Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2019

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 22 August 2019

Legislative Council

Thursday, 22 August 2019

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) took the chair at 10.00 am, read prayers and acknowledged country. HON OSCAR (NEIL) BLACKBURNE OLIVER Condolence Motion HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [10.02 am] — without notice: I move — That this house expresses its deep regret at the death of Hon Oscar Neil Blackburne Oliver, a former member of the Legislative Council for West Province, and places on record its appreciation for his long public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his wife and members of his family in their bereavement. Hon Neil Oliver was born on 16 August 1933 in Caulfield, Victoria, and passed away on 9 July 2019 in Perth. He was the son of Oscar and Elizabeth. He attended Caulfield Grammar School and later the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, where he studied for a Diploma of Wool Technology. Neil had a long career as a wool broker in Victoria, New Zealand and Western Australia between 1958 and 1977, but it was perhaps his service to the Australian military over the same period that he is remembered for, as an officer cadet in the Australian Army between 1952 and 1954, and then with the Citizen Military Forces—known now as the Australian Army Reserve— from 1954 to 1977. Neil rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and was awarded both the Efficiency Decoration and Reserve Force Decoration. He saw active service in Malaysia and the Vietnam War. Neil moved to Perth in 1963, just one year after marrying his wife, Margaret, and together they had two sons and a daughter. Tragically, one of his sons, Craig, would later attract national media attention following his death in a plane crash carrying the entire board of the mining company Sundance Resources. Neil was elected to the Legislative Council for West Province and made a significant contribution to this Parliament over 12 years between 1977 and 1989. His inaugural speech outlined an interest in upholding law and order, and tackling issues relating to small enterprise. It also provides for some interesting reflections of the times that perhaps provoke the thought that some things change, while others remain the same. Neil was clearly passionate about building the respect of Parliament and parliamentarians. He said — I would like our Parliament to rise to the status of the highest and most widely respected forum of community discussion on vital issues … Parliamentary debate should have such a fire and conviction and quality as to arouse public interest, and build public consensus. He went on to say — … I want to make it clear that I recognise the basic challenge is to Parliament itself to be relevant—to be part of the community, and not simply a law-makers club in an ivory tower on the top of a hill. Those are values and ideals that politicians across the nation continue to strive towards long after that contribution from Neil. It seems that Neil managed to pre-empt the 24-hour news cycle that politicians find themselves in today. In that same speech in 1977 he said — A high level of public reportage of parliamentary debate should be the contribution of the public media. Here is a duty that the media should not ignore. The coverage of sensations is not enough. Debate of society’s fundamental value must attract more respect, and I challenge the media to be self critical as well as critical in its coverage of Parliament. That is a sentiment we might share today. Neil served on a number of parliamentary committees throughout his political career. His genuine interest in defending the public interest and his professional conduct on those committees was respected by all. Outside Parliament, Neil was heavily involved in many community groups and organisations including the WA Employers’ Federation, which later became the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia; the Confederation of WA Industry; the Housing Industry Association; the Returned and Services League; the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Western Australia; Rotary; and the Army Museum of Western Australia, where he served as vice-president. A former member of this place Hon Tom Stephens, provided me with the following reflections on Neil. He said that Neil worked long and hard, was a true Liberal, always a gentleman and was respected by all, and in retirement he remained a regular in the parliamentary gym. On behalf of the government and the Parliamentary Labor Party, I would like to express my sincere condolences to the Oliver family for their loss.

5852 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [10.07 am]: Neil Oliver led a life dedicated to private enterprise, the defence of Australia, and the Liberal Party. He was the son of a civil engineer, born in Caulfield, Melbourne in August 1933. Neil was educated at Caulfield Grammar School and obtained a Diploma of Wool Technology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, also training as an Officer Cadet with the Royal Australian Army from 1952 to 1954. This commenced a service of 23 years to the Citizen Military Forces that only ceased on his election to Parliament. He served with the Australian Regular Army in Malaya in 1957 and was promoted as the youngest major in the Army in 1961. He served and was wounded in South Vietnam in 1968, receiving his final promotion to lieutenant colonel in 1971. He was awarded the Efficiency Decoration in 1968, with a bar added in 1973, and the Reserve Force Decoration in 1982. From 1978 to 1988 he was Honorary Colonel of the Royal Australian Corps of Transport. He remained a constant member of the Returned and Services League and was a founding member, director and vice-president of the Army Museum of Western Australia for many years from 1977. From 1958 Neil Oliver built a civilian career as a wool broker in his family business working in Victoria, New Zealand and Western Australia where he settled in 1963, having married his wife, Margaret Joy, the previous year. This work took him to North America, Eastern Europe and Beirut in 1965–66. He became involved in the construction industry, serving as president of the Housing Industry Association between 1975 and 1977. He also chaired the Australian Government Desirable Levels of Housing and Construction Indicative Planning Council of WA. From 1974 to 1981 he was a committee member of the WA Employers’ Federation. His community involvement included board membership of Churchlands and Western Australian Colleges of Advanced Education from 1968 to 1981; membership of Rotary and of the Guildford Grammar School and Edith Cowan University Foundations; presidency of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of WA; and patron of the Bayswater–Morley District Cricket Club. In his younger days in Melbourne, he was a keen yachtsman and a member of a winning Australian championship crew in the Stonehaven Cup. Neil Oliver first joined the Liberal Party in 1951, and in 1974 became the Western Australian convenor of the activist group Putting Australia Right. In 1976, he was selected by the Liberal Party to succeed Hon Roy Abbey in the West Province of the Legislative Council. This was a semi-rural outer suburban electorate comprising the Legislative Assembly districts of Mundaring, Kalamunda and Darling Range, extending from Toodyay to Roleystone and including the Swan Valley. In February 1977, he was elected with a majority of 4 749 votes in a poll of nearly 21 000—61.3 per cent in a straight contest with the Australian Labor Party. Neil’s campaign contributed to the success of the Liberal Party in capturing the seat of Mundaring for the first time. In his first speech in the Legislative Council in August 1977, Neil Oliver expressed his strong commitment to free enterprise by stating — Parliament has given too much attention to the making of laws and not enough to the giving of leadership. He further stated — Laws which serve only official purposes or express only a political fanaticism over petty detail invite disrespect and rejection. By doing so, they undermine respect for law which is vital for the preservation of real standards in the community. In particular, he said — In housing, the dead weight of laws and regulations is threatening the very survival of the private home. Cost has been added to cost, all piled on the altar of narrow subservience to theoretical standards that have long since buried common sense. Neil Oliver always retained this passion. Despite a strong statewide swing against the O’Connor coalition government, he won a second six-year term in 1983, with a majority of 1 744 votes—53.7 per cent in a poll of 23 500. In the ensuing six years in opposition he was deeply concerned by allegations of government abuse and impropriety, which he sought to highlight through his service as a member of both the Select Committee on the Sale of the Midland Saleyards in 1986–87, and the Select Committee on the Management of Burswood in 1988. He also took a leading role in opposing and questioning the role of government-sponsored bodies operating in the private sector. Neil chaired both the Liberal Party Economic and Employment Council from 1984 to 1986, and the Standing Committee on Resources Development and Finance from 1986 to 1988. He used his business experience and connections to ensure the success of a Confederation of Industry mission to Malaysia that included Bill Hassell as Leader of the Opposition. It was said of Neil that he never looked for approbation as he was simply a “doer”. His strong belief in Liberal ideology and public debate led to his involvement in organising the Achievements of Democratic Capitalism conferences in Sydney and Melbourne, including such speakers as Geoffrey Blainey and leading British journalists. When the 1988 redistribution replaced the 17 two-member provinces with the current six Legislative Council regions, West Province was absorbed into the East Metropolitan Region. Rather than seeking Liberal preselection for the new region, Neil Oliver contested the redrawn Legislative Assembly district of Swan Hills that replaced Mundaring and included a large section of Midland. At the 1989 election, he gained a significant swing in this key seat, but polled 48.5 per cent after preferences, falling short by 529 votes. After leaving Parliament, Neil Oliver resumed his business

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5853 career as a director of companies in the fields of paper pulp and housing. Sadly, he was severely impacted by a failed property investment caused by the apparent dishonesty of others, and in 2010 he suffered the tragic loss of his son Craig in the Sundance mining company air crash. He retained the respect and loyalty of many political and business colleagues. His continued Liberal Party involvement was acknowledged by a meritorious service award at the 2018 state conference of the party, and at his passing he remained a committee member of the party’s Dalkeith branch. We extend our condolences to Mrs Joy Oliver, his family and his loyal friends. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [10.14 am]: Many members in this place would not realise that they had encountered Hon Neil Oliver in the corridors of Parliament House. He was a frequent visitor to the house, up until quite recently. Although they may never have met him, members would have recognised him if they had seen him again in the corridors of Parliament. Sadly, we will not see him again. We rise today to pay tribute to our former member. From the testimony we have just heard from the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, it will be apparent to all members, whether they knew him or not, that he was a man of very considerable integrity who lived a life of many endeavours. In the course of his life, he made a number of very significant achievements. He also suffered a number of setbacks, and just now we have heard about some elements of personal tragedy. Through all of it, he upheld standards of integrity that should apply in public life. That is the legacy that I hope members will remember him for. The comments we have been reminded of that hark back to his maiden speech struck a chord with me and I hope they have also struck a chord with all members of this place. As members, we all come and go as time goes by, but Parliament endures. Whether he was in it or out of it, Neil Oliver understood the importance of Parliament. That is why he admonished others in the media, for example, to take note of and to understand what happens in the Parliament. He admonished everyone in our community to appreciate our institutions and to ensure that they are preserved and protected. There is a lesson for all members, current membership and members yet to come, to make sure that we uphold the standards and aspirations of those who have built our great institutions before us, so that we make sure that we pass them on to generations yet to come. On a personal note, I never served in the place with Neil Oliver, but I knew him quite well because every time I stood for election, for example, and either failed or later succeeded, he was there to encourage and to offer wisdom and fellowship. I hope that on occasions, including in the last decade, when he was going through rough times, I managed to repay some of that concern that he had expressed and offered to me in the past. Through all of that, I now join all members in supporting his condolence motion, which honours his memory. Farewell, Neil; may you rest in peace. HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.18 am]: I rise to pay my respects to the late Neil Oliver. I came to know Hon Neil Oliver as a fellow member of my branch, following my joining the Liberal Party in the early 1990s. I, of course, never had the opportunity to see him in action in Parliament. However, I came to know him as a man of quiet dignity, a gentleman and a great supporter of the Liberal cause, the party and its values. As has been mentioned, he was a frequent visitor to this place after his retirement and I would not infrequently run into him in the corridors. Whenever I did, he took the time to share his reflections on the state of politics and the state of the state. They were always thoughtful and considered. As I mentioned, he always displayed a quiet dignity and very pleasant aspect. After our discussions, he would always very kindly express his support for me and encouragement to me. I valued that from him as a former member of this place and an experienced parliamentarian and politician. I simply want to thank him—albeit too late for him to hear it—once again for his support and the kindness and the friendship that he extended to me. Vale, Neil. May he rest in peace. HON COLIN HOLT (South West) [10.20 am]: I rise on behalf of the Nationals WA to acknowledge the passing of Hon Neil Oliver and to send our condolences to his family and friends. Listening to the contributions made so far, I reflect that Neil’s contribution to our community and society went far beyond this house. I always find it a little sad when we have condolence motions, but it is also a time to reflect on the contributions made by former members and also our role here, while we are here, and how we are trying to improve the lot of society. Obviously, he made an enduring contribution that will have an enduring effect beyond this place. On behalf of the Nationals WA, I would like to thank him for his service. We would like to thank his family for allowing him to give that service, and I think they should be very proud of the man Hon Neil Oliver was. THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [10.21 am]: Members, I will add a few words to this condolence motion. I offer my condolences to the Oliver family on the passing of Hon Neil Oliver. I echo the words of Hon Colin Holt about the importance of these types of motions to acknowledge the contribution of former members, not just to this place, but also to the broader community during their time as a member and, more often than not, in the work they continue to do in the community after they leave this place. I know that certainly for Hon Neil Oliver, that was the case; indeed, he was a frequent visitor to this building. My more recent interactions with him were in my capacity as President. He would drop in from time to time to discuss activities that he was involved with in bringing certain community groups into this place. He was always very engaging and very keen to continue his involvement in the community, which is to be applauded, because sometimes when people leave here, they move on to another pathway in a different element of their life. But he obviously chose to continue participating in those things that he was interested in.

5854 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon Neil Oliver leaves a permanent memento to this place. I am not sure whether members are aware that since his time here, all of my predecessors have used his desk in the President’s office. I still use his desk in the President’s office. In his last visit to my office, I think he was actually coming in to see whether it was still in place and whether I was still happy using that desk. We had an interesting discussion about that. I thank members for their contributions today. I think it is important that we acknowledge and put on the record the work that that member did. Certainly, for members of the party that he was in, it is important to acknowledge the role he played both within the Parliament and within the party. Given that his family would have missed him from time to time, they need to know the significance of the work he did and the contribution he made to this state. I thank members for their contributions. In putting this motion, I now ask that members rise and stand in their places to indicate their support for the motion and to observe one-minute’s silence in memory of Hon Oscar Neil Blackburne Oliver, the former member for West Province. Question passed; members and officers standing as a mark of respect. The PRESIDENT: I advise that in accordance with our custom and practice, a copy of the Hansard transcript of this condolence motion will be forwarded to Hon Neil Oliver’s family. STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS — 2018–19 ANNUAL REPORT HEARINGS Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [10.24 am]: I have received a letter from the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, which states — Dear Madam President 2018–19 Annual Reports The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations (Committee) requests you advise the House of the following information as part of the Committee’s consideration of the 2018–19 Annual Reports: • the hearings will be held in the Legislative Council Committee Office from the week of 11 November 2019. • the Electronic Lodgement System will open from 2 September 2019 for Members to submit a reasonable number of questions prior to hearings. It will close at 5pm on Friday 11 October 2019. • nominations for agencies to appear for a hearing are also due to the Committee at 5pm on Friday 11 October 2019 • a Procedure Policy and timetable of hearings will be emailed to Members in due course. Yours sincerely Hon A Clohesy MLC Chair KWINANA OUTER HARBOUR Petition HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [10.25 am]: I present a petition containing 2 181 signatures couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned oppose the premature construction of an outer harbour in Kwinana as being actively promoted by some special interest lobby groups in Western Australia. The construction and operation of a new outer harbour facility in Cockburn Sound would forever destroy the sensitive marine environment and the creation of a Special Economic Zone to make the project economically feasible are both are at odds with the values of the community. Fremantle Port can currently handle trade volumes for a city the size of Sydney and should be allowed to reach its capacity naturally, not closed or capped prematurely to justify the agenda being promoted by special interest lobbyists. We therefore ask the Legislative Council to go on record opposing the construction of new port facilities until the existing port infrastructure at Fremantle Harbour has reached its full capacity. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 2963.]

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5855

ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS SECTOR — AWARDS Statement by Parliamentary Secretary HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.26 am]: I am pleased to rise today to provide some important recognition for the tireless workers in our alcohol and other drugs sector. Last week, more than 190 people attended the Strong Spirit Strong Mind Awards and the Community in Action and Advocacy Awards, which were jointly held as part of the two-day Western Australian Aboriginal Alcohol and other Drug Workers Forum and the Local Drug Action Groups Inc State Conference. The event was proudly hosted by the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies and Local Drug Action Groups Inc. I attended the event in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Mental Health, and it was outstanding to see many people committed to developing a better future for all Western Australians. The Strong Spirit Strong Mind Awards acknowledge the outstanding contributions made by organisations and individuals in the field of Aboriginal alcohol and other drug work in Western Australia. The words “Strong Spirit Strong Mind” promote the value of Aboriginal culture, identity and spiritual connections as strengths in managing alcohol and other drug use. I congratulate Averil Scott from Women’s Health and Family Services who was named Aboriginal Alcohol and other Drug Worker of the Year for her work to strengthen cultural and family ties for Aboriginal people, and to strengthen services to better meet the needs of the community. Averil has also championed her organisation’s development and implementation of its reconciliation action plan, devoting time and energy to ensuring organisational targets are met and that cultural competency continues to grow. Additionally, I would like to congratulate Rose Power from the Northam Local Drug Action Group who was awarded the Outstanding Volunteer Award, as part of the Community in Action and Advocacy Awards, for her work in the development and implementation of numerous projects across her community. The Community in Action and Advocacy Awards acknowledge, encourage and celebrate the achievements of the incredible Local Drug Action Group members and organisations, which do exceptional work to prevent or reduce the harm and impact of alcohol and other drugs. Across the state, hundreds of Local Drug Action Group volunteers take action through grassroots practices to reduce harms, which benefits the entire community. I hope everyone in the chamber will join me in congratulating Averil and Rose, and all the other winners and finalists. The work to reduce alcohol and other drug–related harms in our communities continues, but we have some exceptional people working on the ground every day, which is why I want to mention all the volunteers in this sector. The awards ceremonies were also used as an opportunity to acknowledge a number of dedicated people who have dedicated 10, 15 or 20 years of service with a Local Drug Action Group, which is an outstanding achievement of community engagement. I am pleased to table a list of the award winners and those recognised for their years of voluntary service. [See paper 2964.] PAPER TABLED A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. SELECT COMMITTEE INTO ALTERNATE APPROACHES TO REDUCING ILLICIT DRUG USE AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY Interim Report — “Inquiry into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community — Extension of Time” — Tabling HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [10.30 am]: I am directed to present an interim report of the Select Committee into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community titled “Inquiry into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community — Extension of Time”. [See paper 2965.] Hon ALISON XAMON: On 19 August 2019, the committee resolved to seek an extension of the date by which the committee is to report from 17 October 2019 to 5 December 2019. The committee has received a significant volume of evidence and a large number of submissions and is awaiting further written evidence. The committee has received 77 submissions, held 23 hearings and conducted 22 site visits and external meetings. This extension is sought to enable the committee to assess and deliberate on the large amount of material received and being awaited so as to properly discharge its reporting obligations to the house. Extension of Reporting Time — Motion HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [10.31 am] — without notice: I move — That the reporting date for the inquiry into alternate approaches to reducing illicit drug use be extended from 17 October 2019 to 5 December 2019. [Leave granted for the member’s speech to be continued at a later stage of the sitting.] Debate thus adjourned.

5856 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

CLIMATE CHANGE Notice of Motion Hon Tim Clifford gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — That this house — (a) acknowledges the climate crisis and declares a climate emergency; and (b) notes that climate change will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events, including more regular and intense bushfires and drought, and cause extreme disruption to Western Australia’s biodiversity, coastline, water and food security and economy, and to its people and their livelihoods. POLICE — ASSAULTS AGAINST AND COMPENSATION Motion HON MARTIN ALDRIDGE (Agricultural) [10.32 am] — without notice: I move — That this house — (a) condemns assaults on police officers and other public officers in the strongest terms; (b) expresses deep concern at the increasing number of assaults on police officers in Western Australia; (c) calls on the state government to immediately respond to this growing issue, including ensuring that our police officers can access a compensation scheme for work-related physical or mental injury; and (d) calls on the Premier to immediately resolve the pay dispute with police officers to restore confidence among officers and recognise the challenges of their role. Before I commence my contribution to this motion, I would like to add my condolences to the family of Hon Neil Oliver, and also at this time recognise the passing of former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia Tim Fischer at the age of 73. He was a friend of a lot of us in the National Party and also a former ambassador to the Holy See. He had a keen interest in many things regional, including rail, history and, indeed, military history. I hope at another opportunity today I will be able to comment some more on Tim’s passing. This matter that I bring to the house today is a very serious one and I hope the debate will be taken in that vein. I hope we can have a respectful debate about this issue, which continues to plague police officers in our community. I anticipated raising the debate on policing before this week but The West Australian brought a key issue to the fore with an article on Tuesday, 20 August 2019, headed “Law & Disorder: Attacks on cops rise as assaults haunt officers”. I will read some extracts from that article — Assault on police officers is not new but I think those comments that I just quoted from Harry Arnott are really telling. There are not too many other workplaces in Western Australia where we see assaults of this nature. Police are punched, kicked and spat on nearly 20 times a week as frontline officers say they are plagued by the violence years after they are assaulted. Several frontline officers told The West Australian the severity of attacks was getting worse, and that some community members had little to no respect for any kind of authority. The latest figures show there were 977 “assault police officer offences” across WA in 2018/19. That’s an average of more than 18 cases a week, and is up from the 941 offences in 2017/18. Some officers also confided that they have experienced anxiety attacks and flashbacks over their assaults, months and even years after the offence. “They don’t think twice about hitting you … there is definitely no respect for the uniform anymore,” one officer said anonymously. Another said: “I think they … are getting worse, the public have little respect until they need us.” A third officer said they suffered an anxiety attack at a train station recently because they had been previously assaulted there, an assault which meant they had to have surgery. “I had a minor anxiety attack at the station a few months later. I put that down to numerous physical encounters in that area,” the officer said. A fourth and experienced officer—who also required surgery recently after arresting a suspect—said drugs were a big factor in police assaults.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5857

“People have different values now days … coupled with meth, (they have) a belief the world owes them something,” the officer said. WA Police Union president Harry Arnott told The West Australian last night he was alarmed by the latest numbers. “Assaulting a police officers is a despicable act and indefensible in all situations,” he said. “I am sure there will not be a single person who does not find these statistics alarming. “Nearly three police officers are assaulted on the frontline every day, tell me what other workforce faces those dangers?” I draw members’ attention to the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. I turn to section 26, “Refusal by employees to work in certain cases”. Subsection (1) states — Nothing in section 25 prevents an employee from refusing to work where he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that to continue to work would expose him or her or any other person to a risk of imminent and serious injury or imminent and serious harm to his or her health. Section 26 needs to be read in conjunction with section 4A, which specifically exempts police officers from these provisions. As far as I am aware, no other class of employee in Western Australia is exempt from section 26 of our OSH legislation, except for police officers. That recognises not only the work that they do, but also the additional protections that we must put in place to ensure that we look after them. I have some personal experiences of this from my time in the fire service when I refused orders from senior officers to undertake certain work—I have raised this before in this house—and faced the threat of disciplinary action. I had the benefit of section 26 of the OSH legislation, whereas police officers do not. My motion refers to other public officers. It is also concerning to know that assaults now occur on firefighters. Some firefighters are refusing to respond to certain communities unless they have police escorts. I was at the St John Ambulance operations centre last week. The officers were telling me that they no longer send an ambulance to certain places in Western Australia. These issues move beyond the police realm and into other areas in Western Australia. Given the recent assault on a firefighter, which required hospitalisation and the perpetrator receiving a $500 fine, those aspects of the Criminal Code ought to be further examined by the Attorney General and the state government to ascertain whether some improvement is needed. The statistics released in The West Australian this week were confirmed in question time on Tuesday, and I have not seen much of a response from the Minister for Police. I am hopeful we will get more information today from the minister who is providing a response. I heard a radio grab that stated the government’s response is the use of body cameras. I suspect body cameras will be useful in collecting evidence to better guarantee prosecutions, but I am not convinced they will have the effect of deterring violence against police officers. To put the figures from The West Australian article into context, we were told that the authorised strength of the WA Police Force is some 6 350 officers. The minister representing the Minister for Police did not answer a question this week asking how many police officers are currently employed, but the authorised strength is 6 350. To put that into context, based on the 2017–18 data, each year, 15 per cent of our police officers are assaulted— 15 per cent! That is an extraordinary number. I am the first to admit that there is not a silver bullet to this problem. I know that we did a range of things when we were in government, including making amendments to the Criminal Code, which Hon Michael Mischin had carriage of at the time. I certainly think the government response needs to be much stronger than just the use of body cameras. I turn to the other aspect of the motion, which is compensation. Members will be aware of this issue, and if they are not, the WA Police Union has done some significant work on it and published quite a detailed report in November 2014 titled “Project Recompense”. There is some very good information in this report, and I encourage members to read it. It is still available on the WA Police Union’s website. I particularly challenge members to remain unmoved by the case studies that appear in the middle of this report, which relate the individual stories of de-identified officers and the level of trauma, and in some cases personal assault, that they have faced throughout sometimes short and sometimes lengthy careers. I challenge members to examine that report and not be moved by some of those stories. I draw members’ attention to a letter from the WA Police Union to the Minister for Police, Hon Michelle Roberts, on 14 August 2017, some months after the election of the Labor government. In that letter, then president of the police union, George Tilbury, outlined the concerns and priorities of the union, including the compensation scheme that is mentioned in my motion. Obviously this is a complex issue, and I said that in my recent contribution to the debate on the medical discharge provisions for police officers in the Police Act. Two years have passed since this correspondence was issued to the Minister for Police and, despite it being a complex issue, it is time that the government introduced some legislation to Parliament to initiate a scheme. If police officers are injured in the line of duty, the government’s response needs

5858 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] to be more than the provision of medical benefits and leave, especially if the ability of those officers to work in the future, either within or outside the police force, is impaired. Mental injury is another issue. We know from the statistics referred to during the recent debate on the medical discharge of police officers that a greater number of medical discharges result from mental injuries than from physical injuries, and mental injuries probably add greater complexity to a proposed compensation scheme. There has been some talk about bringing in presumptive legislation for mental injury, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, similar to the presumptive legislation this house has provided for firefighters who have developed cancer. Indeed, firefighters in this state also certainly experience mental injury. Unfortunately, through my personal experience—not in the police service, but in the fire service—I have colleagues who are no longer with us because of post-traumatic stress disorder. Sadly, I have colleagues who are no longer on the job because of PTSD and I now realise, after leaving the employment of the fire service, that PTSD is probably something that we have all been affected by—the effects of trauma from that frontline exposure. It affects people differently and at different times of their lives. That adds some complexity to designing a compensation scheme, but that is not a good reason to shy away from it. This Parliament and this government could really lead the way in better protecting and compensating those officers who serve us on the front line. A letter dated 14 August 2017 from the WA Police Union to Minister Roberts outlined what a scheme might look like and included an actuarial assessment of the scheme. The police union has done some considerable work in proposing to government what a compensation scheme might look like and how it might work in practice. Indeed, if I can summarise the letter, the proposed scheme works by calculating a maximum payment, and the net maximum payment is then deducted, based on the level of work impairment and an age factor. Obviously, if a person is forced to leave the employment of the police force on medical grounds at age 25 and is unable to participate in any way in any future work, they would then be entitled to the maximum payment. Some examples are provided in that letter. It states — A 25 year old Member who is medically retired and has no residual work capacity would be entitled to a payment of $2,194,444 … That is obviously the actuarial assessment of lost income and future earnings over the life of that employee. The letter continues — A 58 year old Member who is medically retired and is assessed as having a 20% work impairment would be entitled to a payment of $210,667 … We can see some comparisons between a young officer with no ability to work versus somebody a bit older with a limited work capacity, and how that formula might work. That is not to say that this might be the exact formula that the government lands upon, but it gives us a point to at least have a discussion about what a compensation scheme might look like. I turn my attention to the pay dispute. Before the election, police officers and firefighters were offered a 1.5 per cent pay rise as an election commitment by the McGowan opposition. When the Labor Party was elected, firefighters got their 1.5 per cent and the state then introduced a wages policy of a capped payment of $1 000 per annum. We now know that the Labor government has broken its election commitment to police by reneging on its 1.5 per cent pay offer. Fast-forward to 2019 and the Community and Public Sector Union–Civil Service Association of WA has claimed in multiple media statements how the government has broken the state wages policy. Obviously, the government denies that fact, and there have been some questions in this place about the additional cost beyond the $1 000 increase to CPSU–CSA employees. We must keep in mind that this industrial agreement is the largest in the state with the number of public servants it covers—some 31 845 employees; it is the largest industrial agreement by employees. I draw members’ attention to the state wages policy, which states — The cost of negotiated and arbitrated outcomes must be met from within the approved salary expense budget of affected departments and organisations. That says to me that with the deal the CPSU has struck with the state, any extra cost beyond that $1 000 per employee has to be borne by the employing agencies, unless, of course, the state government is going to break its own wages policy. By effect, the deal that has been struck with the CPSU is inconsistent with other industrial agreements and will certainly expose the public sector to further budget cuts if we see the government stand by its wages policy. I want to make very clear what the state government is asking police officers to do. It was confirmed during the budget estimates process—I thank the estimates committee for allowing me to participate—that the state is asking police officers to take a $25 million pay cut, relative to CPI, over the next two years. That is not my figure; that is the figure that WA Police Force gave in its evidence to the budget estimates hearing this year. It is not hard to understand why police officers are not happy about this. There does not seem to be any progress on a compensation scheme. We continue to ask questions on a range of police matters and continue to get non-answers in this place. Hon Michelle Roberts, amongst a number of other ministers, is a prolific offender when it comes to not answering questions asked in the Legislative Council. I am sure that other members will reflect on that, and there certainly have been many cases of that this week.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5859

