Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2014

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Legislative Council

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 2.00 pm, and read prayers. GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY Petition HON PAUL BROWN (Agricultural) [2.01 pm]: I have a petition with 177 signatures that reads as follows — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia, are opposed to the condition of sections of the Great Eastern Highway between The Lakes Roadhouse Beechina and the Northam Bypass which are dangerous with limited over taking lanes and sharp bends impeding visibility and impacting on road safety. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to support the improvement of sections of the Highway with the intended outcome being the decrease of vehicle accidents, injuries and deaths and increased driver safety and confidence by a growing number of road users. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 1195.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX — DISTRIBUTION Motion HON PETER KATSAMBANIS (North Metropolitan) [2.04 pm]: I move — That the Council — (a) notes the fundamental inequality in the current method of GST distribution between the states which sees Western Australia receive less than half of what it would receive on a per capita basis; (b) supports the introduction of a set per capita basis of distributing GST revenue amongst the states; and (c) calls for the balance of GST revenue beyond the set per capita distribution to be distributed in an agreed and target-based manner, creating a competitive environment which would drive productivity reforms and drive future growth across the Federation. This is not the first time I have risen in this place to speak about the inequality of goods and services tax revenue distribution among the states of the Australian Federation and the problems that such inequality is causing our great state of Western Australia as we as a government and society look to achieve the aims and aspirations of a growing population while being fiscally prudent and responsible. I continue to raise this issue because I believe it is one of the most fundamental issues that goes to the heart of what this state will look like in the next five to 10 years and beyond. This is not only an academic exercise; indeed, it is impacting on the lives of every single Western Australian. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You should have thought about that before signing up to it! Hon PETER KATSAMBANIS: I will get to the interjection about signing up to an agreement 14 years or 15 years ago in good time, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich. If government, society and the nation set things in stone for all time, all sorts of anomalies would arise—and this is just one of those examples. We will get there. Hon Ken Travers: It was a dud then! Hon PETER KATSAMBANIS: I welcome a contribution from Hon Ken Travers that describes what we can do about this inequality rather than one that involves his carping, whingeing and moaning about what might have happened a long time ago. I welcome a contribution from Hon Ken Travers that outlines a solution rather than one in which he whinges, moans, complains about the past and tries to lay blame. We should try to fix what is broken because it is costing the people of this state each and every day. I welcome any contribution from the

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 217 opposition side about a solution, because all I hear right now is whingeing and moaning. Let me make my contribution and then I will sit and listen to Hon Ken Travers’ contribution about how to fix things. It will probably be the first time since becoming a member of this place that I will hear a contribution from Hon Ken Travers about how to fix things that are broken, because he continually whinges, moans and complains. Let me have my say because it is my time! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Now, now, now! The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon PETER KATSAMBANIS: This is such an important — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon PETER KATSAMBANIS: I get heated up, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: I know you do! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Take a cold shower! The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not appropriate for members to sit in their chairs and shout when it is not their turn to speak. I have often said that I do not want sterile debates in this place; indeed, a bit of passion occasionally is good. But members still have to follow the rules, and that means that the member on his or her feet has the floor and other members cannot make a speech by way of an interjection. Hon PETER KATSAMBANIS: I am heated up about this issue because, as I said, it is fundamental to the future of our state and its people. I am here to offer and discuss solutions. I do not think that I have a magic formula to solve everything. But unless we put our cards on the table and come up with new ideas, we will continue to run around in ever-decreasing circles as our share of GST—our fair share—diminishes in rapid time to almost zero. The first part of my motion calls for noting the fundamental inequality. The figures are stark. This financial year, Western Australia will get less than half of our share of GST than we would if it was distributed on a per capita or population basis. We have about 10.9 per cent of the population of Australia and we get about 4.9 per cent in the distribution of the GST. It is probably a very fair argument to suggest that Western Australia’s contribution of GST to the entire national pie is greater than its 10.9 per cent population share given our higher average incomes and our state’s greater growth—more than some of the other states. However, even if we look at just a population share, we are currently getting less than half. On current projections over the forward estimates, over the next four years by 2016–17, that share will decline to less than 10 per cent of what we would have if we received GST on a population share. This means that 90 per cent of our fair share of GST is going to other states. In total, that is about $20 billion to $21 billion over a four-year period; an average of about $5 billion a year over the forward estimates period. There is no real pointer that that will get better. In fact, if we look at the projections in the state budget delivered last year and the graph of our share going down, it continues to go down and down. It will probably stop when it gets to zero or 0.1 per cent when it will be mathematically impossible to take any more from us. Why is that a problem? It is a massive problem because it means that our state has to find funds elsewhere that are being denied to it through this completely unbalanced distribution of GST revenue across our Federation. That means that every year we have to find, on average, about $5 billion a year more. We have to find that to balance our books; we have to find that to build infrastructure for our vast state, which takes up about one third of the Australian continent. We need infrastructure for our increasing population that is growing at a rate of 80 000 people each year. I point out that, unless I am mistaken, there is not a city or town in Western Australia other than Perth that has a population of 80 000 people. As an example, Western Australia is growing at a faster rate each year than the entire geographic area of greater Bunbury. We have a rapidly growing population and an enormous need to provide infrastructure for that population—for roads, schools, hospitals and public transport. Then, we have to fund the recurrent expenditure. This government is doing its best. We have talked about it in here and we can continue to talk about it even though the opposition does not like to hear about it. It is a fact. We are building new schools; seven new schools opened at the start of this year. We are building new hospitals and they are coming onstream very, very shortly. We are extending the train line to Butler and we have hope that in the future, when funds become available, we will extend it even further. We have added additional lanes to freeways and we have built overpasses and we will continue to do so throughout this term and hopefully beyond. We are doing it, but can you imagine what else could be done if we had that average of $5 billion a year; that $21 billion over the next four years that we would be entitled to under a per capita distribution of GST? Apart from funding infrastructure and recurrent expenditure we could also look at paying down debt and cutting taxes. I will get to that in a moment. I could talk about cutting taxes for the entirety of the time that I have today; however, I will limit myself to my later contribution after I cover some other areas.

218 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

There is a fundamental inequality in the way funds are distributed to this state under the GST formula. What is even more galling than how the funds are distributed between states is the GST distribution that is given to the territories. I will use the Northern Territory as an example. The Northern Territory has about one per cent of Australia’s population yet it will actually receive more in GST revenue distribution this year than Western Australia will. We have 10 times, nearly 11 times its population. That is in actual dollar terms. Why is that so galling? Because the last time I looked the Northern Territory was not a state. It is a commonwealth territory. It is the commonwealth’s responsibility to fund any revenue gaps in its own territories and not use what was a state tax—the GST—to balance fiscal equalisation issues in its territories. If you want to see a broken system, it is when a territory like the Northern Territory that is not even a state is given other states’ money rather than being given funds from the commonwealth. I do not really care about the political makeup of the commonwealth government at the time; I think that all governments should look at that and address it. As I have said before, if the other states and the commonwealth continue to treat Western Australia as a cash cow eventually the compact that our Federation was based on over 100 years ago—incidentally fraying at the moment—will eventually break. Unless one falls into the camp of people who want our Federation to break then this needs to be addressed and the sooner the better. I hope I do not get debate about the fact that it is iniquitous to see GST distributed in such a way that Western Australia misses out on $20 billion over the next four years—an amount that we should be getting if GST was distributed on a per capital basis. I now move to the second part of my motion. This calls for the support of a set per capita basis of distributing GST revenue amongst the states. That is a logical and sensible position. If the states are aware that they will get a set percentage of GST distributed to them on a population basis, they can budget for the future with certainty. This is not a radical or new proposition. This is a proposition that was submitted to the recent review of the GST distribution conducted by two former state premiers—Nick Greiner of New South Wales and John Brumby from Victoria. The four largest states by population—Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and importantly Western Australia—all submitted to this review that as a starting point there should be a set percentage. A number of set percentage figures have been thrown around—70 per cent, 75 per cent and 80 per cent. I think the percentage figure is important because the higher it is the more certainty is created for the states and the more fairness in distribution, but I think the principle of setting a percentage that states cannot fall below is even more important than the actual percentage struck itself because that principle would enshrine the fact that if this is truly a state’s tax then it will be distributed to states in a far more equitable fashion than it is today. As I have pointed out before, any percentage above 10 per cent from 2016–17 onwards will be more than we are likely to see in that financial year and beyond here in WA. For us, it is not only important, it is fundamental. It is axiomatic to the sort of state that we can build into the future, because $20 billion over four years is not an insignificant amount; $5 billion a year is certainly not an insignificant amount. Looking at the gap in 2016–17, it is projected to be over $6 billion a year from what we would have received on a population basis. The principle of a set percentage, which the four largest states put to the Greiner–Brumby review, was noted with some sympathy in the review report. Unfortunately, the report did not make many fundamental recommendations beyond the projected 2015 methodology review that the Commonwealth Grants Commission had proposed. I will get to the Commonwealth Grants Commission in a moment. The report did not make many major recommendations and it really did not make a comment either way on whether they thought it was a good idea or not. Irrespective of what the review found, I think it is a good idea, certainly, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia think it is a good idea. It is an important foundation stone for any future fairer redistribution of GST revenue amongst the states. In early December, the incoming federal government, in particular the Treasurer, Hon Joe Hockey, made a significant decision—not so much in dollar terms, although around half a billion a year is not insignificant—that was an important signpost that the incoming federal government may be amenable to changing the current system. The decision was to continue to treat Western Australia’s royalties on iron ore fines at the same concessional rate as they had been treated up until now by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. That is really a stay of execution for two years, until the 2015 methodology review is conducted. I have to say on my behalf and hopefully on behalf of the people Western Australia, we should put on record our thanks to the federal Treasurer for making that decision, because it is, as both a conceptual decision and for its financial impact to the bottom line of our state budget, a very welcome decision. My suggestion of a per capita basis for the distribution of GST revenue means that the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s role in distributing GST revenue would be abolished. Over its history, since its inception in the early years of Federation, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has, overall, worked with the best of intentions. It has attempted to balance up mainly vertical fiscal imbalance, which is the imbalance between the commonwealth’s ability to collect revenue and the states’ ability to collect revenue. By addressing that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has done a good job. Of course, over the hundred-odd years of Federation, the states’ collective ability to raise revenue has reduced and the taxes that states can levy have been confined to a narrow band, and the commonwealth’s ability to raise revenue has expanded continually, particularly through uniform income taxes and more recent decisions in relation to the levying of excises and the like that has concentrated revenue-raising

