonight. If we can get on with this debate, free from interjections, and if Hon Simon O’Brien can address the Chair, we will be better off. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I will, Mr President. I point out to members on this side of the house, Hon Murray Criddle, and members of the Greens (WA) that the minister has demonstrated that the terms Hon Norman Moore has used in drafting this motion are quite pertinent. It is appropriate to express amazement about the government’s actions. It is pertinent to acknowledge that the decision was quite clearly an error of judgment and to express the other sentiments contained in the motion. The mover of the motion has asked, quite legitimately, through a freedom of information application and in this debate, whether the board or the government made the decision that Rally Australia would be dropped. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I have said it was the board. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: We are told that it was the board. Hon Norman Moore asked, via a freedom of information application and directly in this house: where are the minutes of the board that reflect that? Guess what? The government cannot produce those minutes. Is the minister seriously saying that if the board made a decision on a matter such as dropping Rally Australia - a major event - it would not be recorded in its minutes? That is what I believe that the minister has said. That is insulting to the intelligence of everyone in this house. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You said that the minister was a liar. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am talking about the Minister for Education and Training. She does not seem capable of answering the very direct question that was put to her by Hon Norman Moore. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I answered it. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I do not believe she did so. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3561

ROAD TRAFFIC (FEES FOR VEHICLE LICENCES) REGULATIONS (NO. 2) 2004, DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [5.55 pm]: I move without notice - That order of the day 53 be discharged from the notice paper. As the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation believes that certain aspects of the regulations relating to cost recovery require clarification, I advise that, in the near future, the committee will present a report to the house that will enable debate on the issue and provide the government with the opportunity to respond. Question put and passed. TRAFFIC (LICENSING) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS (NO. 4) 2004, DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [5.55 pm]: I move without notice - That order of the day 54 be discharged from the notice paper. As the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation believes that certain aspects of the regulations relating to cost recovery require clarification, I advise that, in the near future, the committee will present a report to the house that will enable debate on the issue and provide the government with the opportunity to respond. Question put and passed. SHIRE OF SERPENTINE-JARRAHDALE LOCAL LAW RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF DOGS, DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [5.56 pm]: I move without notice - That order of the day 55 be discharged from the notice paper. By way of explanation, I advise that the concerns of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation have been satisfied. Question put and passed. SHIRE OF SERPENTINE-JARRAHDALE PARKING FACILITIES LOCAL LAW, DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [5.56 pm]: I move without notice - That order of the day 56 be discharged from the notice paper. By way of explanation, I advise that the concerns of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation have been satisfied. Question put and passed. Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 7.30 pm APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL (NO. 1) 2005 APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL (NO. 2) 2005 Second Reading - Cognate Debate Resumed from 28 June. HON BARRY HOUSE (South West) [7.30 pm]: I am aware that the house wishes to move into committee so I will keep my concluding remarks brief. Yesterday, I was discussing education issues as they related to the Budget Statements. However, before I get back to that topic, I will interrupt that stream of thought by referring very briefly to a matter that I raised during today’s questions without notice. I refer to a statement by the Premier today in the other place about measures that will assist members of Parliament to more effectively service their electorates. I have no objection to that whatsoever. However, I have a major objection to the way in which that proposal will be carried out. I hope that there is enough anger from members opposite and others in the government ranks to result in the Leader of the House making a statement when this house sits at eleven o’clock tomorrow morning to correct what has been a major oversight. I have raised this matter during the consideration of the budget papers because there is an extra estimated cost of $3.273 million recurrent and $755 000 capital for these initiatives. On the basis of the discriminatory nature of the Premier’s announcement, I am inclined to not support the budget. The discriminatory nature of the announcement is the reference to members of the Legislative Assembly being provided with an increased staffing complement of a 0.6 full-time equivalent, in addition to the existing 1.4 FTEs. I have no objection to members of the Legislative Assembly

3562 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] qualifying for that provision. However, why is there a difference between Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council members? Further, all research officers will now be provided with relief when on approved leave of absence, which is fine. That provision applies to all members of Parliament. We get that too - you beauty! That is a great advantage. The Premier also said that these measures would particularly assist members in the Legislative Assembly who represent large regional electorates. Members in this house represent larger regional electorates that most members in the Legislative Assembly. That was the rationale the Premier used to provide certain members with a second electorate office. The seven affected electorates are Central Kimberley-Pilbara, Kimberley, Murchison-Eyre, North West Coastal, Merredin and Roe. I have no problem agreeing to the need for the abovementioned provisions in those electorates. However, the facts are very simple when one looks at a map. Members of the Legislative Council cover far greater distances than members of the electorates listed above. All members of Parliament will have installed standard hands-free mobile telephone car kits. Most of us have bought one of those at our own expense. I think I paid $600 for mine. I have no objection to that. Country members should be entitled to satellite phones to pick up the gaps in mobile phone coverage. I have interrupted my remarks on education to refer to this matter because I am outraged about the discrimination between Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council members of Parliament. Hon Norman Moore: You’re absolutely right. I am looking forward to Labor members defending this decision. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Some Labor members have already made vigorous representations to the Premier. I applaud them for that. I hope that members opposite raise the roof on this matter in the next 24 hours or so, and that the Premier realises that what he is doing is absolutely outrageous and should not be tolerated. That is enough of that for the time being. On the strength of the Premier’s announcement alone, I am not encouraged to vote for the second or third readings of the appropriation bills. That would be a major step, but that is the way I feel at the moment. My remarks about education were centred around the proposed curriculum changes to years 11 and 12. I was outlining the fact that in the few months that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich has been the Minister for Education and Training and I have been the opposition spokesperson, there has been a major shift in community opinion. There has been an unravelling of two aspects of the proposal - the merits of the proposal being extended from K-10 to years 11 and 12 and the implementation of those proposals. The simple fact is that the merits of the proposed changes and the way that they will be implemented are being seriously questioned. A case has not been made in their favour. The Minister for Education and Training claims that she has overwhelming support for the changes, and that everybody is jolly and positive about the changes. Over the past few months, I have had widespread consultation with a range of people, including principals and teachers from primary and secondary schools, public and private schools, and city and country schools. I have also spoken with many academics and community and professional organisations. This issue has been raised in every discussion that I have had during my wide consultation. The minister ignores this situation at her own peril because it is gathering steam. The community is analysing the proposals for schools and education in Western Australia and they are seriously questioning what we are about. The situation has unravelled in a few different ways. First, the media sat up and took an interest in the matter. It printed articles and opinions that culminated in the weekend’s press. I have copies of the weekend’s press, but I will not quote from it now because I will not have time. The editorial of The West Australian was quite scathing and advocated a delay in the implementation of the changes until further research has been carried out. Liam Bartlett’s column in the Sunday Times also outlines some of the major concerns with the merits of the proposals and the way that they are proposed to be implemented. Yesterday, the Minister for Education and Training ridiculed an interview that Liam Bartlett conducted with Kevin Donnelly on ABC radio, simply because he is a qualified expert in the field. I have never met Kevin Donnelly, who is from Melbourne and, as was explained, is a member of the Liberal Party. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): Order! Hon Barbara Scott, I have one speaker and that is all I need. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I believe the minister dismissed him simply because Mr Donnelly happens to be a member of the Liberal Party and has worked as a staffer for the Liberal Party. Does that mean that the minister would dismiss some other qualified expert because she did not like some aspect of his background or the shape of his nose? The dismissal of that expert is completely irrational. He was quite concerned and scathing about the changes to the curriculum. I made some notes about the program. Every one of the six to eight callers to the program, except for one, was concerned and scathing about the changes. Those comments were from a range of people, including practising teachers, parents and a retired principal. The one call that was supportive came from the principal of Melville Senior High School who had been involved with some of these proposals as they were worked up about 10 years ago. He implemented changes in a drama studies course at the time and trialed the changes. As many experts will tell us, drama is one of the areas to which this outcomes-based approach is far more applicable than it is to knowledge-based areas, such as maths, science and economics. I will move on quickly because I am aware of the time. The media are taking an enormous amount of interest in this, and rightly so. They are very concerned about it. A couple of months ago our old friend from this place Hon Tom Stephens, as Chairman of the Legislative Assembly Education and Health Standing Committee, initiated an inquiry. We hear that it was without the knowledge or approval of the minister. I have the terms of reference of the inquiry, but

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3563

I will not refer to them. The inquiry will not report until 30 June next year, which will be six months into the implementation of four of the courses next year. Having an inquiry reporting after a program has been implemented is ludicrous. That is why we are saying, along with, I would suggest, 85 to 90 per cent of the teaching fraternity and about the same percentage of the general public, that because of the concerns, confusion and anxiety that exist, we want a moratorium on the proposed changes. That is not saying outright that we dismiss the changes to the curriculum out of hand, because they obviously contain some good elements, but they seem to have gone off the rails. The state had to sign the federal agreement, to which the minister referred, in order to get the money. I, like the minister, am very uncomfortable with that situation in which the state must go with a begging bowl to the federal government. One of the issues is the apparent incompatibility of the reporting requirements of the federal government, which do not match up with the proposed new changes to the curriculum. One important question was answered in this house yesterday. I asked the minister several times whether she would give a guarantee to all teachers and other public servants involved in education that they could provide submissions and appear before the Legislative Assembly Education and Health Standing Committee without any fear or retribution. The minister did not give me an answer. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: The answer is yes. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I know, but the minister did not give me an answer the first couple of times I put the question in this place. I put the question on notice and after about eight weeks I finally got the answer yesterday. The answer is yes, and I am very pleased to hear it, because there is a climate of fear in the public education system. There is fear because of concern about the consequences to individuals if they speak out. If the minister does not believe me, she should conduct a questionnaire or something similar to get to the truth. We have seen problems unfolding in the Curriculum Council. For example, syllabus material is quite clearly not meeting time lines, which is causing alarm, and some people who were writing the material have resigned. However, the minister has pushed on through all of it. There has been concern about the lack of professional development. A couple of teachers only about a week ago started a web site called Plato, which has been astounding. The minister is a great fan of web sites. She likes to denigrate me by pointing to my web site. I did not know I had a web site. Apparently it is one of the Leader of the Opposition’s initiatives, but I have never made any input into the web site and, quite frankly, I do not have the resources of the minister. I wanted to quote some of the material from the Plato web site, but I recommend that everybody in this house have a look at that web site. Last week saw the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia directive on this. If nothing sways the minister, I hope that her union bosses can, because the minister is backing a loser. The minister would be doing the right thing if she were to impose some delay on the implementation of these changes, so that the community and experts can step back and make a proper assessment and judgment of the merits of these changes to the curriculum and how they should be implemented. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan - Minister for Education and Training) [7.48 pm]: I thank members for their contribution. I am aware of the time. Members have made some interesting contributions to the debate on the appropriation bills Nos 1 and 2. A range of issues have been put on the table, such as the desalination plant. Some interest has been expressed in the Carnarvon Police Station, which is referred to at page 599 of budget paper No 2, where the estimated cost of $4.25 million is set out. Some $200 000 has been expended so far in 2004-05 and the planned expenditure for 2005-06 is $50 000. Some issues of tax competitiveness were raised . In both 2004-05 and 2005-06, Western Australia’s tax to gross state product ratio is expected to be the lowest of all states. In the forward years, Western Australia’s share of GST is projected to remain the equal lowest of all the states. The total cost of the south west Yarragadee water project is estimated to be $358.5 million, of which $1.8 million will be expended in 2005-06 I want very briefly to put on record that on the matters raised by Hon Barry House - I will not spend a lot of time on this - Hon Norman Moore: I hope not because the arrangement was that you were not going to speak. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Absolutely, but I do want to put on record that South Australia, Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have outcome-based education. I will not go into it because I am aware of the time imperative and the desire of this house to move into the committee stage. I look forward to moving into committee. I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate and their support for the bills; I hope it will continue. Questions put and passed. Bills read a second time. As to Committee Stage On motion by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House), resolved - That the committee stage be adjourned to a later stage of the sitting.