The fourth wing of my motion calls on the Premier to intervene in this matter. I think we have reached the point at which we need the Premier to intervene on the commerce and police ministers to resolve this dispute. I do not think anybody will challenge the notion that the work that police officers do in our community is extraordinary. Every day they face situations and circumstances that are unimaginable to most of us. I think they deserve a better deal from this government, as I am sure do other members. I want to be part of a Parliament that leads on these issues, particularly on an appropriate compensation scheme that not just allows members to retire with a medical discharge but also makes sure that we continue to support them into the future. The men and women of our police force are relying on us to do that. I will quote from a media statement released just today from the WA Police Union. Members may not yet have seen this media release, which is headed “Pay negotiations stall”. Mr Arnott is quoted as saying — “Recently, Government has claimed success in relation to reduced crime rates and wins against the scourge of meth. They had nothing to do with it, I am yet to see a politician strap on a gun and step out onto the frontline. It was the hard work of the dedicated women and men of the WA Police Force working hard, protecting their communities and achieving results. “The Government promotes our troops’ victories as their own and then they reward our Members with a $25 million real wages cut. That type of behavior is disrespectful and will only lead to a reduction in morale.” The PRESIDENT: Member, would you like to table the document you have just read from, so that other members will have the capacity to read it during the debate? Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE: It would be my pleasure, Madam President. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. [See paper 2966.] Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE: Nothing can be truer than those words of the president of the WA Police Union, Harry Arnott. Members of the police force have our back every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year. I ask members of this house: have you got theirs? HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [10.53 am]: I will respond on behalf of the government to this motion. I will start by echoing the comments of Hon Martin Aldridge on the passing of Tim Fischer. I had the pleasure of meeting Tim Fischer on a number of occasions and of watching his performance for many years. He was truly a fine leader. He was a man of the people, but he was also a progressive thinker who was in touch with the modern community. He brought the good of traditional values together with some progressive thinking and an understanding of contemporary society. I particularly pass on my condolences to members of the National Party family, because he was truly a great leader. I thank the member for raising this important issue today. As we speak, a conciliation conference is going on, led by our very able team at the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. We really hope that we can bring these matters to a successful conclusion, as we have done with other public sector workers. It would certainly compromise the good faith of the negotiations if we were to talk above the head of the Western Australian Police Union about the items being negotiated. The government wants to be respectful of its relationship with the police union and its members, and it will not go into the detail of the police union’s log of claims; however, it is working very hard to deal with these issues. It is correct that at one point during the election campaign the government promised a 1.5 per cent pay increase. As members know, between the time of the publication of the Treasury documents leading into the caretaker period and the time the Labor Party came into government, the government found that there had been a very considerable deterioration in the state’s financial position due to a number of factors. To get the state’s finances in order, the government had to revise that commitment. Very early on, the government dealt with public sector workers to bring them along, and, of course, the government led by example by making sure that parliamentarians, judges and those people at the top of the public sector pay tree bore a greater burden in percentage terms by introducing a price freeze. We acknowledge that environment. I now want to talk through some general issues and about the advice provided to me by the Minister for Police. The government accepts that there has been a change of behaviour in the community. General standards and the level of respect for authority in the community has been driven in part, but not exclusively, by a massive meth problem. It provides real challenges for the community, police officers, and, as the member said, firefighters. We also acknowledge that it provides challenges, of course, for people in the medical profession, and we have recently announced some additional resources to deal with that. However, I do not accept the member’s last proposition that politicians are doing nothing to deal with this issue. In fact, the government is very proud of its meth action plan and the very real strategies it has taken to try to break the meth cycle, and of the development of meth prisons, which we believe will for the first time produce some very positive results. We do not accept that we can deal with these endemic problems just by strapping on a gun. However, we acknowledge, of course, that our police officers do a spectacular and outstanding job to protect and serve the community. We absolutely understand that they are on the front line. They turn out to road crashes, suicides, horrible murders and other violent incidents. They deal

5860 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] with domestic violence and, as I said, with this unfortunate breakdown in community standards in some areas. We absolutely understand that police officers are assaulted. It is a sad reality that our police are too often confronted by armed offenders. We are really focused on this and are working on practical ways that we can deal with it. The commitment has been to provide the tools and protective equipment that they need for job safety. In eight and a half years, the Barnett–Harvey government did nothing to provide the equipment necessary to protect our police. It failed to roll out the personal-issue body armour and body-worn cameras to frontline officers, but we have done that. In our last budget, we committed $15.4 million towards the rollout of personal-issue multi-threat body armour to frontline police officers. This is very much part of a commitment to provide better protection. To determine the most suitable body type, 60 officers, both male and female, were fitted out with different styles of body armour to test for protection, comfort and mobility in a range of policing roles from metropolitan to regional. They have provided important feedback. We did not want to just impose this. That is now going through the evaluation period. A contract is scheduled to be awarded and a wider rollout will occur. We repeat that there were no attempts by the previous government to do this. At best, under its approach there would have been a limited number of standard- issue generic size and fit armour rather than the bespoke, individually tailored equipment. The member spoke about body cameras. He said there is no evidence that they deal with the issue, but we believe they provide police with a level of protection, and certainly a level of protection against false accusation. It is important to understand that potential offenders or assailants are warned on approach that there is a body camera in situ. We believe that in some cases that will cause a moderation of behaviour. The member was concerned about injured officers being looked after, and we absolutely understand that this is a big issue. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is a lot of chat around the chamber and I find it hard to understand what the minister is saying. If people really need to have a conversation, they might want to step outside so that the minister can continue. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: As the member articulated, we recognise that given the nature of their role, police do not necessarily have the same protections as other government workers have. They cannot say something is dangerous and step away, because that is the nature of the job. It is important to understand that if a police officer is injured, they have up to 168 paid sick leave days, and this leave is often extended when there is a work-related injury or illness. Importantly, the government covers all medical expenses and wages for police who are injured on the job or who have work-related injuries. Police who are medically retired receive a payment for certain medical bills for work-related injuries. The police minister is working very hard to improve the assistance given to police to support them with the mental health impacts of policing. We have made some really important changes to the health and welfare branch to improve the support that it provides officers and their families. The Minister for Police wants to particularly acknowledge the work of Commissioner Dawson in that regard. The police minister has introduced some major reforms to ensure that officers who are medically retired are treated with the dignity, respect and fairness they deserve by including medical retirement issues in the police redress scheme and the reform of the Police Act. We just point out that these were issues that the Barnett government failed to address in its eight and a half years. We have provided $16 million for a special police redress to provide lump sum ex gratia payments to officers who had to be medically retired in the past to recognise their service and acknowledge the circumstances under which they left the force. This is the first and only such redress scheme for police officers in Australia. Three eminent people have been appointed to oversee this process. The panel is chaired by former Commissioner of Police Karl O’Callaghan, assisted by Ms Susan Barrera and former police officer Ms Lilly Cvijic. The application process is now closed and payments are being determined. I think that is significant. I turn now to amendments to the Police Act to separate medical retirement from the section 8 loss-of-confidence process. This is an issue that the Western Australian Police Union and police officers have often raised. Until the recent passage of the Police Amendment (Medical Retirement) Bill 2019, police officers who were retiring for medical reasons were lumped into the section 8 loss-of-confidence process. The government has now dealt with that important issue so those officers will not be tarred by being section 8 loss-of-confidence retirees. With regard to compensation, we have absolutely recognised that there is a shortcoming in officers’ current benefits when they suffer permanent impairment from an on-the-job injury. Unlike other public sector workers, police officers who suffer permanent impairment are not automatically entitled to a lump sum payment. The McGowan government made an election commitment: it is absolutely committed to providing compensation to police officers who need to be medically retired because of a work-related illness or injury. The Minister for Police, together with the Commissioner of Police, Chris Dawson, is working on a scheme to provide meaningful compensation and support for officers. Indeed, as witness to that, we have more than $30 million for that over the forward estimates. I do not have any time to go into the industrial relations issues, but we have been negotiating in good faith and, as we speak, a conciliation process is going on. The Premier has full confidence in the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Minister for Police to work on this and to bring these matters to a conclusion.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5861

HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.07 am]: I rise to indicate the opposition’s support for the four elements of this very worthy motion, which condemns assaults on police officers and other public officers; expresses concern at the increasing number of assaults on police officers in this state; calls upon the state government to respond to the issue and to ensure that police officers can gain access to a compensation scheme for work-related physical or mental injuries; and calls on the Premier to resolve the pay dispute with police officers to restore their confidence and to recognise the challenges of their role. I will deal first with the issue of assaults. There are a number of elements involved in protecting police officers. The minister providing the apology on behalf of the government has indicated that the government is making great progress with regard to body armour, cameras and the like. Back in 2009, the then Barnett government introduced mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for bodily harm caused by assaults on police officers. That was roundly condemned and opposed by the then Labor opposition—particularly by the now Attorney General, and I will come to him shortly. I understand that there may be philosophical differences between parties and members regarding mandatory minimum sentences and the like, but that was a measured approach towards trying to reset the public perception of how we deal with police officers. It was more than simply putting people in jail for causing bodily harm. I reflect on when I first joined the then Crown Law Department in the 1980s. At that stage, police officers were not routinely armed when they were out on the streets. There was great debate about whether they should be armed and whether it would be a descent in the standards of society to have armed police officers wandering around, as they do in the United States. There was a great debate about that. In those days, if there was a brawl in a pub and a police officer walked in, people would quieten down. It then became the case that if a police officer wandered into a conflict, they would become the target of the miscreants. We recalibrated that by saying, “You do not touch police officers. If you happen to touch a police officer in the course of their duty and cause them bodily harm, you will be punished.” In the 2009–10 financial year, which was the first year in which those laws came into effect, the number of assaults on police officers reduced from 1 346 to 974. That is, 350 fewer police officers were injured in the course of duty. In 2017–18, the number of assaults on police officers went down further to 911. However, in 2018–19, the number increased to 975. Most of those assaults were due either to people being liquored up, or to the meth crisis—people who are in a highly agitated state and not fully responsible for their actions, and engage in assaulting police officers. However, it is also indicative of the mindset of our society. That needs to be corrected. Instead of looking at how we can change the laws to ensure that people who assault police officers, or other public officers, and cause them bodily harm are punished and put away for longer, in order to act as a deterrent, we have resorted to police wearing body armour. Our police officers could drive around in armoured cars. That is hardly protecting police officers. That is isolating them from society. That is doing nothing to address the societal issue. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: So you don’t support body armour for our police? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I support body armour. However, it is a sad state if that is the minister’s solution to protecting police officers, rather than changing societal attitudes. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Do you realise that is what police officers want? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I am sure that is right. However, I would have thought a better option would be that police officers are given respect in the streets, rather than having to wear body armour and carry a firearm. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Of course it would. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: As has been indicated by Hon Martin Aldridge, body cameras are hardly likely to deter people, as opposed to simply providing evidence. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: He was talking about body cameras, not body armour. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Yes, body cameras. Body cameras are hardly likely to deter people. In fact, body armour is hardly likely to deter assailants either. It just means they cause less harm. That is, of course, unless police officers are also wearing helmets. Nevertheless, the government needs to examine other strategies that can be used. The issue of police compensation also needs to be addressed. It is very popular for ministers of this government to say that nothing was done in so many years and the like, and ignore the work that was done behind the scenes. In 2016, the then Minister for Police came up with a means of addressing workers’ compensation for police officers and a variety of other issues that were of concern to police officers and thought she had reached some agreement with the WA Police Union, which it then reneged on. The police union has had a change of leadership since that time, and I would have thought some progress could have been made. However, in the last two and half years, we seem to have advanced nowhere. The Police Amendment (Medical Retirement) Bill 2019, which we dealt with recently, is a very worthy piece of legislation. It has not come about out of the blue. It took two and half years to get that bill going. Therefore, I do not think this government’s record is all that wonderful when we consider what it has achieved. We would think that with the work that was done during the eight years of our government, plus the two and a half years of this government, some progress would have been made to address this issue, even if agreement could not be reached with the police union.

5862 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Another issue is the police pay dispute. Our government was criticised because, back in the day, we gave generous pay increases to police officers and made them the best paid in the nation. We were squandering the boom, apparently. We did the same for teachers. I recall that at the time, wonderful Mark McGowan had a dispute with the State School Teachers’ Union of WA that he had not managed to resolve. Hon Peter Collier: Teachers were the lowest paid in the nation. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Yes. That was fixed up by our government. We also addressed the issue of encouraging police officers to stay in the police force, and that has happened. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: That was a great budget! Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I take it the minister is opposing any pay increase for police officers. Is that the minister’s position? Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Our position is we’re negotiating. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Yes, negotiating. How wonderful! Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Madam President! The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, everyone else was heard in silence. I know that sometimes things can get a bit argy-bargy in here, but I am sure that the member wants to use his next two minutes and 54 seconds fruitfully and be heard in silence. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I do, thank you, Madam President. Now we are discussing whether they ought to get $1 000 or so. Before the last election Mark McGowan was doing one of his usual me-toos about the 1.5 per cent pay increase being offered by the then Liberal–National government. He said, “Yes, I’ll do that, too.” Of course, it was like his commitment—“I’ll do that too”—on minimum mandatory sentences for meth traffickers. We know what happened to that; it was abandoned as quickly as possible. Likewise, although he gave pay increases to other public sector workers, he did not do so for the police; he reneged on that promise. Now, two and a half years down the track, we are still negotiating. We have to go to mediation before the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission because this government, as the union has said today, is bullying it and refusing to negotiate in good faith. That needs to be addressed. We also need to address the increased rental cost of Government Regional Officers’ Housing for police officers, which is penalising them by something like $1 560 a year. That is a sign of this government’s good faith. Police officers are not held in high regard by this government—we only have to look at some of the people in cabinet. I remind members of our Attorney General who, as the shadow Attorney General, was quite happy to go crazy and say anything that suited him at the time. However, when he does so, he reveals what he really thinks. He engages in an awful lot of personal abuse in the other chamber; one only has to read Hansard to see what passes as debate down there. I remind members of his real attitude towards police with reference to a column in The West Australian of 14 October 2008, when his boat and house were graffitied. It reads — The WA Police Union is considering suing Labor MP John Quigley for defamation over claims corrupt police were behind a graffiti attack on his Trigg home. Mr Quigley said he was unnerved yesterday when he found the words “chld molester John Quigly (sic)” scrawled on his front wall and nearby boat in bright red paint and blamed it on corrupt police as payback for his support of Andrew Mallard. “Who did this is not beyond reasonable doubt, yet corrupt police are at this stage the prime and only suspect,” he said. Mr Quigley, a former Police Union lawyer, said police had stalked and intimidated him in the six years he had helped Mr Mallard … He did not name particular officers in the article and said that he was not suggesting it was done by two police officers then under examination. HON CHARLES SMITH (East Metropolitan) [11.17 am]: I rise to offer a few supportive statements to the motion moved this morning by Hon Martin Aldridge. I sincerely thank the member for bringing on this motion. I mean that sincerely, and I am not being facetious at all. I will say one facetious thing and it is aimed at the Minister for Police. In another low-IQ statement on the radio — Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Member, you are on your feet; you can proceed. Hon CHARLES SMITH: Thank you, Madam President. Yesterday, I heard on the radio that the police minister thinks that police having body cameras will stop them being assaulted—as if by magic, having these cameras on their uniform, police will be immune from assault. I think that is an incredibly ignorant and out-of-touch statement for a police minister to make. It shows no understanding of what happens out on the street.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5863

It may be a surprise for some members to learn that frontline police officers are assaulted every day to a greater or lesser extent. In most instances, the individual officer will think nothing of it. Nowadays, every arrest involves some sort of physical altercation. In my experience and from talking with my former colleagues and friends, I estimate that around 90 per cent of arrests nowadays also deal with methamphetamine-affected individuals whose behaviour is notoriously hard to predict. Each and every arrest that is made now is a high-risk endeavour. The Western Australia Police Force is in dire straits. Two years ago in my inaugural speech, and consistently thereafter, I warned the government and the Minister for Police, and I have been writing to the Commissioner of Police about it, that it is urgent that the government recruit an additional 1 000 frontline staff, not so much to deal with the sheer volume of crime perpetrated at the moment, but to give the girls and boys in blue a break from the sheer number of call-outs and the backlog of jobs with which they have to deal. I remind the house that I speak to police not only at the very highest level, but also on the front line. From my research and communications with police, I understand that a significant number of police stations struggle to put out one unit per shift. For the benefit of those members who do not know what a unit is, it is one police car and two police officers. I understand that an increasing number of police officers are also calling in sick. This is a direct reflection of the issues within the job today. People do not want to come into work and deal with the job. This is a huge message to the government that all is not well within the agency. Frontline police and forensic staff go to work and face a huge backlog of jobs. Members of the public are increasingly complaining that police do not attend jobs or that they turn up the day after. The community’s increasing loss of confidence in the police is embarrassing. It is a well-known fact that the current Labor government does not understand policing or what it actually involves. The police minister stated some time ago that she thought frontline policing involved attending to the front counter. That is laughable, and this is from an experienced minister. She presides over the smallest police officer to population ratio we have ever had, and I understand that we want Perth to grow even more because apparently it is good for the economy! I will focus briefly on the suburbs in my electorate of East Metropolitan Region. Earlier this year I had a bit of a ding-dong in the local papers with the police minister. For example, the police minister was quoted in the Armadale Examiner of 7 February this year stating that by giving a voice to the victims of crime, which is what I have been doing for those people in the Maddington, Gosnells, Thornlie, Kelmscott and Armadale areas, and calling for more police presence, I am doing nothing but scaremongering and chasing cheap publicity. Heaven forbid that we should publicise the problems in our community, never mind highlighting the working-class and middle-class Western Australians who are suffering this deluge of antisocial behaviour and crime. People are leaving those suburbs because they have had enough. The culture of arrogance and denial that prevails in the McGowan Labor government is extraordinary. I do not understand why the police minister denies the huge crime rate and antisocial problems in the south-eastern corridor. We need to acknowledge the problem and deal with it. In responding to this motion, I was going to impart some personal policing experience, but I dismissed it because I would only be re-traumatised by relating my experiences. Members may notice that I am already a cranky kind of character, so I will not impart those stories. We all know what the police have to deal with—well, at least I think we do. When we discussed the Police Amendment (Medical Retirement) Bill 2019 recently, I called for compulsory psychological assessments for police. That would be a fantastic idea for the police minister to run with, and I think it is desperately needed. As I said before, there should be assessments at least twice a year for both operational and non-operational staff to catch early warning signs of mental health issues and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. PTSD affects someone for the rest of their life. The tough thing about PTSD is that it does not affect just the individual; it affects their partner, their children and their extended family. Everyone has to live with the trauma and fallout of the PTSD sufferer. I found this amusing, briefly, but it is what I would call a truism. Some time ago there was a little graphic meme floating around the police force. It said, “How to find your grumpy police name? You take your rank, and put that first, and then you take your surname and put that second, and that is your grumpy police name.” Unfortunately, there is a saying in society that a policeman’s lot is not a happy one, and increasingly, it is not. Every single police officer, to a greater or lesser extent, suffers with PTSD. As such, I think we should examine whether these types of public officers—police officers, ambulance staff, front-line nurses, emergency department doctors and so on— should have special treatment in society. It is entirely justifiable that police have a significant higher pay scale to reflect what they have to deal with, and a significantly better retirement plan and pension, including medical retirement, should it be needed. Police, in particular, need and deserve much firmer legislation. We have heard Hon Michael Mischin talk about mandated minimum sentences—I think it is six months’ imprisonment for being found guilty of assaulting a police officer. When I hear of magistrates or judges issuing suspended sentences of six months, that makes me even more cranky. Proper mandated minimum sentences, with no suspended sentences, have to be enforced. Magistrates who, for whatever reason, want to impose a suspended sentence, should be rightly condemned by our community for letting us down. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [11.28 am]: I commend Hon Martin Aldridge for this motion. At various times, very good motions are brought to the house, and those motions deserve recognition. This is a very good motion. It is about condemning assaults, access to compensation packages, asking the Premier to intervene,

5864 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] and restoring confidence back to the police force. There have been some very valuable contributions in this house this morning. I do not think the approach from this house for this Parliament is to just beat up on the government about this. The role of the police has changed a great deal. There are a lot more drugs in our society now, and many other threats, such as terrorism. There is a lot more violence in our community. We used to read about a king hit every now and again in the paper, but these days there are about 10 or 20 king hits a day. There is no point writing about them anymore, because the paper would be full of stories of king hits in our society. While this is going on, the police have to try to bring some order to a society, and their job is increasingly difficult. We need to acknowledge that, first of all. Yes, the police are skilled and are capable of handling the differences, but they need our full support. I do not want to have a go at just the government; I am talking to this Parliament. If during the rest of this term, we have not been able to increase the number of police, secure them a proper compensation package and restore their confidence, all sides of Parliament have failed them. We need to stand together on this. We do not need to blame one side or the other. It does not matter who is in government; when a major need is recognised, the approach should be quite clear. If the government says that the money is not there, it has to find the money. That is the responsibility of government. This is an urgent matter and should be dealt with very, very quickly. The reality in our community now is that less respect is shown towards police officers, politicians and many other groups in our community. However, we can speak freely in the safety of this house where we are pretty well protected. Police officers do not have that opportunity. They are on the front line dealing with people we do not want to deal with. We have to come up with legislation and other ways of dealing with these people and get someone else to implement it. The police are the guys who have to do that work. This is a very good motion. We keep talking about police numbers being down. Hon Charles Smith was right; we have asked for 1 000 extra coppers, but people have said that that is too many. Maybe it is, but the fact is that only about 100 police have been added to the WA Police Force in this term of government, yet we know that due to natural attrition, 200 or more have left. That means the number is lower than it was two or three years ago. I believe the violence and drugs in our community and the number of threats towards police has increased in that time, so we need to look at this seriously. The government says that it is negotiating with the police, but it cannot talk about that in here. I hope those negotiations are nothing like the negotiations they had with the lobster industry or the taxi industry or the recent negotiations with the TAB and the racing industry. If they are called negotiations, I am not confident of the result. Negotiating involves sitting down and listening to people, hearing their concerns and responding. It is not a matter of going to the table with a set position and saying, “Sorry; we’re not interested anymore”. That does not work. Police need a compensation scheme and their number increased. I will let the experts decide whether the number is 200 or 1 000. Honourable members in this house have highlighted that we need real 24-hour police services. It is a bit of a smokescreen when we talk about 24-hour services, but when there is a problem, it can be hours before we see a police officer. Police officers need extra time off work. They need another couple of hours a week off or an extra week’s holiday. We need to recognise that the police do a very stressful job, so extra time with their family and loved ones will help them. They do a highly intense, dangerous job and we cannot compare it with any other form of work. It is a special job requiring special conditions. The police are very talented and can handle the work, but we need to respond to their requests by giving them tools, and part of that is allowing them to get away from the stresses of their job—it is a stressful job—and spend time with their loved ones. We cannot play games through the media with endless reels of minister’s saying, “Look what the government’s done.” It is not our government; it is what the WA Police Force has done. It is doing the hard work. It is taking the bumps. Police officers are getting threatened, spat at and abused, yet they are delivering. The WA Police Force has had fantastic results in these last 12 months. It has collected a lot of drugs and taken them off the street. We see the wonderful hard work of police officers, but it has a personal effect on them. Their mental health and general health are not good. When they have those problems, it affects their families, friends and everyone around them, as has already been indicated in this house. I believe that many of the police, at this stage, are exhausted. We may not agree with everything the union asks for. However, true negotiations mean that the government sits down with the police and negotiates a deal, which is the best way to go. We should not go to arbitration. That should be a last resort. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Or mediation. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL: I would like to see the minister and the government sit down with the union and negotiate a deal. I also think that it is urgent. I do not think we have time to waste. Numbers are needed now in the police force. It takes many years to train these people to get them up to speed. If we do not respond soon, this will be an ongoing problem for many years, including for the next government. Action is needed now. Soon we will have teachers and firefighters negotiating deals, yet the police deal has still not been done. An election is coming up in two years. If this government wants to be re-elected, it needs to look after these people and respond with a true and genuine approach to these negotiations. The government saying that it does not have the money cannot be the answer. Find the money! That is the government’s responsibility. Find the money, respond to this need, and make sure that at the end of our term when we walk out of this Parliament, we get a chance to say, “Well, at least we got that job done and we looked after these people who have looked after us over the last however many years.”

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5865

HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [11.37 am]: I want to speak to this motion. Members know that worker safety and protection are issues that I care very deeply about. Police work is inherently dangerous and it can have, and does have for many people, a significant impact on both physical and mental health. Therefore, obviously, I would support any measures that serve to enhance the health and wellbeing of officers, and I think everyone in this place would. I understand that even in the last financial year, we had almost 1 000 reports of assaults on police officers, so we are talking about a very significant number. As has already been mentioned, physical assaults are not the only impacts of the job. I have referred to it before, but it is a pretty good report—that is, the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee’s report “How did they manage? An Investigation of the Measures WA Police has in place to Evaluate Management of Personnel”. It was a significant report because it found that more police officers are medically retired because of psychological illness, rather than physical ailments or injuries, and PTSD, which has already been spoken about, is the most common psychological illness. We have already debated in this place the first tranche of reform that has been proposed by the government around medically retired police officers, which was passed unanimously in this place. We talked about the problems with the previous process in that it was profoundly unfair that police officers who had experienced a workplace injury were lumped in with police officers who were dishonest, criminal, corrupt or incompetent. But, as I say, it was agreed by the house, as a whole, that that needed to be reformed and I am pleased that has occurred. As members have already said, and as was said during the passage of that piece of legislation, although it is good that those gaps have been addressed, we need an adequate compensation scheme for police officers who can no longer work on the front line. The current situation is grossly unfair; the compensation that is currently available is inadequate and inconsistent, and Western Australia lags behind other states. This issue has dragged on for too long and needs to be addressed. We have had commitments that it will be addressed, and I commend the Western Australian Police Union for its advocacy. No-one denies that police officers do a difficult and challenging job, and deserve appropriate compensation and support. During the course of this debate, members have talked about various measures that have been or need to be employed in order to ensure a higher degree of safety for our frontline police officers. Some members have spoken about legal reforms. I am deadset opposed to mandatory sentencing for assaults on public officers. I think mandatory sentencing is terrible and can capture people whose circumstances demand that discretion be applied— most notably, those who are mentally impaired at the time of committing an offence. Other issues have been raised as well, but one thing I wanted to put out there is a terrific initiative that I think needs to be remembered and expanded—that is, the police co-response mental health initiative, which was begun as a trial by the previous government. It was found to be enormously successful, so this government has chosen to begin its expansion. It needs to be expanded statewide. Police are very often the first people who are called when someone is experiencing a psychotic episode or may be drug affected. The situation is often very unclear. Those people can be violent, but are not culpable for their behaviour. This program enables mental health professionals to attend scenes in parts of the metropolitan area with police officers to try to de-escalate situations. It is a fantastic initiative and has been highly successful. Police officers are less likely to be assaulted because people are getting mental health support immediately and the officers are also trained in de-escalation techniques. The program has resulted in better outcomes for people with mental illness themselves. We need to look at that sort of initiative and the sorts of things that can lead to assaults against police officers. There are always going to be some awful people who just want to hit cops. That needs to be addressed and those people need to be held to account. But we also have to remember that the nature of the job we expect from our frontline police officers is that they have to deal with very vulnerable people. Therefore, we need to look at appropriate ways to assist police officers to best do their job, because they are trying to keep the community safe, which includes the vulnerable people themselves. I could talk about things such as body armour and cameras, but they have been canvassed by other members. I wanted to draw members’ attention to other initiatives that we need to expand. HON PIERRE YANG (South Metropolitan) [11.43 am]: I wish to contribute to this motion. Like all members in this place, I have the highest respect for our hardworking police officers. Although I have never worked in the police force, I have served with many people who are police officers by day, but are army reservists on Tuesday nights and weekends. Our police officers are hardworking, dedicated and professional people. I have lived in Western Australia for 20 years and my interactions with members of the police force have been overwhelmingly positive. I just wish to go through a few personal examples. In 2000, I remember going to Northbridge for a meal. On my way back, I passed the Perth train station and I saw two police officers apprehending a male teenager. They showed great restraint. Obviously, the teenage boy resisted arrest, so they had to apply force. There was one male officer and one female officer. The teenage boy was accompanied by a teenage girl, who was screaming at the officers and throwing punches at, if I remember correctly, the male officer. The male officer showed great restraint and professionalism and focused on the job. The professionalism demonstrated by the officer was tremendous. The teenage girl had no respect. It was a disgraceful act for her to attack the police officers, who were trying to do their job. On another occasion in the early 2000s, I had driven my 25-year-old Ford Fairlane, the battery of which routinely failed, to a small shopping centre and the bloody battery failed again! Luckily, there was a police van parked