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 219 power with the commonwealth government at the expense of the states. Where there is that imbalance between revenue-collection powers federally and the states’ collective need to deliver services to their respective populations, as I said, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has done a good job, but moving from that vertical fiscal imbalance to try to address horizontal fiscal imbalances between states, which is the disparity amongst the states in their own respective abilities to collect various taxes and charges, is where I think the Commonwealth Grants Commission has not served us as well as it could have. In particular, exhibits A, B and C are the state of Western Australia and its missing GST revenue, which has gone to other states. So, yes, pre- emptively, am I suggesting that a new formula should cut out the Commonwealth Grants Commission in the distribution of GST revenue? Yes, I believe that it should. I believe that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should focus on its main role to address what I believe is its original purpose; that is, the vertical fiscal imbalances between the commonwealth on one hand and the states collectively on the other. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon PETER KATSAMBANIS: Hon Ken Travers, I welcome your contribution to solving this dilemma for Western Australia if you do not believe that my suggestions are the right ones. But, fundamentally, let us come up with a formula that cuts out the grants commission. The third limb of this motion is that once we have established a floor and put in a set percentage to be distributed on a per capita basis, it will be a set and forget—we can live with that. I think that the third limb is the one that will drive the biggest gains for not only this state but also every state in the Federation and for Australia. I am calling for the commonwealth and states to sit down with the extra 20 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent— whatever the percentage is once we settle the per capita distribution—and work out how the balance of funds will be distributed. Since I first raised these matters I have received a lot of positive feedback about these ideas. My suggestion is that we re-enliven economic reform at the state level. I have spoken before about how, in the 1990s and the first five years of the 2000s, as a nation we were able to drive national competition reforms that in the main were extremely beneficial. These reforms were made through incentive payments to the states. Some of those incentive payments were competitive; we can do that with GST revenue payments. It does not have to be competitive at all, it can be done in an agreed manner, bilaterally by each state with the commonwealth, but on the basis that the funds the states receive will be to assist them to implement broad-ranging economic reforms that will drive growth, employment and future prosperity for each state and, as a result, for the nation. Yes, it may lead to the reinvigoration of a term that has practically fallen from usage in the last 20 years or 30 years; that notion of competitive federalism, meaning that the states compete to attract new investment, new job opportunities and provide prosperity for their states and the people of their states by lowering taxes and removing regulations that are an impediment to growth and business investment, and by encouraging an entrepreneurial culture that will invest to grow each individual state. During the break I was lucky enough to deliver a speech to the federal Young Liberal Movement of Australia convention that was held in Fremantle. On Australia Day I outlined how this sort of new competitive process can be used to reduce and ultimately abolish one of those taxes I think is an insidious tax on jobs; that is, payroll tax. That is just one example and one idea I have used. States, governments, Treasurers and Parliaments can decide for themselves which of the taxes and regulations they believe are the greatest inhibitors, and can seek assistance to get rid of those prohibitors. I truly believe that payroll tax is one of those prohibitors to further growth and investment because it is a tax on jobs. It is a direct tax on employment and it cuts in just at a time when a small business is starting to grow. At a time when small business requires extra capital funding and probably requires extra borrowings to fund that capital, it requires further investment to grow, and of course it requires more labour to continue to grow. Just at the time when business owners have to find that extra capital, find those extra funds, remortgage the family home in many cases in small businesses that Western Australians would be aware of, and just around the time they have probably also started to pay company tax and are continuing to meet their PAYE obligations as a good employer, their superannuation obligations and their worker’s compensation obligations, they are hit with the payroll tax because their payroll has gone above the threshold, which is currently $750 000. Again, it should be noted that this government is working hard to increase that threshold and it should be congratulated for that. But the faster we can both increase the threshold and decrease the rate until the eventual abolition of payroll tax, the better. That will allow those businesses suffering under the yoke of payroll tax today to alleviate that cost and to not have to think about what taxation implications the employment of one or more new staff members will have. Think about that for a moment. When people are thinking about growing their business, when they are thinking about hiring new staff, when they are thinking about creating new job opportunities for people, they have to think about the tax implications—the payroll tax implication. That should ring alarm bells, and we should be working as a society to eliminate that. I said in the speech I mentioned earlier—people can go off and read it in their own time if they want to, if they require some bedtime reading or the like—that this has been done before. Again, this is not new. This is not reinventing the wheel; it is just focusing on things that have worked in the past and implementing them to modern requirements. In the 1970s, the Queensland government at the time decided to start driving down