3564 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE, EXTENDED AFTER 10.00 PM Motion HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [7.52 pm]: I move - That the house sit after 10.00 pm but not later than 10.40 pm for the committee stage on Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) 2005 and the Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 2) 2005. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The adjournment debate will be held after 10.40 pm; that always follows. Question put and passed. APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL (NO. 1) 2005 Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the Chair; Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House) in charge of the bill. The CHAIRMAN: As there is to be a general committee stage for the three ministers in this chamber, the first portfolio area to be dealt with is that for the Minister for Agricultural and Forestry; and the Midwest and Wheatbelt. It was previously agreed that there would be approximately 45 minutes for the minister at the table, to finish around 8.40 pm. The Minister for Education can then deal with questions for an agreed one and a quarter hours, or thereabouts, and then the portfolio of the Minister for Fisheries will be dealt with for 30 minutes or so. Clauses 1 to 3 put and passed. Clause 4: Appropriation for recurrent services and purposes - The CHAIRMAN: Witnesses would be sworn in at a normal Estimates Committee hearing. That will not occur with this committee on the basis that it is expected that the minister will seek advice if required and answer questions. However, should the minister require, one of his advisers may address the committee directly. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: It is a shame that members of the government must have urgent parliamentary business to attend to, as they are not here to support the government’s budget. As the minister has stated himself, it has been very difficult to follow agriculture portfolio budgets over many years because of the grants and subsidies involved. There is some consistency, but this depends upon research grants issued and some of the national resource management money coming through for salinity. Page 203 of the Budget Statements contains the total appropriation to deliver services under appropriations and forward estimates. The estimated actual in 2004-05 was $134 million, and this has been increased by $6 million to $140 million. The out years are interesting: the figures go up to $162 million in 2006- 07 and $161 million in 2007-08, and then suddenly drop back to $130 million. I am interested in the reasons for this wide variation. It is to do with grants and subsidies? Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for his question. The $6 million difference between the 2004-05 actual estimate and the 2005-06 budget estimate is a comparison between an apple and an orange. It is more accurate to go back to the column to the left of the $134 million to compare the 2004-05 and 2005-06 budgets. An outcome of the factor Hon Bruce Donaldson referred to is that our estimated actual almost always exceeds our budget for the following year because of the unpredictable nature of external funding. It considerably exceeds the budget for that year. Last year it went from a $116 million budget to a $134 million outcome. A number of issues drove that result. Most particular among those was the one-off contribution to fund the European wood borer program, which in itself was $7.6 million. Other things such as locust campaigns were involved. That was not the core of the question; I will move on to the question. I make the point that it is not a valid comparison to compare the estimated actual of the previous year to the budget for the budget year. As Hon Bruce Donaldson anticipated, the principal reason for that difference is the impact of the state’s contribution to the national action plan for salinity and water quality, which in this budget year is $14 million and, in the forward estimates, is $32 million in 2006-07 and $33.4 million in 2007-08. As the honourable member noticed, there is a quite precipitous drop in 2008-09, which occurs because the state’s contribution to the NAP in that year is zero. The last year of the agreed NAP funding program is 2007-08. Obviously, before we get to 2008- 09, NAP 2 will have been organised, I hope. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I turn to the capital works program on page 226. Under the heading “Completed Works” is an item called “South Perth Planning”. One issue for the Department of Agriculture has been the development of new headquarters. The existing headquarters are on Jarrah Road. At what stage has that redevelopment reached? I cannot find in the budget any large sums of money that have been outlaid for that purpose. Has a decision been made on what will happen to the existing premises of the Department of Agriculture? If the department is to move, the budget does not seem to contain any allocations for the capital expenditure that will be required for that. Hon KIM CHANCE: There are really two issues. The first is the redevelopment of the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture, and the member does not need me to explain why that is necessary. The government has announced its intention to go ahead with that redevelopment at Murdoch. That process is proceeding. An amount of

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3565

$26 million was committed for that purpose in the forward estimates of a prior budget. That funding is not part of this budget. There is also a commitment in this budget for $28 million. It is confusing, because the two numbers are similar. One must ask whether one sum is part of the other, but it is not. The commitment of $28 million is for the development of the research institute. On the one hand, there is the development of the headquarters and on the other there is the development of the institute. I suppose that one could be seen to be part of the other. The two numbers can be added together, but they are separate streams of money. The $28 million for the development of the facilities for the agriculture research institute will be spread over a few years; $2 million is budgeted in 2006-07, $16 million in 2007-08 and $10 million in 2008-09. I reiterate that that amount is separate from the $26 million previously allocated for the rebuilding and relocation of the headquarters of the department. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I refer to paragraph (b) at the bottom of page 227, which details the number of full-time equivalents. The FTE figure for 2003-04 was 1 450 and in 2004-05 it was estimated to be 1 484. The estimate for 2005-06 is 1 430. From where have 54 full-time equivalents been removed? Have they been taken from the Agriculture Protection Board? How many of those FTEs are on short-term contracts? At one stage, the number of people on contracts was quite high. Placing employees on short-term contracts does not seem to be conducive to efficiency, especially when it is a 12-month contract. People work diligently for the first nine months and for the next three months must draw up a proposal to get continued funding. I have spoken to a number of people within the Department of Agriculture around the state, and contracts are considered to be an inefficient way in which to operate. Hon KIM CHANCE: My answer might prompt a supplementary question, if I do not capture the whole of the member’s question in my answer. I will start with the contracts. The staffing ratio is 82 per cent full-time to 18 per cent contract, although there is some modest variation within that. There is a broad parallel with revenue. About 70 per cent is from the consolidated fund and 30 per cent is occasional funding - I will use that term because it includes both industry and commonwealth-type arrangements. The member asked where the drop in FTEs has occurred. If we compare the 2003-04 actual figure with the 2004-05 estimated figure, the number of FTEs has grown from 1 450 to 1 484. However, it drops to 1 430 in 2005-06. Again, that happens every time, because the department does not budget to employ people until it knows that it has secured occasional funding. The department does not hire contract employees until it has won the contract. Hon Bruce Donaldson: So that figure is unknown because the grants that will come forward are unknown. Hon KIM CHANCE: That is correct. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I refer to page 225 and the dot point on the old chestnut of the state barrier fence. I was asked to ask this question just a couple of days ago. The Budget Statements state that there will be a continued upgrade of the state barrier fence to a standard that excludes wild dogs, including an assessment of the extension of the fence eastward to protect agriculture in the south east region. People in the mid west are very concerned about the state barrier fence. How much money does the government intend to expend in the future, bearing in mind that some of the initiatives for that fence have been, to say the least, not useful? For instance, money was put in to catch emus and the like. The locals immediately said that that would not work, so that was not used. We want the fence to be upgraded. Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Murray Criddle is right; this is a hoary chestnut, but not unreasonably so. I have also met with the people who have for many years sought a better deal for the fence, although not as recently as the honourable member. I support what they are trying to do. The CF contribution in 2004-05, in this budget year and indeed for the out years remains at $400 000. That is the information I have received. I actually thought that it had gone to $500 000 this year. That funding is for the inspection, maintenance and replacement of the southern barrier fence. We made an allocation of some $300 000 prior to the last budget for wild dog issues specifically, but my recollection is that some $60 000 of that will go into a research project on electrification of the state barrier fence to try to get it to a dog-proof standard. However, if Hon Murray Criddle wants me to say that this is bandaid stuff, he is probably right; it is bandaid stuff. The only way we will ever address the long-term issue of the barrier fence is to establish a robust funding arrangement around it. When I look down the column comparing consolidated funds with external funds for the SBF, external funds in each year is nil. We can do this in two ways: we can continue to sit in this place in 30 years, although hopefully not Hon Murray Criddle and me. Hon Murray Criddle: There is no chance of that. Hon KIM CHANCE: Our successors could be here then still dealing with the same problem, or we could make a start now to fix the problem. It will probably take that long to fix. That kind of thinking lay at the base of the concept that we called the regional model. The regional model never really got to a proposal stage. That is something that in this term of government we must develop. We understand that the regional model has its detractors, and we understand that it is our responsibility to gain the confidence of stakeholders before it becomes a proposition. However, if we are to fix the state barrier fence in the long term, we need a long-term commitment to it. So far the regional model is the only proposition that I have ever seen that could reasonably be anticipated to form a long-lasting solution. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I thank the minister for those comments and obviously I will pass on the message. On page 227 of the budget papers under expenses, the figures in the 2005-06 column are simply all over the place. I guess I will get the same answer I got before. The bottom line is that people want to know whether the state is spending more

3566 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] or less on agriculture. We would all appreciate some figures that told us what was in the budget, because the grants, subsidies and so forth mask the figure for what is actually being given. People would be a lot happier if there were some figures to assure them that agriculture is getting more money. Hon KIM CHANCE: That question can be addressed in a number of ways. I have just been handed a graph that actually shows something, and I will table it with your leave, Mr Chairman. There are actually three graphs: at the top is a graph on the CPI adjusted movement, the second graph is on funding and the third graph is real terms funding. They all show an increase in funding. However, there is a most telling figure. Hon Murray Criddle: Is that CF funding? Hon KIM CHANCE: No. The most telling figure is to be found on page 203 in the very line that Hon Bruce Donaldson referred to, which is “Total appropriations provided to deliver services”. That line shows the proportion of funding to the department totally devoid of all external factors. That is, therefore, the state government’s commitment to the Department of Agriculture. In that total there is no commonwealth money and no industry money; that is the state’s commitment. I will consult my advisers to make sure that it is correct. I am assured that it is correct. The first “total” line on page 203 indicates the total appropriations provided to deliver services. I think that tells the whole story, but I will table that document. [See paper 489.] Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: There are two other dot points I want to refer to - there are obviously heaps of them - on page 206 relating to the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority and we can deal with those figures in the debate on the authority. However, I heard today that Northam, with the assistance of two other shires, will go ahead and build some yards. What is the minister’s reaction to that? It could have a serious impact on the volume of stock going through the new yards and, consequently, the rate that producers must pay as a result of selling stock. I have one other question after that. Hon KIM CHANCE: I will keep my answer brief. My response to the proposition is, firstly, I am not surprised because the Shire of Northam told me about it some time ago. My response to the suggestion, therefore, is neutral. It will have very little effect on the Muchea proposition as the projection is, bearing in mind that the proposed yard at Northam will be a sheep-only yard, that it will take about 10 per cent of the sheep-only throughput out of Muchea. The sheep-only throughput for Muchea is anticipated to be 900 000 head a year. Therefore, it will make very little difference to the overall economics of Muchea. However, it may well have a greater effect on the proposal by the Shire of Katanning, as the establishment of the yards at Northam will affect Katanning’s proposition. Members should not misunderstand me though, as Katanning’s proposition is not as financially robust as that for Muchea because Muchea is fully funded with government money. Katanning’s proposition is funded partly by debt and partly by ratepayers’ money; it is not as financially robust as that for Muchea. I also have concerns that the proposed Northam yard could possibly have yard fees competitive with those at Muchea, given the elements of public ownership of Muchea. That is one aspect that has concerned me. Hon Murray Criddle would be aware that I am somewhat concerned that a fully publicly owned facility, debt-free, at Muchea operating alongside partly debt-funded and more privately owned or local government owned saleyards in other parts of the state is not a position of equity, and I am not happy with that situation. It is a huge free kick to a Badgingarra cattleman, for example, against a Mt Barker cattleman, because the yard fees in Badgingarra would be considerably lower than those in Mt Barker. I think I know how to resolve that problem. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: Do not put the fee there! From the next dot point, I understand the minister is putting half a million dollars a year into the continuation of climate risk management. Does the minister intend to continue that and is it worthwhile? Hon KIM CHANCE: I have some very good news for Hon Murray Criddle, and it is also news to me: it is actually more than half a million dollars a year. The consolidated fund contribution for the budget year and the out years has gone up to $600 000. However, even better than that, the project is now attracting some substantial external funds. In the current year it is $396 000; in the budget year, $264 000; and in the out years, $166 000. Do I think it is worth continuing? Absolutely. When we start to talk about this type of forecasting technology, it is a bit like casting bones and examining chicken entrails! However, if that provides an accurate weather forecast, we should go ahead and do it. I have said the same thing about the puerulus count as a means of anticipating the rock lobster catch. A great deal of science is being applied, and members should not take notice of my frivolous comments. If we could find a way that would allow us something like an 85 per cent degree of reliability on longer-term forecasts, it would be the most valuable thing that any government agency could ever do for agricultural industries. I have said that before and I will say it again. If a farmer knew that the next year would be a tough one, there would be things he could do about it. If he knew it would be good, there would be things he could do about that. That is far more significant than anything else we could do for farmers. We are a way from that yet, but this type of investment has, so far, justified my confidence and the degree of confidence the industry is showing in it. Hon ANTHONY FELS: I refer to page 243 and the Rural Business Development Corporation. There is a significant difference between the 2004-05 estimated actual and the budget. The budget for 2004-05 was $181 000. The estimated