5866 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] next to my car. I approached the officers and asked them whether they could help, and they happily helped me to jump-start my car. I felt that it was very heartwarming that our police officers were willing to lend assistance when I requested it. Police officers come from the general public, but they are special people. They put their duties first. They put the interests and safety of the general public ahead of their own safety and wellbeing, and they deserve our respect. Turning to the motion, my understanding is that the government is negotiating in good faith. I have listened to members’ contributions and I wish to say a few things. Hon Michael Mischin, who is away on urgent parliamentary business, remarked that there had been a change of leadership in the WA Police Union. Yes, there has been a change of leadership in the police union, but opposition to the offers made by the previous Liberal–National government has not changed. I just wanted to put that on the record. My understanding is that the government is negotiating in good faith on the Government Regional Officers’ Housing scheme and, as part of that negotiation, the government has offered to extend the existing temporary freeze on GROH rents for two years. I am aware that remarks have been made about sick leave. There is no evidence to suggest that more police officers are calling in sick. Although police officers can access up to 168 days personal leave a year, generally they do not take more sick leave than do other public sector employees. I also heard a comment about body-worn cameras being used by police officers as a deterrent to assault. It is important to acknowledge the deterrence factor. If a person assaulted a police officer, knowing that there would be no video evidence, it would be his or her word against the police officer’s word. If we compare that scenario with a different scenario in which the police officer has a body-worn camera that records all interactions of that encounter, whatever that person does to the officer would be recorded. Such a recording can be used as evidence in a court of law should any assault be made against a police officer. That creates a change of mindset and that is the deterrence. Of course, that creates a deterrent and also creates that factor of protection for our hardworking and dedicated police officers. Body armour and body-worn cameras are the latest initiatives introduced by the government to protect our police officers. I heard remarks about helmets. I think it was rather disingenuous to throw that comment into the debate. It is important to find the balance for the protection of our police officers and at the same time create that deterrence for people who commit assault against police officers. I think the balance is right at this time. Do we really want to see police officers wearing helmets when they patrol the streets? I found that comment quite extraordinary. I understand that the government is aiming to come to an agreement with the police union. I know for a fact that negotiations are at the conciliation stage. The government would like to reach an agreement rather than go to arbitration. As any party to a negotiation in scenarios like this, the police union is entitled to seek arbitration. Arbitration has been part of Australia’s industrial relations practice since 1904. The police are definitely entitled. The government is entering this negotiation in good faith and is hoping to reach an agreement. Bargaining is a two-way process. It is the government’s hope that the union will look at the offers and come to an agreement. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. REGIONAL PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Motion HON LAURIE GRAHAM (Agricultural) [11.54 am] — without notice: I move — That this house acknowledges the range of projects and programs being successfully delivered by the McGowan government across regional Western Australia and the positive impact they are having on regional communities and economies. I am pleased to move this motion in support of services that the McGowan Labor government is delivering in regional WA. From time to time I hear much criticism from the opposition about the way we are delivering those services. I find it strange that it rarely takes the opportunity to acknowledge the benefits that regional WA has received from new and improved services and infrastructure that has been rolled out in the state by this government. Before moving to the specifics, I would like to acknowledge Hon Alannah MacTiernan in her role as Minister for Regional Development; Agriculture and Food; Ports. She has committed herself fully to this role, and many country people acknowledge the fantastic job she is doing for regional Western Australia in those portfolios. The Premier, and ministers Hon Rita Saffioti, Hon Roger Cook, Hon Stephen Dawson, Hon Sue Ellery and Hon Bill Johnston, to name but a few, are also supporters of regional WA, and always look at ways to better deliver services in the regions. I know some of my colleagues will be contributing to this debate, and I will therefore concentrate mainly on the Agricultural Region. At the time of my election, I was led to believe that planning by the previous government was well underway for the delivery of a new hospital for the midwest. I was of the view that the Labor commitment of $45 million for the new emergency department and mental health beds was a good one, but became concerned

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5867 when I learnt that over $70 million was required for the initial stage. I was pleasantly surprised when the Minister for Health committed the additional funding in the forward estimates in the 2019–20 budget. It was a shock to find that, despite the commitments of well over $100 million for a new hospital during the 2017 election, the Barnett Liberal–National government had not allocated funds in the budget towards this project. There was not even any planning money in the forward estimates. I am pleased to report that plans for stage 1 of the hospital upgrade are nearing completion. The initial contracts will centre on new car parking and relocating services next year to allow the current emergency department facilities to continue to operate whilst the new ED is being built. It is a great opportunity for regional contractors to be involved, with the smaller packages being the core of these tenders. Initial plans provide for the integration of a St John of God hospital on the site, should St John of God wish to relocate. The operating model could be similar to that in place for Bunbury. With only two private hospitals in regional WA, it is important that the opportunity is available to St John of God at the regional hospital site, should it wish to relocate in the future. This needs to be planned in the next phase in more detail. Whilst on the subject of health, I wish to acknowledge the forward commitment made by the former government to upgrade country hospitals in the wheatbelt, including Northam and Merredin, and the decision by the McGowan Labor government to continue the funding in the forward estimates. These have delivered much improved health services for the regions, which country people really appreciate. Moving on to the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, the budget for 2019–20 provided $131 million additional expenditure to support agriculture in WA, to grow export markets and create long-term jobs, including $40 million towards boosting biosecurity defences, Asian market success, and grains research and development support programs. This is on top of $45 million for the grains research and development program in the 2018–19 budget. There are some who are disappointed that the machinery-of-government changes have taken so long to roll out, but the rejuvenation of the agricultural section of DPIRD has had a significant impact on employment in regional WA. I will read from the 2019–20 budget papers. A total of $275 million has been allocated for the Bindoon bypass along Great Northern Highway; $18 million to upgrade the Great Eastern Highway near Southern Cross; $87.5 million for the wheatbelt secondary freight route; $40 million to upgrade the Coolgardie–Esperance Highway; and $7 million to build a state-of-the-art marine finfish nursery in Geraldton. I will talk more about that later. A total of $6.9 million has been allocated to upgrade shed 4 at the port of Esperance; $23.5 million for a range of upgrades to regional ports, including Bunbury, Esperance and Geraldton; and $3.6 million to upgrade firefighting infrastructure at the port of Geraldton. These are all great projects for regional jobs and growth in the region. On the subject of driving growth and job creation in the region, the budget includes $45 million for the employer initiative scheme in regional Western Australia, which will help employers who choose to employ more apprentices and trainees. The budget also includes $19.9 million for the extension of regional arts and cultural investment; $2 million for the establishment of the national park in the Helena and Aurora Ranges; $10 million for the business centre and operations at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, which I will talk more about later; $7 million to build a state-of-the-art marine finfish facility in Geraldton; and $24.1 million ongoing funding for WA Open for Business. I know that many regional businesses have taken the opportunity to access this funding. In addition to those, the midwest has been allocated a step-up, step-down mental health facility, and although it has been used in this house as a political football from time to time, planning is well underway and the government will deliver a new mental health facility for people in Geraldton and the midwest by 2021. A total of $6.5 million has being spent to help complete the much needed upgrade of the Geraldton Airport runway. Although Virgin has recently withdrawn from the service, Qantas has scheduled extra services and its loadings have increased, which should offset the passenger loss from Virgin’s withdrawal. The disappointing factor is that Qantas has taken the opportunity to leverage its airfares. I noticed that my airfares have gone up by about $80 per service, which is disappointing, and we have heard about people being charged $700 return to Geraldton at short-term notice, which is a very disappointing development. Pressure will need to be brought to bear on Qantas and others to try to increase the number of tickets. Despite that, this is great news for tourism. We have seen a huge increase in the number of international tourists coming to visit areas such as the Pink Lake, the Houtman Abrolhos Islands and places such as the Kalbarri gorge. We must be doing something right in Geraldton, as it is busier than it has been in recent years. Finding a car park in the CBD between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm has been most difficult, and the number of people shopping on Marine Terrace has increased markedly—certainly not to the levels of the old days, but something must be in the water in Geraldton because people believe that we have turned a corner. Investment in amenities, interpretation information and services for tourists at Kalbarri National Park is being rolled out. A tender has been awarded for the skywalk construction and completion of the world-class Kalbarri Skywalk project is one step closer, with the contract to construct the two skywalks having been awarded. This is a $20 million project, and I acknowledge that it was an initiative of the previous government that the Labor government has seen fit to continue. Kalbarri National Park continues to be a very popular destination for tourists with visits increased by almost 100 000 over the past five years, from 306 000 in 2013–14 to 400 000 in 2017–18. That is a very

5868 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] significant increase. The Houtman Abrolhos Islands are now a national park, with a $10 million investment in infrastructure on the islands for tourists, fisheries and government departments. There are also new funds in the budget of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions to manage these beautiful natural resources in the future. On Thursday, 25 July 2019, the Premier formally announced this project. I know that it had been announced a number of times, but it was great to be present at this announcement, at which a large contingent from the midwest and visitors from Perth were in attendance. They welcomed the announced by the government. Midwest tourism, conservation and heritage will benefit from the new Houtman Abrolhos Islands National Park, which is the first park to be created under our parks initiative. The $10 million invested in the national park will go a long way towards achieving this outcome. It was significant that the formal announcement of its creation was made in Geraldton at the time of the 400th anniversary of the European sighting of the islands by Dutch explorer Frederik de Houtman. There is great interest in how that name is pronounced, because I have heard it pronounced several ways. I will pronounce it “hootman” today. The islands were the site of a mutiny. They have been a popular destination for fishing and nature appreciation. The decision to invest in this area will open it up to much greater tourist activities. Over the next two years, the government will construct new jetties, toilets, shade shelters, trail walks and visitor interpretation signs on West Wallabi and Beacon Islands. The airstrip on East Wallabi Island will also be upgraded. It is great that the airstrip will now stay within the national park. Originally, it was believed that it would become part of the fishing lease area, but it is now in the national park. That is a great outcome. I will move on to a few other matters in this area: recycling and the decision to enter the national scheme. I will talk about regional centres, because this decision will obviously produce plenty of jobs. I was at a forum last week at which a public presentation was made about the business opportunities for recycling. I was pleased to see the enthusiasm with which a number of people contributed to that discussion. A number of people travelled large distances to participate. People came from the very small communities within a radius of a couple of hundred kilometres of Geraldton to contribute. If there are 20 000 people in a major regional centre, they will get the opportunity to have a facility. In the outer areas, there will be flexible facilities as long as there are 500 people in the area. I believe regional WA is well placed to gain from the improved services and infrastructure that are being rolled out. I commend the motion to the house. HON KYLE McGINN (Mining and Pastoral) [12.08 pm]: I thank Hon Laurie Graham for bringing this motion to the house. There is nothing I love more than to be able to talk up the beautiful electorate I represent, the Mining and Pastoral Region. It has been busy since 2017. Going off the motion Hon Laurie Graham has brought to the house, we are acknowledging the range of projects that have been successfully delivered by the McGowan government across regional Western Australia. I will focus on Kalgoorlie and the goldfields region because that is where I spend most of my time. It is a great part of Western Australia and has come a long way in two years. My office has worked very hard to ensure that we are out there, visible and delivering on the commitments that the government made at the 2017 election and the many other things that have popped up. I believe that the government is doing a good job to deliver what it set out to deliver. One of the great things about these local projects is that many local people are heavily involved in them. Community groups, government departments and people on the ground make this work possible. I think that that also happens at a bigger level in Western Australia, because a lot of small projects end up having a huge impact on small communities. I acknowledge the amazing work Hon Alannah MacTiernan has done in regional Western Australia. It is well acknowledged in Kalgoorlie that she is one of the hardest working ministers. She is always in Kalgoorlie, like she is everywhere else in Western Australia. She gets out there and gets the job done. One key project that kicked this off for me was the dog fence. Before I got into Parliament, a dog fence was not something that I had ever inquired into. Being from the maritime side of things, it was a new thing for me to talk about a dog fence. But I learnt quickly that pastoralists across my region had been upset for many years about the lack of investment in, lack of care for, lack of understanding of, lack of consultation on and lack of pretty much anything to do with a dog fence. This had affected sheep stocks in particular and a lot of other pastoral-type situations. The Minister for Regional Development was very quick to get up and running on the issue and held a wild dog forum, which I was honoured to attend. It brought together people from right across the regions who got to work very quickly. One successful project that benefited from the pool of funds the minister made available is the dog fence in Kalgoorlie, which received $2 million, and not too long ago, I was happy to be with the minister to see a section of the Kalgoorlie Pastoral Alliance cell fence get underway. A lot of things about this project go to the heart of how the McGowan government approaches such projects. It makes sure that there is local content, local providers and local procurement, and that everyone from the local area gets a go at that project. Local rangers did excellent work to remove the old fence, which was quite a job, and to clear the area the fence was to go through. Local contractors did the work. Some of the fence work in Southern Cross was done by a local Aboriginal contractor. These projects have been beneficial for small local businesses and give credibility to the organisations involved. Small local businesses are able to compete for state government work that will be done locally. I think is a really great thing that they have been able to capitalise on these local projects in their region.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5869

Another great project we are full steam ahead on is Aboriginal ranger programs. These programs are amazing. Recently, I had the honour of attending the Southern Desert Ranger Forum with my electorate officer, George Foulkes-Taylor. We went out to Lorna Glen conservation reserve, which was amazing to say the very least. It was a great experience to be there with more than 120 rangers from around the state. There were also some from South Australia and the Northern Territory. They all came in their four-wheel drives, with their swags in the back, ready to go. We brought our swags along and were able to roll them out and sleep under the stars for the night. It was great to see their expertise and learn about their culture, and everything else that goes into land management and horticulture. It makes me proud to know that our investment is having a really positive outcome. Whilst we were there the kids from the school in Wiluna came out on the bus. It was just amazing! They got off the bus, yelling and screaming, and went over to the rangers, who started to explain to them why they were out there and what they were doing. TAFE was there and the work that was being done was going towards some people’s certification. Different services were taking advantage of this great initiative. The government has invested $18.7 million in Aboriginal ranger programs alone. I think that is a huge success, and we need to continue to drive these types of projects. There are rangers in Wiluna, out in Norseman and in the Central Desert—they are everywhere. I think they are doing a fabulous job getting connection between departments and people who have thousands of years of history with the land we are on. The type of expertise they provide cannot be just bought; it has to be allowed to foster and grow. I think the ranger program will continue to be great moving forward into the future. I do not have much time. There are many great projects and I get a bit passionate about them. We opened a great one the other day. I was with the Minister for Transport, Rita Saffioti, when we launched one of our election commitments, that being the road section between Anzac Drive and Gatacre Drive. I knew I would stuff up the pronunciation of “Gatacre” because I got it wrong on the day! It is a really dangerous section of road coming off Great Eastern Highway and heading into Kalgoorlie. Hon Alanna Clohesy interjected. Hon KYLE McGINN: Yes, I did bugger that one up, but we will move on! A lot of truckies and businesses—everyone—are really excited about that project. It is underway. Main Roads has done a lot of work to get it to where it is and I think it is going to be pretty good going into the future. We also have $160 000 allocated to the Aboriginal mining academy, which Carey Mining is going to run. This is critical, because we always ask mining companies about how much Aboriginal employment they have. I have seen across different industries how hard it is and how sometimes not enough effort is put into ensuring that the right things are being done, such as pre-employment, medical tests and all the other stuff that needs to be take place. There are challenges, particularly in Indigenous communities, with things such as drivers’ licences and criminal records due to not paying fines—stuff that needs to be navigated through. Some companies just do not bother doing it and say it is too hard. Do not get me wrong; some other companies do a good job. Carey Mining originally came from Tropicana just through becoming a contractor. It is now massive. Daniel Tucker is doing a great job there trying to get together an academy where Aboriginal people in the area can train and be placed into mining companies. It is a really, really good scheme. It is $160 000 very well spent. We also have $11.7 million for two family and domestic violence hubs. One of them will be in Kalgoorlie. It was very well accepted by the community. Domestic violence is not to be tolerated or accepted in the community and it needs to be addressed. This community hub is going to give more opportunities to people to get the services they require collaboratively in one hit, rather than having to go to different services. The services in Kalgoorlie at the moment do a fabulous job in ensuring that community members are being looked after. It has been a very busy two years and there is a lot more I could go through, but I am running out of time. One thing I want to announce is that I am very happy that we have had ministers come and go through the region flat out since 2017. The Premier has been out there, as has the deputy Premier. Hon Alannah MacTiernan is always out there. We have a community cabinet coming up very shortly and all the ministers will be coming out to see some of the great projects we have been doing and announce where we are heading. As we have always done since we got into power, we will give the opportunity to community members in the goldfields region to have a direct voice here in Parliament. Regional WA is in a great position. I believe that the McGowan government is doing an awesome job in regional Western Australia and we will continue to do that whilst we are here in government. HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [12.18 pm]: I thank Hon Laurie Graham and Hon Kyle McGinn for bringing forward this motion and speaking about the really important work we are doing in regional Western Australia. We went into the election with around $800 million worth of commitments for regional Western Australia, and we are well and truly on target to deliver those. In addition, since we have been in government we have over time seen new needs and opportunities emerge, and we are certainly not confined only to our election commitments in regional Western Australia. Hon Laurie Graham spoke very well and he and Hon Darren West are really putting in a particular effort for the midwest. They have spoken about the investments that the government has made, and we have great optimism about that region. As has been mentioned, we have made a really important commitment of $10 million for the Abrolhos marine park, which will be very important. Very early on in the piece we committed $6 million for an airport upgrade at

5870 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Geraldton and we are working very closely with the Mid West Ports Authority and the Mid West Development Commission to see how we can open up many more opportunities throughout that region—just as we did last time we were in government, through our very strategic investments in the Geraldton port and the southern transport corridor. We also opened up the iron ore industry and cut costs for the grain industry. I want to run through a few other things. We made a commitment of some $15.3 million for the upgrade of infrastructure and dredging at Broome port to enable large cruise vessels to reliably get in there. Broome is absolutely a tourism destination of choice for cruise vessels, and cruise vessel operators have for some time very much wanted reliable access to that port, but access has not always been possible due to the depth of the harbour, and that has proved to be difficult. We have committed $15.3 million to a dredging project and I believe that is due to start very shortly. That project will drive tourism in that region. We are also working to provide a sealed road on the Dampier peninsula, and we are working with Indigenous communities, in great detail and with great care, to ensure that Aboriginal communities on the Dampier peninsula road will be protected and well placed to gain benefits from the tourism that will be opened up as a result of developing that road. To flick down to the Pilbara, I turn now to the Karratha–Tom Price road. We completed the first two stages last time we were in government. In the eight and a half years of the Barnett government, not a single cent was spent on that road; it was absolutely bizarre. This was at a time when the Pilbara was providing funding for this state, yet the previous government would not move on that road. I am pleased to say that the government is now working with and putting pressure on the federal government for this road project, and we have secured funding for it. Interestingly, we also have funding—part state, part commonwealth—for a really important road around Browns Range to enable a dysprosium mine. I note that an article on the front page of today’s The West Australian talks about strategic minerals. The dysprosium, praseodymium and neodymium mine up in Browns Range is a fantastic case in point of a site at which there are these rare earth elements. Through the support we are giving the fantastic company Northern Minerals, it has been able to get its pilot plant and processing facility up and running, and hopefully now will move forward to the next stage. We are also committed to the Port Hedland marina. We have been working with Kevin Michel and have brought the community along with us to deliver this facility. This facility in Port Hedland has been dreamed about and talked about for at least 25 years. This facility will greatly elevate the amenity of Port Hedland, which the community deserves for the contribution that area has made to the wealth of this state. This facility was promised by the Barnett government in both the 2013 and 2017 elections. However, between 2013 and 2017, virtually nothing happened. There was certainly no detailed planning. In the two years in which we have been in office, our government has knuckled down and done the work, and under the guidance of Brendan Hammond, chair of the Pilbara Development Commission, together with Kevin Michel, we have been able to bring this project to the point at which we are optimistic that the physical construction of the marina will get underway next year. I have only a few minutes left, but I want to talk about some of the issues raised by Hon Kyle McGinn. A properly trained and resourced local procurement officer is now located in each development commission, and working with a local procurement team within the Department of Regional Development, to ensure that we take advantage of every opportunity. I want to give an example of how it is possible to leverage off an opportunity. The government decided, as part of the wild dog action plan, that it would undertake a $5 million renovation of the existing state barrier fence. We wanted to give Aboriginal communities in the regions an opportunity to participate in this significant state government investment, so we called together all the Aboriginal businesses along the existing dog fence, from the north of the state down to the east, and put to them that $5 million was available over the next four years if they wanted to tender for this work, and set out a process by which that would happen. I have to say that Hon Kyle McGinn and I have seen the most amazing success stories. Linny Forrest in Southern Cross, and a group of young men who have come out of prison, have completed their 27 kilometres of fence. Grant Simpson and his team, including the notable “Mangoes” Mongoo, have completed their first 51 kilometres at Yalgoo and are now taking up further projects. Michael Hayden and his group further south have successfully completed their work. A project that was designed to help farmers and pastoralists deal with the problem of wild dogs has enabled local Aboriginal communities to train guys to run their own fencing business, and hopefully with a bit more training on the business side, that will be an ongoing asset and resource for those communities. We are trying very hard to ensure that every dollar we spend in the regions is leveraged and that we provide the broadest possible opportunities. I thank members for raising these issues today. We are very proud of the work we are doing in regional Western Australia. HON DR SALLY TALBOT (South West) [12.28 pm]: I want to speak very strongly in favour of this motion, and I thank Hon Laurie Graham for bringing it to this place. There will be a bit of a battle between the regional members on this side of the house to get the call today, because we all have a lot to say about this matter. I met Hon Laurie Graham only when he became a member of Parliament and came into this place, he being from the north of the state and me being from the south. I know him to be a very polite and courteous man. He showed that at the beginning of his comments when he said that he was surprised at hearing some of the negative commentary from members opposite about the extent of support and the number of resources that this McGowan Labor

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5871 government is putting into the regions. I am not as polite as Hon Laurie Graham and I say that the peddling of lies and mistruths about this government’s spending in the regions is appalling; it is absolutely disgraceful. To members opposite who do not feel themselves constrained to tell the truth when they speak in their electorates, I repeat the distinctly unparliamentary words of former Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard who, when addressing the National Press Club, was asked for her advice to people in the community who were talking about things that were not true. She said, “Don’t write crap.” She went on to say, “If you do, retract it and correct the record.” I say that to all the Liberal and National Party members and the crossbenchers sitting opposite who go into the regions and talk about Labor’s level of spending on resources and projects, because it is simply not true. I am very pleased to have the opportunity today, in the limited time available, to very quickly put some of those issues on the record. I also want to make some other comments about the approach that this government has taken to funding the regions. Although I will not spend more than half a minute talking about the past, the baton that Hon Alannah MacTiernan picked up when she became Minister for Regional Development in 2017 was a very grubby, small baton that had been used for all kinds of nefarious purposes for eight and a half years. The whole royalties for regions program was teetering on the brink of disaster, as the Langoulant report showed graphically in Mr Langoulant’s comments about the way royalties for regions funding was organised throughout the state. Indeed, I have made the point in this place several times before that I have heard many off-the-record comments from people in the South West Region that there was pressure from the previous government to dig around and find projects because the envelope of money was sitting there, waiting to be spent. That was not good enough. It was a real challenge for Hon Alannah MacTiernan, and one that she above anybody else I have seen in that portfolio was capable of picking up and running with and fixing, and she has indeed done that. When my regional colleagues talk about the high regard the community has for Hon Alannah MacTiernan’s work, I can only concur and say that it is breathtaking on occasions. I always used to say that I dreaded sharing a platform with Hon David Templeman, because he was always a very hard man to follow to the microphone, but now I have to say the same thing about Hon Alannah MacTiernan, because she is — Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Because she won’t give it to you. Hon Dr SALLY TALBOT: It is hard to get it from her; that is absolutely true. I thank Hon Matthew Swinbourn for that comment. I would not have said that myself, of course. A few years ago when I was at a big celebration in Albany for the Centenary of Anzac, I was following Hon Alannah MacTiernan as she walked down the main street, and thousands of people who were in Albany that day were chanting her name. It was a bit daunting to be the local member for that region. I am pleased to say that that respect and support for her has only grown since she has been in this job. I want to give one small example of that from where I live, in Denmark, on the south coast. We found ourselves in a very difficult position a few years ago when a number of good projects that had received funding from the previous government could not, for various reasons that I do not have time to go into now, meet their time lines. I was on the phone to Hon Alannah MacTiernan within hours of her being given the regional development portfolio to talk to her about ways in which we might help the local community to make the very best of the funds that it had been given. Those of us who have spent time in government know that reallocating government resources can sometimes be one of the toughest tasks we are asked to do. Trying to reallocate funds is very, very difficult once a project has been assessed and funding given. But Hon Alannah MacTiernan took on that task and has managed to deliver for the Denmark community, grounded as it is in providing for not only its local community—its residents—but also the huge tourist population that descends on Denmark only two or three times a year and puts enormous stress on local capacities. Hon Alannah MacTiernan has made sure that the Denmark community is very well resourced to handle the expansion of tourism over the next decade or so. The money that she has put into developing the Greens Pool and Elephant Rocks areas in William Bay National Park in particular has been absolutely stunning. I know that Hon Stephen Dawson is one of the people who has helped to facilitate the improvements in William Bay National Park and I thank him for that. Having ministers in the Labor government’s cabinet who are regional members, such as Hon Stephen Dawson and Hon Mick Murray, has been of inestimable value to regional members such as me. We know that the voice of regional Western Australia is heard loud and clear around the cabinet table and that is one reason why one of the longest media statements members will see from the last two budgets has been made by Hon Alannah MacTiernan talking about funding for regional Western Australia. It is a very impressive document. I have a couple of statements here that I will draw on very briefly to conclude my comments. The reality is that the McGowan Labor government’s 2019–20 state budget includes $4.2 billion in royalties for regions funding across regional Western Australia over the next four years. An amount of $5.6 billion will be invested in regional infrastructure over the next four years. A large part of that will go into the great southern in the South West Region. It would be extremely remiss of me not to pay tribute to the local Labor members in that area, with Don Punch as the member for Bunbury; Mick Murray continuing his work in Collie–Preston; Peter Watson continuing the great work he has done in Albany; Robyn Clarke in Murray–Wellington; and David Templeman. Having five Labor lower house members in my electorate of South West Region results in budget papers containing pages and pages of spending commitments in those regions. Those local members have fought tooth and nail to get that funding to deliver on the priorities that they understand their local community needs. I take my hat off to each and every one of them for the way in which they have been able to deliver for their local area.