220 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] probate duties. A large incentive for it was to encourage relatively well-off retirees, or even modestly well-off retirees, to sell up in places like Victoria and New South Wales, move to Queensland and buy the apartments that were being built on the Gold Coast, safe in the knowledge that they could pass on their investment after their death to their families, beneficiaries, children or charities, or whomever they wished to pass down their assets to, without the threat of probate duties—without that dead hand of the taxman reaching into their grave and grabbing taxes. The Queensland government started that process within about three years or four years. In 1976 there was a new federal government—the Fraser federal government—and it got all the states together and they agreed on a process whereby within a few years all the states eliminated their probate duties, and the federal government, for its part, eliminated its death duties that were levied on top of probate duties. It was a win–win, and an example of how competitive federalism can actually drive down taxation. It is a ready example, not pie in the sky; it has already happened. Roll the clock forward 40 years and we do not have probate duties or death duties. Some political parties, such as the Greens, have occasionally dallied with a policy about that—thank goodness they have not reached the government benches to be able to implement it. I hope they have also seen the wisdom of their ways. I have not checked their policies recently, but I hope the Greens both federally and at a state level have not continued to resurrect the spectre of these taxes on inheritance and intergenerational transfer. But we have not done anything meaningful about payroll tax. The first incarnation of the goods and services tax was raised by the former federal Treasurer, later to become Prime Minister for a while, Hon Paul Keating. He was the first politician who raised it in any meaningful way. It did not get anywhere; he thought it was a panacea. The second person to come along was the former federal opposition leader, Dr John Hewson, and in his version payroll tax would have been abolished. Hon Nick Goiran: That would have been good. Hon PETER KATSAMBANIS: It would have been wonderful, Hon Nick Goiran, if that had happened. Unfortunately, in 1993 the initial proponent of the goods and services tax, Hon Paul Keating, decided he would oppose it because someone else was raising it. He won the day, and that proposal failed. When we got to the late 1990s the incarnation of the goods and services tax that became law abolished a whole raft of other federal and state taxes but did not abolish payroll tax. Interestingly, when we look at the forward estimates in Western Australia, as I said our share of GST revenue that we are missing out on over the forward estimates is close to $20 billion now that Hon Joe Hockey has made that favourable decision for the next two years on the treatment of iron ore fines. Over the next four years, what is our projected payroll tax collect? It is $17 billion. I think there is a neat corollary there between payroll tax and our declining share of GST revenue. I do not suggest for one moment that if we got our fair share of GST we would immediately abolish payroll tax—that would be nirvana. I know it would be nirvana and utopia for a lot of small business people I speak to every day who are out there running their businesses and trying to create employment opportunities. It would be a gradual process, but if we set the process in train, if we set a timetable possibly over four, five or six years, that could lead to the eventual abolition, and that would be a great thing. What is in it for the other states? I think that is an important question, because I do not think meaningful reform can be achieved across all the states of Australia and the commonwealth government by beating the other states with a stick. What is in it for the other states? They too will be given a strong incentive under this model to reform their economies and to look at where their rigidities are and where their disincentives for investment, growth and creation of job opportunities lie. They will be given a strong incentive to do that. The two states that are not pulling their weight as much as everybody else—South Australia and Tasmania—can look at what they have been doing over the past decade and not repeat mistakes. Interestingly, over the break, in January this year, the Institute of Public Affairs released its 2014 “Economic Freedom Index” in which it pointed out a direct correlation between lower state government taxes and less state government regulation and higher growth in the states of Australia. One of the tables it produced in appendix B shows the general government sector final consumption expenditures of each state from 2001 through to 2011 as a percentage of gross state product. In 2001, general government expenditure as a percentage of gross state product in Western Australia was just under 15 per cent. By 2011, that had been reduced to 11.16 per cent. Conversely, in that time, the size of South Australia’s government sector vis-a-vis its entire economy increased from 18.51 per cent in 2001 to 19.02 per cent in 2011. It did nothing to reduce the size of its government sector. It did nothing to grow its economy. As a result, the government sector as a percentage of its economy grew a bit. Tasmania’s government sector final consumption expenditures grew from 22.79 per cent in 2001 to 25.21 per cent in 2011. One quarter of that state’s economy is the government sector. In WA in 2011 it was around a tenth—11 per cent. The growth figures over that time show a direct inverse relationship. Our state has continued to grow year upon year at a faster rate than the rate at which the national economy has grown. South Australia and Tasmania in particular have lagged behind the growth rate of the rest of Australia. They have gone backwards in relative terms. In either 2011–12 or 2012–13, Tasmania’s economy shrank. That was not as a result of the global financial crisis. It was not 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010. Well after the Australian economy got out of the worst problems of the GFC, Tasmania’s economy shrank.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 221

Funnily enough, both Tasmania and South Australia have elections coming up on 15 March. The polls are pointing to a change of government. As a member of the Liberal Party, I am heartened by the fact that the polls are showing victories for us. Anything can happen and things can change, but at the moment they are pointing to Liberal victories in both those states. I think more fundamental for reform is the fact that the polls are showing a strong mood for a change of government in each of those two states. The figures I have quoted and any figures we look at on the growth in those two states over the past decade or so show that whatever the governments of those states are doing is failing the people of those states. As always, a change of government, irrespective of political colour—just the fact that there is a change of government and a mood from the public that something different should be tried—can be a strong driver for economic reform. I do not have to say it; I think everyone is saying that those two states are lagging behind the rest of Australia and they are doing their people a disservice by shrinking their people’s prosperity. They are shrinking their job opportunities rather than growing the pie. Both those states have their challenges and problems, but they have massive advantages too. Tasmania has lower incomes than the rest of Australia. It should be attracting businesses that are labour-intensive. Quite clearly, Tasmania has an abundance of wonderful natural resources in both the extractive industries and the forestry industry. It also has agricultural production. It should look over the ditch, the Tasman Sea, to New Zealand and the economic success of a small nation such as that. It has a similar profile with a small population and not a massive land mass. It has a lot of greenery. It is not so warm; it does not have beaches. However, New Zealand has a massive experiential tourism industry. It sells its brand for its agricultural products and the like. Tasmania should look to New Zealand and see examples of similar places that have gone forward rather than backwards. South Australia is the same. It has a well-trained workforce. It has some adjustment problems with manufacturing, but that can drive new opportunities. It certainly has significant advantages in extractive industries compared with other states of Australia. It has an emerging shale gas industry that could drive further growth. Neither of these states has the classic conundrum of not having opportunity available to them; they need to grasp the nettle. Rather than beat them with a stick, I think it is better to encourage them with a carrot. We should use the opportunity of the mood for change. The people of those states are asking for reform and, hopefully, they deliver that message to their respective governments on 15 March. Let us use that opportunity to drive reform. Part of that reform process is sitting down and recognising that the current distribution of GST revenue to beneficiaries is not helping anyone. It creates a hammock approach rather than an incentive to change things. Let us put a floor on GST funding on a per capita basis and use the balance of funds to drive economic reforms. Where is the commonwealth in all this? Firstly, the commonwealth’s role is to get people to sit at the table. Secondly, the commonwealth’s role is to put its money where its mouth is. In that period of structural reform, during which the states will be encouraged to undertake economic reforms to get better and to grow the pie, any fiscal imbalances created by the GST floor should be balanced up from commonwealth revenue, rather than other states continuing to milk Western Australia, which is unfair and unreasonable. I could talk for hours and hours, but I respect the time limit set for me today. In closing, the system of GST distribution is broken. It is pointless to play the blame game and hark back to the set of circumstances 15 years ago that did not factor in the massive boom in exploration, mining and oil and gas that Western Australia has seen over the past eight or so years. It did not factor in that some states would sit on their hands rather than capitalise in the same way that Western Australia has. To hark back to that blame game is pointless; it will not get us anywhere. It will not get us back that $20 billion. It will not build the infrastructure we need. It will not fund the recurrent expenditure for our growing population—hospitals, schools, police, law and order and the like. It certainly will not drive the economic reforms we need to continue to create jobs and opportunities in this state so that people continue to want to come here and experience the prosperity and the great lifestyle that we have here in WA. It will also not fix the problems in the other states of the commonwealth. It is only by sitting down at the table and putting a floor on the GST so that WA gets its fair share and does not feel it is getting exploited by the other states that we can start the process. The second limb of the process is to sit down and have a mature discussion, involving all the states in the commonwealth, to drive an even more prosperous future for not just WA and the families and people living in this great state, but the whole of our commonwealth. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [2.51 pm]: I thought government members might have responded to the member’s speech, but clearly they do not feel they need to. Hon Helen Morton: We are waiting for you. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Normally it is customary for the government to respond to a private member’s speech, but that is fine. I do not think there is a person in Western Australia who would not wish and hope that we would get a better deal out of the goods and services tax. I do not think there is a person in Western Australia who does not feel that to assist the —