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3567 actual is $8.931 million. Previous years and forecast years show smaller amounts similar to those for 2003-04 and the 2004-05 budget. Page 244 contains a line item about farm business development of $17.26 million. That amount was not budgeted for. Will the minister explain why those items are not budgeted for now and in the future? Hon KIM CHANCE: I thank the member. The extraordinary increase in the 2004-05 allocation is entirely the financial assistance to the egg industry because of its deregulation. The member will be aware that, under the national competition policy agreement, if the National Competition Council approves an alteration in the marketing system to provide a more competitive environment - specifically agricultural marketing boards when they are deregulated and open to competition - the council, through the federal Treasurer, also allows a payment of money to the states in the form of national competition payments. The primary justification of the payments is not to make the states wealthy; the commonwealth is not being entirely altruistic. The primary purpose of the payments is to enable the state government to provide funding to industry to ease the process of deregulation. There are always costs when a regulated industry becomes deregulated. An amount of $8.75 million represents the entirety of the national competition payments for a two-year period. All that money has been transferred to the egg industry to ease its deregulation issues. Although the payments are shown as occurring in the 2004-05 estimated actual, the payments will occur in 2005-06 because the first of the payments will be made on 2 July 2005. We had anticipated them being made this month. They will now be made in July, which is in the next financial year. Hon ANTHONY FELS: I refer to the Mid West Development Commission at page 251. Why did the department spend more than double its budgeted amount of $1.549 million? The estimated actual for the financial year now finishing is $3.542 million. The 2005-06 budget estimate is $4.001 million. The amount drops steadily for the next three out years. Why are the amounts for last year and this year so high? Hon KIM CHANCE: I will attempt to answer the question only generically. However, I will provide specific detail on the question later. It is now recorded in Hansard and I will send it to the Mid West Development Commission. As the member can appreciate, we did not have time to get representatives down from Geraldton for tonight. When such a large increase occurs, particularly with a development commission, it is inevitably because the development commission has been used as a vector for the payment of external funds. The core budget for the development commission is, as indicated, about $1.549 million. That is consistent with the Mid West Development Commission’s core budget, although I would have thought it was around $1.8 million. The additional $2 million would be, I suspect, for the payment of a specific capital works project. It would almost certainly be for the Geraldton foreshore project. We should wait until we receive the detail. Generically, that is why those types of blips occur. The CHAIRMAN: The minister has indicated that he will provide some additional information to Hon Anthony Fels. Hon HELEN MORTON: I refer to the Agriculture Protection Board at page 233. The out years show a decline in budgeted funding for the APB. I also refer to the second dot point of major achievements for 2004-05 on page 236, which refers to the strategy to minimise the impact of wild dogs. I am referring specifically to the pastoral areas. It was stated that the strategy was expected to be completed by the end of 2004-05. With all due respect, I think the strategy was a dismal failure. Nothing in the major initiatives for 2005-06 refers to the control of wild dogs. I have a lot of contact with people in the pastoral areas. It is the biggest issue they have to deal with. The dog problem is the reason a lot of pastoralists in the goldfields are moving from sheep to other industries. Page 238 refers to regulatory fees and fines of the Agriculture Protection Board. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am getting a bit lost; let us answer one query at a time. Firstly, the reason for the apparent decline at page 233 is that funding for the APB effectively stops in 2006-07. That is when we anticipate we will move into the biosecurity council. The member will be aware that biosecurity is a huge budget issue in the Department of Agriculture. I believe the amount allocated is about $40 million annually. The Agriculture Protection Board occupies only a tiny segment of the whole biosecurity issue. We are trying to incorporate more effectively the way in which we work out biosecurity. I really do not think that anybody any longer seriously questions our commitment to the wild dog issue. We have worked extensively with pastoralists, particularly those in the eastern goldfields. In four years, we have taken the budget from $1.1 million to $1.9 million. We have spent a remarkable amount of public money on what is basically a private benefit issue. I believe the member referred to the review, or the strategy, as a failure. I am bewildered by that. The review was carried out by the APB. It indicated that there is no silver bullet solution to the wild dog issue. It is a serious issue, and the member and I do not need to tell anybody about that. We all understand how serious the issue is. However, if the member works her way through the Allen review document, it will become very clear where and why this is such a difficult issue. There is no single cause. If I could think of a single cause identified in the review, it is that perhaps it has been too easy to over-rely on the aerial baiting program. Perhaps we have not been doing that as well as we could have done it. A range of areas are identified in the Allen review that indicate just where we are going wrong in this. There is about a 30-year cycle with dogs, as the member is aware. That 30-year cycle is just about past its peak now. The number of dogs that were captured or otherwise destroyed in the eastern goldfields last year was more than

3568 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

2 000. A considerable effort is going into the problem. However, unless we get some kind of structured approach to the way in which we tackle this problem, we will face it in another 30 years. We need to be very serious about it. I also believe we need to be a bit more innovative in what we are doing. I do not think that was picked up in the Allen review. It really looked at what we were doing and where we were falling short of our targets. Some of those things are unavoidable. Thirty years ago most pastoral properties employed their own dogger, because they could afford to. Now most pastoral stations cannot afford to employ their own dogger. On some bigger stations, there were seasonally up to five doggers employed. We are now trying to deal with the problem without any of those station-employed doggers being there any more. Of course we have a problem trying to deal with the issue. We cannot expect that stations will put on a privately employed dogger, nor can we reasonably expect that an owner-operator of a pastoral enterprise, with the kind of work pressure that he has, will even have the time to carry out on his own the sort of work that he would need to do. We must recognise that the labour force issues relating to dog control need to be addressed, and we need smarter solutions. If we are to get solutions, we need to look at the things we can do. I believe ground baiting and the development of the salami-type bait might offer solutions. Issues relating to attractants and toxicology that are being worked on across Australia might also provide solutions. However, everyone in this chamber knows how far a dog will travel to get to a bitch on heat. Even Canis familiaris will travel 200 kilometres in a weekend. Imagine how far a dingo, or a dog with some dingo blood, moves. If we used attractants in an effective way, we could virtually take out every male dog within cooee of the nearest mob of sheep. Ultimately, that must start reducing the total stock of dogs. It must also be remembered that we are not dealing with dingoes in the main; we are dealing with Canis familiaris, although some have some dingo infusion in them. It is a serious problem. We will work through this with the zone control authorities. They are the people who have the regulatory authority and whom we deliver our money through. They are local people who understand the situation very well. The CHAIRMAN: Hon Helen Morton had a further question. Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes, on the same issue. I reiterate that none of the things that the minister has been talking about is listed in the major initiatives for 2005-06. Hon Kim Chance: I will put it in next time. Hon HELEN MORTON: I thank the minister. I am feeling a bit better that the minister has talked to it to that extent. However, I refer to page 238 - I am still dealing with the APB - and the line item for regulatory fees and fines under the income heading. That is a fairly stable line item through the out years. I understand that the APB rates for pastoralists in the goldfields - I do not know how far this extends - have been waived for this financial year. I do not know about the next financial year. I am just wondering whether that waiving of the fees for pastoralists was taken into account when these figures were developed. I suggest that that is perhaps recognition of the ineffectiveness of the program in the past few years. The CHAIRMAN: I call the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry. However, I indicate that we have four minutes left. I also say to members who will not get an opportunity to ask a question on this ministerial area that if they have a clearly written question, it can be submitted, and I will hand it to the minister. Those questions will not go through the normal question process; they will be handed to the minister as part of this estimates committee, and the ministers have given me an assurance that they will attend to them promptly. Hon KIM CHANCE: I say to Hon Helen Morton that the reason that the waiving of the fees is not reflected in that very flat-line approach to regulatory fees and fines is that our act does not allow us to waive fees. We reimburse pastoralists part of the APB rate. We still require them to pay the levy, and then we reimburse them the amount of that levy through the Rural Business Development Corporation. It is simply because our legislation does not allow us to waive fees, whereas the pastoral lease is able to be waived. Therefore, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, as the minister responsible for lands, can relieve a station of having to pay its pastoral lease rates, but we cannot do so with the APB rates. We must reimburse them. Believe me, it has created some interesting comments. The two acts were put together at different times, and nobody ever put them together. We might work on fixing that, perhaps in the member’s time in this place. The reason for the increase in 2008-09 is principally the skeleton weed levies. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I refer to the biological control of Paterson’s curse. That is covered in the Agriculture Protection Board section of the budget papers. I refer to the major achievements for 2004-05 on page 236 and to the fifth dot point from the bottom of the page. It states that several sites where Paterson’s curse biological control agents have been released have been assessed as being ready for the harvest of insects to seed more sites. Will the minister outline where that program is going from here and how successful it has been? Hon KIM CHANCE: There is a degree of success. The biocontrol of Paterson’s curse is a process that started a long time ago. I can recall that in 1979 one of my first tasks as an executive member of the Western Australian Farmers Federation, then the Farmers Union of WA, was to try to work through this issue because it was the first example in modern times of biocontrol in Western Australia on a big scale. I remember the opposition we received from Mr Alan Fewster, then the president of the Beekeepers Section, who had an entirely different view from the rest of us about

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3569

Paterson’s curse. I understand that the biological control agents for blackberries are also promising. I will get back to Hon Bruce Donaldson with more technical detail. Both projects are exciting. If biocontrol can be made to work, hopefully we can deal with some of the horrendous problems we are facing. The one that I have in mind is mesquite in the Ashburton, which is a horrible thing. I cannot see a way clear on that issue. Normally when I look at a problem, I can comfort myself with a way to fix it. When Mr Rob Delane and I went to Mardie not so long ago, I was horrified by what I saw. However, even there, some biocontrolling is working on mesquite. It is taking out mesquite not in the core, but in the more isolated plants as it is starting to spread. I know that there is enthusiasm for continuing that work. I will get the member more detail. The CHAIRMAN: The Minister for Agriculture and Forestry indicates that he will provide supplementary information to Hon Bruce Donaldson. That concludes this section of the committee stage on agriculture and other areas. I thank the minister and his advisers for their attendance. I remind members that any written questions relating to agriculture must be handed to me at this desk before proceedings conclude tonight, so that I may hand them to the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry. We now move to the areas of responsibility of the Minister for Education and Training. I refer members to page 275 to 330 of the Budget Statements. I understand that members want to deal with the Curriculum Council in the first instance. There are no problems in that regard. I will offer Hon Barry House the first line of questioning, Hon Murray Criddle the second and then I will ask other members as needed. Again, in ordinary circumstances the various advisers would have been sworn in. That is not occurring tonight. Therefore, in the main the minister will answer the questions and seek advice if required. However, if the minister desires it, an adviser may speak directly to the committee. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I refer to the Curriculum Council on page 306 of the Budget Statements. Some of my questions are specific; others are not. Yesterday, I asked a question of the minister in the house. I am hoping that the presence of her advisers will enable the minister to provide an answer or provide her advisers with an opportunity to provide an answer. I will repeat the question as a way of introducing the topic. In order to clear up the confusion and anxiety surrounding the proposed curriculum changes to years 11 and 12, will the minister explain to the committee the definition of “outcomes-based education” and why it is considered to be better than the current system? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Before I respond directly to the honourable member, I want to put on record in the context of this forum a number of issues about this matter. The first is that these changes are not new. As Hon Barry House knows, they date back to the Court Government and the implementation of the Curriculum Council Act in 1997. The reforms have been ongoing. It was made quite clear at that point that the reforms would apply K-12. Over the past six or seven years, we have begun implementing the curriculum-based framework from K-10. It is now time to implement the curriculum-based framework in years 11 and 12. Two things are happening at this stage. First is the introduction of 50 new subjects, which will be implemented between now and 2008. Those 50 subjects will be based on an outcomes-based approach. Kevin Donnelly suggested that OBE documents do not contain the syllabi and, therefore, they are an inferior method of education. I put on record that the Western Australian courses of study contain a syllabus. Any educator who has been in the system would know that. An outcome is what a student should be able to achieve. For each outcome, there are four specific outcome targets. At the end of a lesson, a student will be able to achieve X, Y and Z. From there we have the content. The content is what is taught to get the student to achieve the outcomes, which are X, Y and Z. Quite clearly, we must have a standard of measure, and this is where the concept of “standards” comes into the equation. We need to have a standard of measure to judge the level of achievement of a student in terms of the outcomes or objectives, which are X, Y and Z. That is it in its most simplistic form. I also put on record that the new courses of study will be more rigorous and academic than the current years 11 and 12 subjects. The days of rote learning are over. We must move with the times. I also reiterate that this is nothing new. For some reason, it is the honourable member’s view that Western Australia is going it alone. I have made it quite clear that we must meet certain requirements under the quadrennial agreement. Minister Nelson has said that we must go down this path. As part of the quadrennial funding agreement, we are required to implement outcomes-based education. South Australia, Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and Canberra all have outcomes-based education. Is the member asking me to abandon eight years of reform work? We are talking about the implementation next year of four subjects, one of which is English. Is the member asking me to abandon the reform process because a small number of teachers are not satisfied with the change? I do not hold the member’s view. I am confident about outcomes-based education. I will not be abandoning the reform program. Outcomes-based education has three very simple components. Hon BARRY HOUSE: We have had this debate. I do not agree with the minister’s assessment that only a very small group of teachers is concerned. From my observation, it is a large group of teachers, and a very large majority according to what I am hearing and from what people tell me. Anyhow, I have more specific questions. The composition of the Curriculum Council - Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: What page is this? Hon BARRY HOUSE: This does not refer to a page but is a general question on the composition of the Curriculum Council. Are any currently practising teachers members of the Curriculum Council? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The Curriculum Council produces an annual report. The answers to some of these questions are very easily located in the annual report. Having said that, over the past eight years, from 1977 until now,