5872 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

In the very short time that remains, I want to acknowledge two other programs that perhaps will not be mentioned by my colleagues in this place because the lists are so long. I want to make particular comment about the regional local content initiative. It is one of my passions. It not only promotes the idea of local content, but also adds substance to the idea, so that every regional and metropolitan member of both houses understands what a significant contribution and a stupendous difference a genuine commitment to local content—getting things made and fixed by people who live near those projects—makes to a local community. Hand in hand with that regional local content initiative is the regional traineeship program in which 45 organisations have already been funded to deliver traineeship programs on the ground locally in small country communities throughout regional Western Australia. A number of them are in the south west. In the current budget year, we have $2 million to encourage young people to stay in their communities while they retrain and skill up. HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.38 pm]: I, too, would like to acknowledge and congratulate Hon Laurie Graham on the high-quality motion that he has brought to the house today. We want to talk about the positive impact that our government is having on regional Western Australia, which probably explains why no opposition members have spoken on this motion. It is a positive motion that talks about positive things, and all we have heard from the opposition over the last two years is whingeing, complaining and negativity about the regions. I am over it and I think regional Western Australians are as well. We are going to talk up the regions during the time allocated for this motion, and I thank the honourable member for bringing it forward. In 2017, we were elected with the most regional members of any party in the Parliament, and that has enabled us to address a lot of the issues we found in regional Western Australia. Although I acknowledge that the previous government spent a lot of money, it was predominantly on low-hanging fruit and vote-buying projects. None of the really heavy issues were addressed during those eight and a half years of the Barnett Liberal–National government. I am proud to say that our government is getting on with things. We are getting on with looking for real work and real business opportunities for Aboriginal people in the regions. That is tracking along particularly well. We have an outstanding Minister for Regional Development—one of the most revered in the Parliament, known by her first name all across the state. She has a great reputation for getting things done and getting on with it. Hon Alanna Clohesy: It is a well-earned reputation. Hon DARREN WEST: Absolutely—that reputation is not just given; it has to be earned. Minister MacTiernan has done a fantastic job living up to that reputation right across regional Western Australia. Again, I point out the contrast between the positivity of Minister MacTiernan and the negativity, whining and talking down of the regions by members opposite. It is plain for all to see, and I think regional Western Australia is really starting to respond to the positivity shown towards regional areas by this government. I think the worst is over in the regions. Things were dire when we came into government, but the worst is over. There are some legacy projects that I am particularly proud of. Finally, the upgrade of the Geraldton Health Campus is happening under Labor. That $70 million upgrade will fix all the immediate issues and address some of the issues that have been hanging around for many years in Geraldton. We are also upgrading hospitals in Northam and Merredin. Health is a very important issue for us in regional Western Australia. We know that there are challenges in delivering health services, but new infrastructure helps to address those challenges. We are rebuilding the agricultural research capability in Western Australia. It was gutted by the previous government, with the halving of the number of staff in the then Department of Agriculture and Food, and research was the biggest casualty of that. We are rebuilding the agricultural research capacity of the department and the government. Hon Martin Aldridge interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Robin Chapple): Order! Hon DARREN WEST: There is a very direct and tangible link between investment by government in agricultural research and increased productivity. That has been clearly demonstrated in Germany and Brazil. It is still a mystery to me why the previous government gutted the research capacity of the former Department of Agriculture and Food. I still do not know why that happened, but we are rebuilding that agricultural research capacity with a $45 million cash injection. I know that researchers right across the state are delighted that they can now go and do what they are passionate about, and find better ways forward for us, as we deal with the very real issue of climate change across our marginal agricultural areas. I am not using that word unfairly, but I think that, compared with the rest of the world, our climate and farming systems are marginal, and we need to find new and innovative ways to compete with places such as the Black Sea states, Europe and America. We will do that because we are rebuilding the agricultural capacity of the department. We are delivering high-speed, enterprise-grade broadband. This is a great legacy project. Long after the McGowan government ceases to exist, this project will remain. We are delivering broadband speeds to farmers in the midwest, but soon spreading to other areas, six times what is required to run Netflix. I live in the regions — Hon Martin Aldridge: Tell us about Twitter.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5873

Hon DARREN WEST: Is it not interesting that, while I am talking about positive things — Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Can the member resume his seat for a minute? The interjections are getting ferocious. I do not particularly appreciate that, and I am sure Hansard does not. Hon DARREN WEST: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I will make the point on that interjection that this demonstrates very clearly to everyone listening or reading today’s Hansard that while this government is focused on developing the state of Western Australia for the future, the National Party is concerned about my Twitter account. That shows the very real and tangible difference between the Nationals and the McGowan government, which is working to address issues with broadband, trying to prevent wild dog attacks and rebuild our sheep flocks, building new hospitals, delivering education assistants back into schools, running a genuine local content program, promoting Aboriginal ranger projects, creating more national parks and rebuilding our road network, and what is the National Party focused on? The National Party is focused on a Twitter account that I closed a year ago. I encourage the National Party to keep focused on my Twitter account and to stay fascinated by my social media accounts because while its members are doing that, they are not engaging with the people in their electorates. We are engaging with the people in our electorates. We are working for them and rebuilding the regions after the Nationals’ eight and a half years of seeing nothing in the regions but low-hanging fruit. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members, order! Hon Darren West is inviting interjections. I do not think that is beneficial to the contribution he is making. Hon DARREN WEST: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I shall take your sage advice and stop inviting interjections. I talked about our Local Projects, Local Jobs program. The biggest criticism I used to get from business groups about governments was that there was a local content policy but no government actually implemented it—until the McGowan government took office. Now we are actively changing the scope of projects such as the Geraldton hospital project so that we can extend those time lines to actively engage with local businesses and workers to help build local projects. It should not be something seen as a bit out there; it should be obvious. However, in the last eight years of the Barnett Liberal–National government, it spent 16 per cent of royalties for regions money on tenders awarded to regional companies. That is a disgrace—16 per cent. The big benefit from these projects is getting local jobs and local employment and encouraging people back to the regions. That is what we are doing. While the opposition complains and talks the regions down and discourages people from moving to the regions, this government is doing exactly the opposite. The government’s local content program is working particularly well and getting people to move out of the metropolitan area and into the regions. We are one of the most urbanised jurisdictions anywhere at about 78 per cent, I believe. We want to get some of those people to move back to the regions, and to do that we need to create employment opportunities for them. That is what our government is about. The work on the Geraldton hospital will be broken down into small contracts that will enable local businesses— there are some fantastic local businesses and workers in Geraldton—to build that hospital. I am particularly proud of that. We are rebuilding the tourism industry, which was decimated under the previous government. We are establishing direct flights from overseas destinations. We are working on reducing the cost of airfares in the regions, and that has been particularly successful for Karratha, Broome, Esperance and Albany. We are working also on a solution for Geraldton. As a government, we are working on bringing down the cost of regional airfares and attracting people to visit the regions and spend some money. Local residents also appreciate the work that we are doing to lower airfares. We have a lot to be proud of. It is a very positive government and we are doing some very positive things in the regions. I say to the opposition: think it, but do not say it. If members opposite do not have anything positive to say about regional Western Australia, they should not say anything. The government is trying to talk up the regions and encourage people to live there. We are all getting a bit tired of the whingeing and negativity from the other side of the house. Members of the rural media are also villains in this because they are very quick to write up their press releases and articles as stories when they are not actually stories and a lot of it is not even true. This government is having a positive effect on regional Western Australia. I thank Hon Laurie Graham for his very good motion. He is a great colleague in the agricultural regions. Let us talk up the regions and get on with it. HON LAURIE GRAHAM (Agricultural) [12.49 pm] — in reply: I would like to acknowledge the contributions made by my colleagues Hon Kyle McGinn, Minister MacTiernan, Hon Dr Sally Talbot and Hon Darren West. They touched on a number of issues, some of which were sensitive to people because I certainly did not hear the same level of interjection during my comments. These are all real problems that are in regional WA when people talk it down. I would especially like to acknowledge Hon Kyle McGinn’s contribution on the dog fence and the Aboriginal ranger program. These projects have delivered significant employment opportunities for people in the

5874 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] regions and for the Aboriginal community, in particular. That employment is very welcome in those regions, and, as pointed out by Minister MacTiernan, the skills that they will learn as a result of those opportunities will have an ongoing legacy. Minister MacTiernan talked about local procurement, of which there did not seem to be much in the past. Hon Darren West briefly touched on the matter of what the percentage will be in the future, and I am sure that the role of those officers in getting within the region and being very active with contracts will have a significant impact. The local procurement facilitators have helped increase the local people’s understanding of the tender process. More and more people are interested in getting on the register and trying to upgrade themselves so they can tender at the next scale up from their current position on the list. Hon Dr Sally Talbot and Hon Darren West sent a very strong message: we need to talk up the regions. Hon Dr Sally Talbot stated that $4.2 billion in royalties for regions funding and $5.6 billion in contracts are being rolled out in regional WA over four years. This is a significant increase in regional expenditure. From time to time, we bicker about what should be inside and what should be outside the RforR cap, but on our side we have focused on servicing regional WA, and which pot of money it comes from really does not matter as long as the intent of that fund is met. One other issue that was not touched on was the Outback Way, which is a very good initiative. I know people are trying to be involved in the contract for stage 1, which is about 40 kilometres of the low-grade bitumen road that will be initially built. Using Aboriginal and local employment is a key factor in that contract, and that will be a tremendous boost to the regions. I ran out of time during my first contribution, so I missed acknowledging Hon Mick Murray and Hon David Templeman, who are passionate supporters of the midwest region and regional WA. They are tremendous to have within cabinet and are supportive members. Services have been rolled out in regional WA that meet the needs of regional WA. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. TAB (DISPOSAL) BILL 2019 Committee Resumed from 21 August. The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Robin Chapple) in the chair; Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment) in charge of the bill. Clause 26: Application of proceeds of disposal — Progress was reported after the clause had been partly considered. Hon COLIN HOLT: Before progress was reported, we were in the middle of a response by the minister to a question I had asked about the 35 per cent of the net proceeds credited to the racing infrastructure fund. I think the explanation was completely accurate. My clunky brain did not get around that part of the bill. I apologise for that and am more than happy to say that the minister has answered my question. As a follow-up, as soon as the 35 per cent is determined and transferred, will that money go to Racing and Wagering Western Australia and sit on its books rather than the government’s books? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: That is correct. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Continuing this examination of clause 26, I note that there is an interaction between clause 26 and clause 27. Has the fund account referred to already been created? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No, it has not. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Under what power will the fund account be created? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that it will be created under clause 27 of the bill and section 88 of the Racing and Wagering Western Australia Act. Hon NICK GOIRAN: In what way does section 88 of the RWWA act enable the creation of the racing infrastructure fund account? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Section 88(2) of the Racing and Wagering Western Australia Act states, “RWWA is to maintain one or more accounts.” Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Honourable Deputy Chair. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Sorry. Hon Dr Steve Thomas. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I am back here on the far right! Very briefly, can the minister confirm that under clause 26(4) there is nothing to prevent the Treasurer from placing additional money into the special purpose account? Essentially, can the government top it up at any point it desires from the consolidated account or other sources of funding? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that the normal budget process will apply. Clause put and passed.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5875

Clause 27: Racing Infrastructure Fund — Hon COLIN HOLT: There has been quite a bit of commentary about what will happen with this fund. There have been different indications from the minister and the Treasurer in other debates and commentary. Let us clear it up once and for all. At one point it was said that disbursements for infrastructure would be out of only the interest. It has also been said that it will be up to the industry to decide whether it wants to spend a lump sum, only the interest, or manage it however it wants. Can we have some clarification so that people in the industry know exactly what will happen with the fund? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: The racing infrastructure fund will be administered by Racing Western Australia. The investment strategy and funding allocations will be approved by the Minister for Racing and Gaming, likely as part of the annual strategic development planning process. An assessment of priority needs and associated business cases will be undertaken by Racing Western Australia. There will be no requirement for RWA to allocate infrastructure funding out of only the interest on the money in the infrastructure fund. The principal can also be used. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm Hon COLIN HOLT: We were in the middle of confirming that the Minister for Racing and Gaming will have the final sign-off on any infrastructure fund spend, so will he potentially have veto rights? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes, the member is correct. The racing minister will have the final say in a sense, but Racing and Wagering Western Australia will make the recommendation to him. As I said previously, that will probably be done as part of its annual strategic development process. It may well provide advice on the annual strategic development plan and the minister will sign off on that. Hon COLIN HOLT: Obviously, recommendations come from RWWA. Is the strategic development plan a private document between the Treasurer, the minister and RWWA; and, if that is the case, how will the industry know what its strategic infrastructure priorities are? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: RWWA will tell the industry. RWWA has regular communications with the industry, so it will advise the industry of its intentions for its spend for the year. Clause put and passed. Clauses 28 to 34 put and passed. Clause 35: No compensation payable — Hon NICK GOIRAN: The minister will note that clause 35 is entitled “No compensation payable”. It provides that no compensation will be paid by or on behalf of the state in certain circumstances. Clause 35(1) states — No compensation is payable by or on behalf of the State — … (c) in connection with the disposal under this Act of a TAB asset. Why is that necessary? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: The purpose of this clause is to protect the state from a cause of action based on something that is a consequence of giving effect to the legislation. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Let us work through an example. Clause 35(1)(c) relates to no compensation being payable in connection with the disposal of a TAB asset under the legislation. Are those shops that we referred to earlier in the week the shops that the government does not intend to dispose of at the moment? Could they be TAB assets that could be disposed of under this legislation? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that yes, they could. Hon NICK GOIRAN: If one of those shops was disposed of under this legislation, does that mean that the state would not be responsible for any payment of compensation as a result of that disposal? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that that is right. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I understood that members were quite concerned about the possibility of these shops being scooped up in this disposal process and that the only circumstances in which the government could foresee that happening would be if a magnificent offer was made, and under no circumstances would that scooping up occur without the consent of RWWA. I think that is where we got to earlier with those shops. I would have thought that if RWWA were to give its consent, part of that might involve some compensation. I imagine that there might even be some consultation with the industry and the government might even say to the industry, “Even though the proceeds are supposed to be 35 per cent, because the deal is so good and because we are now going to scoop in these shops, we would like to give some compensation for that”, but this provision states that no compensation is payable. How does the government propose to deal with that scenario?

5876 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No legal compensation would be payable in this case. As I mentioned previously, the state has an in-principle agreement with RWWA that those shops not be sold as part of the TAB sale. The only way that could happen, as I said previously, is if a fantastic offer was made by the purchaser of the TAB and for some reason they said that they would like these shops included in the deal. In that case, RWWA would have to consent to that happening. My advisers say that it is unlikely. The likelihood is that they would rather lease the shops from Racing and Wagering Western Australia in the first place. If, for some reason, the purchaser made a fantastic offer to include those shops, then, absolutely, RWWA would need to consent to that. Obviously, RWWA could expect to be recompensed for that, but RWWA would have to consent for that to happen in the first place. Hon NICK GOIRAN: It is interesting that RWWA could expect to be compensated, despite the fact that the clause says that no compensation is payable. Can I ask the minister to advise the chamber whether clause 35, when read in conjunction with clause 11—the clause we discussed earlier that gives the minister the power to acquire land—allows the state to take land without compensation? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that, no, it does not, because the taking of land by the state is covered by parts 9 and 10 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Clause 35, in conjunction with clause 11, does not override that regime. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Clause 11 states — The Minister has all of the functions and powers that are necessary or convenient for the purposes of this Act, including the power to acquire land. I had understood from our earlier discussion that clause 11 empowers the minister with carriage of the implementation of the proposed act to do various things. Clause 11 gives the minister the power to acquire land. It has nothing to do with another statute of Western Australia. Clause 35(1) states — No compensation is payable by or on behalf of the State — (a) because of the enactment or operation of this Act or for the consequences of its enactment or operation; or When we read those two things together, it implies that a minister has the power under clause 11 to acquire land, and under clause 35(1)(a) a minister does not have to pay any money for the taking of land. I recognise that when we were discussing clause 11, the minister said it was not the intention of the government to take any land as part of this whole process. However, despite the fact there is no intention, the minister pleaded with us not to delete that clause. He said that the government wants the clause to remain just in case there is a fence on the wrong side of the parcel of land that needs to be dealt with. The government is not aware of anything like that—it is doing due diligence at the moment—but, just in case, it wants that clause in. If the government were to come across that fence scenario, would clause 35(1)(a) enable it to simply sort that property law issue out by taking the land and not providing any compensation? I know the minister has already indicated that he does not think that is the case, but I would like to know whether this issue was actively considered by government during the drafting process of the bill, or is this the first time this matter is being considered? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that the issue has been considered by government previously, because this clause is also in the Pilbara ports legislation; it was considered in that bill at that time. Further, my advisers told me that they do not read those clauses together as providing for what the honourable member asserts. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I will leave the issue of the Pilbara ports legislation to one side because, as I said, I think, last night when we were discussing this bill, it is not proper lawmaking practice to simply rely on a provision in another act that may or may not have been considered. The inclusion of the provision in another act is not a precedent that is sufficient to justify the inclusion of it in a future act. Has the government obtained advice from the State Solicitor’s Office or the Solicitor-General about this issue; and, if not, will the minister defer consideration of clause 35 to obtain that advice? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I cannot tell the member whether legal advice has been received because that would be privileged; however, I can tell the member that the issue has been considered by the State Solicitor’s Office. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Can the minister check that advice again, please? He cannot tell us whether he has obtained advice because that would be privileged. Just the mere request for advice and confirmation that advice has been obtained is now a new form of legal professional privilege in Western Australia! I have never heard of that before. I have certainly heard of legal professional privilege in the context that the minister might not like to provide, or may not wish to provide, the advice, but to utter to the chamber whether the minister has obtained or sought the advice, I am not aware of that being captured by legal professional privilege. I ask the minister to clarify that. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Upon conferring with my advisers, I will seek to defer further consideration of this clause until the end of the bill. Further consideration of the clause postponed until after consideration of clause 161, on motion by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment).

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5877

Clause 36: Regulations for the purposes of, or consequential on, section 8 disposals — Hon NICK GOIRAN: After we have dealt with this, I indicate that I do not have any further questions on any clause before clause 40. Can the minister indicate why it is necessary and appropriate to empower the possibility of regulations taking effect retrospectively? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that this clause does allow limited retrospectivity, but regulations cannot commence prior to the effective day of the section 8 disposal order and they must not retrospectively prejudicially affect persons other than the state, the disposer or the acquirer—the parties involved in the disposal. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is it the government’s current intention to bring into effect retrospective regulations pursuant to this clause? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It is not the government’s current intention. Clause put and passed. Clauses 37 to 39 put and passed. Clause 40: Section 4 amended — Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Because we are moving to a different part of the bill, I need to swap over my advisers. I ask that that take place before Hon Alison Xamon asks her question. The DEPUTY CHAIR: We will pause momentarily. Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise because I am obviously going to look at moving the first of what are intended to be multiple amendments to remove the capacity for simulated electronic racing to be part of the sale of the TAB. The amendment on the supplementary notice paper to delete the lines is one of a number of amendments, all of which are meant to effect the same outcome. I thought I would make it clear from the outset that the contribution I am about to make is all part of the same debate; I do not intend to revisit it with every proposed amendment. On behalf of the Greens, I indicate that we are very concerned about the decision that has been made to include within the capacity to sell the TAB the introduction of simulated electronic racing. I listened with great interest to Hon Colin Holt’s comments and his concern about consultation with the racing industry, and principally the industry’s initial concern, as I understand it, about how the 35 per cent figure had been arrived at. I do not intend to revisit that debate, but I particularly note his concern that four of the key letters of support were very similar and looked as though they had almost come from a template letter. The minister’s response—of course, I am paraphrasing the minister—was: no, they were from four different organisations that clearly have four shared positions on this matter. I note that that was considered to be an indication of a shared view among those racing industry groups about how those decisions were made. I make that comment because we are in a similar situation here. For a number of years the racing industry was consulted on a number of elements of the proposed sale of the TAB. However, it is very clear that the community sector is not of the view that it was well aware of the implications of what was to be included in the sale of the TAB. We have seen an almost last-minute range of concerns about the adverse impacts on the community from the introduction of electronic gaming in our suburbs and regions. I think that these concerns are significant. These organisations are of the view that they were not appropriately consulted and did not fully understand the implications of what was being proposed, at the same time that the racing industry was being consulted. I am, of course, talking about the Western Australian Council of Social Service, which is the peak body for social services in this state; the Financial Counselling Network; the Financial Counsellors’ Association of WA; the Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services; the Public Health Advocacy Institute of Western Australia; the Public Health Association of Australia; Anglicare, which has to deal directly with the impacts of problem gambling; and the Salvation Army. I have also more recently received communication from Communicare, Centrecare, the Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia, Save the Children, Shelter WA, Ruah Community Services and a number of individuals. I am talking about a significant number of organisations that deal with people within our community who are the most vulnerable and who end up with a range of problems. In this instance, all those groups have expressed specific concern about problem gambling and about how the changes proposed in this bill will adversely impact on our community. I want to respond in particular to a comment by the minister, which sounded disparaging but which I am sure the minister did not mean because I know he works with many of these organisations and holds them in high regard. It is true that a lot of concerns that have been raised are written in a similar way because effectively these organisations feel as though they only had the opportunity to express their concerns quite late in the piece. As has certainly been relayed to me, they do not feel that they were adequately warned through this consultation process with the racing industry of the sorts of changes proposed here. I also want to respond to another comment the minister made in response to a question put at clause 1. He made the comment that there had even been correspondence received from the Cancer Council saying that gambling caused cancer. I would like to clarify the record on that, because that is not what the Cancer Council said when it wrote to express its concern about this. The Cancer Council actually said that in its experience problem gambling leads to poorer health outcomes. That is well illustrated in all the evidence and data, and public health associations

5878 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] have talked about this as well. We know that poor health outcomes generally can be a precursor to cancer. That is very different from saying that gambling is a carcinogen. The Cancer Council did not say that. I think it is really important that we are very careful when we make these sorts of statements and start disparaging these highly reputable organisations, many of which people in this chamber will go out of their way to be associated with, meet with, take advice from and be involved with. Let us be a little bit more respectful of the concerns being raised. I also point out that I have noticed that one minister from the other place took it upon himself to suggest that the concerns being raised were only being raised by me. I just want to call that out and say what a load of nonsense it is. Clearly, I am responding to the concerns raised by the community sector, and it is not a surprise for anybody in this chamber to know that I work very closely with these organisations and take the issues they raise and bring to my attention very seriously. Going back to the Cancer Council, I put on the record some of the comments it has made. It said there is a direct link between gambling and negative health outcomes, including increased risk of chronic cancers. The letter said — Gambling can put people into a cycle of disadvantage, further exacerbating their social and thereby health outcomes. This can have negative consequences across the whole cancer spectrum—from prevention and diagnosis, to treatment, access to support services and palliative care. The letter went on to say — Gambling addiction is one of the main drivers of homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are more at risk of chronic diseases such as cancer. It goes on to make a number of informed points about the correlation between poor health outcomes and problem gambling. I suppose the first thing I would say to members is that I realise they have a wide variety of views about what it means to include Trackside in this legislation. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Alison Xamon. Hon ALISON XAMON: I ask at the very least that people show some respect to those organisations that have raised, I think, quite genuine concerns. I stress from the outset that these organisations do not feel that they have been consulted, so this is very last minute for them. I want to pick up on some of the other arguments that have been put forward. One of the most emphatic arguments put forward was that these simulated races are not pokies—that we are absolutely not introducing pokies. People have responded vehemently to concerns raised by the community sector that it will potentially lead to a pokies culture. I agree with their concerns. It is a recognition from those people who are so vehemently opposed that we do not want pokies here in Western Australia and that pokies have had a highly detrimental impact in the states where they exist. There is a higher per capita percentage of gambling and problem gambling in states with pokies. Pokies are associated with higher rates of poor health amongst people who, unfortunately, become problem gamblers. Quite frankly, pokies have also ruined a lot of pubs and clubs, which can now be pretty inhospitable to walk into. One of the things I have always really liked about Western Australia is that if I compare walking into a pub here—which I am quite happy to do, frequently!—with walking into a pub in South Australia, for example, the atmosphere is entirely different. I understand why people are so vehemently opposed to pokies and want to make sure that we never, ever go down that path. We should be opposed, because they have such a detrimental impact on individuals and communities, and are also culturally detrimental to places where people like to congregate. It is problematic to try to argue that electronic gaming has no connection with pokies whatsoever. I want to make a couple of points on that. Electronic gaming is by its very nature designed to be addictive; that is how people make money from it. It is designed to raise endorphins so that people just keep at it and keep trying. That is the nature of electronic gaming. I note also the spurious distinction people have tried to make between electronic gaming and keno. The previous government contemplated allowing keno and was smashed for it by the opposition; the opposition also at that point equated keno with Trackside. It has now been well canvassed in this second reading debate that the government has had a complete change of heart, and suddenly Trackside is now apparently not so much of an issue. People have raised concerns that Trackside is problematic on two levels. It is potentially the thin end of the wedge; that is, if we introduce this form of electronic gambling, what restrictions will there be on introducing other forms of electronic gambling in the future? I listened intently to the questions asked by Hon Nick Goiran and I was left even more concerned after hearing the answers. It does not feel as though the door is going to be closed appropriately, other than through a verbal undertaking by the government that it might not be interested in expanding electronic gaming. Trackside is recognised as being a problem in its own right, and I will talk a little more about that in a moment. Another thing to note is that there is nothing in this legislation that would mean Trackside is the only electronic gambling available. There is an option to expand the range of electronic gambling options, and that could potentially include pokies; that is what this legislation does, and I do not think we should try to pretend otherwise.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5879

I am greatly concerned about that and I do not feel that I can, in good conscience, stand here and pass a piece of legislation that will effectively change the landscape of electronic gambling in this state so that it is no longer limited only to the casino but will be broadly available in the regions and in suburbia. I want to say something about the value of the TAB, which is also likely to be affected by this legislation. I want to make it clear: I am under no illusion that if we were to remove the capacity for electronic gaming and Trackside from this legislation, it would mean that the TAB would be sold for a lower price. I understand that. There are differing ideas about how much such a removal would impact on the price. Obviously, we could never arrive at a definitive amount, because we do not really even know how much the TAB will sell for. I have been told that the impact on the sale price of the TAB will be about three to four per cent. My argument is that I would rather take a lower amount from the sale of the TAB, and ensure that in our treatment of electronic gaming it is business as usual. However, if the government needs to invest in more services to support people who unfortunately are caught in the cycle of problem gambling, that will mitigate the overall profit from the sale of the TAB. I recognise the huge appeal for the racing industry in maximising the profit that will ultimately be available from the sale. The industry will be given a flat 35 per cent of the overall sale price, as well as the attraction of ongoing revenue streams. Let us talk about those revenue streams. The reason those additional revenue streams will come through is that more and more people will spend money on gambling, and potentially on addictive electronic gambling. I reflect on the Treasurer’s comment that if substantive changes are made to this legislation, the entire sale will fall over. With respect to the Treasurer, it is not his place to dictate how this Council chooses to respond to legislation. I will not cease putting forward amendments that I believe are important simply because that threat has been made. However, I hope that the amount of money we are talking about is not such that the government will need to abandon the entire sale. I reiterate that the Greens are not opposed as such to the sale of the TAB. We believe an argument can be made that government does not need to be in the business of gambling. On the face of it, our position on this bill might have been entirely different had Trackside not been part of the legislation. The suggestion has been put to me— rather wryly—that one of the reasons we should support Trackside is that it would be a good substitute for those people who are concerned about the treatment of animals in horseracing. I do not think that the intention of introducing Trackside is that it will reduce the level of horseracing in particular. I reiterate that I would be happy if greyhound racing were banned. However, I note that no-one is proposing to introduce a greyhound Trackside so that the greyhound racing industry can be banned. It is a cute argument, but it is pretty disingenuous. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Alison Xamon. Hon ALISON XAMON: Thank you. Trackside is not intended to replace live animal racing. The intention of Trackside is to ensure that more gambling is conducted through the TAB. Let us be clear about what it is. I am concerned about the effect on the services that will need to be provided for problem gambling. I am very pleased that an amendment was successfully passed in the other place to provide for a review of this legislation after three years, to look specifically at the impact of Trackside, should that continue in its current form at the current TAB. However, I am saddened that effectively, in order to undertake that review, we run the risk that problem gambling will have escalated in that time. The government is proposing to introduce something that will potentially cause enormous harm to individuals. I am disappointed that we will need a review in three years to assess how much harm we have managed to wreak on the community with the introduction of Trackside. The submissions we have received make it quite clear that people think that significant pressure will be put on the community sector to support people caught up in problem gambling issues. Bear in mind that agencies are dealing with not only gambling addiction, but also mental health issues, family and domestic violence, and suicidality, which members know I take particularly seriously, as I think every member does. I am not pretending for one second that I am the only person who cares about that—we all do. Because we all care about that, we need to take this legislation very seriously. In the same way that we do not see a stipulated percentage of the racing industry’s 35 per cent share going to ensuring that the safety of animals is paramount, we do not see a dedicated commitment of moneys to be raised going to ensuring that we have the appropriate level of gambling and community supports to address any increase in problem gambling that might arise. The argument has been put up that in other states the amount of money that goes towards Trackside gambling in particular is between only three to four per cent and, therefore, it is likely that we will see something equivalent in Western Australia. Members, Western Australia does not have anything else. Trackside will not be competing with keno or pokies; it will be only Trackside. At least that is the undertaking we have been given verbally by the government, although that is not in the legislation—I accept that. So, we could potentially be looking at a significantly higher percentage than three to four per cent. We cannot take the experience in other states and immediately assume that we will have the equivalent here. I also want to raise the lack of protections around the introduction of Trackside. I raised this issue in my contribution to the second reading debate. Before this legislation came on for debate in this place, I sent a list of questions to the staff who briefed us about the connection between the introduction of Trackside and the national consumer protection framework for online wagering. From memory, the answers I received said that they would

5880 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] be correlated and therefore those protections would apply. When I asked about it further, it appeared that that is not the case; that the protection framework explicitly excludes Trackside and it does not apply. I am really concerned that when I started to raise the issue of protections, I was given these flippant answers, and when I started to look at it, I found the protections are not there after all. I am happy to hear from the minister if maybe I misunderstood that and, in actual fact, the national consumer protection framework for online wagering definitely applies and was always intended to apply to Trackside. I think we have a dearth of recognised protections for how we will roll out Trackside. I have maintained before, and will again, how disappointed I am that we are breaking the decades-long consensus we have held in this state not to have electronic gaming within our suburbs and regions. It has served us well as a state, and the community has been rightly proud of it. This legislation has now opened the door, and we will have a form of addictive electronic gambling within our suburbs and regions in a way that we have not had before. What is more, especially if we look at the Gunston report, we see it is quite clear that it was always the racing industry’s intention to extend the options for electronic gaming beyond Trackside. The industry has made that very clear. I know why. Hon Dr Steve Thomas, in his contribution to debate on this legislation, stated that one of the things that he recognises the government has been trying to look at in the sale of the TAB has been to put in “sweeteners”. “Sweeteners” is the word he used. I recognise that having Trackside as part of the sale certainly would raise more money, as well as provide ongoing revenue back to the racing industry, but, as I have said, the community sector and I believe that the price paid by the community is simply not worth those extra dollars, even though I recognise that it would be far more commercially appealing to include it in the sale. We are obviously going to debate this issue. Although I recognise that people in this chamber have a strongly held ideological position, which I disagree with but respect, it is not up to the state to determine what sort of gambling options should be available for individuals. I believe there is a very strong role for government to ensure that it does all that it can to reduce the potential for individual and community harm. I would like members to contemplate my amendments and I will debate this further. I move — Page 28, lines 6 to 12 — To delete the lines. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I would love to be supporting Hon Alison Xamon’s amendment that supports the idea that Trackside is not needed in the sale of the TAB. However, I stand by the words that I used during my contribution to the second reading debate: this is a sweetener to a sale. The previous government looked at a version of keno as a sweetener to the sale. The current government is looking at Trackside. It is unfortunate that any sweetener is required. From a purely economic perspective, the fact that a sweetener is required at all reinforces the view about the declining value of the TAB. If it were not a declining asset but a growing one, we would not be debating the need to sell it in the first place. For that reason, I accept that the deal requires some form of sweetener, which unfortunately makes it impossible to support this amendment. I will make a couple of comments on behalf of the opposition. There is no doubt that the impact of problem gambling is significant. It has a major negative impact particularly on the families of those people who deny that their gambling is problematic. This then comes back to the question: why is a government in the business of running a gambling institution in the first place? As I said during my remarks in the second reading debate, historically this occurred because governments stepped into a place that, for a large part of society, was filled with illegal activity. We understand how it eventuated. I would have been very interested to hear the conversation about the cost to government for stepping into the space. I am very saddened that the government has not yet got those figures. I hope that one day we will get those details. The reality is that the government stepped in to legalise the process, and, obviously, as governments do, make a profit in the process. It is sad that a sweetener is required to make this business deal attractive. I am sure that all members of the chamber would love to be able to say that the profitability of the TAB is such that on its own it is a valuable asset. Then we can debate quite happily the ideology of whether governments should be in the business of gambling. My personal view is probably more closely aligned to that of Hon Aaron Stonehouse, in that I do not think governments should be running gambling, and probably would have no real problem in privatising it anyway, depending on the exact deal that was put together. However, the situation in which we find ourselves is that some sweetener is required. Of the various sweeteners looked at, in terms of practicality, I am of the belief that Trackside is amongst the least worst evils in the process, and there were others that might have been potentially more problematic. As I have said previously, I personally am no fan of artificial racing. I like to look at horseflesh and tracks. I do not want to watch the roadrunner and the coyote and try to gamble on who gets there first—it is always the roadrunner—or Tweety and Sylvester. I am probably more frustrated by Tweety and Sylvester; I would love to see the canary get eaten occasionally, but that is a whole different process. I am no fan of the artificial racing proposal, but I think for a number of reasons it is ostensibly one of the least worst options, accepting that it is, in my view, a form of electronic gambling. I do not equate it to pokies, and I hope that we never have pokies widespread in Western Australia, but it is a form of electronic gambling. It is in the form of an artificial race every so many minutes, and gamblers will have to go through the process of placing