222 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Hon Peter Katsambanis interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am supporting Hon Peter Katsambanis’s motion. I do not think there is a person in Western Australia who would argue that the state of Western Australia is not hamstrung by the way in which the finances of the GST revenue are distributed. Hon Peter Katsambanis, in a lively exchange earlier this afternoon, said he wanted to hear solutions. He wanted us to put forward not complaints and whining, but solutions. All we actually got from him was complaints and whining for the 40-odd minutes of his contribution. We can put forward a proposal that says — Hon Peter Katsambanis: You weren’t listening. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I was listening very carefully. Hon Peter Katsambanis interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, I was listening. Hon Peter Katsambanis should not worry because I will go through his speech; I was listening very carefully. It is one thing to say 80 per cent, and I do not disagree with that. I think WA should get 80 per cent. I think the current Premier used to say 75 per cent and Mark McGowan has called for a 90 per cent floor for the GST revenue. We can, again, have many discussions about how the rest the money is distributed. The key issue is that we have to be realistic and we have to have a pathway. The real solution to the problem we face today is not what the final solution is, but the pathway to a solution to give us a better deal. Hon Peter Katsambanis: I just offered one. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, Hon Peter Katsambanis did not provide a single example of how we would achieve what he is proposing as the solution; he did not outline a pathway. Let me go through my argument and I will explain how we get to the pathway. The starting point in this debate is the fact that for WA to get a better deal means someone else has to miss out. I accept the argument being put forward by Hon Peter Katsambanis, which is that if there are also some reforms with the remainder of those payments to drive productivity — Hon Peter Katsambanis: I also said that the commonwealth should make up the difference. Don’t leave that bit out, because without it the argument is incomplete. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is fine, the difference can be made up and the components had—all of those things — Hon Peter Katsambanis: If you want to paraphrase me, get it accurate. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If Hon Peter Katsambanis let me finish my sentences, I would be able to explain my point. The issue here is that there needs to be a pathway to a solution. Even if we asked the commonwealth to make up the difference, it means that it will either need to tax us higher in another way or take that money away from some other program it is doing. We have just had a federal election and in the four years leading up to it we had the Western Australian Liberal Party, at a state and federal level, railing against the way in which WA was treated in the commonwealth distribution of the GST revenue. The Abbott government was elected, yet nothing has changed; the same things are going on today. In fact, we had a great day when Tony Abbott arrived in Perth and said he would make sure that he got a better deal for Western Australia. He then flew over to Tasmania the next day and said he would make sure that Tasmania did not miss out or lose anything. That is the reality and so we have to accept that the issue is not about Liberal or Labor; the federal Liberal Party and the federal Labor Party will be driven by the issues on the east coast that are primary to them winning government. We can sit here and dream about a better world, but we have to be able to put forward a pathway of how we get to that better world and that assists people to realise that they will actually gain. My argument is that that pathway should put forward propositions and proposals that very clearly do not require anyone else to lose. We need to show there is a pathway by which we can grow the pie, have a bigger pie to share, and that Western Australia can be the leader of that growing of the pie. We will then have a bigger pie to share around, but in return for us doing that, we want a bigger chunk of the additional revenue created out of that bigger pie. That is a realistic pathway. We need to have a sensible debate, not just in this country, but in this state, about how we change the structure of what we are faced with today. Sitting here and carrying on about how evil and bad things are will not change the views of people in the eastern states. In the eastern states people see Western Australia as a rich state. Joe Hockey turned up and asked why the Perth–Bunbury highway is not a toll road, because he is used to driving around Sydney on toll roads. We can see that the current federal Treasurer already has in his mindset that we are a wealthy state that can build a road such as that without it being a tollway. I am very proud of the fact we did it without making it a tollway; I am glad we have that road, but we will not convince the people we need to convince to get the realistic change on these matters by sitting around and whipping ourselves up into a brilliant lather about how bad things are. To convince the people who will have to work with us to get the changes we need, we have to change some of their perceptions and make them realise we could do a lot better for not just WA, but the nation, if we were given greater funding, particularly in my view, around infrastructure. In return

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 223 for that, if we do the heavy lifting, we get a bigger share of the pie that we create through that process. I do not have a problem, as part of that, with insisting that we have a productivity process for the other states to improve their game. We could sit here all afternoon debating how big a basket case Tasmania was before Jim Bacon took over. It was a complete basket case and he lifted it. When Mike Rann took over in South Australia, he actually got the economy moving. I accept that decisions around the motor vehicle industry are causing problems there and that that state will have to go through another transition, but that will not solve the problems we face today. Certainly, trying to present an argument that WA is poverty-stricken in terms of its state finances can never be won on the east coast of Australia; people will never buy it. They believe we are a wealthy state. Generally, we are a pretty good state, but I believe we can do better and we deserve to do better. We have to be realistic. We have to put forward that pathway to the future. Earlier in the debate, vertical fiscal imbalance and horizontal fiscal imbalance were mentioned, and I think we need to understand what they mean. Vertical fiscal imbalance is about us a as state—how we source our revenue and whether the revenue we spend is generated by us. The advantage of reducing that vertical fiscal imbalance is that we would then be in control of our own destiny. Hon Peter Katsambanis: It’s not just about our state. It can’t be an imbalance unless it’s reasonably something else. Hon KEN TRAVERS: This is why I am explaining it to the member. He says that it is economics 100, but he does not get it. Vertical fiscal imbalance is about whether we as a state generate our own revenue source. It is about whether we generate the money we spend or whether we receive it from another source of government; and predominantly that other source of government is the commonwealth. GST is a big component of that, and other special purpose grants are given to the state from the commonwealth out of its other revenue sources. I will refer to one of the arguments in the original GST debate in this country. I completely agree with the Court government. It entered the debate on the GST and tax reform and said that one of its goals at that time was to reduce the vertical fiscal imbalance so as to increase the role of the state of Western Australia in directly controlling the amount of money raised by the state so that it would be closely linked to how it was spent. That was the Court government’s role. Members may recall that the original proposal put forward was to move towards states having their own component of income tax. Of course, those who study history know that income tax commenced before the Second World War. The proposal was that we would have that increased role that would allow us to have greater control over the way in which we raise the money that we need to spend. Interestingly, the end result of the decision on the GST was that Western Australia went backwards; we lost control. As a result of the deal on the GST there is now greater vertical fiscal imbalance. More of our money is now controlled by the Commonwealth Grants Commission process than ever before. We gave up a number of nuisance taxes, but they were taxes that we as a state were able to control. When we lost those taxes, we no longer had that capacity. One of the interesting things about the GST debate is that in reforming the tax system we had the ability to make small incremental changes. Eric Ripper got a slightly better deal for Western Australia with some small incremental changes back in the early 2000s. That was after he had run a very successful campaign and got New South Wales and Victoria into the cart with him. And in fairness to Hon Christian Porter, if we look at the long-term trend of these things, we can see a jump in our share of revenue back in 2003–04 and a small jump when Christian Porter was able to successfully negotiate some changes when he was Treasurer. Beyond that, we probably only ever get an opportunity for wholesale reform once in a generation, if not once in every two generations. One of the last opportunities for wholesale reform was the time when Western Australia lost the capacity to raise its own income tax, which was around the time of the war. The next time was during the GST debate when we went back further on managing the issues around vertical fiscal imbalance. The other part of the debate is about horizontal fiscal imbalance. Horizontal fiscal imbalance is about trying to equalise the opportunities for everybody in Australia at the same time as keeping pressure on the states to maximise their capacity to raise their own source revenue from areas where they have their own source. It cannot be argued that we have not been successful with horizontal fiscal imbalance issues when in fact the role is to equalise those opportunities as much as possible. There is one area in which we have been successful in the past. Hon Tom Stephens long argued about the need to change the way in which Western Australia was funded for the provision of services, particularly services to remote Indigenous communities, and that there was no real recognition of the cost of providing those services. Only the other day members of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations were talking with the Treasurer about changes to the cost structures to get better recognition of the way in which the GST is distributed, but those will only ever be small incremental changes. We need to constantly focus on getting those sorts of changes in place, but the whole point of horizontal fiscal equalisation is about equalisation. If members are arguing that they want rid of equalisation, they should go ahead. I do not think we will get any sympathy