3570 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] teachers, students, parents, State School Teachers’ Union representatives and university representatives have been represented on the Curriculum Council. Every group of stakeholders has had a direct involvement. The idea that in some way the Curriculum Council has operated as an independent unit somewhere aside from the broader education community is so far off beam that, with all due respect to the member, I worry that the member has paid so little attention that all he is doing, quite frankly, is running on fanciful notions. That is quite clear from the annual report of the Curriculum Council. The English Teachers Association has expressed strong support. I seek to table its letter. Members might be aware that the English program is due to be implemented next year, and obviously the English Teachers Association has been consulted. I want to put on record that the Curriculum Council has four courses: aviation, which has already been implemented, English, engineering studies, and media production and analysis. With the exception of English, in which I admit there have been some concerns about professional development, people are ready and happy to proceed. The CHAIRMAN: Just identify the document, so that I know what is being tabled. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is a letter from the English Teachers Association dated Tuesday, 28 June 2005. The CHAIRMAN: In respect of? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: In respect of the support of the English Teachers Association of Western Australia. I will read the first paragraph, if I may. . . . the South West English Teachers Association strongly urge you - That is me - to maintain the timeline for the implementation of the English Course of Study to ensure that it is implemented at the beginning of 2006, and it is not delayed as a consequence of the influence of an ill-informed and vocal minority. The CHAIRMAN: I know what the document is now, and it is tabled. [See paper 490.] Hon BARRY HOUSE: That is all very well and good, but the minister still has not answered my question. Are any currently practising teachers on the Curriculum Council? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes, there is currently one teacher and one principal. Almost all the rest of the members of the Curriculum Council have been teachers. Hon BARRY HOUSE: The minister and I have been teachers too, some time ago. This question relates to the budget in general, because the ramifications of this question will mean that this whole section of the Curriculum Council budget is relevant or irrelevant. Talks are, as I understand it, occurring between the Department of Education and the State School Teachers’ Union of Western Australia in response to the union’s directive last week to its members that they were basically to play no part in any further implementation of these changes. Will the minister or her advisers report on those talks and the budget implications that might arise from them? If it is decided that the implementation process will go in a different direction, the budget will have to be completely revamped, I would imagine. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The executive of the State School Teachers’ Union is quite within its rights to determine a course of action. I, as Minister for Education and Training, am quite within my rights to determine a course of action that I think is in the public interest. These reforms will proceed. That is the first thing. In view of the fact that they will proceed, there is no implication for the budget allocation for the reforms. What is the budget implication? Hon BARRY HOUSE: What is the budget implication? I asked the minister to report on the current state of talks between the department and the teachers’ union. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am aware that the State School Teachers’ Union has issued this directive. I am hopeful that there may be a resolution of some of the concerns that are held by the representatives of the teachers’ union. There is obviously an ongoing dialogue, as there should be. I am confident that we will reach a resolution on a number of issues about which they have expressed some concern. The member will be aware that I have put a task force in place to assist and fast-track the implementation and development of curricula and support materials for some of the new subjects that are being implemented. I really cannot say much more than that because there is nothing really more to report on the issue. However, the Australian Education Union has expressed support for the principles and directions. I also want to reiterate that the union has been represented on the Curriculum Council since 1997 in the implementation of the curriculum framework. The CHAIRMAN: I am happy to offer the question to Hon Barry House as the opposition spokesperson for this portfolio. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Can you ask something specific to the budget? The CHAIRMAN: I am happy to come back to the member in due course. Hon BARRY HOUSE: The minister wants a specific question, and this one is pretty specific.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3571

The CHAIRMAN: Before the member asks his questions, let us get one thing straight: this Legislative Council does not vote on divisions in the budget, as is the case in the Legislative Assembly. The estimates committee in this house has always been more general in its scope. If the minister is reflecting on the fact that a page number was not called, I could find an item to cover matters raised because the budget is written in very general terms. Hon BARRY HOUSE: What has been the total cost to date of the curriculum improvement program, phases 1 and 2? What has been the total cost to date of the review and implementation processes in relation to the post-compulsory courses of study? I refer to the total cost to date. Also, what is the budget and schedule for the future for the curriculum improvement programs and the post-compulsory courses of study, up to the stage of full implementation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: With all due respect, without any reference to a page number and to where in the budget this question relates, such questions make it difficult for me to answer. The CHAIRMAN: If the minister requires to provide further information, that option is available. My point is that members in the Legislative Council have a wider scope when asking questions than do Legislative Assembly members, although recognising that the minister does not carry all the information in her head. If a matter requires the minister to provide supplementary information, that option is available. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Phase 1 commenced implementation in 1995. It would be necessary to get the cumulative sum of the costs of those reforms. I am happy to provide the member with that supplementary information. The total cost of phase 2 is $5.5 million. The CHAIRMAN: The minister will provide additional information on that matter. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: To clarify, it is $5.5 million in this financial year. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: My questions relates to two areas on pages 287 and 291 of the Budget Statements concerning district high schools. I understand some allocation has been made to Dongara District High School. What is it? What further allocation has been identified in the budget in the out years for an upgrade of that school? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: There is a global allocation of $65 million under the Fixing Our Schools program. I am advised that funding will be made available for maintenance at Dongara District High School. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: Is there any allocation in the out years for further development of that school? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I touch on two other dot points. One issue raised regularly with me relates to the behavioural and student discipline programs within schools. A couple of dot points on page 278 outline a $64 million allocation over the four years of that program. Is there a provision in the mid-west for local schools to get involved in the program? My conversation with principals in the area identify the need for the removal of more difficult children to undertake some specific education opportunities until they are suitable to go back into the mainstream classroom. Is that funding available for the mid-west? I raise it just as an example. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I thank the honourable member. We have swapped from the Curriculum Council to education; nevertheless, we will do the best we can. Hon Murray Criddle: I could ask it later. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is okay; it is no big deal. The behaviour management strategy has an allocation of $64 million over the next four years. It is a substantial sum of money. A great thing about this program is the flexibility with which it can be applied at the school level. Some schools put together very innovative programs for their students, and other schools use it to reduce their class sizes, and therefore reduce the student-to-class ratio. It has strongly demonstrated positive successes. I am advised that Geraldton, Dongara, Meekatharra and John Willcock have accessed that funding. I am quite happy to provide the member with information on specific allocations to any school or to all schools in the mid-west region. It is a very positive initiative by the government. All the schools I have visited give positive feedback about the flexibility of the program. There has been a one-size-fits-all approach to managing behaviour and discipline. Some past strategies were not efficient, whereas we have moved to a model that is a closer fit to school communities and environments and the types of students at these schools. It is a very positive initiative indeed. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: The major initiatives for 2005-06 on the top of page 278 of the Budget Statements refer to planning for the leaving age of 16 years in 2006 and 17 years in 2008. These are direct questions people asked me at a meeting on the weekend: Will funding be made available for that to happen? Will there be some flexibility in the system to allow people who are not academically inclined to be involved in other activities? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This is yet another very positive initiative. By 2008, students who are 17 years of age will be required to stay at school until the end of that year. A great thing resulting from the changes to the curriculum framework is that a much broader range of subjects will be offered. Historically, the system has focused on students

3572 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] who were orientated toward university in years 11 and 12. A student at the end of year 10 who was not interested in pursuing a tertiary education left school to try his or her luck in the marketplace. Once upon a time it might have been easier to get jobs and apprenticeships. If unsuccessful, young people found their way back into the education system, but they did not have a curriculum to meet their needs. By expanding the range of subjects, we say to students that there will be no such thing as a post-compulsory period by 2008. Students will be required to stay at school until the age of 17 years. A range of subjects are also being introduced that will fit a vocational education and training framework. Students will be able to achieve a qualification up to an Australian Qualifications Framework level 2, which means that by the time they leave year 12, they could have completed half an apprenticeship. The benefit of that for an employer is that those people will be more mature and partly qualified when they are employed. Industry has told us that the current working environment is unsuitable for 15-year-olds. The world of work has changed. There is a lot of technological equipment in workplaces, and workshops are much more sophisticated. Fifteen-year-olds are generally not as productive to employers as older employees, and can be a bit of a risk. The government has responded. There have been some really wonderful results. A school apprenticeship program links with this. I was in Newman the other day. Under the School Apprenticeship Link, students go to high school for two days a week, to TAFE for two days and to an employer for one day. It is a fantastic initiative. I met five young people who are in this program in Newman. One was a young indigenous boy who had his BHP uniform on. He had done a 360-degree turnaround, because he could see that by the time he completed his year 12 education he might, for possibly the first time in the history of his family - I do not know - be able to aspire to a real job. These initiatives are positive and will lead to great choices for - Hon Murray Criddle: Will you fund it? That is the question. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes, absolutely. Hon PETER COLLIER: I refer to pages 288 and 291 of the Budget Statements and to major additions and improvements to and new works in secondary schools. Allocations have been made to a significant number of senior secondary schools but to only five district schools. Particularly in the light of the impending increase in the school leaving age, which has implications for the number of students in these schools, will the minister confirm whether any additional funding will be provided to other district schools to increase the number of specialist facilities in those schools? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am advised by Mr Mal Parr that the increase in the number of students moving into years 11 and 12 in district high schools is not expected to be significant. For example, there is almost a culture in many agricultural areas of students who do not leave at year 8 staying on to the end of year 10 and then being moved to Perth by their parents. I am not happy about that, but it does happen. I worked in district high schools in agricultural areas and there was certainly a strong trend towards that. I also worked at Northam Senior High School, which has a hostel facility. Students from outlying rural areas board at the hostel and attend Northam Senior High School. An increased allocation to district high schools is not expected because many district high schools do not cater for students from kindergarten to year 12 in any event. A number of agricultural colleges, such as the one in Morawa, offer K-12 plus an agricultural component. Many district schools cater for K-10. Many of the programs will tend to be outside the school; that is, aligned to employers, the community and the TAFE sector. Hon PETER COLLIER: I do not entirely agree with the minister. I understand the concept of students leaving rural schools at the end of year 10 and moving to urban areas or the city. That could probably be avoided if more opportunities were offered in rural Western Australia and within our school system at large. Having said that, I think that there is a necessity to increase funding in district high schools in particular. Will the government endeavour to undertake an audit of funding requirements for specialist facilities in those schools? Rural communities, particularly their education facilities, are dying. If we do not provide adequate educational facilities for district high schools, students will increasingly leave country towns, particularly following the post-compulsory changes. If we could provide a better education system, we might stem the tide somewhat. Will the government conduct an audit of the necessity to improve specialist facilities in these institutions? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: What comes first - the chicken or the egg? It is hard to offer a range of options in years 11 and 12 when a school has only 10 or 15 students in those years. As Minister for Education and Training, I must be mindful of the way in which resources are allocated across the whole system. I take the honourable member’s point on board, but I want him to understand that we cannot offer comprehensive programs for years 11 and 12 in schools that have only a very small number of students. That is the first impediment. Some very good things are happening in agricultural colleges. With the exception of maybe one or two, they are not district high schools. Those colleges have a strong commitment to agricultural education. I met with some representatives of the agricultural high school sector and they were very pleased with the work the government is doing and the capital works programs and general education programs to which the government has committed. I am happy to provide the member with some information on the work that the government is doing in district high schools. A number of programs centred on years 11 and 12 are being piloted in district high schools, and more flexibility is being introduced. Linda Moore, who is the principal of Kalbarri District High School, is coming to the central office to work on district high school and leaving age issues. We have recognised a need in district high schools. Some innovative