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5881 a bet, as they would do otherwise. Whether problem gamblers place additional bets on an increased number of races or place a larger bet on a smaller number of races, the opportunity will be there for them to lose as much money as they are capable of, in any form, whether at a standard service level 1 TAB or a PubTAB. I expect to see more of these Trackside monitors placed in PubTABs, to broaden the experience—I get that—but I remind members that it exists in Western Australia at the moment. It is at the casino under licence, and the casino turnover, as I understand, since its introduction, and people getting used to it, has reduced by half to two-thirds. The gloss is off, as it were, and I think that will stay in place. Although it will look a bit exciting initially, I am hopeful that people will stay dedicated to the pure and honest—as much as we can say it is honest—art of racing; that is, with animals on a track, rather than having it determined by a randomiser and being vulnerable to being pre-programmed for certain outcomes. I do not like it, but it is a necessary evil. The opposition acknowledges that gambling is a significant issue, and it behoves me to mention again the “there will be no electronic gambling under a government I lead” comments of the now Premier—what I like to think of as the Julia Gillard moment of Hon Mark McGowan, who said, some years ago when in opposition, and I think we should remember these comments — Now the Government is talking about expanding gaming machines out into the broader community. All that will mean, is more people pour their money into those machines, more people particularly those on pensions, and those who can least afford it, will lose money … It is a very, very disturbing development and I oppose it absolutely. That is the Julia Gillard “there will be no electronic gaming” moment of the Premier of the day. We should remind him of that quite frequently, irrespective of our position on gambling, because the double standard is important, and I think we should be honest about how we move forward. We accept that the government is applying a double standard, but we accept, as we did under the previous government, that the sweetener is necessary to make sure that the industry is supported into the future. As much as the opposition would like to support Hon Alison Xamon’s amendment, particularly if we could say that a sweetener was not necessary, the reality is that if it was not necessary, I suspect we would not be debating the bill in the first place. For those reasons, the member will, hopefully, understand that the opposition is unable to support the amendment today. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Honourable members, obviously the government will not support the amendment standing in Hon Alison Xamon’s name. However, in putting the case for why we will not support it, I want to respond to some of the questions or comments she made earlier. In relation to the correspondence I have received from a number of community services sector organisations, I did not at any stage disparage any of those organisations, nor did I comment on the form letter nature of them. I certainly did not make any comments about that. I am very thankful that we live in a democratic society in Western Australia. People are all very welcome to provide comments about legislation or consultations. I want again to point out that on 29 June 2018, the consultation proper on this legislation started when a discussion document was circulated. At that stage, a press release was put out by the then acting Minister for Racing and Gaming, Hon Bill Johnston, MLA, and the Treasurer, Hon Ben Wyatt, MLA. That press release garnered some media attention that day and, indeed, over the next few weeks, including from the ABC. At that time in an article, Jessica Strutt talked about simulated racing or electronic gaming machines. This was not a surprise to people. This consultation happened over a year ago, so members cannot say that people secreted this information and it went only to the racing industry. That is not correct. A media statement was released. There was discourse in the media and anyone could have made submissions to the discussion paper process. In fact, I think 107 submissions were received, from not just racing clubs but also all sorts of groups and individuals. I mentioned the Cancer Council in my second reading reply. Again, I did not make any disparaging comments but I said that from my reading of it, the Cancer Council’s letter indicated that gambling causes cancer. It is fair to say that from the two lines of the letter that Hon Alison Xamon read out, the letter contained words to that effect. There were numerous places in the letter in which it talked about getting from there to there, but, essentially, it says that gambling can cause cancer. I placed on the record that that is what the Cancer Council is saying. The bill does not authorise other forms of electronic gaming. It authorises only simulated racing. Any other form of electronic gaming would require legislative change. To be clear: if this bill is passed, it will authorise only simulated racing; it will not authorise any other form of electronic gaming. Legislation would be required to change that and, of course, an agreement may well need to be struck with Crown casino, obviously, because Crown casino is the only place that runs keno at the moment. There would be the threshold of passing legislation and because of the state agreement, Crown would need to agree to that. I want to make the point again that we said at the last election that we would listen to industry about this bill. Although comments have been made historically by a number of people about this, during the last election campaign, we said that we would listen to industry and that is what we have done, honourable members. We have listened to industry. We put out a discussion paper seeking feedback and we have listened to industry. If people have changed their mind about similar legislation over the years, we went to the last election saying that we would do this and that is what we have done. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

5882 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I cannot comment about Julia Gillard; she is not in this place and, indeed, this has nothing to do with any legislation she may have or have not brought forward, but I can comment about Western Australia and this government. We said we would listen to industry and that is certainly what we have done. The national consumer protection framework applies only to online wagering operations. Proposed section 10I of the Betting Control Act will also have application to retail betting. The new wagering licensee will need to meet the requirements of the national consumer protection framework as well as providing its consumer protection policy for the retail network. At the moment, Racing and Wagering Western Australia’s “Responsible Wagering Code of Practice” provides that all wagering venues are to display responsible wagering information; form guides are to contain a responsible gambling message per edition; racing radio is to provide periodic messaging, detailing the available help services; advertising and promotions are to be delivered in a responsible way; all TAB agents must undertake responsible service of gambling training—the training module has been developed with the assistance of Centrecare, which provides the Gambling Help WA face-to-face counselling service for the Problem Gambling Support Services Committee; and all wagering venues must assist patrons seeking to self-exclude from betting agencies. Therefore, it is expected that, as a minimum, the new wagering licensee will maintain the same standards for consumer protection. There were comments about the turnover. As I have said previously, based on the performance in other jurisdictions, betting on simulated racing is expected to represent about three to four per cent of the TAB’s turnover. Although this amount is modest, it is expected to have a material impact on the sales proceeds. That is because the private TAB operator will be required to continue to pay the current level of TAB profits to the racing industry, meaning that the government will be effectively selling a zero-profit business. Additional value is created in this deal through the synergies an operator is likely to achieve by incorporating the TAB into its existing business, and also stronger revenue growth potential into private ownership and the additional revenue stream of betting on simulated racing. It is the same as other states; we anticipate that three to four per cent figure, but it will make a material difference to the income of the TABs that operate in Western Australia. I will deal with the problem gambling help services that exist currently. The Problem Gambling Support Services Committee provides support for persons affected by gambling-related harm. The committee was established with the support of the Gaming and Wagering Commission. Membership consists of representatives from the Gaming and Wagering Commission, the Department of Communities, Racing and Wagering Western Australia, Crown Perth, Lotterywest and the WA Bookmakers’ Association, which provide voluntary annual contributions. The committee contributes about $757 000 per annum to organisations that provide free help services to people affected by gambling issues. This amount is distributed to Medibank Health Solutions to provide a 24-hour problem gambling helpline; Centrecare, to provide a face-to-face counselling service to its Gambling Help WA counselling service; and Gambling Help Online, which is a 24/7 online assistance program through live chat or email counselling. All three service providers do not have any waiting periods for people to access the services. I am advised that they have sufficient capacity to address any increase in service requirements within the current funding levels. During 2018–19, the committee spent approximately $250 000 promoting these services. An annual appropriation of $500 000 is also provided by the WA government to the financial counselling services program to assist persons who experience financial hardship as a result of problem gambling. I was going to make the comment again about the difference between electronic gaming machines and simulated racing, but I have made the point before. These electronic gaming machines are very different from simulated racing. I have said it numerous times during the debate, so I will not say it again; but I have made that point a couple of times. This is not one of the same. I appreciate the consideration that Hon Alison Xamon has given this legislation. The member has obviously spoken to a number of stakeholders. We, too, have spoken to stakeholders, and the advice I have been given is that services are available to problem gamblers. This is the legislation, though, that the industry supports, and including simulated racing in the package will likely increase the amount that the state receives from the sale, should the sale go ahead if this bill passes this place. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL: I indicate that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will support this amendment. Hon Alison Xamon has highlighted many important facts and the areas in which simulated racing will have an effect. If this sale is sweetened, which will improve the opportunity for a sale, it will make more money. It will make more money by adding to problem gambling. That is a fact and the way that it will be. The government cannot deny that. I have had a look at simulated racing, and I am not overly impressed by it. I do not think most of the people who use it will be newcomers. I think they will already be, unfortunately, problem gamblers and will be given extra opportunities to gamble. In this chamber it has been said that there will be 200 extra opportunities a day. I am not sure whether that figure is exactly right, but that was the number mentioned. That will be every day! That is a lot of extra opportunities for a problem gambler to gamble when racing is not on, which is not very often. Problem gambling leads to homelessness and many problems, and it is getting worse, not better. We do not need this. I do not believe this must go through no matter what or otherwise the sale will fall over. The sale would probably still go through, but it may not get as much money as we might wish. But if it does not get the amount of money that

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5883 we want, maybe the government should look at the percentage of the sale that will go back to the industry. That is another reason I think the percentage should be raised. However, if we do not get as much as we would like out of the sale, that is not the most important thing. Our number one responsibility is to the Western Australian public— not just the gamblers, but everyone. This will add to homelessness and gambling problems. I do not see it being a plus for the state of Western Australia. I cannot see that supporting this amendment will be a major problem for the sale. I think it will cost a bit of money, but the sale will still possibly go through. I have looked at simulated racing; I agree that it is not like pokies, but it is simulated and will give people more opportunities, so it will add to problem gambling. One Nation and I will be supporting this amendment. Hon CHARLES SMITH: I rise to offer a few words of support for this amendment. This bill should be viewed with a healthy dose of cynicism. It seems to indicate that the Labor Party thinks it is okay if it does something in government, but it was not okay back then because the Liberal Party wanted to do it. That sums up what I am hearing about this bill; it is okay because Labor is doing it. My position echoes the one we have just heard from the Greens. I will not tire the house with a repetition of what we have already heard, but suffice it to say, I support what the member has said and the amendment. I cannot in all good conscience support the bill with simulated racing attached to it. Hon COLIN HOLT: I stand on behalf of the Nationals WA to say that we will not support the amendment. The decision should balance what this bill will deliver and the risks. The industry’s returns are undoubtedly diminished, which is why we are in the position of trying to sell the TAB to a new operator that might be able to generate more income for the industry. If the government had been more generous with its up-front payment to industry, there might have been the potential to not have the risk of simulated horseracing. But, as it is, I think the balance is the best balance we are going to get. I agree with Hon Dr Steve Thomas; it is probably the lesser of the worst evils in that sense. It will be a highly regulated environment. I am encouraged that every operator and agency will have to have a responsible gambling service certificate. Maybe that will need to be revisited in the new regulations with the introduction of simulated racing. With those few words, the Nationals WA will not support the amendment. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: In considering the inclusion of simulated racing in this bill, we have to consider what is, in my view, an extension of a very strict monopoly on simulated racing. For that reason, I have some sympathy for the amendment, but perhaps for completely different reasons. It is not that I think people should be protected from gambling, but that the idea of extending exclusive rights to provide simulated racing to whoever buys the TAB is far too narrow a restriction on commercial activity and gambling in this state. Currently, only Crown Perth can offer simulated racing in WA. I think that is an absolute tragedy. Anybody exercising their own free will should be able to gamble on whatever they like. It should not be restricted to a gambling monopoly, be that Crown casino on Burswood Island or whoever buys the TAB. Unfortunately, that is not really the subject of this bill. As I understand it, the exclusive right to provide simulated racing is secured in a state agreement enshrined in the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act 1985, so it is not within my power to tear up that exclusive right to provide simulated racing. The extension of that right to another operator that can compete with Crown casino in that simulated racing space—in this case, whoever buys the TAB—might be seen as a removal of that monopoly to some extent. But that is still not far enough. Rather than a monopoly situation, it is sort of an oligopoly situation—almost a cartel of two entities entering into a commercial agreement to share that exclusive access and excluding anybody else from competing in that space. The government should be not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market; the government should be playing the role of independent umpire, rather than an active competitor. That brings me to gambling in the state as a whole. I have said this before and it was mentioned by Hon Dr Steve Thomas and alluded to by Hon Charles Smith: we have this attitude in Western Australia that gambling is bad and wrong, unless it is the state government that does it. Of course, the government has the monopoly on lottery gambling. In fact, the government will move quite aggressively to protect that monopoly by outlawing, if it needs to, synthetic lotteries and to exclude any other competitors from competing with the state government–run monopoly on lottery gambling. For a very long time, there has been a state-run monopoly on retail betting on racing through the TAB. We are correcting that situation somewhat with this bill, which is good, but it shows a level of hypocrisy. When money is to be made by the state government, gambling is okay, but when it is not, gambling is bad. There are members opposite who are not that hypocritical and who oppose gambling in most forms, and their consistency is commendable. But the way that the state government manages and responds to gambling is very hypocritical. As I said, the exclusive rights to simulated racing are not addressed in this bill; there is merely an authorisation to carry out that practice if a commercial agreement can be reached between the purchaser of the TAB and Crown casino. Moving away from the monopolistic nature of simulated racing to the evils of gambling as a whole, we need to consider a very serious ethical question: to what extent should the government protect people from wasting their own money? Gambling can be addictive, I suppose, and maybe that sets it aside from other forms of money wasting. I wonder how many members have ever been to a Timezone or an amusement arcade. Hon Alison Xamon: Not since the 1980s.

5884 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: They are still around and a lot of fun. The games that can be played at a Timezone are almost indistinguishable from gambling machines. People do not put gambling chips into a machine; instead, they insert tokens or, with modern arcades, they may get a little card to put money on and scan it. It is really indistinguishable from putting coins into a machine. Games can be played by putting coins into a machine and people try to knock a shelf of tokens over. There is a little bit of skill involved but that seems more like a rationalisation, if anything. I am sure that people who play the pokies probably convince themselves that there is a skill involved and there is a technique to winning. Hon Darren West: What about the clowns? Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: The clowns are a good example. If people ever go to a country fair or royal show, there are all these games available—supposedly games of skill. Perhaps some of them are rigged; who knows? There is always an element of chance involved. People put down their money. They may or may not win anything but there is fun involved in just taking that risk in the first place. Surely it would be inappropriate for the government to regulate people wasting their money on these frivolous activities. What about other money-wasting exercises such as the collection of Ooshies or Coles minis? They are like Beanie Babies. There is no intrinsic value in these things. It is merely the subjective value that people place on collecting them to get a full set. There is something desirable about it. It almost creates its own little market. Hon Martin Aldridge: Wait until you have children! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Yes. From a rational perspective, to an outside observer, surely they are a complete waste of money. I hope no-one is proposing that the government step into this space and regulate what little plastic toys people can waste their money on. I am talking about all forms of collectables. People may argue that that behaviour may not be addictive but it is certainly obsessive to an extent. Let us consider stories on A Current Affair and Today Tonight about suburban mums fed up with their children’s addiction to the Fortnite video game. I do not have children so maybe I cannot relate to this so much but, supposedly, these games are addictive. Kids get that instant reaction. They complete a task and there are some bright colours on the screen, and some bells jingle. There is immediate reward. They do something and they get a reward. It is that same dopamine kick that people might get from gambling and feeding coins into a machine, with all the bells and lights going off and the promise that if they keep doing it, they will get a reward—they will get some money out of it. We could look at the design of mobile games. We have to wait until a timer goes down unless we purchase some currency. With real money, we can purchase some in-game currency to shorten that time. Again, it is rather obsessive behaviour—perhaps even addictive—but treated very, very differently from gambling. What elevates gambling that makes it so much more harmful than these other obsessive behaviours that we need special prohibitions around certain types of gambling? I gave the example earlier of alcohol and tobacco. They are very tightly controlled things and they cause quite a few externalities and quite a lot of harm in the community when misused. When problematic alcohol or tobacco use becomes prevalent, there can be a very large impact on the community. Wherever possible, there are normally targeted approaches, such as the responsible service of alcohol. It is recognised that most people can enjoy alcohol without being an alcoholic. Therefore, alcohol is not prohibited writ large. There may be some exceptions to that in certain communities, but that is a separate matter, I would think. Even in those cases, it is still targeted to a geographic area or a certain demographic, perhaps; but the rest of the people in the community who enjoy alcohol, and it is not causing widespread harm, are not necessarily prohibited from accessing alcohol or tobacco. It is reasonable for us to assume that informed adults exercising their own free will should be free to make certain decisions that may otherwise be harmful to themselves. A really good example might be voluntary assisted dying. The arguments around voluntary assisted dying are certainly to do with autonomy, consent and personal choice. A person has the right to take control of their own body and their own destiny, essentially, and decide on what terms they end their life. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Aaron Stonehouse. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I can think of no greater harm one might do to oneself than ending one’s own life. Members may argue that other harms, such as lingering pain and suffering, are worse, but we are really sweating the small stuff. We are talking about somebody taking their own life, ultimately. We are really at the thin end of the wedge there. Despite that harm, advocates of voluntary assisted dying recognise that that decision ultimately rests with the individual. They own their own body, they have control over their own body, and they have their own autonomy. If they are exercising their own will, if they have capacity, if they consent and they understand what they are doing, they are merely exercising their own free will and they have a right to do that. Although others may protest, ultimately it is their own decision to make. Why do we treat gambling differently? It may be argued that gambling has externalities. People who gamble do not only cause harm to themselves, they also cause harm to their friends and family. That argument can also be flipped around when it comes to voluntary assisted dying. A brother’s decision to access voluntary assisted dying may cause harm to his siblings, his parents or his children. At least as I understand the arguments for voluntary assisted dying, the family do not get to veto that decision; ultimately, it is still that individual’s right to make that decision.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5885

I hope I have not gone too far off track. The point I am trying to make is that when it comes to autonomy and personal choice, what is it that sets gambling aside from all other activities in society? Why is this one thing— putting coins into a machine and bells ringing as a result—so much worse than everything else that someone might do to themselves of their own free will? I am not saying that somebody who is suffering from a crippling addiction should be left to their own devices. There is obviously a need for some intervention at the stage that somebody is no longer able to exercise their own free will in those instances. But does that necessitate a wide, broad ban on all simulated racing products; or is that, rather, the role for a more targeted response—a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer? If problem gambling is identified, there can be some level of intervention, perhaps by the state, to assist those individuals who need that help, but the rest of us, who are exercising our own free will, who can enjoy gambling without it becoming an addiction or a problem, can be left to continue having fun without unnecessary government intervention. That is what I would like members to think about. I will not be supporting the proposed amendment. I look forward to comments from other members. Hon ALISON XAMON: I have some questions for the minister, please, arising from some of the contributions just then. The minister said that 107 submissions were received. Did anyone raise concerns around problem gambling and a potential increase in the rates of problem gambling in any of those submissions? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: The answer is yes, the issue was raised in some of the submissions. Hon ALISON XAMON: Were those concerns raised by individuals or by organisations? If they were raised by organisations, would the minister be prepared to advise the chamber which organisations raised those concerns? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: This issue was raised in the submissions from UnionsWA and the Community and Public Sector Union–Civil Service Association of WA. Hon ALISON XAMON: That was in addition to the organisations that have subsequently raised concerns, although I recognise that the organisations I mentioned before had not put in original submissions. I remain concerned about the lack of preparation that has been undertaken around how to regulate the issue of problem gambling. I would like to know what will be done to pre-empt any concerns that may arise from the rollout of Trackside. Bear in mind, as I mentioned already, that when I asked questions prior to this bill being debated, I specifically asked about the “National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering in Australia—National Policy Statement”. The response I got was that the wagering licensee will be required to comply with the principles outlined in the national consumer protection framework and that this will be a condition of the wagering licence, yet we have been told subsequently that it does not apply—it applies only online. Another member asked whether any reviews were intended around the responsible service of gambling guidelines. In addition to increased levels of services that may be required as a result of increased availability of electronic gambling in the community, is there any intention—if so, what is it—to review any of the standards, regulations or processes to address problem gambling? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: In relation to that last bit, that can be addressed as part of a review. In the lower house, amendments were made to the bill and the government committed to undertake to table in Parliament a review of the post-sale arrangements, including any impacts of simulated racing. This is provided for under clause 161. The government will also continue to ensure that problem gambling support services are well funded. I will not go over the current arrangements. The arrangements will not change as a result of the sale of the TAB to a private operator, and funding arrangements for the Problem Gambling Support Services Committee will be annually reviewed in light of any increased levels of demand for support services. There is a commitment to an annual review of the legislation, and to monitor it. The commitment is not only to review it, but also to table that information in Parliament. Members of this chamber can be aware of the review, the implications and the actions that need to be undertaken as a result of it. Back to the question about the national consumer protection framework: as I said, that now applies only to online wagering operations; however, proposed section 10 of the Betting Control Act will also have application to retail betting. I will say it one more time: the new wagering licensee will need to meet the requirements of the national consumer protection framework as well as provide its consumer protection policy for the retail network. I went over that. Racing and Wagering Western Australia’s current responsible wagering code of practice will remain in place. It is expected that, as a minimum, the new wagering licensee will maintain the same standards of consumer protection. Hon ALISON XAMON: A lot of what has been said is that the current protections and guidelines will pretty much be business as usual, but the government will assess and report. I was asking whether there would be scope to pre-empt the level of harm that could potentially occur and do a review beforehand. This could potentially mitigate some of the worst impacts of problem gambling. The question I asked was whether there was any intention to undertake a review of those protections and potentially strengthen them. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No, we do not propose to do any work before the passage of the bill, but we certainly have made commitments to do a review post the sale. I also mentioned in a previous comment that there is latent capacity within existing gambling services. Hon Alison Xamon interjected.

5886 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: There is capacity at the moment. The strongest commitment I can give the member relates to clause 161, in which we have committed to annually reviewing this legislation and tabling the results in Parliament, and to ongoing monitoring. Should further changes need to be made or further funding need to be provided, obviously, the decisions will be made at that time. I have referred previously to the three to four per cent turnover figure for Victoria and New South Wales, but, in all honesty, we do not know what the figure will be in Western Australia. In fact, there may well be a novelty factor early on in Western Australia—people will try it and then it might wane. We are not in a position to do work before the sale and before the introduction of simulated racing in TABs, but we are certainly committed to ongoing monitoring and for the results of any monitoring to be tabled in Parliament. Hon ALISON XAMON: I thank the minister. Obviously, the concern I have is that, by then, the cat will be out of the bag. I want to ask about the potential to wind back these provisions in the future, if it is found that they are causing more harm than is considered tenable by the community. Just as it has been said that we are not going to be able to look at the wholesale rollout of other forms of electronic gaming without coming back to Parliament, would it be the case that if we found that electronic gaming was causing too much harm, a legislative change would be required to actually wind back the introduction of Trackside? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that it would be in the Gaming and Wagering Commission’s power to tighten the regulations around it. I will go through a hypothetical example. If at some stage Centrecare came to the Problem Gambling Support Services Committee and said that it was seeing an increase in problem gambling as a result of Trackside, the problem gambling committee could go to the Gaming and Wagering Commission and raise that issue. At that stage, the commission could provide extra support to Centrecare and other agencies that undertake counselling services, or it could tighten the regulations around it. Hon ALISON XAMON: I note that Centrecare was one of the organisations that wrote to all members saying that it was opposed to the introduction of Trackside. Hon Stephen Dawson: You have made that point already. Hon ALISON XAMON: The minister is right. There is one thing I would like to ask. I am trying to get an idea of how much this could be wound back by regulation, or even just by the commission itself, without having to go through a parliamentary process, should it emerge that the harms are considered to be untenable. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that under proposed section 10Y, the commission can direct the new operator on its consumer protection policy. Under proposed section 4C of the Betting Control Act, the commission may approve rules for the conduct of betting on a race, event or simulated race. The rules must specify contingencies relating to races et cetera. That can happen at any stage. Therefore, although it can sign-off on the rules at the very beginning, it can also seek to change the rules during the course of the game. After the sale has happened, it will be able to also change the rules in the future should it see the need to do so. Hon ALISON XAMON: I want to confirm, for the record, that the contract that will be engaged in for the purpose of sale will not lock in contractual arrangements in the delivery of Trackside, which will also lock in the existing regulatory regime as it is? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: While the minister is discussing that, can I suggest something? I think that the reality is that a future government and a future Parliament may change the whole process. The reason that there is a payout to Crown casino in this process is that the existing arrangements are being changed by government by legislation. The same would occur if a future government decided that it had to get rid of artificial racing for some reason. I see nothing constitutionally that would prevent that from happening, with the exception that there would be a compensation mechanism because the government would have come to an agreement in advance. The minister may be able to justify and/or alter what I think is the situation, but, as I understand the constitutionality of this, there would be nothing to prevent a future government from removing Trackside with a deal done with the purchaser as long as a compensation package was agreed to. It could also do it unilaterally, but that is a more complicated and technical issue. However, it is not ruled out under the Constitution. Hon ALISON XAMON: I want to clarify part of what I was asking. I wanted to know whether Trackside could be banned despite the fact that it is in the future, but I also wanted to know the degree to which it could be regulated and clamped down on, if you like, if it should be found that it is causing untenable levels of damage? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that the sale transaction documents will not impede or limit the commission’s ability to regulate. The Gaming and Wagering Commission can decide in the future to pare back to change the rules around simulated racing—I will not use the word “Trackside”, because that belongs to a company and it is not what we will have in Western Australia. The sale transaction documents will not impede or limit the commission’s ability to regulate. If extreme changes were made in the future as part of the legislation to go through Parliament, there could well be the risk of a need to make a payout to an operator, but certainly as it stands now, the sale transaction documents will not impede or limit the commission’s ability to regulate. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Hon Alison Xamon has the call, but I remind her and others that we are dealing with the amendment on the supplementary notice paper. This discussion has been very broad, but the specific question is that the words to be deleted be deleted.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5887

Hon ALISON XAMON: I indicated to the chamber that I intended to complete the debate on this amendment, so we do not have to revisit it on every amendment on the supplementary notice paper from here. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I understand, member. Hon ALISON XAMON: If it is the view of the Deputy Chair that we need to revisit the debate on every single amendment, which was not my intention, that can be accommodated. I would just like to make one more comment. People are now talking about the nature of the product likely to be on the market, but I am aware that the gambling industry is clever and there is always much development around the way that addiction can be promoted, if you like, through various neurological processes, particularly as we learn more and more about the way the brain and addiction work. One of the concerns I have is that although members in this chamber may right now simply be contemplating a particular product in a particular form that they view as not overly problematic, I am aware of the potential scope for other similar products to be developed that fall within the definition and that may prove to be extraordinarily harmful and addictive. One of the issues I have is that we want to ensure that future Parliaments, commissions or someone are able to keep up with developments in technology as they become more opportunistic, so we have the capacity to wind back emerging harms if they occur. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I again make the point that this bill does not authorise any other forms of gambling other than simulated racing. The commission will have wideranging powers to regulate, and if something sneaky— I think they were probably the member’s words—was done by the gaming industry in the future, the commission would have the power under the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987 to deal with that issue and make changes at that stage. Division Amendment put and a division taken, the Deputy Chair (Hon Matthew Swinbourn) casting his vote with the noes, with the following result — Ayes (7)

Hon Robin Chapple Hon Diane Evers Hon Charles Smith Hon Alison Xamon (Teller) Hon Tim Clifford Hon Robin Scott Hon Colin Tincknell

Noes (23)

Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Sue Ellery Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Dr Sally Talbot Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Donna Faragher Hon Martin Pritchard Hon Dr Steve Thomas Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Laurie Graham Hon Samantha Rowe Hon Darren West Hon Peter Collier Hon Colin Holt Hon Tjorn Sibma Hon Pierre Yang Hon Stephen Dawson Hon Alannah MacTiernan Hon Aaron Stonehouse Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Colin de Grussa Hon Michael Mischin Hon Matthew Swinbourn Amendment thus negatived. Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise to indicate that I will not be moving any of the further amendments standing in my name on the supplementary notice paper, for the reason that they all relate to the issue we have just debated, and the will of the chamber has been made clear. It would be a nonsense to try to move the rest of the related amendments. Hon COLIN HOLT: I have a couple of quick questions for the minister. Are there any estimates of revenue to the state government and the industry from simulated racing? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that we will get point-of-consumption tax revenue from simulated racing. There has been some work done. If this bill passes, we will be going out to market, so it is probably not best that we indicate what we think might come in from a potential inclusion of simulated racing because there are people watching and it may impact on the sale. If we were to disclose that, it could push the price down. Hon COLIN HOLT: Is the minister able to tell me at what rate simulated racing will be taxed? Will it be similar to the taxation rate experienced at Crown casino, or will it be more closely related to taxation on some of the other wagering products or racing in general? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told it is similar to the rate at Crown casino, when we include the Burswood Park levy. Hon Colin Holt: What is that rate? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told it is just shy of 15 per cent. Hon COLIN HOLT: I know the language has been all over the place around simulated racing products and Trackside, and potentially Trackside could be a different product, because Trackside is licensed to a particular company. My question is: will the negotiation with Crown be for Trackside or simulated racing? I would have thought Crown has the licence for Trackside, but not necessarily for simulated racing. It would be good if the minister could clear that up.