224 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] from the east coast, although we can argue that the equalisation is not set at the right point. That was one matter that concerned me about the comments made by the mover of this motion There is no doubt in my view that an opportunity exists for us to put forward arguments about our needs, about the cost structures of doing things in Western Australia, about how difficult it is to service a state the size of Western Australia and about the cost of the infrastructure that we need to put in place to grow the nation. A classic example of that is the Onslow area today. Over the next 10 years there will be massive growth in that area. The roads up there need to be upgraded and a range of other infrastructure in the town needs to be fixed, including the roads and accesses leading into it and all the rest of it. The reason those things need to be done is to support the Wheatstone development. The Wheatstone development will generate significant benefits to the rest of the country in the form of revenue to the commonwealth, and we should be insisting that the costs in that area be picked up and shared equitably and not just left to the state of Western Australia. The member opposite said that he does not want to play the blame game. Of course he does not want to play the blame game because the blame goes straight back to his side. What a great argument! Because he knows who is going to be blamed, he does not want to play the blame game. Hon Peter Katsambanis: No solutions; just excuses! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have been outlining solutions. Hon Peter Katsambanis suggested that back in 1999 we could not predict what was going to happen. I have regularly quoted from Hansard the various cabinet submissions that were put forward at the time. We know that at that time people in Western Australia and particularly people in New South Wales were calling for the GST to be distributed on a per capita basis, and that that call was openly rejected. I want to quote from an exchange that took place all that time ago between the then Premier, Mr Court, and Hon Eric Ripper. Of course we were being told at the time that this was going to be a major growth tax that would fix all the problems for Western Australia. In that debate back in 1999, in fact on 13 October 1999 to be precise, Hon Eric Ripper pointed out that our access to the share of GST would be determined by the commonwealth and that it might change from time to time depending on whether the commonwealth thought that Victoria or New South Wales needed a bit more. Mr Court interjected, saying — Are you saying that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should change? Hon Eric Ripper responded — I am saying that the Treasurer has signed up to an arrangement which makes a very large portion of our revenue hostage to a commonwealth government authority’s determination. Its determination might not be helpful to this State. It is therefore not as if these things were not able to be predicted. What was happening was staring us in the face at that time. Hon Peter Katsambanis might not want to go down the blame game, but he must understand history to be able to work out the best way forward. He cannot sit there and deny the historical fact that the problems we now face were identified back then and yet people chose not to recognise those problems. One thing we need to do in this debate is to put the argument strongly for a realignment of the way in which finances across the nation are managed, but we have got to have clear goals about what that realignment is and how we will achieve it. We need a federal government that will try to assist us on that pathway. One of the ways in which a federal government can assist us is to help change the GST system, but let us be realistic, it will have its voter bases in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia and will be looking with one eye to those states. I understand that leading into the last election, the Western Australian Liberal Party controlled 25 per cent of the federal Liberal Party caucus. If ever Western Australian Liberals were going to get a deal through the federal Liberal Party caucus about reforming these matters — Hon Sue Ellery: Do not use that word; it is offensive to them. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is the secret meeting room, then. Several government members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is the Liberal Party meeting room then. It is still a caucus—a gathering of people to make decisions, whether members like the name or not. Members of the Western Australian Liberal Party comprised 25 per cent of the people in that room and they still could not get a deal as part of the election commitments to improve the situation. That highlights how difficult it will be to get a change. When we get to the next change, we will need to make sure that we go to a system that gives greater control to Western Australia to determine its own revenue sources, so that if we work hard, we earn more money and we are rewarded for that; we keep it for ourselves. By the same token, in recognising that, if we want to keep the Federation but we become incredibly wealthy and the rest of the country is left well behind, in the same way that we are arguing now we are not getting our fair share, that will lead to disharmony in the Federation. There has to be a balancing act as we go forward. One of the things the federal government can do to assist is to grow the infrastructure

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 225 spend because Western Australia is growing and is helping to grow the national pie at a faster rate than anywhere else. Members should acknowledge that under the previous federal Labor government, the infrastructure spend in Western Australia went up from $92 a person to $261 a person. That is the case. I am more than happy to say that I am very pleased that the current Treasurer, Joe Hockey, made the decision on the treatment of iron ore fines in terms of the GST. The arguments in that area have been going on and off for a number of years, and, thankfully, previous Treasurers made similar decisions; but the real challenge will be in the methodology review that will occur in a few years. The danger for Western Australia is that if we get too inward looking and beat ourselves into a frenzy about how badly we are treated, we will miss the main game on the east coast. They will say, “Look at them! They’ve got more money than they know what to do with and they are running around pleading poverty; we all know they are wealthy.” The outcome of that methodology review will be that we will go even further backwards. We need to ensure that we maintain a rational debate. Earlier today Hon Peter Katsambanis talked about what a great job the current government is doing. One of the things we have to remember in Western Australia is that while the system is the system, we have to live within the revenue sources we have. We have to cap our expenditure at what is currently affordable. Hon Peter Katsambanis talked about the schools the government has built. He said seven had been built. Does that include high schools or is it just primary schools? Hon Peter Collier: It is seven in total this year! Hon KEN TRAVERS: The minister should go back and look at how many were built under Labor governments! I think Di Guise had that many built in her electorate under the previous Labor government over eight years; in fact, it was probably more than that. Historically, governments built six primary schools and a couple of high schools every couple of years. That is not a fantastic outcome; it is required. Hon Peter Katsambanis should not suggest that the Liberal–National government is any different from previous governments; in fact, there is probably an argument that construction has gone backwards. Hon Peter Katsambanis talked about hospitals. Let us understand one of the things that is often forgotten in Western Australia. When we aggregate the debt in Western Australia, we get a total net debt figure for the total public sector. When this government came to office, the general government sector had a surplus of around $3 billion. That has now blown out to a huge deficit of $12 billion. That surplus of $3 billion, in part, was money the Labor government left to build Fiona Stanley Hospital. The Labor government left money for members opposite to build Fiona Stanley Hospital, which is the big item. The government cannot deliver Fiona Stanley Hospital on time, even though it was funded and paid for by the previous government. Hon Peter Katsambanis talked about the rail line to Butler. The Liberal–National government will have delivered in the order of six kilometres of rail. Hon Liz Behjat: Let’s talk about the arena! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am happy to talk about Perth Arena because the Liberal–National government was in control of it for half the time of the project! The Liberal–National government was in control of the contract management for a lot of the blowouts. I am happy to talk about the rail line to Butler. Imagine being able to hang your hat on building six kilometres of rail over an eight-year period! Members on this side would be embarrassed if that was all the rail we had built in six years! We built something like 78 kilometres in eight years, but in eight years the Liberal–National government will build only six kilometres of rail. I would hang my head in shame; I would not be proud of that! Not only that, but it is being built two years too late! Other governments built plenty of infrastructure: the Mandurah railway line, Clarkson extension, Thornlie spur, Greenwood station; and the Tonkin Highway extension, the Reid Highway, the Perth–Bunbury highway, the extension of the Kwinana Freeway, the extension of the Mitchell Freeway, and the Geraldton southern access corridor. Hon Nick Goiran: The extension of the Roe Highway! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, we did—right through to stage 7. Hon Nick Goiran: Shame, it stopped a bit early! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I look forward to members opposite building stage 8. They will never do it. They will keep promising it, but they will never do it. The Liberal–National government used to have one big hoax—Roe Highway stage 8, now there are three big hoaxes: light rail, Roe 8 and the airport rail line. Members opposite love making promises, but they hate delivering! I would hate to be waiting for a birthday present from members opposite, because I reckon they would promise the earth but would never deliver it. Hon Nick Goiran is right; Roe Highway was another project that Labor delivered and I could go through a list of country roads that were upgraded as well.

226 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

We know that the Liberal Party’s coalition partners do not believe in building roads in Western Australia. That is the bottom line. Hon Sue Ellery: Because it’s not in their knitting! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Building rail is not in the Liberal Party’s knitting, and the National Party’s new crochet is that it does not build roads in regional Western Australia. Even though in the old days the Nationals loved getting the transport portfolio, they have now completely rejected their past. That is why they had to clear out Hon Max Trenorden from the party; they wanted to expunge their past. They do not build roads anymore; they just like to close rail systems. There is no doubt that the motion moved by Hon Peter Katsambanis is effectively a statement of principle that we need to get a better deal, and as a starting point we want 80 per cent on a per capita basis. On behalf of the Labor Party I am happy to indicate that we have absolutely no problem with that. We never have had! We have been trying to fix the problems. Hon Peter Katsambanis said he wanted solutions from the Labor Party. We are well versed in coming after coalition governments with solutions to fix things. We realised the problem we faced when the last Labor government came to office. We were also burdened with the deal that was done on the GST by Richard Court and we had to find pathways through that. We know that, in the same way that back in the 1990s the Liberal Party burdened the state of Western Australia with the GST agreement, when the next Labor government gets into power, it will be burdened with the debt of the Barnett Liberal–National government. The one thing I love about the coalition is that both parties like spending—the Nationals like spending just as much as the Liberal Party—but the National Party likes the Liberal Party to defend the spending; they do not want to defend the debt burden. We need to make sure the National Party accepts its fair share of responsibility, along with the Liberal Party, for the debt burden it will put on the state of Western Australia. That will be as taxing a problem for future governments as the burden we are currently debating this afternoon in this motion, which is the burden that has been placed on the state of Western Australia because of the decision of the Court government to sign up to the GST in 1999. Hon Nick Goiran: You were telling us what you had done to fix the problem. That is what you were about to do. What did you do? I’m waiting to hear. There was a time when there were Labor governments across the nation, and what did you do? I don’t remember hearing you talking about that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: One of the things that I am pretty confident about is that unless we get a sensible debate happening, in three years we will be going to an election. All the major states in Australia are now controlled by Hon Nick Goiran’s party. Hon Peter Katsambanis might be right and the party might pick up two more states. It has one of the territories. Does Hon Nick Goiran think Tony Abbott will agree to taking money off South Australia or Tasmania to give it to WA? No. Hon Nick Goiran: There’s a big difference. We’re prepared to talk about it. You guys were silent. Hon KEN TRAVERS: When was that? Hon Nick Goiran: I’ve never heard you talk about it, except when we raised it. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Nick Goiran should come to our estimates hearings. I asked questions about this of the Under Treasurer at the last hearing. Hon Nick Goiran: Exactly. Just recently. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, no. If we go back — The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson): Order, members! This is a debate, not a conversation. Please allow the honourable member on his feet to continue his remarks. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I made the point earlier that when Hon Eric Ripper was the Treasurer, he put a lot of time and effort into working with the other states. He got Ross Garnaut engaged in the process to bring together the other states. Members of the National Party can laugh. They just like spending money; they do not care where it comes from. They are the Greens of the right wing in this country. They want to spend it but they do not care how they raise it. When we get on to debates about debt, they duck out of the chamber and leave their big brothers and sisters in the Liberal Party to look after it for them. They just want to go to the Royal Show and spend it all but the National Party has to go out and get the weekend job to raise it. Hon Liz Behjat: That’s offensive. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What—to the Greens? Hon Liz Behjat: No, to us. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Which bit was offensive to the Liberal Party? Hon Nick Goiran: Just the use of the word “Greens”. Hon Liz Behjat: In reference to us.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 227