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3573 programs are already being piloted in district high schools. One school principal is coming to Perth to work on a project that will specifically explore options for greater opportunities and choice in and better educational outcomes for district high schools. I am prepared to provide some additional information in that regard. Hon PETER COLLIER: That is an audit of sorts. Will it be a comprehensive audit, or will it involve just one or two district schools? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is actually not an audit; it is an analysis of opportunity. Hon Peter Collier: That is what I thought. I just wanted clarification. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It is an analysis of the opportunities that might assist until we can do better by pouring in additional resources and getting better outcomes. I understand where the member is coming from in a sense. Having spent many years in district high schools myself, I know it may well be time for us to do a stocktake of district high schools. Hon Peter Collier: Absolutely. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: In a sense, we did a stocktake of agricultural colleges to see what they were offering; which ones had the opportunity for growth in certain areas and which ones would lead to specialisation in other areas. I get the sense that that is what Hon Peter Collier is asking me. I addressed the District High Schools Principals Association only a few weeks ago. District high schools are unique in their structure and needs, and a stocktake is something we could look at. It was easy to do a stocktake on agricultural colleges, as there are only five of them, whereas there are 60 district high schools. It would, therefore, be a comprehensive undertaking. Hon Peter Collier interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I take that on board and I thank the member for his contribution. Hon PETER COLLIER: This question is from my constituents in the North Metropolitan Region. I direct the minister to page 286 of the Budget Statements, which refers to the completion of the new primary schools at Baldivis, Secret Harbour and Two Rocks. The new Two Rocks primary school was due for completion in 2006. I notice that the budget states that six primary schools will be completed in 2006. Can I assume from the Budget Statements that the new Two Rocks primary school will definitely be completed by 2007? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am advised that the process had been slowed due to site difficulties. I have not been there and I do not know the nature of the site; it might be on the side of a hill. However, Mr Parr advises me that it will be completed by 2007. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I want to return to the minister’s initial comments about the implementation of the outcomes-based curriculum for years 11 and 12. Although some educationalists and parents in the community see some positive changes in these proposals, will the minister accept that there is a groundswell of concern and some glaring weaknesses in the system? The two weaknesses that have been outlined to me by parents and people working in the system are the nature and rate of change. The former concerns the vague objectives of the courses and the nature in which students’ achievements are reported, particularly to parents. If we are talking about an accountable government and an accountable education system, not only do students want to know how well they are doing but also parents are demanding it and ought to expect it. It has been pointed out to me that because of the rapidness of this change - we know it has been going on in middle schools for about four years - the progress and concern raised by a number of teachers in reporting is of a serious nature. The concern at the moment is that the rapid changes for years 11 and 12 will put imposts on teachers who will not be accountable to parents. We must ask ourselves how well will children be taught and how will teachers be adequately prepared to report. My question is simple. Because of the rapid changes and the nature of the changes, schools have predicted that at least 12 hours per teacher will be needed for personal development and up to five days for in-service courses. Taking into account that teachers will also need to work out the terminology to report on the outcomes-based system, teach at the same time and alter their strategies, by example - The CHAIRMAN: Could we get a response from the minister to what Hon Barbara Scott has asked? Perhaps Hon Barbara Scott could sum up her question. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: The point I want to make to the minister, Mr Chairman, is that the rapid rate of the change is not appropriate for students or teachers. I want to point out an example of a year-7 report that was made under this outcomes-based system. I suggest that some of these outcomes-based teaching mechanisms are cloaking serious literacy and other problems that parents need to know about and understand. This system is to be adopted in years 11 and 12, and I want to know how teachers will be prepared and how they will report directly to parents. Does the minister agree that a year-7 report on reading should give a child a tick for developing research skills and personal reading? Developing! A baby of six months can be described as developing. The student in my example turned 13 years of age and entered year 8 this year. He had a reading test and measured at a 7.6 years reading level. The parents had no idea because this report said “developing”. What does “developing” mean? I ask the minister how much time and money will be put into giving teachers time to truly accommodate parents in these critical years, and how students will understand what they are doing with the nonsense of these airy-fairy language reports that mean nothing.

3574 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I thank the honourable member for this question. Given that this process started in 1997, eight years ago, I do not think that constitutes a rapid rate of change. I will share with the honourable member a press release from The West Australian of 21 June 1999, when Hon Colin Barnett was Minister for Education. I am quite happy to table this article, which reads - Teachers feel disempowered and angry because they are being pushed to implement the new curriculum framework too quickly, their union claims. Hon Barbara Scott: I want to know how much there will be for PD? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No, I think this is very relevant. The article continues - State School Teachers Union vice-president Mike Keely said yesterday that some education district directors and principals had adopted a dictatorial approach to push teachers into using the framework before they were ready. The volume of information they had to learn and the lack of support in the classroom to implement them left many teachers despondent. More money was needed to help train teachers to use the framework, which was a big change in the teaching and learning process and must be adopted by 2004. At that time, when Hon Colin Barnett was Minister for Education, the then Department of Education provided less than a day’s training for each teacher. Hon Barbara Scott: I want to know how much training is provided. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Five days. Hon Barbara Scott: Five days? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Five times as much! I cannot believe it. There are five PD days over 15 months. Three days are spent on course-specific training, one day on learning areas and one day on general training. For professional development of teachers an additional $2 million will be provided in 2005-06 and $1 million in 2006-07. These funds are part of almost $19 million which will be provided for the implementation of the new system of education for years 11 and 12. That is compared with the $1 million that was allocated in 1999. I thank the member for the question. I reassure her that the content of all the old courses has been included in the new courses. Concerning reporting, the department uses the Western Australian literacy and numeracy assessment reports, which specify students’ achievements. I am advised that there is satisfaction among more than 90 per cent of parents. The department is also implementing a new template for all reporting to parents by schools. The amount of resourcing provided by this government in the report program speaks for itself. When 1999 is compared with 2005, I am intrigued that the same issues are still here. I can go through files and files of this stuff. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Why were they not happy when Hon Colin Barnett introduced the new curriculum framework and outcomes-based education? The same issues that were raised in 1999 are being raised by a small number of teachers now who may not want change for a range of reasons. The government is spending 20 to 30 times more than was spent in 1999. I hope that will satisfy the member’s question. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I refer to page 276 and the major achievements for 2004-05. Kindergarten education was provided to 16 600 students. Why have children enrolled in community kindergarten programs been excluded when they are an integral part of the education system? How many four-year-olds are in community kindergarten programs? Does the minister have any concern about the difference between 16 000 students in kindergartens and 19 000 students in preprimary classes? Is it because 3 000 are supposedly in community kindergartens? Why does each budget exclude the number of children in community kindergartens when they are meant to be an integral and acceptable part of the government school system? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Given the quite detailed nature of the member’s question, I will take it on notice and provide her with the information in due course. The CHAIRMAN: The minister will provide Hon Barbara Scott with supplementary information on those issues. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I refer now to page 278 and the major initiatives for 2005-06. Reference is made to the phasing-in in all public primary schools of physical education for at least two hours every week for students. I am not sure what is meant by that term; they are called public schools in England but we have government and non-government schools over here. The initiative will be supported by an additional $100 000 per annum. Is the initiative for all schoolchildren in Western Australia? Will any money be provided to the non-government sector for physical education? What teachers will take it and what training will they have? Will a group of teachers move around the state

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3575 or will it be the teachers in the schools? How will the $100 000 be spent in the schools? Why is the money that is going only to government primary schools not going to non-government schools as well? Are children in non- government schools in the state less worthy of having physical education? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I thank the member for the question. It is not a requirement on all schools; it is a requirement of the quadrennial - Hon Barbara Scott: Why use the term “public”? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The dot point refers to the Department of Education and Training. Education Services looks after the independent school sector. The budget referred to is for the Department of Education and Training. We should be aware of the technicality. There is a quadrennial funding requirement that all schools must provide physical exercise for primary school students. Clearly, there is a need to improve the fitness levels of young people by making them more physically active. Primary school teachers require additional support to assist them to engage students in physical activity. The government believes that the well-being of a child contributes to his social and economic success. Hon Barbara Scott: Where does the $100 000 go? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It goes straight to schools. Hon Barbara Scott: I thought you said it was for the training of teachers. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: A successful bid costing $1.2 million was put to the department through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The $100 000 is specifically for the professional development of teachers. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: The money is to go to the schools. Is the minister suggesting that schools will buy expertise? Will teachers be trained? Will the department go to physical education specialists? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The quadrennial agreement has been signed. It contains a requirement that all students have to undertake two hours of physical education each week. The $100 000 is for support material and the professional development of teachers. Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Another dot point at page 278 refers to the upgrading of playground equipment at a cost of $2 million and that all new public primary schools will be provided with playground equipment. I presume the reference is to non-government primary schools. How much of the money will be spent on obtaining expert advice on how appropriate the equipment is and whether it complies with Australian safety standards? Will the department provide equipment that will stimulate and offer children some challenges and risk-taking in their play or will the playgrounds be full of plastic Forpack play equipment? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am advised that only equipment that complies with Australian standards will be installed. The new money of $1 million in 2005-06 will have to meet stringent standards requirements. Hon Barbara Scott: Will it be covered by public liability insurance? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: It will be. Hon DONNA TAYLOR: I have three specific questions relating to schools in the East Metropolitan Region. I refer to the capital works program on page 288. Reference is made to additions and improvements to the Bullsbrook District High School. Will the minister advise what additions and improvements are being undertaken and confirm when they will be completed? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: At Bullsbrook, the intention is to relocate the primary school facilities at a cost of $7 million. Did the member ask a question about Governor Stirling Senior High School? Hon DONNA TAYLOR: No. However, another question relating to Bullsbrook is when it will be completed. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: In 2007. Hon DONNA TAYLOR: On page 292, reference is made to the construction of a new high school in Atwell and a new primary school in Canning Vale. Will the minister advise when construction will commence on these schools, and will they definitely be completed and ready to be opened in 2008? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Construction of the Atwell high school is to start in 2006, with completion in 2008. The commencement date for construction of the Bushy Grove primary school in Canning Vale is 2006, with completion in 2007. Hon DONNA TAYLOR: My final question also relates to page 292. Reference is made to the new high school in Ellenbrook. I would like some clarification. Is that for a middle school or for a full high school from years 8 to 12? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The first stage will be a middle school, but it will grow into a comprehensive high school model. It will not be on two separate campuses. We will not end up with a middle campus and a senior campus,

3576 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] although the first stage, which will be the middle campus, will be built, and it will be added to. I assume that as the cohorts come in, preparations will be made for the building of the additional sections required to accommodate the increase in the school population. Hon DONNA TAYLOR: I ask the minister to clarify that. On page 286, it states that the school at Ellenbrook is to open in 2007. I assume that is just the middle school; is that right? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes. I do not know whether the planning for the secondary part of the school has started. I do not think we have a completion date for that. However, it will be in line, so that once the year 7 cohort is ready to move into year 8, and, let us say, the year 10 cohort is ready to move into year 11, the buildings will be in place to accommodate the cohorts moving in. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I am not quite sure where we are going. I thought we were dealing with only the Curriculum Council division. The CHAIRMAN: The member is quite right. However, I could not restrict it. Hon BARRY HOUSE: No, I understand that. The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we have moved around. However, it seems to me that the minister has handled it. Hon BARRY HOUSE: What time - The CHAIRMAN: We will finish at 10 o’clock either way. Hon Barry House has the call and, if we have time, I would like Hon Helen Morton to be able to ask a question. Hon Barry House is the lead speaker, so he has the call for the time being. Hon BARRY HOUSE: To round off on the Curriculum Council specifically, I have two questions. The first one relates to page 308. A table on that page deals with outcomes and key effectiveness indicators. The first outcome is continuous development of student learning and curriculum for Western Australian schools. Two key effectiveness indicators are outlined under that outcome. The second one is the acceptance by stakeholders that the courses developed or reviewed and approved were relevant to student learning needs. The key effectiveness indicator under the second outcome is the acceptance by stakeholders that the measures of student achievement were valid and credible. In the past couple of years, and in the predictions for the 2005-06 target, 100 per cent is shown as the outcome. That is a very confident outcome. I suggest it is a bit of an overstatement in view of the current debate. How has the figure of 100 per cent been arrived at for all those outcomes? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am advised that that is a measure for current subjects, not new ones. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Even on that basis, I suggest it might be an overstatement. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: It must reflect the new minister. Hon BARRY HOUSE: If the minister has achieved 100 per cent, that is terrific. I am still dealing with the Curriculum Council. Will the minister confirm that physics and biology staff and some other staff involved in writing syllabus material for the proposed curriculum changes in years 11 and 12 have recently left the Curriculum Council, and what were the reasons for their departures? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No, the physics person was paid out at the end of his contract. He did not leave. His contract was completed. In biology, no. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I will leave the Curriculum Council alone and move to some more general questions. I refer to the capital works budget and works in progress listed on page 288. Will the minister tell me which schools will get an administration upgrade in 2005-06, and which schools will get a canteen upgrade? I have a list of them, but I sense the answer I will get. I am seeking information on administration upgrades, canteen upgrades, communications, library resource centres, toilet replacements and covered assembly areas. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: There will be an announcement about covered areas and libraries in August. Canteens, administration blocks and toilets are subject to a feasibility study. An announcement about them will be made in November. The CHAIRMAN: Is more information required on that? Hon Barry House seemed to read out a significant list. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Yes, I did. The CHAIRMAN: Will the minister arrange to provide additional information that might be available to her on the broader question that the member asked? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I will be happy to do that, Mr Chairman. Hon BARRY HOUSE: My next question is a general question with important budgetary implications. Some teachers have been labelled “tired old teachers” and are anticipated to leave the education system in 2005-06. How many teachers does the minister anticipate will leave the education system, and what is the anticipated cost of those resignations?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3577