5888 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No. It is simulated racing. Crown Resorts has a licence to operate Trackside, but its licence with Tabcorp is not exclusive. This bill will allow for simulated racing. Hon COLIN HOLT: That is because that allowance for simulated racing would be contained within the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement; is that correct? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes. Clause put and passed. Clauses 41 to 46 put and passed. Clause 47: Part 1A inserted — Hon COLIN HOLT: This is a really big clause, so I will try to fast-forward to the specific proposed sections. Proposed section 10H, “Racing Industry Agreement”, is probably one of the most important proposed sections in the bill. The minister has indicated that if the racing industry does not agree to the industry arrangements, the bill will not proceed, so all the things we are talking about will not happen. Who will be official signatories or official parties to the acceptance and sign-off of the racing distribution agreement? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It is likely to be the RWWA CEO and someone else from the RWWA board. We do not know the names of those individuals, but that is the likelihood. Hon COLIN HOLT: I know this question will be tricky, but what consultation is required within the industry before that document is signed off? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that RWWA is continuing to meet with the industry on this issue, but this needs to be balanced against the negotiation of the agreement. At the end of the day, the RWWA board will make the decision, which will then authorise the CEO and another board member to sign off on the agreement. Hon COLIN HOLT: Once the agreement is agreed to and the document is provided to the minister, will it become a public document? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told, no; they are very closely held by the racing industry in other states and I dare say it will be the same in Western Australia. Hon COLIN HOLT: I refer to proposed section 10L, “Minister’s power to amend, suspend or cancel wagering licence”. Obviously, that would be a fairly drastic thing to happen. I do not need to know when that would happen or how it might occur, because that is hypothetical, but if a new wagering operator’s licence were cancelled, what would happen to the business of wagering in Western Australia and how would it continue to deliver industry distributions? Who would take over the licence if that happened? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that under proposed section 10O, there is an ability to appoint a temporary licensee, and that could happen under a fast-tracked process. It is very unlikely; it would be an extreme situation. Proposed section 10O(3) states — The provisions of this Act … apply, with the necessary modifications, to the temporary licensee as if the temporary licensee had been granted a wagering licence under section 10A. Proposed section 10H requires that a racing industry arrangement be in place before the temporary licensee could take over the suspended licence. Hon Colin Holt: Can that happen quickly? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that the process can be fast-tracked, but it would obviously involve negotiation with industry. Hon COLIN HOLT: A feature of the racing distribution agreement is the commitment to no-worse-off funding for three years. Why was that time frame chosen? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It is about commercial realism; we were not likely to get more than three years. Certainly, in the market soundings that have taken place, there seems to be agreement on three years. The last Victorian licence had a guarantee of three years, so it is commonplace. Hon COLIN HOLT: A question was raised in the second reading debate about what will happen at the end of the agreement, in 25 or 40 years, and whether the two-year clause will continue. I asked whether there would be something for the industry the next time the wagering licence is negotiated. I will reflect on the Victorian experience. When its wagering licence came up for renegotiation not very long ago, it renegotiated a range of new benefits for the industry. Why are they not included in this enabling bill? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It comes down to what is in it for the industry. Proposed section 10H requires the licensee to have in place and give effect to a funding agreement with Racing Western Australia. With any new wagering licence there is an opportunity for RWA to renegotiate the funding arrangements. Hon Colin Holt: Is the minister saying that it is implicit in the legislation?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5889

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes, and a licence could not go ahead without that racing industry agreement being in place in the first instance. Hon NICK GOIRAN: When we were considering clause 1, the minister indicated that he could answer my questions under clause 47. We were looking at the issue of keno, as far as I can recall from our earlier dialogue. The minister indicated that it would be ruled out because of the insertion of proposed section 6(1) by this clause. It has been a couple of days since the passage of that dialogue, but can the minister confirm that that is the case and that because of proposed section 6(1), there is no capacity for keno to be provided alongside Trackside? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes. Proposed section 6(1) outlines the betting products that the wagering licensee may offer, and keno is not one of them. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The genesis of that discussion was dialogue that took place in an exchange between us about the patent document. Has someone in government now had an opportunity to review that patent document? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that the answer is no. It relates to Trackside so no-one has looked at it. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I do not understand why no-one has looked at it if the reason is that it relates to Trackside, when clearly it is intended by government—I have been away on urgent parliamentary business but I understand that there has been some discussion about Trackside being used as a sweetener in the deal. I would have thought that if the government’s intention were to include it as a sweetener in the deal, the minister would want to be familiar with the terms of the patent. If no-one from government has had the opportunity to read the patent or they do not think it is sufficiently important to be across the detail of it, be that as it may. I reiterate that the patent indicates that it is preferred that the racing game is run in conjunction with the keno game. That is what has sparked this dialogue, and the minister’s confirmation that clause 47, and in particular the insertion of proposed section 6(1), rules out firmly the possibility of that happening, is welcome, and I thank the minister for that assurance. The minister also indicated in that dialogue, under clause 1, that, for keno to run simultaneously with the simulated horseracing game, legislation would need to be changed. Can the minister indicate which acts would be required to be changed for that to happen? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am advised that the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act would need to be changed, but also an authority would need to be inserted into another act to issue a keno licence to operate. That could be the gaming and wagering act or the Betting Control Act. It would be another act for the keno licence to operate and also the Burswood Island agreement act. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Is that the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act 1985? I am happy to take that by interjection. Hon Stephen Dawson: Yes. Hon NICK GOIRAN: And is it also the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987? Hon Stephen Dawson: It could be, noting that I said that second change could happen in another act. But certainly, it could be one of the acts that you just read out. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act 1985 is Western Australian legislation that definitely would need to be amended and agreed to by this house if keno was to be made available. A second piece of Western Australian law would also need to be amended, but we are not 100 per cent sure which one it is. It could be the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987, or it could be another act. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes, or it could be a new act. I do not have the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act 1985 in front of me, but certainly that would need to be amended, but another act, whether it is the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987 or the Betting Control Act 1954, would also have to be amended. It has to be the Burswood act, a change to one of those other two, or it could be included in a new Western Australian act of Parliament. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I have one last question on this. What criteria would the government consider before making a decision to change those acts? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Obviously, it would need to come forward, and a cabinet decision would be needed to allow keno to operate, and certainly the indication from the government is that we do not support keno being undertaken by the new TAB owner, so a policy decision would have to be made by a future government, and the whole process would need to be gone through at that stage. Hon NICK GOIRAN: The minister is saying that the government has decided that keno will not be operating. Is it a whole-of-government decision that has been actively made during this fortieth Parliament? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: The decision was made in this term of government that we would not progress with keno. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I have a final question. Is that decision by the government in this fortieth Parliament as certain and as sure as the statements made by Hon Mark McGowan previously, when he said that there would be no introduction of keno, but he also said that there would be no introduction of Trackside? Can we give the same weight to that commitment?

5890 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Any future decision relating to keno would need to go to cabinet. Although comments may have been made over a number of years, a commitment was given to the community at the last election that we would have a dialogue with the community, and if it supported the sale of the TAB, we would look at that issue, and that is what has happened. The consultation process happened as a result of that. Certainly, in relation to keno, the decision has been made by the government not to proceed with keno. Clause put and passed. Clauses 48 to 66 put and passed. Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 5899.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE WATER CORPORATION — GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 906. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Water: I refer to the Water Corporation’s 2019–20 statement of corporate intent. (1) Has the Water Corporation undertaken any modelling on the cost of its target to move to zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030? (2) If yes to (1), what is the expected total cost of moving to zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and what is the expected impact on residential customers? (3) What were the Water Corporation’s net greenhouse gas emissions for the 2018–19 financial year? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Water has provided the following information. (1) The statement of corporate intent states that this is a stretch target. It has been set because the Water Corporation acknowledges the strong relationship between climate change and water availability, and the importance of setting an example and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through its business. Modelling has commenced but is not yet complete. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Water Corporation’s reported net greenhouse gas emissions for the 2018–19 financial year were 574.8 kilotons of CO2-equivalent. REDCLIFFE TRAINING ASIA PACIFIC — ADVISORY SERVICES 907. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to the report on consultants engaged by government for the six months ended 31 December 2018. What was the nature of the advisory services that were provided to the Treasurer by Redcliffe Training Asia Pacific? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. Redcliffe Training Asia Pacific provides economic advisory services, particularly in relation to emerging trends in social investing, through its principal, Julian Roche. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES — FIFTY-FIFTH REPORT — STATE SOLICITOR’S OFFICE 908. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Leader of the House representing the Attorney General: I refer to the Attorney General’s refusal to advise Parliament of the procedure followed by the State Solicitor’s Office to identify and remove documents provided to it that “may” be the subject of parliamentary privilege, and to identify the officers and staff who had access to those documents and made those decisions. (1) On what basis is that information regarding process and by whom it was carried out, absent of any disclosure of legal advice, subject to legal professional privilege? (2) Is his answer of 20 August supported by legal advice; and, if so, from whom and when was it sought and obtained? (3) Will the Attorney General now reconsider his refusal to provide information to Parliament and supply the information sought?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5891

Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The process by which documents that constituted proceedings in Parliament could be identified, which of necessity requires the application of legal considerations, including the precise parameters of the term “proceedings in Parliament”, forms part of the legal advice provided to the state on the matter. That information forms part of a confidential communication between the state and its legal advisers and is properly the subject of legal professional privilege. It has already been made clear that that process was undertaken by the State Solicitor’s Office, whose officers are officers of the state. Even if it were the case that their names were not the subject of legal professional privilege, I do not propose to provide their names. They are officers of the state who were acting under instructions from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. (2) Legal advice was sought and received from the State Solicitor’s Office. (3) Noting the above, no. SCHOOLS — COMMUNITY-BASED PLAYGROUPS 909. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the enhanced transition to schools project. (1) Does the Department of Education provide any funding to support this project; and, if yes, will the minister provide more detail on the funding arrangements? (2) How many schools have an established community-based playgroup operating on school grounds? (3) Will the minister provide a list of the schools referred to in (2)? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. Funding through the national partnership on universal access to early childhood education, element 2, “Enhanced transition to school”, has been used to develop a grant agreement with Playgroup WA— from September 2014 to December 2019—to establish playgroups on public, Catholic and independent school grounds. (2) As at 13 August 2019, 141 community-based playgroups were operating on school grounds. (3) I have a list of schools with an established community-based playgroup operating on school grounds. The data has been provided by Playgroup WA. It is a very long list, so I seek leave to have that part of the answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated —

Anzac Terrace Primary School All Saints College Amaroo Primary School Armadale Primary School Ashburton Drive Primary School Ashdale Primary School Augusta Primary School Australian Christian College—Brookdale Balcatta Primary School Baler Primary School Balingup Primary Bambara Primary School Bassendean Primary School Beaconsfield Primary School Beeliar Primary School Beverley District High School Birlirr Ngawiyiwu Catholic School Bold Park Primary School Bremer Bay Primary School Brentwood Primary School Bridgetown Primary School Brighton Catholic Primary School Carlisle Primary School Carmel School Carramar Primary School Caversham Primary School Chapman Valley Primary School Childside Primary School Chrysalis Montessori Clifton Hills Primary School Clifton Park Primary School Collier Primary School Cornerstone Christian College, Busselton Campus Cornerstone Christian College, Dunsborough Campus Corrigin District High School Cottesloe Primary School Craigie Heights Primary School Cranbrook Primary School

5892 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Curtin Primary School Dianella Primary College Dryandra Primary School Dwellingup Primary School East Kenwick Primary School Eddystone Primary School Embleton Primary School Forrestdale Community Kindergarten Forrestdale Primary School Foundation Christian College Gascoyne Junction Remote Community School Georgiana Molloy Anglican School Geraldton Grammar School Goollelal Primary School Goomaling Primary School Great Southern Grammar School Greenbushes Primary School Grovelands Primary School Helena College Helena Valley Primary School Hillman Primary School Hilton Primary School Hopetoun Primary School Hudson Park Primary School Huntingdale Primary School Hyden Primary School Immaculate Heart College John Butler Primary School Kardinya Primary School Kerry Street Community School Kingston Primary School Kirup Primary School Lancelin Primary School Leaning Tree Community School Living Waters Lutheran Lockridge Primary School Loreto Nedlands Catholic Primary School Madeley Primary School Malibu School Manjimup Primary School Marangaroo Primary School Mary’s Mount Primary School Meckering Primary School Mindarie Primary School Moora Primary School Moorine Rock Primary School Morawa District High School Morley Primary School Mount Manypeaks Primary School Narrogin Primary School Neerigen Brook Primary School Newedgate Primary School North Dandalup Primary School North Morley Primary School Oakwood Primary School Onslow Primary School Orange Grove Primary School Orelia Primary School Penrhos Junior School Presbyterian Ladies College Queen Of Apostles Catholic Primary School Queens Park Primary School River Valley Primary School Riverton Primary School Rivervale Primary School Rockingham Beach Primary School Sacred Heart School Salvado Catholic College Sawyers Valley Primary School South Ballajura Education Support Centre South Lake Primary School Southern Hills Christian College St Anthony’s School St Brigid’s College St Columba’s Catholic Primary School St Elizabeth’s Catholic Primary School St Francis Xavier’s Catholic Primary School St John Bosco College St Joseph’s College St Joseph’s School Sutherland Dianella Primary School Swanbourne Primary School Tambellup Primary School The Montessori Primary School Thornlie Primary School Treendale Primary School Tuart Hill Primary School Vasse Primary School Walliston Primary School Wandina Primary School Weld Square Primary School Wellstead Primary School Wesley College West Byford Primary School West Morley Primary School Westfield Park Primary School White Gum Valley Primary School Wirrabirra Primary School Woodanilling Primary School Wundowie Primary School Wyalkatchem District High School Yarloop Primary School Yokine Primary School

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5893

CARE LEAVERS — HOME STRETCH PROGRAM 910. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the Home Stretch trial, which commenced in July 2019. (1) On what date was the steering group established? (2) Who are the members of the steering group? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: (1) The steering group was established in July 2019. (2) The steering group membership comprises representatives from the Department of Communities, Anglicare WA, CREATE Foundation WA, relevant community services and research sectors, and young people with a lived experience of leaving care. HOUSING — NINGA MIA — GOLDFIELDS 911. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: I refer to the answer to question without notice 690 from 26 June 2019, in which the minister indicated he intended to visit the Ninga Mia community in the goldfields. (1) Has the minister visited the Ninga Mia community yet? (2) If no to (1), when does the minister intend to visit the community? (3) Does the minister have any plans to rebuild any of the buildings that were recently demolished? (4) Given that homelessness is an increasing issue in the region and that multiple families are seeking to live in the Ninga Mia community, does the minister agree that revitalising the community through investing in new housing and community infrastructure is a good idea? (5) If no to (4), can the minister please explain why not? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) Although no firm arrangements are in place, the minister intends to visit the community in the future. (3)–(5) As per the answer to questions without notice 690 and 669, all decisions regarding the future of the Ninga Mia reserve will continue to be made in consultation with residents and the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Some of the demolished buildings were not houses. Those that were houses were not occupied and had not been occupied for some time. The state government’s response to homelessness in the region will focus on accommodation and supports that enable access to good amenities, and educational and employment opportunities. Providing additional accommodation on the outskirts of Kalgoorlie is unlikely to form part of this response. ALBANY HEALTH CAMPUS — ACCREDITATION 912. Hon COLIN HOLT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to question without notice 900, asked yesterday by me. (1) On what date did the Albany Health Campus first get assessed under the “National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards: Second edition”? (2) Were any issues raised by the assessors at that time; and, if so, what were those issues? (3) Has the Albany Health Campus had any further assessments since that initial assessment? (4) Did the Albany Health Campus operate at any time without that accreditation? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I am advised of the following. (1) WA Country Health Service great southern, including Albany Health Campus, was first assessed for accreditation under version 2 of the “National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards” between 18 and 22 March 2019. (2) The initial assessment identified some areas for improvement relating to governance and leadership. (3) WA Country Health Service great southern, including Albany Health Campus, underwent reassessment on 24 and 25 July 2019 against the areas identified during the initial assessment in March. (4) Albany Health Campus has been fully accredited throughout this process and following reassessment remains fully accredited for a further three years.

5894 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

PUBLIC SECTOR — INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENT 913. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE to the minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations: I refer the minister to the publicity surrounding the recent negotiations with the WA branch of the Community and Public Sector Union–Civil Service Association on pay and conditions for Western Australia’s 38 000 state government employees. (1) What is the estimated financial cost over the term of the new two-year agreement of the agreed additional day in lieu of Easter Sunday? (2) What is the estimated financial cost over the term of the agreement of the 25 per cent loading for casual staff? (3) How many of the 38 000 state employees identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and will therefore be eligible for the five days of paid cultural and ceremonial leave for Indigenous staff members? (4) What is the estimated financial cost over the term of the two-year agreement of that cultural and ceremonial leave? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I understand that he is aware of this answer. The Minister for Industrial Relations has advised that due to the scope of the information requested, an answer was not able to be provided today, but the minister has given a commitment to provide the answer on our next sitting day, Tuesday, 3 September. CLIMATE CHANGE — EXPORT EMISSIONS 914. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the article in The Guardian of 8 July titled “Fossil fuel exports make Australia one of the worst contributors to climate crisis”. Given that Australia’s total emissions, including exports, are five per cent of the total global emissions and are expected to rise to 17 per cent of global emissions by 2030, I ask the following. (1) Has the state government undertaken any modelling of WA’s export emissions; and, if so, can the minister please table it? (2) Will the state government include any modelling of WA’s export emissions in the proposed climate change policy? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) No, the state government has not undertaken any modelling of WA’s export, or scope 3, emissions. In accordance with the current system of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions are accounted for in the jurisdiction in which the emissions occur. LED STREETLIGHTS 915. Hon ALISON XAMON to the minister representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to the installation of 4000 kelvin correlated colour temperature light-emitting diode streetlights across Perth by Western Power. (1) In which suburbs have these streetlights already been installed? (2) Would the minister please table the rollout plan for these streetlights; and, if not, why not? (3) Will Western Power retrofit 3000K LED lighting in residential areas where 4000K LED lighting has already been installed? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Energy. (1) Western Power has installed these streetlights in Wembley, Melville, Menora, Nedlands, Claremont, Alfred Cove, West Leederville and Floreat. (2) Western Power is working with local government authorities in relation to future installations of LED streetlights. During this process, Western Power will be working to resolve any issues it may have currently and as they arise. A more detailed implementation plan is expected to be finalised in early 2020. (3) Western Power is required to act efficiently and in a commercial manner to minimise costs to taxpayers. As is its standard approach, Western Power will replace LED streetlights as they come to end of life. However, local government authorities may request and fund this work should they wish to replace these LEDs ahead of time.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5895

LANDS — MURUJUGA ABORIGINAL CORPORATION 916. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer to the 221-hectare area of land known as site L ceded to the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation on Thursday, 25 July 2019, and to temporary reserve 70/6697. (1) Will temporary reserve 70/6697 be amended to exclude site L from its boundaries? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), when? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Mines and Petroleum. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) It will be amended once the land is transferred from crown land to freehold estate. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 2019 917. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I wish to ask a follow-up question to the question I asked the minister last week about the proposed changes to the Agricultural Produce Commission Act 1988. (1) Will the minister acknowledge that broadacre farmers already pay substantial levies to federal bodies, such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation, for marketing and research and development functions? (2) If yes to (1), what distinct broadacre marketing or broadacre research and development functions would a state-based body perform, as separate from its existing federal counterpart? (3) When broadacre exports are worth in excess of $6 billion annually, does the minister believe that consultation with one representative body is sufficient? (4) Will the minister concede that according to the compliance provisions in part 3A of the bill, an authorised officer could direct that a farmer produce his own documents before the officer in the farmer’s own home? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) It may well be the case that broadacre farmers do not vote in favour of establishing a producers’ committee or a levy under the act. We are simply aiming at giving the industry the option to do so should they wish to avail themselves of a mechanism that has proved very useful for other agricultural sectors. I say again that this can only go forward; it would translate into a levy only if a producer made an application to the Agricultural Produce Commission and, if it goes to a vote, affected producers vote in favour of establishing a producers’ committee. This is not something that we are going to be imposing; this is something that simply will be a facilitation. (4) No. A direction to produce a relevant document as defined in proposed part 3A must be given in writing, and an authorised officer is not given power to enter any premises, let alone a dwelling. For this reason, although a written direction to produce a relevant record may require that the record be produced “at a place specified” or “by the means specified”, this will not authorise a direction that “a farmer produce his own documents before the officer in the farmer’s own home”. MERREDIN — STATE FUNDING 918. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to a members’ statement made by Hon Darren West on 15 August 2019 about claims made by him that a number of important regional projects were initiatives of the McGowan Labor government. (1) Given that the Merredin hospital refurbishment builder was selected and announced by government media release on 19 December 2016, was this project initiated under the former Liberal–National government? (2) Given that the Central East Aged Care Alliance was awarded $19.98 million for the construction of 75 age-appropriate homes in the wheatbelt and announced by government media release on 8 July 2016, was this project initiated under the former Liberal–National government? (3) Further to (2), am I correct in understanding that the Minister for Regional Development in the McGowan Labor government cut $5 million from the CEACA project upon her elevation to cabinet? (4) Given that the St John Ambulance Merredin sub-centre funding was announced by government media release on 27 July 2016, was this project initiated under the former Liberal–National government? (5) If yes to (1), (2) and (4), will the minister counsel her parliamentary secretary against making any further misleading statements to the house?

5896 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(5) I can assure the member that I will continue to encourage the great enthusiasm of my parliamentary secretary, Hon Darren West. When he goes into the wheatbelt, he absolutely connects with the people. Of course, as we know, he is the only working farmer in Parliament. He goes to Merredin and he is genuinely excited about the opportunities that are occurring there. It is certainly true and we are more than happy to acknowledge that the Merredin hospital project was initiated under the previous government, but the member never actually said anything to the contrary—he said that the funding was made subsequent to the election. As far as I can see, on election day this was pretty much an empty site with a sign in front of it; therefore, in a strict, technical sense, the member is quite right. But we assure members opposite that we and the parliamentary secretary here will make sure that the member is invited to the opening of the Merredin hospital, because we do acknowledge his role in this. The situation with the Central East Aged Care Alliance Inc is a little bit more interesting and complex. Huge amounts of money—probably hundreds of millions of dollars—were shovelled out the door in these financial assistance agreements, often before projects were anywhere near ready to go. This was a device to stop the money going back into the consolidated account. Sometimes, these projects had sat around in FAA grants for three, four or even five years before they were ready to go, so they were often projects that had not been fully designed, but because of the blue-on-green war, some money had to be got out the door and it was put into these funds. When we came to government, as we said, we found we had to engage in budget repair. We also had a billion dollars’ worth of election commitments to the people of regional Western Australia that we were going to fund from royalties for regions. We note—I ask the member to recall this—that before the last election, the Liberal Party acknowledged that it would have to take out and reallocate $800 million from the royalties for regions budget. Therefore, the member can say that the National Party was going to do this, and the National Party was going to do that, but the reality is that anyone who came into government was going to have to deal with this issue of budget repair, and the member’s coalition partners were very clear that $800 million was going to come out. In relation to CEACA, we quite rightly pride ourselves in and take credit for the fact that we put $15 million in the budget to allow that project to go forward. I will encourage Hon Darren West to go out there and talk up the regions, as he always does. ANIMAL ACTIVISM — FINE PAYMENT 919. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA to the minister representing the Minister for Commerce: I refer to question without notice 141, asked in this place on 12 March, regarding the use of crowdfunding by convicted criminals to pay for fines. (1) Given the Charitable Collections Act was written in 1946 and never envisioned the use of the internet as a fundraising tool, will the state government review and update the act to be more reflective of our current society? (2) As crowdfunding currently falls outside the scope of the Charitable Collections Act 1946, are there any penalties that would apply to people who misuse crowdfunding platforms to obtain money from the Western Australian public through false or misleading pretences? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Commerce has provided the following answer. (1) A review of the Charitable Collections Act 1946 is on the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety’s forward work program. A review will be initiated upon completion of other business permits, and will consider the use of the internet to raise money for charitable purposes. (2) Crowdfunding for personal benefit—for example, to raise funds to pay fines; as referred to in question without notice 141—is outside the scope of the Charitable Collections Act 1946. The example is also outside the scope of the Australian Consumer Law, which applies to transactions that occur in trade or commerce, so provisions under the ACL addressing false or misleading conduct would not apply. The Criminal Code may apply if funds were obtained under false pretences. FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK — SOIL CONTAMINATION 920. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to PFAS-contaminated soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport Link and the answer to question without notice 854 asked by me on 15 August 2019. (1) Has any soil from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project been taken directly to any site other than 777 Abernethy Road, Forrestfield?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5897

(2) If yes, to what sites and in what volumes? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) Approximately 110 000 cubic metres of soil is stockpiled at a site within Perth Airport. Approximately 80 000 cubic metres of soil has been used as engineered backfill within the Forrestfield–Airport Link site. SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL — EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT — CODE YELLOW HOURS 921. Hon KEN BASTON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) How many hours was the emergency department at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in code yellow for each day from 5 August to 19 August inclusive? (2) How many flu presentations were there at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital from 5 August to 19 August inclusive? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) On 5 August 2019, 13 hours; 8 August 2019, six hours; 12 August 2019, 20 hours; 16 August 2019, 12 hours; 17 August 2019, 20.5 hours; and 19 August 2019, 12 hours. All other dates in the requested period had no code yellow hours recorded. (2) There were 184. WESTPORT TASKFORCE — OPTIONS 922. Hon TJORN SIBMA to the Minister for Ports: I refer to Westport Taskforce’s long list of 25 options. (1) How did each option rank against the “Infrastructure capacity, scalability and operational efficiency” sub-criterion? (2) How did each option rank against the “Capex and land acquisition costs” sub-criterion? (3) How did each option rank against the “Operations and maintenance costs” sub-criterion? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. As the member would appreciate, providing that level of detail for only a portion of the multi-criteria analysis would not provide an accurate picture. I have asked the Westport Taskforce to prepare a summary of the rankings for each sub-criterion and I commit to tabling that on the next sitting day. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES — FIFTY-FIFTH REPORT — DEPARTMENT OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET 923. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: Given this question was provided yesterday, there should be an answer to it. I refer to the fifty-fifth report of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Premier’s knowledge of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s director general and acting director general’s dealings with the committee. (1) Did acting director general Roper inform him that she had been summonsed to appear before the standing committee on 9 August 2019? (2) If the answer to (1) is yes, in what manner did she inform him and when, and what did she say? (3) What advice, instruction or direction did he give Ms Roper regarding her appearing before the standing committee? (4) When did he learn that she did not appear before the standing committee, how did he come to know and how did he respond? (5) If he declines to provide the information sought, is it because he is concerned that it may implicate him, Mr Foster or Ms Roper in the potential contempts of Parliament, the subject of the report? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. These are matters before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges and it would not be appropriate to continue to comment on this matter.