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I said that the Nats were the Greens of the right wing. Those opposite are the Liberal Party of the right wing. There is no doubt about that. They are the conservative right of the right wing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Ken Travers, please return to the motion. Hon KEN TRAVERS: This has been a longstanding debate. A very short time after the signing of the agreement in 1999, the then Labor government was already having to sort out the problems. Hon Eric Ripper put in place a process that resulted in a better deal for Western Australia. Hon Peter Katsambanis: Where was the Labor government in 1999? Which Labor government in 1999? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does the member remember when the Liberal governments got together and signed us up to this deal? Hon Peter Katsambanis would have loved it back then because he was a Victorian then. He probably would have been looking forward to it because it was a good deal for the eastern states. Hon Peter Katsambanis: You said there was a Labor government that tried to fix it. When? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! This is a debate, not a conversation. Would the honourable member please return to the motion? Hon KEN TRAVERS: At the time that deal was signed, Eric Ripper was predicting it and having the exchanges with the then Premier that I quoted earlier. Within two years, Labor was in government and we had to set about the pathway of fixing it. In 2004, I think, we were able to secure a slight improvement out of the federal government at that time, or the whole process. We achieved it by getting New South Wales and Victoria on board for that change. That is a good example of how we change these things. There is one other thing I want to raise before I sit down. What are the other opportunities that we have coming up to the next election? Members opposite are right. There is every chance that in about three years, if not all but a vast majority of the states and territories in Australia will be under a Liberal government. Hon Nick Goiran: Can I tell your mates in South Australia and Tasmania you said that? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I said there is every chance. If we asked the Premiers of those states, they would say they have an uphill battle. They are fighting for their lives. I will tell them that the WA Liberal Party has a deal with the federal Liberal Party. Once the elections are over, it will take the GST money off them. Will I tell them that? Is that the deal? Hon Nick Goiran: That would be misleading. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Exactly. I do not think the Liberal Party has done that but I reckon it will try it. There is a need to get a better system in place. A window of opportunity will be coming up in the next couple of months in Western Australia. We in Western Australia can make a very clear demand on the Abbott government that if it does not put forward propositions to fix the problems, we need to send senators over who will. We should send them a clear message in the Senate election coming up. They will be in a position to provide an outcome. If the Liberal Party in Western Australia is convinced that it has the solution, let us outline it and let us make it a condition that we say to the Abbott government, “If you want people to vote for the Liberal Party in the Senate election that is coming up, you have to be prepared to put forward a proposition that meets the solutions offered by Hon Peter Katsambanis.” Hon Peter Katsambanis: Would you impose that on the Labor senators from WA? Will your party impose that? Hon KEN TRAVERS: The member missed the point. We have a window of opportunity to influence the government. The Senate on its own will not do it. We have to use our window of opportunity to put pressure on the government. If Labor was in power, I would be suggesting the same thing, but we are not. The issue here is about the Liberal government. Hon Nick Goiran: You had your chance. Hon KEN TRAVERS: And the Liberal Party has its chance and if it has not delivered in three years, we will see what happens. In the meantime, the other thing I plead with the members on the other side is to control their debt. Just as the GST is a burden left to us by previous governments, the debt that the government is leaving, particularly in the general government sector with its wasteful, wanton and dysfunctional spending, will leave a legacy and a burden for future governments to deal with. The fact that it spends millions on projects that it then cans and throws away is the other big financial problem in Western Australia. We have declining money from the GST. That is the problem that we always have to acknowledge. It is not declining total revenue to the state; it is declining revenue from the GST. I accept that if we were getting more of the GST, we could be building more infrastructure to deliver for the future of Western Australia. The fascinating thing is that this government has delivered all the bling in the world but none of the basic infrastructure.

228 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

When Hon Simon O’Brien as Minister for Transport flew down to Esperance, he said that he would expand and upgrade the Esperance port. It was supposed to have been completed by now. It would have been a great initiative to help grow the economy for Western Australia, the national economy, revenue streams and GST; everybody would have got a win out of that. We are still waiting for it. We have the access road that Alannah MacTiernan and Anthony Albanese agreed to back in 2008. We were provided with the funding for it and then we had to wait for it to be built. Yesterday there was another milestone in that the bridge has opened. I looked at that project when I was in Esperance the other day. It is fantastic. The next stage is upgrading the port. That is part of the process and why the government wanted the access corridor. We are still waiting for it. This is a serious debate but we have to be realistic. We have to realise how others on the east coast think about us and target our arguments in that light. We cannot just sit here and say that we want to win Lotto. We can keep hoping but I have bought a ticket every Saturday for the past few years and I still have not won. Maybe this Saturday will be a winner for me. That is not really the way to run a state. We have to work with the other states. We have to sell the message to them that there are opportunities. That is where I want to see the work coming out of the government. It has the resources. It needs to put forward the discussion papers, the modelling and all the rest of it that will show that we can go to the eastern states and say, “Work with us in Western Australia and change the formula. The nation as a whole will be better off but because we are going to do the heavy lifting, we want a bit better deal than we are getting at the moment.” In my view, that is the solution to this problem. HON JACQUI BOYDELL (Mining and Pastoral) [3.30 pm]: I have been really interested in today’s debate because I agree with Hon Peter Katsambanis; indeed, his motion provides a collegiate approach to recognising the thought processes of those in the eastern states. I was scared when I found myself agreeing with some of the comments made by Hon Ken Travers. I will try to not make that a regular occurrence! I will touch on some of the issues to which the previous speakers referred. I have been a member of this house for less than a year, yet this is the third time I have risen to speak about this issue. Members in this chamber and in the other house all agree that we need a bipartisan, collegiate approach when we approach our federal counterparts to put our ideas on the table. I thank Hon Peter Katsambanis for again drawing the attention of members from this and the other house to this issue. I hope we can draw the attention of new Western Australian federal members of Parliament to the very dire issue facing Western Australians. In October last year, Hon Peter Katsambanis moved a similar motion calling specifically for an immediate review of the Australian government’s unfair and inequitable goods and services tax arrangements. Similarly, in August last year during private members’ business, I, too, called on the federal government to review the taxation system. I was somewhat aggrieved when Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey suggested during the federal election campaign that they would be willing to review the taxation system, but that, unfortunately, the goods and services tax component would not be a part of that review. I am on record at the time as saying that I did not know how the federal government could review taxation without including the current GST arrangements. When I called on the federal government to undertake a review, I also called on Western Australian candidates in the federal election to stand up for their electorates, to stand up for Western Australia and to make our declining GST revenue one of the major issues on which they campaigned. As members of Parliament it should be their number one priority, because it is one of the greatest threats facing Western Australia as we try to manage the demands of a growing state. To date, apart from the comments made by Hon Peter Katsambanis about the commitment of Treasurer, Joe Hockey, contributions from Western Australian federal members of Parliament have not been forthcoming; indeed, their silence has been deafening. I hope that situation improves because Western Australian state members of Parliament talk about this issue if not every week, then certainly every second week. As the Premier noted in his statement on Tuesday in the other place, the current GST arrangements are the single most important issue facing Western Australia’s long-term economic and social future. I am sure that all members in this house believe that to be the case. The state continues to grow rapidly. One thousand five hundred people move to this state each week. We face a unique challenge because of the size of the state and its expanding infrastructure requirements as the government commits to invest in massive projects that are going on in the north of our state, such as those alluded to earlier by Hon Ken Travers. They are financial costs on what is essentially a shrinking budget given the decline in GST revenue. There is a willingness on the part of the federal government to invest in those massive projects because they return a dividend to the whole nation. It is unfortunate that we have to continually speak about this issue in Parliament, but the sad reality is that Canberra continues to be content to take WA’s fair share of the goods and services tax. That is most interesting and ironic given that the Prime Minister advertised that any repeat of the Senate election in Western Australia would be a referendum on the carbon and mining tax and asserted such action as anti-Western Australian. I suggest to him that our declining GST revenue and the current GST arrangements are anti-Western Australian because they represent a tax on Western Australia. We must address the current decline in the rate of goods and services tax. I am sick of hearing about this issue. If we are talking about something being anti-Western Australian, the one