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: When I made that comment not long after I was given the education and training portfolio, I was disappointed that “tired teachers” was misinterpreted as having something to do with age. It was not my intent that the concept be married with the age of teachers. Having taught in the system, I know, as would Hon Barry House, that after gaining their teaching qualifications and entering the education system, some people realise that being a teacher is not for them. Other teachers find it hard to motivate themselves. The same applies to members of Parliament - some put in a bit more effort than others. All workplaces are the same in that regard because people are not uniform. People are not robots designed for a specific purpose. There are variations in people’s abilities, motivations and personalities. When I made that comment, it was taken out of context. That is a bit of bad luck. That is life, and I have learned to live with it. However, I made the point that we need a strategy to deal with tired teachers. This year we intend to deal with 50 teachers who are not happy to remain in the education system for a range of reasons. We will specifically negotiate with those teachers about their future service requirements. The initiative is cost neutral. In offering a severance package to those who might be interested, I am certainly not providing an opportunity to lose good teachers. The idea is that we have a targeted approach to teachers who, for a range of reasons, might be struggling to remain in the system because they are unmotivated. For every unmotivated teacher, there is an opportunity cost in terms of student learning. As the Minister for Education and Training, my priority is student learning. Student learning is the reason the education system exists. If a teacher who does not want be in the system for whatever reason stays in the system because it is comfortable - I am talking about a minority of teachers - that is an opportunity cost to students’ learning. I do not think that I would be acting in students’ or the public’s interest by turning a blind eye and not dealing with this issue. Hon BARRY HOUSE: I refer to school bus fares. With regard to the introduction of a 50c fare for all metropolitan school students travelling to and from school on Transperth services regardless of where they live, is the minister aware of equivalent requirements for many students living in country areas who cannot access Transperth but who have access to private bus services? I refer, for example, to South West Coast Lines in the south west. Will the minister extend the 50c fare to all eligible country students accessing private bus transport to their school of choice? If not, why not? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is responsible for student transport and bus fares. Hon HELEN MORTON: I refer the minister to benchmark performance in numeracy and literacy on page 284 of the Budget Statements. As the minister is aware, my background is in health and not education. I specifically refer to the actual and estimated literacy and numeracy benchmarks for Aboriginal students. I am amazed at the significant change in the benchmarks from year 3 to year 7. Why is the estimated actual lower than the actual in all but two of those figures? I imagine that the Department of Education and Training estimates a lesser performance than what is being achieved. Using my background in health, one would not expect the health of Aboriginal students to be poorer than that of non-Aboriginal students. Why is it okay to have significantly lower numeracy and literacy estimations for Aboriginal students? Why not show a gap between the estimated and actual? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am happy to provide general information on indigenous education. There are all sorts of issues about indigenous education, which is a cause of concern. A literacy and numeracy achievement gap exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. Many Aboriginal student are not reaching minimum national benchmarks in literacy and numeracy and even fewer are reaching Western Australia government school achievement targets. Both the state and federal governments recognise this problem. At the last gathering of education ministers, a whole day was allocated to indigenous education. The attendance rate of indigenous students is one of the problems. When I was in Newman only a few weeks ago, I was told by a teacher that it is very difficult to get Mardu students to attend, for example, primary school. If there is a funeral or whatever, they will go away for a few weeks, come back for a week and then go off somewhere else. The question of how a lack of attendance impacts in an adverse way on better educational outcomes for indigenous students is a high priority. I started my career as an indigenous education teacher. I am very concerned about this issue. Much work must be done. However, there is no doubt that excellent programs are in place. In some communities we must address the most fundamental of issues. We need practical solutions. We must get them into school and ensure that they have had enough sleep and food so that they can get on with their learning program. We must address those fundamentals so that the other resources that are poured into this problem have a chance to achieve better educational outcomes. It is a big area of concern. The CHAIRMAN: The minister will provide some additional information in response to the question asked by Hon Helen Morton. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Pages 291 and 292 refer to the capital works budget. All the new works are listed under the estimated total cost and estimated expenditure for 2005-06. No forward estimates for all the new works are published beyond 2005-06. However, the capital contribution section of the budget at the bottom of page 292 demonstrates how much the government expects to spend in each of the out years. Will the minister indicate the capital expenditure in the out years beyond 2005-06? I asked the minister a question the other day about the Fitzroy Crossing school, which the minister advised me was referred to in the forward estimates, but there is no reference to it in the budget papers. It is obviously in the department’s forward estimates, which go beyond 2005-06. I would appreciate a

3578 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] copy of the forward estimates for the out years from 2005-06 to 2008-09 showing which schools will be built and which new works will be undertaken in each of the four out years. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: With all due respect, I am advised by my advisers that the government typically does not release that information because changes in government priorities and demographics would result in changes to that document. Hon Norman Moore: The same applies to every out year. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Hang on! The Leader of the Opposition’s party never released that information when in government. Hon Norman Moore: I am suggesting it would be a good idea if you did. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am suggesting that it is not my intention to do so. The CHAIRMAN: It is 10.00 pm, which is the agreed time for the completion of the portfolio area of the Minister for Education and Training. I thank the minister and her advisers for their attendance. While the advisers for the Minister for Fisheries are coming to the table, if any questions on education need to be handed up, now is the opportunity. We are dealing with the area of ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Fisheries; the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne. These budget items are on pages 1063 to 1111, budget paper No 3. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: On page 1063 the second to last dot point reads - Continued interest in the development of aquaculture industries as the demand for high quality seafood grows, while the harvest of wild capture fisheries worldwide is generally at maximum sustainable levels. On page 1064 reference is made to the relationship to government goals, part of which was the development and promotion of the state’s aquaculture industry. The government gave a commitment that it would encourage further development of the aquaculture industry and said that it would maintain funding for the aquaculture program in the Department of Fisheries. In fact, the budget for it has been cut by at least $1 million, which in real terms is significantly more. I could read out some of the commitments of the government, but the minister does not have them in front of him. How will the government undertake strategic research for new aquaculture industries and, through the Department of Fisheries, assist project proponents to obtain commercial finance for individual project needs? This is good motherhood stuff, but how will it be achieved? Hon JON FORD: The government is committed to promoting the aquaculture industry. As a result of a review, a cut of $500 000 was made to the 2004-05 budget. The challenge for the aquaculture industry is one that is being faced worldwide; that is, attracting capital. Previous governments - both the member’s and ours - spent a great deal of time and effort on research. We have taken the view that we would like to focus on the bigger projects. We are trying to look at ways of removing government impediments and seeing what the issue is with capital investment. On my recent, well publicised trip to Norway I spoke with Norwegian government representatives. They said that the Norwegian government had talked with the commercial sector and supplied expertise to train up the commercial sector to make commercial risk assessments, so that it would feel more comfortable about investing money in aquaculture projects. The Norwegian government is currently undertaking a review of its inter-agency structures. I do not know whether I will be able to achieve anything similar, but the Norwegian fisheries department has been nominated as lead agency for negotiating with specific fishing and aquaculture enterprises. Although environmental protection and assessment processes and state development processes go on, the Norwegian fisheries department takes the lead agency role. That is an example of how other countries are addressing those issues. The biggest blow to the Australian industry was, of course, the rise in the value of the Australian dollar. As a result of using my discretionary funding in the industry development fund, I will announce in the very near future the establishment of a small ministerial steering group that will look at those specific issues of how to attract commercial funding, as well as the impediments within intergovernment agencies that can be removed or dealt with to assist the industry. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: The commitment by the government was that it would provide $21 million to establish a $100 million world-class marine science institution to further enhance our understanding and management of the marine environment and fish resources. I wonder whether some of this so-called capital funding is not showing up simply because the Hillarys facility has already been funded and is ready to open. Will it appear anywhere, especially as the government has committed to the Geraldton marine centre? I wonder whether the capital contribution would apply to some funding appearing in the out years. We have not been able to glean that from the Budget Statements. Hon JON FORD: The funding arrangements for that area are actually under the Minister for Science, and not under my budget. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: The minister has lost control then! The fisheries research and trust account is referred to on page 1076 of the Budget Statements. The expected payments have reduced significantly from $58 million in 2004-05 to $40.683 million. Why the variation? The appropriation is about $18 million less. Is the $27 million from the commercial industry itself raised through licences and fees?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3579

Hon JON FORD: I am advised that the reduction is because the Hillarys research capital payments have come to an end. Therefore, capital payments have ceased. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: From where did they come? Hon JON FORD: It is primarily because of that that the capital payments are down - it has come to an end. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: Page 1077 refers to the fisheries adjustment account. I notice that the minister predicted about $500 000 in 2004-05 and the same again in 2005-06. The allocation seems to be fairly constant. Has that been an estimate of ongoing payments? Is this buying out some of the commercial fisheries where operators have moved to relinquish their lease? Is that a standard figure per year? It is growing. Some of the managed fisheries probably need re-adjustment. Is that sufficient money to be set aside to buy out the fisheries in the Swan River, for argument’s sake, and maybe Geographe Bay and others? Hon JON FORD: It is a standard estimate. However, the member is right: as we look at specific management options, I will have to seek appropriations from Treasury to increase it over the coming years. However, all those currently being negotiated will be covered by the current funding. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I turn to the major achievements for 2004-05 on page 1066 and the release of the discussion paper titled “A Unit Register for Commercial Fisheries” for the west coast rock lobster managed fishery. How far has that process reached? The register is long overdue. I like to think that that program is progressing. This question is a hardy annual and we have not got very far with it. Hon JON FORD: The paper has been released, but further work is currently being undertaken through the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: Can the minister provide any indication when it may eventually occur? Resolution of the ownership question is long overdue. I do not know how many more years we can keep stating that we are releasing discussion papers and getting more input etc. The opportunity is here. It is well known that we need to get to a unit basis in the fishery anyway. Hon JON FORD: The target is to resolve all those issues within the next 12 months. I am happy to get more details and provide them to the member. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: The major initiatives for 2005-06 outlined on the same page refer to progress management arrangements for state wet line fisheries. Could the minister outline - I do not expect a long answer - whether that involves removing wet line licences off rock lobster fishermen? Hon JON FORD: No. It is a much broader study and review that is not targeting any specific part of the fishery. It is a whole management package. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: The major initiatives on page 1068 refer to finalising drafting instructions for the new pearling management bill. Are we likely to see that bill in 2005 or will we have to wait until 2006? Hon JON FORD: We are looking at 2006. The industry and I would like to see it finalised as quickly as possible. We have been slowed by debate in the industry. As the member knows, it is a difficult subject. Of course, anything we do must be compatible with the Northern Territory system. At initial meetings with the Northern Territory government, I was blatantly told, “We’re about to have an election. If you would do nothing about it for three months, we would appreciate it. Come back and see us afterwards.” We are trying to do something about that legislation as quickly as possible. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I refer to the explanations in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) at the bottom of page 1073 of the Budget Statements. It states that the amounts are presented on the basis of current Australian accounting standards. It then also states that the forward estimates in this budget are in accordance with the Australian equivalent to the international financing reporting standards. They are not comparable. Can the minister explain how incomparable these standards and budget figures are? Hon JON FORD: I am advised that there are no significant variations from the international accounting standard. Was that the question? Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: Yes. I want to know whether we can get anywhere near comparing areas; otherwise, the budget would be all over the place. Hon JON FORD: The previous presentation is the same as the international accounting standards. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: The words do not say that, but I believe we are close to having the same sort of figures. Amounts are not always comparable. The explanation in paragraph (b) is that full-time equivalents have increased by another 10. Where will the full-time equivalents be employed? Who will pay for the employment of those people? Will it be the fishing industry or will it be part of the consolidated fund budget? Hon JON FORD: Those people will be employed within marine parks and integrated fisheries management. The funding comes from the consolidated fund.