5898 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

FIREARMS — SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP 924. Hon ALISON XAMON to the minister representing the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to The Sunday Times article of 18 August 2019 about a special operations group assault rifle left in a vehicle outside Hakea Prison for a weekend. (1) How many breaches of firearm security by the special operations group occurred in — (a) 2017–18, and in which months; and (b) 2018–19, and in which months? (2) What steps were taken by the department to address the circumstances of those breaches and to prevent future breaches by the special operations group? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) (a) Nil. (b) There was one breach, in July 2018. This is an isolated incident. There have been no security incidents involving firearms for over 20 years. No rounds or magazines were transported with this firearm. (2) Following an immediate review, procedures regarding the storage, issue and transfer of firearms were reinforced. The officer responsible for the oversight was counselled and issued with a formal written warning. The matter was referred to Corrective Services’ investigation services branch. WATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT — FITZROY CATCHMENT 925. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the minister representing the Minister for Water: Last Monday, it was reported in The Australian that last year the CSIRO spent $15 million developing a detailed blueprint for new water infrastructure, including for the Fitzroy River in Western Australia. (1) Has the minister or his department reviewed the blueprint in detail? (2) The CSIRO’s proposal simply involves some pipes and some pumps to fill up nearby farm dams, which could support up to 160 000 hectares of a single irrigated dry-season crop. Is the government aware of how much this proposal would cost; and, if not, why not; and, if yes, how much would it cost? (3) In response to this proposal, a spokesperson for the minister was reported as saying — “Our government made election commitments to not dam the Fitzroy … Does the minister now concede that the CSIRO’s proposal actually does not involve damming the Fitzroy at all? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Water has provided the following answer. (1) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation received the report. (2) I am aware only of the CSIRO estimate, which is approximately $935 million. (3) The comments reported incompletely from Monday’s The Australian merely restated our election commitment to not dam the Fitzroy and to create the Fitzroy River national park. The CSIRO report did not contain specific proposals; it provided information on a range of topics relating to the use of water resources in the Fitzroy catchment. FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK — SOIL CONTAMINATION Question without Notice 903 — Answer Advice HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.01 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to question without notice 903, asked by Hon Dr Steve Thomas yesterday. I seek leave to have the response incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — (1) (a) The Public Transport Authority (PTA) did not receive payment for the soil which is being transferred to the Kenwick Rail Freight Facility (KRFF) project. (b)–(e) The PTA expects to pay $2m to the PTA’s Forrestfield–Airport Link main works contractor for ‘material and transport’ and site preparation of approximately 120,000 cubic metres of soil to the KRFF project.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5899

QUESTION ON NOTICE 2293 Paper Tabled A paper relating to an answer to question on notice 2293 was tabled by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development). HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CAMPUSES — GERALDTON HOSPITAL Question on Notice 2242 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.02 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 108(2), I inform the house that the answer to question on notice 2242, asked by Hon Martin Aldridge on 26 June 2019 to me, as parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health, will be provided on 3 September 2019. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Excuse me! TAB (DISPOSAL) BILL 2019 Committee Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Matthew Swinbourn) in the chair; Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment) in charge of the bill. Committee was interrupted after clause 66 had been agreed to. Clause 67: Sections 25A to 25E inserted — Hon COLIN HOLT: Can the minister give me an explanation of why proposed section 25A is needed? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: This is about the introduction of a new race field publication regime. In other Australian jurisdictions, race field fees are paid by wagering operators to racing clubs, either directly or indirectly, for the use of racing information for the purposes of taking bets on those races. In Western Australia, race field fees are currently levied under the Racing Bets Levy Act 2009 with the applicable rates outlined in the Racing Bets Levy Regulations 2009. All wagering operators currently taking bets in WA races pay the racing bets levy to the Gaming and Wagering Commission, which then remits the aggregated amount to RWWA, as the principal racing authority. RWWA then distributes these funds to the racing clubs. The racing bets levy is currently expected to raise about $80 million per annum. It is currently necessary for the Gaming and Wagering Commission to collect the racing bets levy because RWWA is both the principal racing authority and the operator of the TAB. If the racing bets levy were to be paid directly to RWWA under its current structure, it would be able to obtain sensitive commercial information about its competitors. The current regime means that the Racing Bets Levy Regulations 2009 must be amended each time RWWA, as the principal racing authority, seeks to change the racing bet levy rates. Therefore, the sale of the TAB will involve carving out the wagering functions from RWWA. Once this occurs RWWA—changed to RWA—will no longer have a conflict of interest in receiving commercial information from the TAB’s competitors. Hon COLIN HOLT: Thank you, sir, but that is not quite what I was getting to. This is about restrictions on publication of the use of WA race fees. Why is that restricted? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It will restrict people from using the race fields unless they have approval from RWWA to do so. Under proposed section 25C, the approval can be granted by RWA. Section 25C(3) states — A publication and use approval may be granted subject to any conditions RWA thinks fit, including a condition that the wagering service provider pay, in the manner specified in the approval, a fee or a series of fees of an amount or amounts — (a) specified in the approval; or (b) calculated in accordance with a formula or formulae specified in the approval. Hon COLIN HOLT: I guess it basically protects the intellectual property of the product. Hon Stephen Dawson: By way of interjection, the answer is: yes. Hon COLIN HOLT: Is 5 000 bucks enough of a penalty when we consider who could be abusing the system? There could be huge multinational gambling agencies using it illegally, but $5 000 does not sound like much of a penalty. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that it is $5 000 for each individual time it is abused. The sentencing provisions provide for five times the amount for corporations. Clause put and passed. Clauses 68 to 128 put and passed.

5900 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Clause 129: Part 5 deleted — Hon NICK GOIRAN: When we were debating clause 1, I asked some questions about anti–money laundering provisions and the minister indicated he would be in a position to provide some answers at clause 129. To expedite things, could the minister just indicate what those answers are? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: This is a comprehensive answer, so I will read the whole thing for the honourable member. Gambling services are designated services under the commonwealth’s Anti–Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Any operator that purchases the TAB will be required to meet the same anti–money laundering requirements as Racing and Wagering Western Australia is required to meet under that act. The website of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre sets out its role as regulator under the AMLCTF act, and states — As Australia’s AML/CTF regulator, we oversee the compliance of more than 14,000 Australian businesses with the AML/CTF Act and the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (FTR Act). This includes businesses in the financial services, gambling, bullion and remittance sectors. They range from major corporations to small businesses—from the big banks, to a pub or club with pokie machines or a small remittance service provider. We make sure these businesses have the systems and controls in place to help prevent them being exploited for serious financial crime. These processes include:

• identifying customers

• keeping proper records

• providing us with information about financial transactions

• telling us about any suspicious customers or activity

• assessing money laundering and terrorism financing risks they face

• having an AML/CTF program in place. We can take legal action against businesses who don’t comply with their obligations. The state expects that gambling industry participants would be keenly aware of their obligations. The role of the Corruption and Crime Commission in relation to misconduct of public officers would not apply to officers of the privatised TAB, as is appropriate given they would not be public service officers. However, the Corruption and Crime Commission’s powers in relation to organised crime would apply to a new operator of the TAB in the same manner that they applied to RWWA. In general, there is nothing in the bill that the government anticipates will dilute the Western Australia Police Force’s role in anti–money laundering investigations. For example, section 53 of the WA Criminal Investigation Act 2006, which provides for a justice of the peace to issue an order to produce a document to a person on the application of a police officer, will apply to a new operator of the TAB as it does to RWWA now. A new TAB operator would also be subject to revelatory oversight by the Gaming and Wagering Commission. For example, the commission would have capacity under proposed section 10Y of the Betting Control Act 1954, to be inserted by clause 47 of the bill, to issue directions to the new operator with respect to systems of internal control administrative and accounting procedures for its wagering business. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I thank the minister for the comprehensive response. I indicate that that tells us that as a result of the sale there will be less oversight in Western Australia over money laundering to one extent only and that is the role of the Corruption and Crime Commission. As the minister has indicated, it would not have a role with regard to such officers other than, as indicated, through the organised crime functions, which, as we well know, the CCC does not use. At the moment the CCC is busy consorting with the executive in respect of spying activities on members of Parliament and accessing emails covered by parliamentary privilege, but quite apart from that high-profile and unfortunate episode, it is a fact that the Corruption and Crime Commission routinely does not use its organised crime functions, and there have been many reports about that particular episode. I conclude by simply indicating that as a result of this provision, there will be less oversight of money laundering than there is currently. Clause put and passed. Clauses 130 to 160 put and passed. Clause 161: Review of Act — Hon COLIN HOLT: This is a standard review clause and I just point to clause 161(2), which states — The review must address the following — (a) the impact of this Act on the State’s racing industry including its funding;

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5901

We heard earlier that one of the outcomes of the racing distribution agreement is guaranteed funding for three years. The time frame for this review of the act is three years. I am just wondering what exactly the minister would expect it to show if the review were undertaken in that three-year period when there was an acceptance that they must maintain the funding to the industry. I guess if there were any opportunity to amend any part of the legislation— we know we cannot—perhaps this is where the government could think about how it could implement a review in maybe three years or five years after that. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that, in the absence of the guarantee, we will have enough data to know what the performance of the racing distribution agreement funding to Racing Western Australia would be. Hon COLIN HOLT: That is really interesting. The minister is saying that before the three-year anniversary, a new operator could go back to RWWA and say, “Look, this is what we think is going to happen in 12, 24 or 36 months’ time in terms of our forward projections of what funding is going to come back to the industry”. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No, I am not saying that. We will get continuous reporting from the operator on their performance to know what is going on, and we will know whether that guarantee is being relied on or not. Hon COLIN HOLT: I understand now, but the review refers to the impact of the legislation on the state racing industry, including its funding. If there is guaranteed funding for three years—this review is in three years—what is actually going to be reviewed? It is a no-worse-off scenario. We are going to continue from this point for three years in a no-worse-off scenario, so the funding levels are going to be exactly the same. We are going to do a review at that point, when the funding is exactly the same. When it changes, after that three-year period, is going to be the most important thing for the industry. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I guess this is the first review. Other reviews will happen periodically after that. We are committing to a review in three years and we will see what is thrown up at that time, but there will also be reviews in the future, and if changes need to be made in the future, obviously they can be made at that stage. Hon COLIN HOLT: I will just finish my contribution, but I have one question from last night. I raise it here because we are probably near the end. The minister was going to seek from the chief executive officer of RWWA a list of its assets. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I did not indicate I was going to seek a list of its assets; I indicated that I would seek a list of the TAB agencies owned by RWWA. That is what I took down as part of the conversation, so I am happy to provide that list. If there is something else the member wanted, I am sorry but I did not understand that he had asked for something further. Hon COLIN HOLT: It was in the context that surely RWWA has an asset register that it may or may not need to report during its annual reporting period. It was at that time that the minister said he would seek some information from RWWA. I do not need an answer now, but perhaps the minister can review Hansard and provide an answer at a future date. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I certainly undertake to review Hansard and to seek further information from the CEO of RWWA. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL: How many of the 161 clauses of this bill have been amended? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: One, in the other place. Clause put and passed. Postponed clause 13: Functions and powers of corporate vehicles — The clause was postponed on 20 August after it had been partly considered. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Minister, noting the time, you will need to be very quick, or not at all. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Mr Deputy President, are we now moving to members’ statements? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Thank you. Are you giving me the call? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I was not, actually. Members, we now move to members’ statements, which is normally primarily for members’ statements, not ministers’ statements. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Mr Deputy President, I seek to make an explanation in relation to a question about which Hon Nick Goiran sought further information, and I would ask to do that now.

5902 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations — Personal Explanation HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.21 pm] — by leave: On 6 August 2019, during debate on the Appropriation (Recurrent 2019–20) Bill 2019 and the Appropriation (Capital 2019–20) Bill 2019, Hon Nick Goiran sought an explanation from the government about a response to his question to the Minister for Police, submitted as part of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations for the 2019–20 budget estimates hearings, with regard to the multi-agency protocols for harmful sexual behaviour. I seek to provide the following explanation on behalf of the Minister for Police. The Western Australia Police Force is explicitly aware of the importance of information exchange with the Department of Education to protect the safety of students and continuously works with that department to improve those communication channels through the provisions of the Children and Community Services Act 2004. The WA Police Force response to questions for the estimates and financial operations committee for the 2019–20 budget estimates hearings in mid-2019 states “No”’ to question (f) — Would purpose-specific legislation assist WA Police in sharing information? The “Multi-agency Protocols for Education Options for Young People Charged with Harmful Sexual Behaviours” was endorsed in 2017 by the Department of Education, the Western Australia Police Force, the Department of Communities and the Department of Justice. Section 1.6 of this protocol states — WA Police considers concern for other students before disclosure to Department of Education or Department of Education Services under Section 28B Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA). WA Police may not report when no concerns for other students. Purpose-specific new legislation would assist police in sharing information. Since 2017, when the multi-agency protocols were developed, the WA Police Force has found the information-sharing capability provided by section 28B of the Children and Community Services Act 2004 to be suitable for police to provide Education with the necessary information to reasonably protect the safety of students. Although the recent answer may appear to be contradictory, it was given from a more contemporary view on how information exchange occurred to protect the safety of students. The WA Police Force will liaise with Stephen Baxter, deputy director general, Education, to work with the WA Police Force on ensuring that information is shared and that both agencies are aware of their responsibilities. ATTORNEY GENERAL — ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE Statement HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.25 pm]: This morning, when I was speaking on Hon Martin Aldridge’s motion on police, I recounted a little trip down memory lane about one of the members of cabinet who has the interests of police as one of the considerations to which they must turn their mind. I was speaking about the Attorney General, Hon John Quigley, MLA. In particular, I reminded members of an incident in 2008 and the Attorney General’s reckless, irrational, unsubstantiated and intemperate allegations that corrupt police were responsible for graffitiing his property. As I mentioned, he claimed that police were doing it. There was no evidence of that, of course, but it did get him a headline and allowed him to grandstand for a while. The article I was referring to this morning from The West Australian of 14 October 2008 states — Union president Mike Dean said he was taking legal advice reluctantly on defamation action against Mr Quigley, describing his allegations as reckless. “I am very saddened by his comments. They were quite irrational, unwarranted and bizarre,” he said. In case members think that I am simply making judgements about him, I will repeat what then Leader of the Opposition Eric Ripper said about his colleague at the time. He is reported as saying — … he could not support or condone Mr Quigley’s “intemperate and unsubstantiated” allegations. But he understood the Mindarie MP’s anger at the cowardly and malicious attack on his family. Mr Ripper said he asked Mr Quigley to take a “calmer” approach to the incident and refer any allegations about police to the CCC. So, there we were. The article continues — Mr Quigley said he might quit politics and move interstate to protect his wife Michelle and 20-month old daughter Ruby from such attacks. Of course, that was a lost opportunity for Western Australia. The articles continues — Mr Ripper discouraged him from quitting politics.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5903

That was another mistake on Mr Ripper’s part. The article continues — Police dusted the wall and boat for fingerprints, searched bins for a spray can and talked to nearby residents. The police continued their inquiries. One would have thought that that experience would have put a check on the Attorney General’s behaviour, but, no, it did not. In Parliament on 27 November that year, he continued in that vein, talking about himself. It is fascinating how he talks about corrupt police officers, having made a living representing corrupt police officers as a legal practitioner. But now, police officers, apparently corrupt ones, were the prime suspects in this act of vandalism. What evidence of that was there? None at all. And if there was any doubt, he continued and blamed the government and said that it was not doing enough. He said — What word has he — The Minister for Police at the time — spoken against those criminals who graffitied my house—those mongrels who painted “child molester” so that my wife and children would read it in the morning? What word of criticism? The then Minister for Police, Hon Rob Johnson, asked — Are you accusing police officers of doing that? The then shadow Attorney General replied, “Absolutely!” What happened next? On 12 November 2009, an article titled “Quigley to police: Sorry” was published in The West Australian. It reads — Outspoken Labor frontbencher John Quigley yesterday formally apologised to police and withdrew allegations that officers had been responsible for graffiti which was scrawled across the fence of his family home last year. Mr Quigley, the shadow attorney-general, told State Parliament that police had conducted a thorough investigation into the graffiti attack and other incidents and a suspect had been identified. He said his family was still being harassed by “criminal elements” and needed police protection. He had been distressed after an accusation he was a paedophile was painted on the front wall of his home in October last year. “I have had discussions since then with the Commissioner of Police, Karl O’Callaghan. To Mr O’Callaghan I have fully retracted my allegations against the police,” he said. “It was a genuine mistake made as a victim of crime under enormous stress when my family home was under attack. Notwithstanding that, it was a mistake and I unequivocally withdraw what I said and apologise.” One would have thought that that would put an end to one’s prospects not only in politics, but also as a representative of government. But so shallow and brackish is the pond from which the McGowan government was looking for cabinet ministers, they made him Attorney General. This is the first law officer of our state. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! I am listening carefully to this debate which touches on very serious matters. I do not want cross-chamber yelling. The member with the call can address the Chair rather than antagonising others opposite. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: It is not hard to press certain buttons, but that is the sort of minister that the McGowan government — Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: That is the sort of standard of a McGowan government minister. It is not surprising then when the police might feel that they do not have too many friends in the cabinet. Perhaps he is the best lawyer available to the McGowan Labor government. I would have thought that there may be some others, but apparently that is the best that the talent scouts working for the newly elected Premier could come up with when they were fishing for someone to be the first law officer of the state. If members read any of his abuse in the other place, in which he forms judgements about people and attacks them personally, they just have to look at his behaviour to see what sort of credence they put on anything that he says. This is the sort of person who has been answering questions over the last week and we are supposed to rely on his integrity and veracity in respect of matters that involve attacks on the accountability of this government to this Parliament. I will get back to the original point of it all. This morning we were debating matters of police and how they feel hard done by. I would not be surprised if they felt that they are not being well represented by this McGowan cabinet.

5904 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

BREAST CANCER Statement HON ROBIN SCOTT (Mining and Pastoral) [5.32 pm]: Last Saturday night I went to the fiftieth birthday party of Robyn Stewart, who is a work colleague of my partner, Julia. I met Robyn about five or six years ago at a previous birthday party. I remember meeting her because she had this shock of big, boofy, curly hair. It was absolutely magnificent. Two years ago she was diagnosed with breast cancer and told that she would have to have a double mastectomy, which was then performed. Last year, she was a guest speaker at the Pink Ribbon Ball. For 20 minutes she told of her journey through this terrible illness. She did not hold back any punches. One could have heard a pin drop when she explained all the gruesome parts. At the party there were six other ladies who were all in various stages of this terrible illness. I noticed that none of them were looking for sympathy; they were all strong, powerful women. It made me start to think about the women in my life starting with my grandmother, my mother and my sisters, and then the various other women in my life. I realised that they were also really strong people. It is just amazing the power I got from all these women in my life. When I think about this chamber, the President is female and the Leader of the House is female. We have Hon Alison Xamon who is the Deputy Leader of the Greens and we also have Hon Jacqui Boydell who is the Deputy Leader of the Nationals WA. Hon Alanna Clohesy: She is the leader, as is Hon Jacqui Boydell. Hon ROBIN SCOTT: I apologise. Anyway, the reason I brought this up was that last week, someone, who had become aware that Hon Alannah MacTiernan was not well, asked me: “If you found out you had cancer, would you be coming to work?” I thought I could not answer that because it was a hypothetical question. But I want to say that the cherry on top of the ice cream for me is Hon Alannah MacTiernan. She is here; she is performing her duty; she is not looking for sympathy; and I want her to know that my heart goes out to her. I wish her a speedy recovery, as I am sure everyone else in the chamber does. HON TIM FISCHER, AC — TRIBUTE Statement HON MARTIN ALDRIDGE (Agricultural) [5.35 pm]: Today, members, we have lost a great Australian. Hon Timothy Andrew Fischer, AC, passed away earlier today aged 73, surrounded by his close family, after battling acute leukaemia for 10 years. Tim is survived by his wife, Judy, and his two sons, Dominic and Harrison. Known as the boy from Boree Creek, a small town near Wagga Wagga, Tim will be remembered for many things, including his contribution in politics as Australia’s tenth Deputy Prime Minister, and his role in reforming Australian gun laws. He was a husband, a father, a soldier, a farmer, a politician, an ambassador, an author, and a very well-respected yet humble man. In the 2005 Australia Day honours Tim was made a Companion of the Order of Australia for service to the Australian and New South Wales Parliaments, to advancing the national interest through trade liberalisation and rail transport development, supporting humanitarian aid in developing countries and fostering openness and acceptance of cultural difference in the community. I will quote from a fantastic article by Jane Norman of the ABC — A widely respected and quirky political figure, Mr Fischer’s remarkable career began as a 20-year-old conscript fighting in the jungles in Vietnam and ended in the Vatican as Australia’s top diplomat. But the Boy from Boree Creek (a tiny town near Wagga Wagga) made his greatest contribution in politics and will be remembered for the key role he played in reforming Australia’s gun laws. By the time he entered the New South Wales parliament in 1971, at the age of 24, he had already served as an officer and platoon commander in the Australian Army. After 13 years as the member for Sturt and then Murray, he made his move to Canberra by winning the federal seat of Farrer. Ever the wily politician, he exploited a depleted National Party to seize the leadership in 1990. As deputy PM, Mr Fischer stridently supported then-prime minister John Howard’s 1996 gun control laws in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, despite fierce resistance among much of the Nationals’ rural base. The episode tested his mettle as Nationals leader, but biographer and journalist Peter Rees said it would prove to be his greatest legacy. “Tim went to hostile meetings in rural Australia, meetings where effigies of him were hanging from light posts, and he argued the case for gun control,” he said. “He knew the damage guns could do, having served in Vietnam.” ‘A once-in-a-generation politician’ A tall, idiosyncratic man with a staccato-style of speaking (which the late Labor senator John Button jokingly dubbed “Albury Afrikaans”), Mr Fischer did not fit the mould.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5905

He was obsessed with trains (he was arguably the nation’s most famous trainspotter), annual treks to Australia’s highest peak and the Kingdom of Bhutan. But according to Rees, he used his eccentricities to his advantage, to build a profile and stand out in an era of big political personalities. “Tim was a once-in-a-generation politician,” he said. “So few politicians can win the regard of their opponents. That will be Tim’s legacy that he managed to do so.” With an Akubra almost permanently fixed atop his head, Mr Fischer was considered a quintessential Nationals member and a formidable grassroots campaigner. A conservative at heart, Native Title was one policy area that proved problematic for Mr Fischer. He opposed the landmark Mabo and Wik High Court cases and was forced at one point to declare he was “not a racist and not a redneck” for voicing his concerns. Nicknamed “Two Minute Tim” for his frenetic pace, as trade minister he managed to visit more than 60 countries in three years and help open up markets in China, India and even Iran. But in 1999, at the height of his political career, Mr Fischer abruptly announced his resignation from the frontbench and his intention to retire from politics at the next election. His schedule was “killing him”, he explained at the time, but one of the key reasons was also his son Harrison’s autism diagnosis. “Because I married later in life, happily, to Judy, I have an absolute intense feeling about doing all I can to contribute to that marriage and to Dominic and Harrison’s development,” he told Australian Story in 2001. In a more recent episode of the program, Mr Fischer was more candid about his son’s condition. “It was shattering, it was disappointing, it was challenging. And initially I pushed back against it in a somewhat crazy way,” Mr Fischer said. It was after Harrison’s diagnosis that Mr Fischer said he realised that he himself had a degree of autism. … Mr Fischer was very close to Mr Howard, who described him as the “epitome of a good bloke”, and held in high regard by his opponents. Then–Labor leader Kim Beazley described him as one of the “very genuinely loved people in this place”. Rees was in the press gallery at the time and said “you could hear a pin drop” as Mr Fischer made the shock announcement. There was a melancholy air because there was a sense that here was someone decent, very decent, leaving the parliament,” he said. Typically, his retirement was anything but quiet. Mr Fischer took up positions with Tourism Australia and the Royal Flying Doctor Service, before his life of public service was capped off in one of the world’s holiest places. The Jesuit-educated Catholic was sent to the Vatican, appointed Australia’s first resident ambassador to the Holy See by then Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2008. During his “great 1,000 days” as a diplomat, Mr Fischer spearheaded the campaign to canonise Australia’s first saint, Mary MacKillop, met Pope Benedict XVI and—ever the train enthusiast—helped reactivate the tiny papal railway. In between it all, Mr Fischer found the time to host the ABC radio program The Great Train Show and write several books on that topic, and others including East Timor, the Vatican and most recently, World War I general, Sir John Monash—illustrating his diverse range of interests. Mr Fischer eventually sold up at Boree Creek and moved to a cattle property in Victoria, where he assumed the role of “assistant deputy farm hand” to Judy. He continued his advocacy of agriculture and gun control until cancer crept up on him quickly. This time, it was leukaemia and the prognosis wasn’t good. Months before he died, Mr Fischer attributed his condition to exposure to the chemical Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam in the 1960s.

5906 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

“At least one specialist has suggested my immunity broke down a lot more quickly as a direct consequence,” he told Australian Story. Asked whether it seemed a cruel price to pay serving his country, said, “Yes. That’s true.” “But many had their lives shortened by service in Vietnam,” he said. The cancer slowed him and then finally stopped him, as little else could ever do in the active life of Timothy Andrew Fischer. Mr Fischer is survived by his wife Judy Brewer and his sons Harrison and Dominic. I have fond memories of meeting Tim each year at our annual conference in Canberra. As an introvert, people like Tim were welcome, as all one had to do was listen. Each year he would fondly recollect his international train journeys of the preceding year. He was also a great supporter of the Young Nationals and advancing young people in politics. I would like to pay my tribute to Hon Tim Fischer, a remarkable man whose service to his country has come in many forms. He is a remarkable Australian. He will be sorely missed. House adjourned at 5.42 pm ______

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5907

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK — SOIL CONTAMINATION 2205. Hon Dr Steve Thomas to the minister representing the Minister for Transport; Planning: I refer to my question without notice 572 of 5 June 2019 on per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-contaminated soil excavated from the Forrestfield–Airport Link project, and ask: (a) will the Minister please table any minutes or notes, recordings, documentation, option papers or proposals from the meetings she had with Greg Poland in April 2018 and on 26 October 2018 and the meeting the planning officers had with Mr Poland on 5 November 2018; (b) if no to (a), why not; (c) were any of the Minister’s ministerial office staff or her parliamentary secretary present at the 5 November meeting and, if so, who; and (d) in the answer to part (2) of question without notice 572 on 5 June 2019, does “various business events” include the Labor leaders’ forum? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) The answer to Question without Notice 572 asked on 5 June 2019 incorrectly stated that the meeting between planning officers and the then Deputy Chairperson of the Peel Development Commission regarding East Keralup took place on 5 November 2018. This meeting took place on 14 November 2018. No notes relevant to the above meetings contained information relating to PFAS or any matter related to the Forrestfield–Airport Link project. (b) Not applicable. (c) Yes – Policy Advisers were present at the 14 November meeting. (d) The Minister attends a range of events including industry functions, speaking engagements, keynote addresses, community fairs, school visits and business forums. If any matters relevant to her portfolio are raised with the Minister at such events, it is her practice to refer or redirect such matters to her office for any follow up. PREMIER — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2243. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Premier; Minister for Public Sector Management; Federal–State Relations: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) As previously canvassed in this place and in the Auditor General Report Opinion on Ministerial Notifications from December 2018, agency targets under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme are Cabinet in Confidence. (b) Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 5161. (c) To provide the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency, in conjunction with the number of positions that have been separated to date would allow the agency targets to be derived, revealing information that, as canvassed in the answer to (a) is Cabinet in Confidence. (d) Across Government, a total of 2,556 separations (85%) of the 3,000 target for the VTSS have been achieved to date and with a further 390 separations expected as a result of the transition to the Commonwealth-run National Disability Insurance Scheme. The VTSS is on track to deliver 2,946 separations or 98% of the original target by 30 June 2022. The VTSS program is projected to achieve a net saving of $527 million over the period 2017–18 to 2022–23 to net debt.

5908 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT, JOBS AND TRADE — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2244. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: (a)–(d) Please refer to answer to Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR HEALTH — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2245. Hon Martin Aldridge to the parliamentary secretary representing the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental Health: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: (a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2246. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Minister for Education and Training: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2247. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Minister for Environment; Disability Services; Electoral Affairs: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5909

MINISTER FOR POLICE — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2248. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Police; Road Safety: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: I refer the Honourable Member to question on notice 2243. MINISTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2249. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Minister for Regional Development; Agriculture and Food; Ports; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Please refer to LC QON 2243. MINISTER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2250. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2251. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place?

5910 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2243. ATTORNEY GENERAL — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2252. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Attorney General: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR COMMERCE — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2253. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Commerce: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR SENIORS AND AGEING — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2254. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Seniors and Ageing; Volunteering; Sport and Recreation: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice No 2243. TREASURER — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2255. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Treasurer; Minister for Finance; Aboriginal Affairs; Lands: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5911

Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR TOURISM — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2256. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Tourism; Racing and Gaming; Small Business; Defence Issues; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2257. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Industrial Relations: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: (a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR ENERGY — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2258. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Energy: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR HOUSING — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2260. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Housing; Veterans Issues; Youth; Asian Engagement: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place?