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 229 topic we all agree on—maybe all the Prime Minister’s Western Australian Liberal Party colleagues agree on this too—is our declining GST revenue and the current GST distribution arrangements. Without even going to an election, the Prime Minister, his colleagues and other Liberal Premiers around the nation could consider a fairer distribution regime. This motion suggests a way of doing that. It has to be taken seriously. As the Premier also noted in his statement on Tuesday, the current GST arrangement is affecting our capacity to deliver critical services to the people of our state. It is affecting our ability to grow, evolve and modernise in the way that the eastern states have done. It is affecting our ability to invest in critical social and physical infrastructure right across the vast state of ours. It is anti-Western Australian to take $477 million in GST revenue from WA this year and a forecasted $629 million next year. Once again, this house needs to send a strong message to our federal representatives that the GST arrangements are anti-Western Australian. Whatever our political persuasion, we are Western Australians first and foremost; we must bring this issue to the attention of our federal parliamentary colleagues. The impending Senate election is an excellent opportunity for us to be really serious about this issue. Let us make it the number one issue on which those in the running to be Western Australian senators must make a stand. The Deputy Leader of the federal Liberal Party is from Western Australia. I seriously hope that this debate is taking place in her party room. Each Senate candidate who proposes to represent Western Australia’s interests should do that, not follow party lines. Having reviewed the previous debates on this issue, two key things happened today. Firstly, we all recognise the problem and we are united in our belief that we need to take a collective approach and fight for a fairer share for Western Australia. I will be very disappointed if this turns into a “He said”, “She said” debate in which members blame each other for what their party did or did not do when in government. We have probably had a bit of that today. Can we move past that? Let us find a solution. This motion goes a long way to attempt to do that. Three times we have tried this in the house. I think it shows our willingness and agreement with Hon Ken Travers and the points that he raised about our eastern states colleagues. In the context of what he is saying, he is right. We need to provide a fairer share of GST federally for our eastern states colleagues. I do not have a problem with that. This motion goes to trying to find a system that does that. I hope we can move past arguing about whether Richard Court introduced it or whichever government governed over it. Let us find a way to give Western Australia’s interests more representation in Canberra. What this debate needs to do and what this motion specifically speaks to is look at the practical options moving forward. We need this debate to be solutions focused. During past debates on this issue in the house we heard alternative ways to reform the GST arrangements. On 12 September, 2011 I spoke about this. My former colleague and then federal member for O’Connor, Tony Crook, called for a GST floor to be set at 75 per cent on a per capita basis. Previously in this house, Hon Peter Katsambanis discussed an 80 per cent floor. I agree with his earlier comments that, whatever the floor may be, the principle of the matter needs to be supported. This will save states from being penalised for being successful. The major issue is not whether it is 10 per cent or 20 per cent; it is the principle that needs to be supported. Then we are happy to share our success with the rest of the nation. Today, this motion calls for — … the introduction of a set per capita basis of distributing GST revenue. It is not so much about the percentage. It also — … calls for the balance of GST revenue, beyond the set per capita distribution, to be distributed in an agreed and target-based manner creating a competitive environment which would drive productivity reforms, driving future growth across the Federation. It would drive reforms across the other states and I think we can all agree with that. I would like to be able to visit the other side of the country and be in a prosperous environment; I enjoy that. As Australians, we all do. Two key aspects arise from the two previous motions. First, we need to have a fixed percentage set on a per capita basis so we avoid the current erosion of our GST share and, secondly, the balance should be given to those states and territories as a reward for seeking to make a difference to their own and the nation’s economic and social development. I completely agree with that. That is a reasonable argument to present to Premiers of other states within a federal environment. I seriously hope that the Prime Minister looks at this motion and agrees that it is a very fair way of moving forward on what has been an ongoing issue for such a long time. It is becoming a bottleneck for us because of our declining rates and the pressure on state debt. Nevertheless, this issue has been bubbling along for a while. During private members’ business on 15 August last year, my colleague Hon Martin Aldridge made some good points, which Hon Ken Travers also touched on today, that the relativities attached to the horizontal fiscal equalisation that determines the GST share should factor in a complex set of variables including the “economic capacities of each state and territory”, the “size of the state”, the number of Indigenous people in the state, the

230 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

“number of sealed and unsealed roads” and a complete assessment of the revenues of each state and territory. That is just a start; we also need to campaign for other strategies that will leverage Western Australia’s position. Previously in this house I raised a suggestion that has been made in various other ways over the years concerning introducing a 25 per cent royalty from oil and gas projects such as Wheatstone, Gorgon and the Browse project. These all require a great deal of support and investment from the Western Australian state government. The reason that the state government does that is so those projects happen and that is great for the state. We all recognise that; it creates jobs and makes the economy grow. However, if we introduced a royalty on oil and gas projects, the declining GST revenue may not be such an issue for us. I have also previously spoken about the unique agreement made in the 1970s by then Western Australian Premier, Sir Charles Court. He successfully secured a monumental agreement with the then federal government to receive royalties from the North West Shelf gas project. That delivered major benefits to Western Australia. It was a fantastic agreement by a great Western Australian premier. A 25 per cent royalty from oil and gas projects would transform the state of Western Australia and make us less reliant on GST returns. The upcoming federal senate election represents an excellent opportunity to create public awareness of the biggest issue facing Western Australia’s growth and prosperity. Let us not talk about it in this place or the other place any longer. We need our federal representatives to stand up for Western Australia’s interests and the GST debate should be at the top of their priority list. HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural) [3.46 pm]: I also think this is a great motion and I commend Hon Peter Katsambanis for putting it before us today. It is clearly an area of agreement across both sides of the house, which is somewhat unusual. It certainly is a very hot topic for the state of Western Australia and its finances. I did some research on the GST and looked at ways change could be enacted at this level because we need to be realistic and understand that federal governments are unlikely to make changes. As pointed out by a previous speaker, eastern Australia sees us as the wealthy bit, the resource rich part of Australia that after many, many years of reliance on the eastern seaboard has now grown into a mature economy that is able to carry the eastern seaboard. Indeed, that is what Western Australia does in the modern era. It is right that we, as a collective, should think of ways to work around this. Clearly the deal that was signed in 1999 will have a negative impact on the state and its finances going forward. As the ebb and flow of the world economy affects the state this will stay a constant that we will have to deal with. In 1995 it was said that there will never ever be a GST but there was indeed a GST. The notion of a GST was first proposed by the then federal Treasurer, Paul Keating, at the 1985 tax summit. It was dropped after pressure from then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, who was persuaded by people such as welfare groups, union organisations and indeed, business. The GST, or a broad-based consumption tax as it was also called, was not such a good idea for a couple of reasons. One, it was deemed not to be fair for all Australians. It turns out that that was somewhat prophetic because it is not fair for Western Australia. That notion of not proceeding with a GST was quite sound. The second reason was that the tax was seen to be regressive and would discourage spending and growth in the economy. That has proven to be not quite so prophetic or correct. As has already been pointed out, the reasons for scuttling the proposed GST in 1985 have indeed turned out to be the case. John Hewson refloated the notion in 1991 and made his consumption tax the centrepiece of the “fightback” policy of the 1993 election. That was deemed as an unwinnable election for Labor, but it did indeed win, and it is commonly referred to now as the “true believers” election. The opposition was unsuccessful because the public had a deep mistrust of this new tax. The Hewson-led opposition of the day was unable to sell the goods and services tax, and everybody remembers the birthday cake interview with Mike Willesee. That day cemented the public mistrust in a broad-based consumption tax because it genuinely believed it would be unfair to all Australians. John Howard was able to take that message and did something that has become commonplace in Liberal politics when he said, “There will never, ever be a GST. I know you don’t like it, there will never, ever be a GST”, but we got one anyway. We got a heavily amended GST because the deal had to be struck. Followers of political history will know that in the election before the GST came in, Labor achieved a higher federal vote but one less seat, so government was formed by the conservatives. Hon Simon O’Brien: At least you’re over it—you are not still stewing about it! Hon DARREN WEST: No, that is right. Hon Simon O’Brien: You’ve moved on. Hon DARREN WEST: I am a keen observer of political history — Hon Simon O’Brien: I am something of an archaeologist myself! Hon DARREN WEST: Good on Hon Simon O’Brien! Every day there seems to be more and more things we have in common—it is fantastic! Hon Simon O’Brien: It shows you’re growing up!