3580 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I refer to the new works listed on page 1072. The amount allocated to regional recreational initiatives appears to be $100 000. Will the minister explain what those initiatives are? Hon JON FORD: These initiatives include such things as fish-scaling stations, signage and fishing clinics. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I refer to the heading “Capital contribution to meet equity needs” further down on page 1072, and specifically to the item on asset sales. Can the minister give me some idea of what those asset sales might be, or are they just book entries? Hon JON FORD: In the main, it is the small vessel program. The boats are sold as they age and the money received is used to buy new ones. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: Can I be given a detailed outline of that? Hon JON FORD: We can provide some detail. The CHAIRMAN: The minister has agreed to provide supplementary information on that item to Hon Murray Criddle. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: I refer to the major initiatives for 2005-06 on page 1066. The first dot point states that a strategic review of the management systems of the west coast lobster managed fisheries will be undertaken, specifically on the issue of quota versus input. That is an interesting subject to raise. Who will pay for that strategic review, and which personnel will carry it out? Hon JON FORD: The review will be funded through cost-recovery arrangements, as well as with some commonwealth funding. It is being managed by a number of people from the rock lobster part of our agency, the economic research association and a university. I will get back to the member with the discrete details of that by way of supplementary information. Hon MURRAY CRIDDLE: What amount of money from the consolidated fund goes to recreational fishers and what amount goes to the professional fishing industry? That question may need to be put on notice. Hon JON FORD: An amount of $9 million goes to the commercial sector from the consolidated fund - that is detailed on page 1065 - and $11 million to the recreational sector, which is detailed on page 1067. Hon ANTHONY FELS: I refer to pages 1090 and 1091, which relate to the Pilbara Development Commission. Under the appropriation and forward estimates, there is a massive increase in the budget estimate for both 2004-05 and 2005- 06. I refer also to service 2, infrastructure and service identification and coordination, under the service and appropriation summary on page 1091. Two years ago, $1.454 million was spent. The budget for that service in 2004- 05 was $5.6 million, and the estimated actual amount was $11.98 million. This year, $10.5 million has been budgeted. There are no forward estimates for the following three years and there is no explanation for the increases. The overall cost of services reduces over the three-year forward estimates. What does the increase in expenditure under service 2 relate to? Hon JON FORD: There has been an extraordinary amount of industry development in the north west, particularly in the Pilbara area and around the port structures. There have also been some problems with dust management and the commercial failure of the hot briquetted iron plant. The government is placing a lot more focus on that area to cope with its rapid development. I have the details with me, but it would be difficult for me to provide them now. I am happy to provide a breakdown of that to the member. The CHAIRMAN: The minister will provide that breakdown by way of supplementary information. Hon ANTHONY FELS: I refer to the fisheries portfolio and particularly to page 1061. Again, there is a massive reduction in the capital contribution, from an estimated $8.95 million in 2004-05 to a mere $262 000 in 2005-06. Can the minister explain why the capital contribution has gone from a budgeted figure of $7.15 million in 2004-05 to an estimated actual figure in that year of $8.95 million and then to $262 000 in 2005-06? Again, no forward estimates are provided. Hon JON FORD: The capital contributions were large to fund the Hillarys research centre. That project has now come to an end. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I refer to page 1070 and to service 4, management and conservation of fish and fish habitat. There has been an increase in the budget of about $1.2 million. The major initiatives are mentioned at the bottom of the page, and include continued liaison with stakeholders and other government agencies on fisheries issues around marine conservation reserves, and the provision of advice and, as necessary, the drafting of legislation in support of the government’s program for marine conservation reserves. That is fine; it sounds great. Western Australia has some of the best-managed fisheries in the world. Although the Department of Fisheries is still managing the fishery, the habitat of the fishery is being slowly withdrawn from the responsibility of the department. I note that it is a policy matter for the minister. I am concerned, quite frankly, because it is at odds with the policy. We all realise that fish stocks must be conserved, and there is a lot of pressure on fish stocks for all sorts of reasons that we all know about. I

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3581 ask the minister what role the Department of Fisheries will play in advising on the legislation that will give effect to the policy. The Budget Statements at the top of page 1071 state - Draft legislation to give effect to changes to the Ningaloo Marine Park, the Muiron Islands Marine Management Area, Montebello/Barrow Islands Marine Conservation Reserves, Rowley Shoals Marine Park, the Jurien Bay Marine Park and others as required. What concerns me about that information is that the roles of the minister and the Department of Fisheries are not being given a great deal of notice. The minister said he consults with the stakeholders. I think the stakeholders may be consulting with the Department of Fisheries, but I do not think in that consultation process that a lot of the department’s valuable expertise is being taken into account. Hon JON FORD: The government recognises that there has been a number of issues with all stakeholders in the consultation process on marine parks. However, best endeavours are being used to address those issues. To that end, the Minister for the Environment and I are developing a memorandum of understanding on how we should proceed in the future to make sure that the Department of Fisheries and other stakeholders are involved from a conceptual perspective, rather than when some of the works have already begun and the drafts have already been drawn. In the way these matters have developed, the practice has been that the Department of Environment, through the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the marine parks advisory group, has presented a series of drawings and maps of what it thinks is a good show and asked people to comment on them. The problem with that process is that people think that the project has already been designed and that there is no point getting involved, as it has been presented as the department’s proposal. That is not necessarily the case. Therefore, we want to get people in at the start of the design process and work our way through that. We recognise that there are competing values and focuses between my agency and the Department of Conservation and Land Management. The only way we can rectify that is at the ministerial level. Therefore, the Minister for the Environment and I are working together to resolve those issues. The honourable member and I were discussing outside the chamber some of the sensitive issues of sanctuary zones. The issue of sanctuary zones is a worldwide issue. Again, in Trondheim I listened to an international debate between groups of scientists. One group said that we should have big blocks for sanctuary zones. Another group said that if we had that, we would transfer the effort to another area and that would mean other management problems. Another group said that a better way of doing it is to have strategically placed sanctuary zones in much smaller managed areas. That is an approach that the Department of Fisheries is supporting in the Abrolhos Islands, for instance, where we do have a major say, and that has proved to be very successful. However, to that end, the government, particularly the Premier, recognises that that is an issue between agencies. The Minister for the Environment is putting together a scientific group, independent of agencies, that will advise government on that specific issue of sanctuary zones. It will then report back to government to help us develop a policy, hopefully to resolve some of these issues. Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: Does the Department of Fisheries provide any funds to the Conservation Council of Western Australia for it to be represented and give advice to the Department of Fisheries through that medium? Hon JON FORD: Yes, we have done so in the past, and that has been, as I understand it, in the form of supplying a full-time equivalent position, who then sits on the ministerial advisory committee - the MAC. I am the head of an agency that uses acronyms like members would not believe; the MAC is a more simple one. However, we have reviewed that advice and I have decided that there are probably better ways for the advice to be taken. We have, therefore, written to the Conservation Council and said that it must come back to us and apply for funds, and that a broader-based group aimed at different conservation groups, not just the Conservation Council, can apply to a pool of funding for different projects. The CHAIRMAN: Members, it is now 10.35 pm. That concludes the committee consideration in respect of the Minister for Fisheries’ area of responsibility. I thank the minister and his advisers. Clause put and passed. Schedule 1 put and passed. Title put and passed. APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL (NO. 2) 2005 Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the Chair; Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich (Minister for Education and Training) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 4 put and passed. Schedule 1 put and passed. Title put and passed. Bills (Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 1) 2005) and Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 2) 2005), reported without amendment, and the report adopted.

3582 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural - Leader of the House) [10.39 pm]: I move - That the house do now adjourn. Legislative Assembly Members - Adjournment Debate HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [10.39 pm]: I will take only a moment of the time of the house. Members will be aware of a decision by the government today to provide additional research support for members of the Legislative Assembly and not for members of the Legislative Council, which has been greeted with no great enthusiasm by members on this side of the house, particularly, and I suspect by members on the other side of the house in the same way. Earlier tonight I did some research into speeches on another matter, and I came across a very interesting speech made on 14 December 1995 about the research staff made available to members of Parliament. I will read a member’s comments on this matter. Hon Ross Lightfoot made an interjection on the member’s speech when he said - What about funding for a research officer? The member said - I could not agree more with Hon Ross Lightfoot. One of the key reforms we should consider when we talk in the same breath about expanding the committee system is expanding the resources available to members. In the one-vote-one-value debate, which is conducted with some passion in my electorate - I sometimes find myself moving to the back foot - I have always argued that it is not the numbers of representatives that the country areas have to represent them that is relevant, but the quality of the representation they have. What restricts the quality of representation that members are able to provide to their electors in rural areas is the resources available to them, not the number of electors they represent, and certainly not the number of square kilometres or the number of sheep in their electorates. It is being able to get the research done, to access the information and to provide direct services to our electors that makes a difference between whether rural areas get representation or not. That is a very good argument by Hon Kim Chance on why members of Parliament representing rural areas should have additional research support. I agree with what he said then and I am sorry that he does not agree with that now. Hon Kim Chance: We have just provided that to most members of Parliament. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The Leader of the House was talking about Legislative Council members in that speech. The speech was addressing a motion moved by Hon John Cowdell that the Legislative Council have a better committee system and that more support be provided to members. Hon Kim Chance was speaking in support of that on that occasion. It was in reference to this house and members of the Legislative Council. There is no argument that I can think of that convinces me that members of the Legislative Assembly have any greater need for research assistance than members of the Legislative Council. If the Leader of the House believes that, he should say so. Hon Kim Chance: I didn’t say that. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Does the Leader of the House believe that members of the Legislative Assembly have a greater need for extra research assistance than members of the Legislative Council? Hon Kim Chance: I couldn’t possibly test the patience of the Deputy President (Hon Simon O’Brien). Hon NORMAN MOORE: The Leader of the House tests my patience when this sort of discriminatory decision is made by the government and there is not one peep from the Labor members of the Legislative Council. I suspect that the matter was agreed to by the cabinet, in which case the three Labor ministers in this chamber are part of the decision. They treat their colleagues in this house and us with total contempt. They are saying that our jobs are not as important as those of members of the Legislative Assembly; that we do not need the same research assistance to be available to us. I argue that we have a greater need for research assistance than members of the Legislative Assembly because of the nature of the job we have. I agree that Legislative Assembly members need more support on the ground than we do in the context of electorate representation but, in the context of research and the sort of job that members of this house of review do, there is a compelling argument for additional research assistance for upper house members. It is contemptible for the government to treat us in the way it has. The government is treating members of the Legislative Council with contempt. That was the view of the Leader of the House in 1995. It probably still is his view in 2005 and I hope it is. Very simply, if he wants to be consistent in his views and treat members of this house with the respect they deserve, he will tell the Premier that he has made a mistake and he will tell his cabinet colleagues that the decision they have made is discriminatory and wrong, and that it should be reversed. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 10.45 pm ______

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3583

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, LEASED, NUMBER, ALLOCATION AND COST 364. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Premier Will the Premier please provide the following information regarding his office - (1) The total number of Government vehicles attached to the office? (2) The names of the staff to which they are allocated? (3) Under what scheme or arrangement are they allocated to the staff member? (4) The total amount expected to be spent on the lease of motor vehicles in the Premier's office for 2004-2005? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) 6 (does not include Premier's vehicle) (2) Bruce Campbell-Fraser, Guy Houston, Amanda Keenan, Kieran Murphy, John Whitelaw and Sean Walsh (3) Bruce Campbell-Fraser, Guy Houston, Amanda Keenan, Kieran Murphy and John Whitelaw all participate in the GVS scheme. Sean Walsh is allocated a car as a condition of employment. (4) $61,824 GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, LEASED, NUMBER, ALLOCATION AND COST 365. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Public Sector Management Will the Minister please provide the following information regarding his office - (1) The total number of Government vehicles attached to the office? (2) The names of the staff to which they are allocated? (3) Under what scheme or arrangement are they allocated to the staff member? (4) The total amount expected to be spent on the lease of motor vehicles in the Minister’s office for 2004-2005? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 364. GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, LEASED, NUMBER, ALLOCATION AND COST 366. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water Resources Will the Minister please provide the following information regarding his office - (1) The total number of Government vehicles attached to the office? (2) The names of the staff to which they are allocated? (3) Under what scheme or arrangement are they allocated to the staff member? (4) The total amount expected to be spent on the lease of motor vehicles in the Minister’s office for 2004-2005? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 364. GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, LEASED, NUMBER, ALLOCATION AND COST 367. Hon Ray Halligan to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Federal Affairs Will the Minister please provide the following information regarding his office - (1) The total number of Government vehicles attached to the office? (2) The names of the staff to which they are allocated? (3) Under what scheme or arrangement are they allocated to the staff member? (4) The total amount expected to be spent on the lease of motor vehicles in the Minister’s office for 2004-2005? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Please refer to question on notice 364.