5912 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question On Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2261. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection; Women’s Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. MINISTER FOR WATER — AGENCIES — VOLUNTARY TARGETED SEPARATION SCHEME 2262. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Water; Fisheries; Forestry; Innovation and ICT; Science: I ask with respect to each agency under the Minister’s control: (a) will the Minister please provide details of the target FTE positions under the Voluntary Targeted Separation Scheme set by Treasury to meet the budget target of reducing the public service by 3,000 people; (b) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that have been separated to date from each agency; (c) will the Minister please provide details of the number of FTE positions that are yet to be separated from each agency; and (d) with respect to (c), when are the remaining separations likely to take place? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2243. ENVIRONMENT — YARA PILBARA NITRATES — TECHNICAL AMMONIUM NITRATE PLANT 2263. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Environment; Disability Services; Electoral Affairs: I refer to question without notice 20, asked in the Legislative Council on 16 May 2017, and in respect of the answers to parts (3) and (5), “The Department of Environment Regulation is currently investigating the incident”, and ask: (a) has the investigation concluded; (b) if no to (a), why not; (c) if no to (a), when is the investigation expected to conclude; (d) if yes to (a), will the Minister table the investigation report; (e) if no to (d), why not; (f) if no to (d), will the Minister outline the findings of the investigation; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) in respect to question without notice 20, and the Minister’s answer to (6), has the Minister determined why staff were not evacuated when there was a significant risk to worker health; and (i) if no to (h), why not? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) Yes. (b)–(c) Not applicable.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5913

(d)–(e) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) has not compiled a formal investigation report as there was no breach identified to either the Works Approval or the Environmental Protection Act 1986. (f) DWER’s investigation determined that the emission occurred during the commissioning of the Total Ammonium Nitrate (TAN) Plant in accordance with a Works Approval issued by the then Department of Environment Regulation (now DWER). The emission occurred during a start-up procedure. While there were no breaches identified as a result of the emission, Yara Pilbara Nitrates Pty Ltd did amend its start-up procedure to minimise the likelihood of future events occurring. (g) Not applicable. (h)–(i) DWER investigated the incident to determine whether there had been a breach of either the Works Approval or the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The investigation did not identify any impacts to staff on site or evidence to suggest a significant risk requiring an evacuation that would have resulted in the matter being referred to the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety for investigation. MINES AND PETROLEUM — MINING LEASES — PILBARA — KARIYARRA 2264. Hon Robin Chapple to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Industrial Relations: I refer to E45/5473 held by Rocklea Gold Pty Ltd, M45/657, M45/675, M45/109 and M45/113 held by BGC Contracting, M45/673 held by Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd and E45/5064 held by CTTR Mining Tenements Pty Ltd, and ask: (a) have these corporations, in submitting their applications, informed the Department of Mines of any heritage survey work carried out on the known Karriyarra heritage area; (b) if yes to (a), will the Minister provide details; (c) if no to (a), why not; (d) have these corporations, in submitting their applications, advised of the need to submit section 18 applications under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 over the known Karriyarra heritage area; (e) if yes to (d), when; and (f) if no to (d), why not? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: For clarity, answers are provided for each mining tenement referenced in the question. E45/5473 and E45/5064: (a) No. (b) Not applicable. (c) E45/5473 and E45/5064 are pending tenement applications. The Mining Act 1978 does not require tenement applications to contain details of heritage survey work carried out on the tenement. (d) No. (e) Not applicable. (f) The Mining Act 1978 does not require tenement applications to contain statements regarding compliance with the provisions of section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. M45/657: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. A Notice of Intent dated May 2002 advised several heritage areas had been identified and would be excluded from all mining activities. The Notice of Intent was not approved and was withdrawn by BGC Contracting on 21 December 2004. (c) Not applicable. (d) No. (e) Not applicable. (f) The Mining Act 1978 does not require tenement applications to contain statements regarding compliance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

5914 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

M45/675 and M45/109: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. A Notice of Intent dated 2 September 2009 advised that M45/109 and M45/675 occur on lands of the Kariyarra Aboriginal group and that no Aboriginal sites had been identified within the project area. The Notice of Intent was approved by the former Department of Mines and Petroleum on 18 March 2010. (c) Not applicable. (d) No. (e) Not applicable. (f) The Mining Act 1978 does not require tenement applications to contain statements regarding compliance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. M45/113: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. A Notice of Intent dated 31 December 1997 advised that a heritage survey identified no evidence of Aboriginal occupation or habitation on M45/113. The Notice of Intent was approved by the former Department of Minerals and Energy on 8 April 1998. (c) Not applicable. (d) The Notice of Intent did not specifically mention Section 18 applications or the Karriyarra heritage area. However, the following statement was included: “BGC will comply with its obligations under the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.” (e) Not applicable. (f) The Mining Act 1978 does not require tenement applications to contain statements regarding compliance with the provisions of section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. M45/673: (a) No. (b) Not applicable. (c) The Mining Act 1978 does not require a tenement application to contain details of heritage survey work carried out on the tenement. (d) No. (e) Not applicable. (f) The Mining Act 1978 does not require a tenement application to contain statements regarding compliance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS — MINING LEASES — PILBARA — KARIYARRA 2265. Hon Robin Chapple to the minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to E45/5473 held by Rocklea Gold Pty Ltd, M45/657, M45/675, M45/109 and M45/113 held by BGC Contracting, M45/673 held by Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd and E45/5064 held by CTTR Mining Tenements PTY Ltd, and ask: (a) have these corporations made applications under Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 on the known Karriyarra heritage area; (b) if yes to (a), will the Minister provide details; (c) if no to (a), why not; (d) have any of these corporations made enquiries to the department over the known Kariyarra heritage area; (e) if yes to (d), when; and (f) if no to (d), why not? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: In relation to the mining tenements listed in the member’s question: (a)–(c) The corporations have not submitted any application under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. (d)–(f) The corporations have not made any enquiries to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5915

EDUCATION — TEMPORARY VISA HOLDERS — SCHOOL FEES 2266. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the Western Australian State Budget 2019–20, page 324 Income statement, Income, first line item, ‘User contributions, charges and fees’, and I ask: (a) how much income did the Department of Education receive in 2018–19 to date as school fees from people who are not residents, including those on temporary protection and temporary work visas; and (b) were any children of families on temporary visas denied access to education because they were unable to pay the fees? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) In 2018–19, the Department of Education received $16.023 million in tuition fees from overseas fee-paying students. The Department does not maintain a breakdown of revenue received from overseas fee-paying students. This information is kept by each individual school. Fees are collected by each school. (b) No. BANKSIA HILL DETENTION CENTRE — EDUCATION SERVICES 2268. Hon Alison Xamon to the minister representing the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services: I refer to the Western Australian State Budget 2019–20, and I ask: (a) how much money has been allocated to the delivery of education services at Banksia Hill Detention Centre for 2019–20; and (b) what is the estimated actual spend on education services at Banksia Hill Detention Centre for 2018–19? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) A total of $2,530,192 has been allocated for the delivery of education services at Banksia Hill Detention Centre in 2019–20. (b) The preliminary financial results (pre-audit) for the year ended 30 June 2019 show a net cost of education services at Banksia Hill Detention Centre of $3,005,979. Prior to 2018–19, Juveniles held in remand were not provided with classes during the school holidays and participated in alternative activities such as sports and other outdoor recreational activities. CORRECTIVE SERVICES — YOUTH TRANSITIONAL ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM 2269. Hon Alison Xamon to the minister representing the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services: I refer to the Western Australian State Budget 2019–20, and I ask: (a) has any funding been allocated to the youth transitional accommodation program for 2019–20; (b) if no to (a), why not; (c) how much was spent on this program in 2018–19; and (d) if the program has now ceased, will the Minister please advise why? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) Yes, a total of $826,826 has been allocated to the Youth Transitional Accommodation Program (YTAP) for 2019–20. (b) Not applicable. (c) In 2018–19 a total of $815,996.79 (excluding GST) was spent on the YTAP. (d) The YTAP is currently operating from 3053 Albany Highway, Armadale. The YTAP service agreement is due to expire on 31 January 2021. CORRECTIVE SERVICES — LIGATURE MINIMISATION PROGRAM 2270. Hon Alison Xamon to the minister representing the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services: I refer to the Western Australian State Budget page 379, Completed works, second line under ‘custodial’, Cell upgrade and Ligature Minimisation Program, and I ask: (a) does the Minister intend to undertake any ligature minimisation work in 2019–20;

5916 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

(b) if yes to (a): (i) in which prisons; and (ii) how much funding will be allocated for this work; and (c) if no to (a), why not? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) The separately funded Ligature Minimisation Program ended in 2018–19. However, ligature minimisation works will be undertaken in the 2019–20 financial year. (b) (i) Hakea and Casuarina Prisons. (ii) It is estimated that $750,000 of funding will be allocated across both prisons. The funding is part of upgrade works being undertaken at Hakea Prison funded from the Custodial Building Infrastructure and Maintenance line of the Budget and the Casuarina Prison Expansion line for Casuarina Prison. (c) Not applicable. HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CAMPUSES — NORTHAM, MERREDIN, NARROGIN AND KATANNING HOSPITALS 2271. Hon Martin Aldridge to the parliamentary secretary representing the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental Health: In relation to the Northam, Merredin, Narrogin and Katanning hospitals, I ask: (a) on how many occasions in the last 12 months at each hospital has a doctor not been rostered; (b) with respect to (a), what was the reason for the unavailability of a doctor for each occasion; (c) with respect to (a), on each occasion a doctor was not available to be rostered, how many ATS 1, 2 or 3 patients presented to each hospital during each period; (d) what strategy has the WA Country Health Service put in place to avoid situations when a doctor is not available to be rostered; (e) on how many occasions in the last 12 months at each hospital has a doctor been rostered but unable to be contacted or unable to respond; and (f) with respect to (e), on each occasion a doctor was not available to respond when rostered, how many ATS 1, 2 or 3 patients presented to each hospital during each period? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: I am advised: (a) Occasions in the last 12 months where there was no doctor available to be rostered or rostered on call, for a 12 hour shift, in the Emergency Department for the reporting period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 are as follows: Site Number of occasions Northam 0 Merredin 25 Narrogin 45 Katanning 104 (b) The reasons for doctor unavailability to be rostered or rostered on call include: Decline in or insufficient numbers of GP or local medical practitioners available to fill the roster; Unexpected leave taken at short notice; or The need to meet fatigue management standards when rostering. (c) For these occasions, the number patients scoring ATS 1, 2 and 3 presenting to each hospital was:

ATS 1 ATS 2 ATS 3 Northam N/A N/A N/A Merredin 0 8 13 Narrogin 4 45 121 Katanning 3 62 159 Note: these figures exclude instances where a doctor was rostered on to treat patients attending the emergency department who were assessed as ATS 1 and 2.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5917

(d) Northam, Merredin, Narrogin and Katanning Hospitals have 24 hour seven day access to the Emergency Telehealth Services. In addition, the WA Country Health Service (WACHS) has the following strategies: Rosters are created several months in advance with local doctors and regular contractors being given first option of available shifts. Advance notification of roster vacancies is provided to recruitment agencies. Local senior doctors may be asked to cover roster gaps in ED when rostered on duty for another task such as anaesthetic or ward cover. Northam and Albany Hospitals are able to provide remote support to Narrogin, Merredin and Katanning Hospitals. ED Nurse Practitioners are available in Northam, Merredin and Katanning Hospitals and can assist by seeing lower acuity ED presentations. The Inpatient Telehealth Service (ITS) is progressively being implemented in many WACHS hospitals, including Merredin and Katanning. Like ETS, the ITS provides access to doctors and nursing teams who can assist local staff with assessing, responding to clinical deterioration, admitting and discharging patients from inpatient facilities. Further strategies to ensure a sustainable medical workforce model include potential collaborations with neighbouring regions. Katanning Hospital is working with Narrogin Hospital to explore sharing medical cover at both sites. (e) There was one occasion at Merredin Hospital during the reporting period when a doctor was rostered and was delayed in presenting to the hospital. (f) None. STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT 2277. Hon Diane Evers to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the Minister’s response to my question without notice 102 asked on 20 February 2019, and I ask: (a) does the brief overview of environmental issues in the annual reports of the Environmental protection Authority (EPA) meet the State’s obligations to the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment; (b) is the Minister aware of the document entitled “Core Environmental Indicators for Reporting on the State of the Environment” that was published by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) in 2000; (c) does the brief overview of environmental issues in the annual reports of the EPA cover the issues specified in this ANZECC document; (d) why has the Western Australian Government chosen to abstain from State of the Environment reporting when every other State and the Commonwealth carries out this activity regularly; and (e) is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth is considering delegating its responsibilities for State of the Environment Reporting to the States? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) I understand that the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was signed in 1992 by the Commonwealth, States and Territories governments to facilitate a cooperative national approach to the environment. I am advised that this Agreement does not obligate parties to conduct State of the Environment reporting. (b) Yes. (c)–(d) The Western Australian Government provides input into the Commonwealth Government’s State of the Environment reporting for Australia, which covers the environmental themes outlined in the ANZECC document. The Western Government also discusses actions to improve Australia’s environment in high-level forums such as the National Environment Protection Council, Meetings of Environment Ministers, Heads of Environmental Protection Agencies meetings and jurisdictional working groups. I also understand that not all State and Territory governments carry out regular State of the Environment reporting. (e) No. PREMIER — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2279. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Premier; Minister for Public Sector Management; Federal–State Relations: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department;

5918 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

(b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Public Sector Commission: (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet: (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Salaries and Allowances Tribunal: (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Lotterywest (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Goldcorp: (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT, JOBS AND TRADE — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2280. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: The Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation advises: (a) None. (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. (d) Not applicable. (e) Not applicable. (f) Not applicable. (g) Not applicable.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5919

MINISTER FOR HEALTH — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2281. Hon Martin Aldridge to the parliamentary secretary representing the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental Health: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: WA Country Health Service advises: (a) The WA Country Health Service utilise 1,346 properties in total for staff accommodation which are a combination of Health owned properties, private market lease and sourced through the Department of Communities (Housing GROH), of which 65 are allocated through GROH. (b) Not applicable. (c)

Great South Wheatbelt Goldfields Midwest Kimberley Pilbara Southern West Department of 4 0 8 0 10 39 4 Communities (Housing GROH) Private 29 17 39 59 111 89 174 Market Lease Health owned 24 10 66 175 95 182 211 (d)

Great South Wheatbelt Goldfields Midwest Kimberley Pilbara Southern West Number of 4 0 6 0 7 17 2 Properties – Rent Payed Number of 0 0 2 0 3 22 2 Propertied – Rent Free (e) Variance displayed below is the cost to WA Country Health Service for the Month of June, 2019.

Great South Wheatbelt Goldfields Midwest Kimberley Pilbara Southern West Variance $3,486 $0 $8,040 $0 $10,986 $57,321 $2,690 (f) The cost charged to the WA Country Health Service for properties supplied by the Department of Communities (Housing) is determined by the Department of Communities (Housing) in line with the Government Regional Officers’ Housing (GROH) Client Agency Rent Policy. We understand that elements of this policy include independent assessment of market value based on the towns’ classification. (g) We understand that the Department of Communities review agency rent on an annual basis.

5920 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2282. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Department of Education (a) The Department of Education has 1 962 Government Regional Officer Housing (GROH) properties allocated to it as at 4 July 2019. (b) All Department GROH properties are provided by the Department of Communities’ GROH program. (c) GROH housing in Department regions: Region Number Goldfields 366 Kimberley 400 Midwest 191 Pilbara 565 Southwest 132 Wheatbelt 300 South Metropolitan 3 North Metropolitan 5 (d) GROH houses with charged rent and staff rent-free status by region: Region Number who pay rent Number who are rent-free Goldfields 304 62 Kimberley 237 163 Midwest 178 13 Pilbara 537 28 Southwest 132 0 Wheatbelt 300 0 South Metropolitan 3 0 North Metropolitan 5 0 (e) Estimated regional variance between tenant rent and Department rent (per fortnight), excluding staff rent-free houses: Region Estimated variance ($ per fortnight) Goldfields 189 000 Kimberley 225 000 Midwest 112 000 Pilbara 418 000

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5921

(f) This question is best referred to the Department of Communities. (g) This question is best referred to the Department of Communities. Department of Training and Workforce Development Building Construction Industry Training Fund (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2283. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Minister for Environment; Disability Services; Electoral Affairs: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: For the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attraction (a) 147. (b) Department owned (41), private rentals (37). (c)

Region No of properties Goldfields 7 Kimberley 30 Midwest 24 Pilbara 36 South Coast 12 South West 7 Swan 9 Warren 16 Wheatbelt 6 (d)

Region Properties that required staff to pay rent Accommodation provided rent free Goldfields 7 0 Kimberley 30 0 Midwest 24 0 Pilbara 36 0 South Coast 12 0

5922 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

South West 7 0 Swan 9 0 Warren 16 0 Wheatbelt 6 0 (e)

Region Cost to agency ($) Tenant rent collected ($) Total cost to agency ($) Goldfields 121,108 81,900 39,208 Kimberley 920,504 359,814 560,690 Midwest 401,479 254,540 146,939 Pilbara 624,676 368,108 256,568 South Coast 107,848 104,052 3,796 South West 130,104 92,872 37,232 Swan 24,353 108,229 –83,876 Warren 84,240 102,960 –18,720 Wheatbelt 64,896 63,336 1,560 Grand Total 2,479,208 1,535,811 943,397 (f) The amount charged to tenants is determined by the Government Regional Officer Housing Tenant Rent Setting Framework Policy, administered by the Department of Communities, which takes into account the market value in each Region. (g) Bi-annually. For the Western Australian Electoral Commission (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. MINISTER FOR POLICE — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2284. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Police; Road Safety: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: The Western Australian Police Force advise: (a) Housing numbers vary on a continual basis as officers transfer in and out and take up different housing options, for example sometimes police officer couples are transferred, or officers may choose to share or purchase a home or rent privately. 1 147 properties are allocated to the Western Australia Police Force as at 8 July 2019. (b) Properties are leased via the Department of Communities (Government Regional Officers’ Housing – GROH), this includes government owned properties and those leased from private owners via GROH.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5923

(c) District GROH Properties Kimberley 207 Peel 5 Pilbara 211 Goldfields Esperance 201 Midwest Gascoyne 182 Great Southern 135 South West 103 Wheatbelt 103 (d) 775 properties are required to pay rent and 372 are rent free. (e) This information is not readily accessible at a regional level. (f) A number of locations across the State have rents set based on market values. Market location rents are dictated by the market and are assessed by valuers engaged by the Department of Communities. (g) Annually. MINISTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2285. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Minister for Regional Development; Agriculture and Food; Ports; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development: (a) 77 Houses (b) N/A. (c) Central: 28 North: 46 South: 3 (d) Central: 28 pay rent North: 46 pay rent South: 3 pay rent (e) Central: $3,236 / fortnight North: $13,837 / fortnight South: $43 / fortnight (f) Yes market value. Determined by Department of Communities. (g) This question should be directed to the Minister for Communities. The WA Port Authorities are considered Government Trading Enterprises, and as such, are not subject to Government Regional Officer housing.

5924 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

MINISTER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2286. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: The Department of Fire and Emergency Services advises: (a) 37 (b) Not applicable. (c)–(d) refer table below:

DFES Region (c) Number of (d) Number of (d) Number of properties properties per region properties per region where officers/staff where officers/staff are required to pay receive their rent for their accommodation rent accommodation free Kimberley 9 8 1 Great Southern 1 0 1 Lower South West 1 0 1 Midwest Gascoyne 2 1 1 Goldfields 13 13 0 Pilbara 10 9 1 Upper Great Southern 1 1 0 (e)

DFES Region Weekly rent paid by Weekly rent paid by Variance between DFES officer/staff member rent paid by staff and the rent paid by DFES Kimberley $5,345 $1,160 $4,185 Goldfields $6,470 $1,885 $4,585 Pilbara $6,360 $1,305 $5,055 Midwest Gascoyne $505 $145 $360 Great Southern $0 $0 0 Upper Great Southern $370 $234 $136 Lower South West $0 $0 0 (f) Yes. The Department of Communities. (g) The Department of Communities determines the frequency of applicable market value reviews.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5925

The Department of Justice advises: The data provided below is the expenditure for June 2019. Both the dollar value and count change on a regular basis, so a single point-of-time value has been taken. All properties are fully or partially subsidised by the Department of Justice (the Department). (a) The total properties allocated to the Department is 521. Of the total, 477 are allocated to Corrective Services (CS) and 44 to Court and Tribunal Services (CTS) (b) All properties are provided by the Department of Communities (Housing) (c) The table below reflects the total number of allocated properties by region: Region Total East Kimberley 30 Goldfields 108 Mid-west 21 Pilbara 147 West Kimberley 195 Wheatbelt 8 Great Southern 12 TOTAL 521 (d) The table below reflects the Corrective Services (CS) and Court and Tribunal (CTS) Services properties split for the month of June 2019. Region Total Vacant Rent: Free to Rent: employee employee * contribution ** CS CTS CS CTS CS CTS CS CTS East Kimberley 25 5 3 1 4 0 18 4 Goldfields 98 10 4 0 6 0 88 10 Mid-west 14 7 0 0 5 0 9 7 Pilbara 140 7 5 0 135 0 0 7 West Kimberley 187 8 16 0 13 0 158 8 Wheatbelt 5 3 0 0 1 0 4 3 Great Southern 8 4 0 0 1 0 7 4 TOTAL 477 44 28 1 165 0 284 43 There are 29 current vacant properties due to temporary staff vacancies. (e) The table below provides a breakdown of the Department versus employee contribution value for the month of June 2019 (rounded to the nearest $): Region Rent: Paid ($) by DoJ * Rent: Paid ($) by Total paid to Housing employee ** CS CTS CS CTS CS CTS East Kimberley $76,678 $7,354 $7,071 $3,896 $83,749 $11,250 Goldfields $200,932 $8,944 $48,734 $11,296 $249,666 $20,240 Mid-west $27,617 $7,744 $10,258 $8,136 $37,875 $15,880 Pilbara $492,881 $13,972 $0 $6,872 $492,881 $20,844 West Kimberley $496,565 $9,330 $58,798 $8,590 $555,363 $17,920 Wheatbelt $4,460 $1,572 $3,340 $2,832 $7,800 $4,404 Great Southern $32,070 $3,056 $7,475 $3,884 $39,545 $6,940 TOTAL $1,331,203 $51,972 $135,676 $45,506 $1,466,879 $97,478 The amount payable by employees is set by Communities in the Tennant Rent Setting Framework (TRSF). (f) Market value is determined by the Department of Communities based on their property valuations. (g) It is understood that this is undertaken annually, or as determined by Department of Communities.

5926 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

The Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services advises: (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. The Supervised Release Review Board advises: (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2287. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries including Statutory Bodies (a) Three (b) Not applicable. (c) Region Number of Properties Goldfields 1 Kimberley 1 Pilbara 1 (d) Region Staff Pay Rent Free Accommodation Goldfields 1 0 Kimberley 1 0 Pilbara 1 0 (e) Region Variance per annum Goldfields $6,500.00 Kimberley $18,066.00 Pilbara $19,344.00 (f) Yes, and market value is determined by Department of Communities. (g) Annually. Metropolitan Cemeteries Board (a)–(g) Not applicable. National Trust of Western Australia (a)–(g) Not applicable. Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (a)–(g) Please refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2295.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5927

MINISTER FOR COMMERCE — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2289. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Commerce: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2293. MINISTER FOR SENIORS AND AGEING — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2290. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Seniors and Ageing; Volunteering; Sport and Recreation: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Sue Ellery replied: Department of Communities Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice No 2297. Sport and Recreation (WA) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice No 2287. TREASURER — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2291. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Treasurer; Minister for Finance; Aboriginal Affairs; Lands: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region;

5928 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

(f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Department of Treasury (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Western Australia Treasury Corporation (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Economic Regulation Authority (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Fire and Emergency Services Superannuation Fund (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Insurance Commission of Western Australia (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Office of the Auditor General (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Government Employees Superannuation Board (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Department of Finance The Department of Finance advises: (a) There are 11 properties allocated to the Department of Finance’s staff in the regions. (b) All properties are leased through the Department of Communities. (c) Northern Region – nine government regional officer housing properties. Central Region – two government regional officer housing properties. (d) All staff are required to pay rent. (e) Northern Region: Total rent paid by the Department of Finance per week: $5,790 Total rent paid by staff to the Department of Finance per week: $2,387 Variance: $3,403 Central Region: Total rent paid by the Department of Finance per week: $880 Total rent paid by staff to the Department of Finance per week: $426 Variance: $454 (f) Yes. The Department of Communities determines the market value. (g) The review is undertaken annually. Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (a)–(g) Please refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2295. Aboriginal Policy and Coordination Unit (a)–(g) Please refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2279. Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (a)–(g) Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 2287.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5929

Landcorp/MRA (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Landgate (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. MINISTER FOR TOURISM — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2292. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Tourism; Racing and Gaming; Small Business; Defence Issues; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Tourism Portfolio Tourism Western Australia Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2280. Rottnest Island Authority Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2283. Racing and Gaming Portfolio For the Racing, Gaming and Liquor Division of the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2287. Small Business Portfolio Small Business Development Corporation (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Defence Issues Portfolio Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2280. Citizenship and Multicultural Interests Portfolio Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2287. MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2293. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Industrial Relations: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free;

5930 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

(e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Alannah MacTiernan replied: Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (a) 16 properties allocated to the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety. (b) Nil. (c) Pilbara 5 Goldfields 8 Southwest 1 Midwest/Gascoyne 1 West Kimberley 1 (d) 16 – Officers pay rent. 0 – Free. (e) [See tabled paper no 2967.] (f) Yes, the cost is charged to the department based on market value which is determined by the Department of Communities (Housing). For the properties owned by GROH the rent is based on the rent policy/rent framework. For properties leased from the private market by GROH, the rent is as per the lease agreement. (g) Annually. WorkCover WA (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Mineral Research Institute WA (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Department of the Registrar, WA Industrial Relations Commission (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board (My Leave) (a) Nil. (b)–(g) Not applicable. MINISTER FOR ENERGY — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2294. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5931

Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Synergy (a)–(g) Not applicable. Synergy does not have any Government Regional Officer Housing. Horizon Power (a)–(g) Not applicable. Horizon Power has no Government Regional Officer Housing. Western Power (a)–(g) Not applicable. Western Power has no Government Regional Officer Housing. MINISTER FOR HOUSING — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2296. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Housing; Veterans Issues; Youth; Asian Engagement: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: The Department of Communities Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2297. The Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 2280. MINISTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION — PORTFOLIOS — GOVERNMENT REGIONAL OFFICERS’ HOUSING 2297. Hon Martin Aldridge to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection; Women’s Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services: I refer to Government Regional Officer Housing that is allocated to your departments and I ask with respect to each department under your control: (a) how many properties are allocated to each department; (b) if these properties are provided from an individual or organisation other than the Department of Communities (Housing) please identify the source; (c) please provide a breakdown of housing by departmental region; (d) please identify the number of properties per region where officers or staff are required to pay rent and those which receive their accommodation rent free; (e) with respect to officers and staff who pay rent please identify the variance between the rent paid by the officer or staff member and the cost paid by the department to provide the property in total by region; (f) is the cost charged to the department a charge based on market value, and who determines market value; and (g) if yes to (f), how frequently is a review of the applicable market value undertaken? Hon Sue Ellery replied: This answer covers multiple Ministers’ portfolios, including Disability Services, Seniors and Ageing, Volunteering, Housing, Veterans Issues, Youth, as well as my Child Protection, Women’s Interests, Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence and Community Services portfolios. The Department of Communities includes the former agencies of Child Protection and Family Support, the Housing Authority, Disability Services Commission and components of the former Local Government and Communities.

5932 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019]

The data referred to below is accurate as at 15 July 2019. (a) The Department of Communities is the agency responsible for the Government Regional Officers’ Housing (GROH) program. Under the program, the Department of Communities owns or leases 4,503 properties which are allocated to State Government agencies to meet accommodation requirements of public sector employees across regional Western Australia. There are 321 GROH properties allocated to the Department of Communities for use as staff accommodation. (b) Of the 321 properties allocated to the Department of Communities, 132 are leased from the private rental market. (c) The number of properties allocated to each Department of Communities’ region is as follows:

Region Number of properties East Kimberley 70 Goldfields 37 Great Southern 5 Mid West 20 Pilbara 95 South West 1 West Kimberley 79 Wheatbelt 14 Total 321 (d) The breakdown of properties where the Department of Communities charges rent to its employees living in GROH accommodation or provides rent-free accommodation is as follows:

Region Number of properties – rent Number of properties – paid by staff rent-free accommodation East Kimberley 46 21 Goldfields 26 9 Great Southern 3 1 Mid West 14 4 Pilbara 70 10 South West 1 0 West Kimberley 60 10 Wheatbelt 10 3 Total 230 58 Of the 321 properties allocated to the Department of Communities, 33 are vacant. (e) Under the GROH program, the Department of Communities charges rent to government agencies for the lease of an allocated GROH property. Where the Department of Communities allocates a property for the use of its own employees in regional locations, the GROH program will charge rent to the Department.

Region Agency rent ($) Tenant rent ($) Variance ($) East Kimberley 50,177 8,063 42,115 Goldfields 19,985 6,352 13,633 Great Southern 850 480 370 Mid West 11,398 2,713 8,685 Pilbara 67,674 16,296 51,379 South West 350 262 89 West Kimberley 49,892 14,763 35,129 Wheatbelt 5,714 2,412 3,303 Total 206,040 51,339 154,701

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 22 August 2019] 5933

(f) The rent charged by the Department of Communities to government agencies for the use of a GROH property is calculated in accordance with the GROH Client Agency Rent Policy. Under the policy, the rent is determined according the following conditions: if the property is owned by the Department of Communities and is located in an area with a functional housing market, a market rent is charged to the government agency. The market rent is determined by an independent valuer, if the property is owned by the Department of Communities but is located in an area without a functional housing market, the rent is calculated according to the capital cost of the property recovered over a 25-year period (known as a cost rent), or if the property is leased from the private rental market, the lease amount agreed with the private landlord is passed in full to the government agency. (g) In accordance with the GROH Client Agency Rent Policy, the rents charged to government agencies, including the Department of Communities, are reviewed on an annual basis. Market rents for GROH properties owned by the Department of Communities are determined annually by an independent valuer. ______