3584 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 600. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Fisheries representing the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1, 2004? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(2) Nil MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 601. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Fisheries representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(2) Nil MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 602. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Fisheries representing the Minister for Minister Assisting the Minister for Water Resources Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon JON FORD replied: (1)-(2) Nil

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3585

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 603. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Attorney General Will the Attorney General please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of the Attorney General’s office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in the Attorney General’s office since January 1 2004? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1)-(2) Nil. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 604. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1)-(2) Nil. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 605. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Electoral Affairs Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1)-(2) Nil. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 616. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Disability Services Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months -

3586 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

(a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: (1)-(2) Nil. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 617. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I refer the Honourable Member to the answer provided in Legislative Council Question on Notice 616. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 618. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004; (d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I refer the Honourable Member to the answer provided in Legislative Council Question on Notice 616. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, OVERTIME PAYMENTS 619. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Seniors Will the Minister please provide - (1) Details on the amount of overtime paid to individual members of his Ministerial office for the following months - (a) October 2004; (b) November 2004; (c) December 2004;

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3587

(d) January 2005; (e) February 2005; and (f) March 2005. (2) The total amount of overtime paid to all staff in his Ministerial office since January 1 2004? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I refer the Honourable Member to the answer provided in Legislative Council Question on Notice 616. WARWICK TRAIN STATION, SURVEY OF CAR PARKING 1789. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Have any surveys been carried concerning car parking at and near the Warwick Train Station since the opening of the Greenwood Train Station? (2) If so, what are the results? (3) If not, will the Government undertake such a survey? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: (1) Yes. (2) The free "Park and Ride" parking area is full by 8.25am while at the "Pay and Display" car park there was on average up to 25 bays still available. (3) Not applicable. MITCHELL FREEWAY EXTENSIONS, WIDENING 1791. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the reply to question No. 151 concerning the planned extensions to the Mitchell Freeway, and ask - (1) Have any plans been made, or are any plans being considered for widening any part or parts of the Mitchell Freeway to cater for the increased traffic that will result from the extensions? (2) If so, what are the details? (3) If not, why not? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: The previous question referred to (151) relates to another issue and another portfolio unconnected to Mitchell Freeway. (1)-(2) The Gallop Government is dealing with the causes of congestion and not just the symptoms. In October 2004 the Northern Suburbs line was extended to Clarkson and in January 2005 the Greenwood Station was opened. All of the station platforms on the Northern Suburbs line have been extended to cater for the new longer railcars. As a result of the introduction of the new railcars capacity on the Northern Suburbs line has increased by 20 per cent. Main Roads is about to undertake a performance analysis of the total freeway network. This analysis will determine what plans will be developed. (3) Not applicable. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, LETTERS WRITTEN TO UNIONS 1855. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Premier Will the Deputy Premier please advise how many letters he has written to unions since January 1, 2002? Hon KATE DOUST replied: This information is not readily available. Provision of this information would require considerable research which would divert staff away from their normal duties and I am not prepared to allocate the State's resources to provide a response. If the Member has a specific inquiry I will endeavour to provide a reply. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, LETTERS WRITTEN TO UNIONS 1856. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Education and Training representing the Treasurer Will the Treasurer please advise how many letters he has written to unions since January 1, 2002? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: Please refer to Question on Notice 1855.

3588 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, LETTERS WRITTEN TO UNIONS 1868. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Government Enterprises Will the Minister please advise how many letters he has written to unions since January 1, 2002? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please refer to Question on Notice 1855. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, LETTERS WRITTEN TO UNIONS 1869. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Public Sector Management Will the Minister please advise how many letters he has written to unions since January 1, 2002? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Please refer to Question on Notice 1855. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, EXPENDITURE ON FOOD, ALCOHOL, LABOUR HIRE AND INCIDENTALS 1906. Hon Ray Halligan to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Will the Minister please advise what amount of taxpayers’ funds have been spent by the Minister between February 2001 and May 13, 2005, in the carrying out of ministerial duties, on - (a) food; (b) alcohol; (c) labour hire; and (d) other incidental expenses? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: The detailed information requested is not readily available. Provision of this information would require considerable research, which would divert staff away from their normal duties, and the Minister is not prepared to allocate the State's resources to provide a response. If the member has a specific inquiry the Minister will endeavour to provide a reply. I draw the Member's attention to Premier's Circular 16 of 2001 which provides for Expenditure on Official Hospitality, including food and alcohol, and which requires all Ministers to act in accordance with the clear set of guidelines. It states that the expenditure on hospitality should be restricted to a level consistent with the responsibilities of public sector officers. All public sector officers and public sector bodies need to be scrupulous in their use of public funds and establish reasonable criteria for the accountability of expenditure. The Guidelines are substantially the same as Circular to Ministers No4/95 issued by Premier Court. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, MEDIA RESEARCH AND PUBLIC OPINION POLLING 1949. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Fisheries representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services For all media research and public opinion polling undertaken since February 2001 by each individual Department and Agency under the control of your portfolio, will the Minister advise - (1) What was the reason for each poll? (2) Who conducted each poll? (3) What was the cost of each poll? (4) Was the poll put out to tender? (5) Who approved the poll? (6) When did the poll take place? (7) What recommendations were made? (8) Were any actions taken by the Department or Minister in regards to the result of the poll? Hon JON FORD replied: The detailed information sought by the member is not readily available. Provision of the information would require considerable research which would diverts staff away from their normal duties. However, if the Member has a specific query I will endeavour to provide a response.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3589

TEACHERS, NUMBER AND GENDER 2039. Hon Barry House to the Minister for Education and Training Will the Minister please advise - (1) How many full-time teachers were employed in the State’s public primary schools in - (a) 1990; (b) 1995; and (c) 2000? (2) How many are employed now? (3) How many full-time teachers were employed in the State’s public secondary schools in - (a) 1990; (b) 1995; and (c) 2000? (4) How many are employed now? (5) How many of these teachers were and are - (a) male; and (b) female? (6) How many teaching graduates were there from Western Australian universities in - (a) 1990; (b) 1995; (c) 2000; and (d) 2004? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) (a) 7141 (b) 6859 (c) 7975 (2) 7984 (3) (a) 6804 (b) 6892 (c) 6395 (4) 6 234 (5) Year Female Male 1990 8364 5581 1995 8214 5537 2000 8993 5377 2005 9081 5137 (6)(a-c)) The data on the Department's Teacher Establishment System (TES) does not record information on graduate appointments prior to 2002. The data for 1990, 1995 and 2000 is therefore unavailable. (6)(d) 796 SCHOOLS, STUDENT TO COMPUTER RATIO 2040. Hon Barry House to the Minister for Education and Training Will the Minister advise - (1) What is the target for the student to computer ratio in - (a) public primary schools; and (b) public secondary schools?

3590 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

(2) What is the current average student to computer ratio in - (a) public primary schools; and (b) public secondary schools? (3) Which public primary and secondary schools currently have - (a) the highest student to computer ratio and what is that ratio; and (b) the lowest student to computer ratio and what is that ratio? (4) What was the average student to computer ratio in public primary and secondary schools in the years - (a) 1996-1997; (b) 1997-1998; (c) 1998-1999; (d) 1999-2000; (e) 2000-2001; (f) 2001-2002; (g) 2002-2003; and (h) 2003-2004? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) (a) A minimum of 10:1 (b) A minimum of 5:1 (2) (a)-(b) Data has yet to be collected for 2005. (3) (a) Northam Primary School - 18.7:1. Melville Senior High School - 10.1:1. (b) Kalgoorlie School of the Air - 1:1. John Willcock College - 0.9:1. (4)(a-h) Year Primary Secondary 1997 18:1 10:1 1998 14:1 8:1 1999 10:1 6:1 2000 8:1 5:1 2001 7:1 4:1 2002 6:1 4:1 2003 Survey Survey not conducted not conducted 2004 6:1 4:1 GREY WATER USE AND WATER SAVING DEVICES 2042. Hon Barry House to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Water Resources Will the Minister advise - (1) What opportunities are being proposed by the Government to promote grey water reuse? (2) What provisions are being developed to increase household installation of grey water systems in the near future? (3) What is the time frame for these proposals? (4) What are the estimated possible water savings through the increased uptake of grey water use? (5) What water saving initiatives exist specifically for low income households? (6) Are there retrofitting programs available for low income households to install water savings devices? (7) If so, what are the details of these programs? (8) If not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1) The Government promotes greywater reuse through the provision of a $500 rebate on approved greywater reuse systems though the Waterwise Rebate Program. The Government also supports the Water Corporation’s approach of working with developers on appropriate third pipe non-drinking water development schemes (including greywater reuse) to demonstrate potential opportunities and issues in this area.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005] 3591

(2) The Government will consider developing new provisions if the current initiatives do not provide sufficient encouragement or changes in technology or demand for greywater systems justifies an increased effort. In addition to greywater reuse the Government continues to pursue the State Water Strategy priority of large-scale water recycling schemes that minimise environmental, economic and public health considerations. (3) Not applicable. (4) It is difficult to determine the scheme water savings through the uptake of greywater reuse systems. However, estimates from the Domestic Water Use Study on washing machines and showers indicate that it is possible to save up to 110 kL per house a year. (5) All water saving measures and initiatives are carefully designed to prevent discrimination between high and low income households. The Government's Waterwise Rebate Program has numerous products available to the lower income households; these include low flow showerheads, soil wetting agents and tap timers. The presence of a rebate on Waterwise washing machines has greatly increased the number, and greatly reduced the price, of such machines helping all households to improve the water efficiency of their washing machine when purchasing a new machine or replacing an old one. (6) No retrofitting programs currently exist. However, the Water Corporation is examining the suitability of such a scheme for Western Australia. (7) Not applicable. (8) Refer to (6) above. SCHOOLS, DEADLY WAYS TO LEARN MULTI-MEDIA KIT 2044. Hon Barbara Scott to the Minister for Education and Training (1) Has there been any evaluation of the success or otherwise of the ‘Deadly Ways to Learn’ multi-media kit for the education of Aboriginal English speakers, which was distributed in 2000? (2) If not, is there any recent anecdotal evidence of its success or otherwise, or its continued use in schools, particularly on Aboriginal literacy programs? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1)-(2) There has been no formal evaluation of the program. However, information gained through action research and anecdotal evidence from the District Education Office, Aboriginal Education and Curriculum team members indicates that it is highly valued by teachers and Aboriginal education workers. SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND EVALUATIONS, REPORTS AND COST 2045. Hon Robyn McSweeney to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Public Sector Management I refer to independent consultants Social Systems and Evaluations, and ask - (1) How many reports have Social Systems and Evaluations done for the Gallop Government since 2001? (2) Will the Minister list what Government Departments these consultants have provided information to and for what purpose? (3) What has been the total cost to the Government since 2001, for consulting fees from Social Systems and Evaluations? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) Social Systems and Evaluations have provided 3 reports to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet since 2001. Questions relating to the use of Social Systems and Evaluations by other agencies should be directed to the relevant Ministers. Reports provided to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet were: • Report on Research to Identify Community Awareness and Satisfaction with Existing Mechanisms for Making Complaints Regarding Services Delivered by State Government Agencies in WA and; • Evaluation report associated with the delivery of the Constable Care Child Safety Project's Puppet and Interactive Shows • Provision of consultancy and editing in formulating the draft strategy for Young People's Safety and Crime Prevention Strategy (3) The total cost to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for services from Social Systems and Evaluations since 2001 is: $74,469.

3592 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 29 June 2005]

MILES MORGAN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, PURPOSE OF CONSULTANCY 2046. Hon Barry House to the Minister for Education and Training With regard to Tender (DPC1026 for $44 000) awarded to Miles Morgan Australia Pty Ltd, on May 2 2005 - (1) What is the purpose of this consultancy? (2) Has, or is, a report being compiled? (3) Who will receive the report? (4) Will the report be tabled in Parliament? (5) If not, why not? (6) Are there any other cost implications of this consultancy? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) To provide services to the Minister for Education and Training on matters associated with the vocational education and training sector. (2) No. (3)-(5) N/A. (6) No. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENCES, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT 2067. Hon Peter Foss to the Minister for Fisheries representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services I refer to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 and in particular to Schedule 2 and the definition of Class 2 offences - (1) Are you aware that the large number of charges recently brought under the Censorship Act 1996 with regard to the possession of child pornography will not be caught by the reporting requirements? (2) Are you aware that police have been trying to argue that the charges are somehow caught by the reference to the Commonwealth Act? In view of the fact that there has plainly been an error of omission and that it is only a matter of time before the police action is challenged - (3) Have you already given instructions for an amendment to correct this? (4) If not, will you do so as a matter of urgency? Hon JON FORD replied: (1) The Western Australia Police advises in terms of child pornography offences under the Censorship Act 1996 it is only those offences committed on or after 1 February 2005 that are not automatically reportable offences under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. In respect to these offences, an application can be made to a court for an "offender reporting order" or a "past offender reporting order" under the Act. The ANCOR Unit in the Western Australia Police is monitoring this situation and where necessary will commence proceedings for such orders. (2) The Western Australia Police advises there is no evidence to support this claim. (3) The Department of Justice is responsible for the administration of the Censorship Act 1996. The Western Australia Police has raised this issue with the Department of Justice. A Censorship Amendment Bill is due to be introduced into Parliament shortly which will contain provisions to resolve the current situation in respect of the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 in relation to child pornography offences under the Censorship Act 1996. (4) Not Applicable. ______