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 231

Hon DARREN WEST: We agree on such things as the increase in gun licence fees for instance, so there are lots of things we have come to agree on. But at least Hewson was up-front and went to the election with it; Howard said there would never, ever be a GST. Howard ended up scraping home by the skin of his teeth without a Senate majority, so we got a heavily amended GST. I think one of the reasons behind the heavily amended GST was that the Australian Democrats and Brian Harradine rejected it, and the Australian Democrats were able to strike a deal to heavily amend it. I am sure members know the rest—we now have the GST. The GST arrangement was signed by then Treasurer Costello and, as I have pointed out before, the then Western Australian Treasurer, Colin Barnett. We can point fingers all we like and members on the other side of the house can say to us, “You didn’t do anything about it.” But the fact is that it was the Liberals’ baby and it was signed by their current leader. This was always going to happen. When an arrangement is signed up to that is always going to be regressive and unfair, people need to be careful that it is not regressive and unfair to them. That is what we have. So, how do we move forward? Hon Peter Katsambanis is quite right to bring the motion to Parliament on how we get a fairer agreement. The fact is that we signed up to an agreement and the fact is that the federal government is highly unlikely to change its position on that agreement and highly unlikely to strike a deal with the other states and take money away from New South Wales or Victoria, which would be politically unpalatable, or take money away from Queensland, which I do not think would be tolerated either, or South Australia or even Tasmania. That would be unfair, because the Tasmanian economy has not enjoyed the best of times. It would seem unfair to take GST revenue from Tasmania and give it to Western Australia. I do not think the slickest of salesmen would be able to sell that notion. So, between the political unpalatability of such a notion and the unfairness of the alternatives, I think we are stuck with the GST arrangement signed in 1999. So let us get a bit creative; that is enough of the history. As Hon Peter Katsambanis said, we have to stop whining about it and we need to now start looking forward as to how perhaps we can move forward. I think Hon Jacqui Boydell made an excellent point when she said that it is the big issue in Western Australia at the moment. As we have a chance to have the political spotlight shone on us, which we expect to happen in the coming months, I think we should as a collective—all Western Australians—be sending a message. While the political light is on us we should be holding up our sign and saying loudly and clearly that this is the biggest issue. Forget about the mining tax and carbon tax; they are issues, too, but they are not as big an issue as this one for Western Australia. I agree with Hon Jacqui Boydell when she says that. I think she makes a very good point, and it is quite refreshing that one of the conservatives will make a point like that because we can all agree on that. Rather than point fingers and argue over the mining tax and the carbon tax, let us focus on Hon Peter Katsambanis’s motion and let us see if we can use the opportunity that is in front of us to do something about this. We could have done this in other ways, and we have missed a couple of opportunities but I am sure there will be more. We have to somehow bring more revenue from the commonwealth into Western Australia. There have been ample opportunities, and one we did take, on which the decision was made for us, was the Building the Education Revolution, as a result of which hundreds of millions of dollars came into both the private and public school systems. I know that no members will have been to a school recently that has not had a building or facility of some form put up in the past five years. That would have been funded by the Building the Education Revolution program. That will have taken enormous stress off the capital works budget of the Department of Education. It absolutely worked a treat. It stimulated the Australian economy and provided necessary capital works infrastructure into education—I believe there could be no better investment. That is one example of how we were able to see some federal money flowing into Western Australia. Hon Nick Goiran: Whose money? Hon DARREN WEST: It was federal money. Hon Nick Goiran: Federal money? Hon DARREN WEST: Federal money. We had the opportunity to sign up to the Gonski deal. A few months ago—I am sure the Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong—I think there was in the order of $900 million on the table at one point. Hon Peter Collier: No. Hon DARREN WEST: How much was it? Hon Peter Collier: It was $600 million. Hon DARREN WEST: I thank the Leader of the House. That is a significant amount of money, and it is actually a familiar figure in this debate. I have heard someone say that figure before, because that would have been perhaps one year’s worth of the GST equivalent of cuts we could have had right there. So $600 million was

232 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] on the table at one stage, and we said, “No, we don’t want to deal with a Labor government because it is Labor and we are not, so we won’t have that.” We could have also struck a deal over the National Disability Insurance Scheme and had some federal funds flowing into Western Australia through that channel, but we chose not to that. The NDIS has gone; it is all over—see you later! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson): Honourable member, continue your remarks. Hon DARREN WEST: That was another opportunity to get some funds. My point is that from time to time these opportunities arise, and we can only stare a gift horse in the mouth so often. We also had the opportunity to embrace and vote for the national broadband network—another vital piece of infrastructure that we are now not going to get in Western Australia. Hundreds of millions of dollars would have been spent in communications. We all agree, especially my colleagues from regional seats, that this is an area of much need in regional Western Australia. There was the opportunity, but “Oh no, look, we don’t want that. It’s a progressive government’s idea and they never get it right. We don’t really want that.” The most recent opportunity—I am working my way along the front bench here—was that the federal government put up $420 million to assist farmers, but we are not going to get any of that. I do not think we will see any meaningful amount from that. We dallied around for months and months, Barnaby Joyce took some money away, and now the terms of the scheme mean that most of our farmers are not going to be able to access it. That was another opportunity to get some federal money into Western Australia. Now, the government can channel how it wants to get it in and what it wants to spend it on all it likes, but the fact is that there have been several instances over the last few years when WA could have had significant federal investment into Western Australia, and we have not. So, if we are not going to take these opportunities, it is a little rich to stand up to places like Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria and say, “Oh look, we’re not getting a fair deal here on the GST. We didn’t want Gonski, we didn’t want the NBN, we didn’t want all these other initiatives that you’ve put up, but we do want more of the GST because we want to spend it on the things we want to spend it on.” I can understand why federal governments of either persuasion might say “We will have to go and have a think. We will get back to you on that one” and that is where we find ourselves today. These were progressive programs; they were an opportunity for heavy infrastructure spending in Western Australia that would have taken pressure of other areas of the budget. Hon Nick Goiran interjected. Hon DARREN WEST: I am giving the example of the opportunity to get money that we did not take. The Senate elections are coming up and they will be hotly contested. Of course, we will see representatives of both major parties and a few of the smaller parties coming here and focusing on Western Australia and treating us very well. We will see more of our federal colleagues in the next two to three months than we will see over the next three-year federal parliamentary term. I am quite confident about that. Why do we not, as a collective, work on our Senate candidates, because the balance of power in the Senate could be decided at this election? I think we need a proactive progressive approach. Let us see if we can make it an issue, or at the very least make Canberra aware of how important it is to Western Australia to have this issue resolved and that there is a fairer way to distribute the tax. I am not sure that will work, but I think we all need to get together and I hope that will be a very important plank for all of us in the upcoming federal campaign. The other thing that we can do, given that Western Australia is faced with declining GST revenue, is to reduce spending. In the Parliament, over the last few months, there have been some great contributions on ways to reduce spending. We do not need to spend money on monuments to the Premier. We do not need to spend money on that; we could put that money back into schools. We do not actually need Elizabeth Quay; we can put that money back into schools and hospitals. We do not need to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on old power stations and then turn them off. We do not need to spend a quarter of a million dollars a day on a private operator to operate a hospital that has no patients yet. We could actually spend our money more wisely. I see the poor performance whereby the Under Treasurer has come out and said that he had two weeks to analyse a $43 billion contract. Of course, if we give public servants two weeks to do due diligence on a $43 billion contract, it will probably not work in the state’s favour. It will probably work more to favour the other party to the contract. Indeed, we have seen, I think it is $261 000 a day wasted paying a private operator to maintain a hospital that has no patients. Those are good examples of ways in which we can do business better and save money while we figure out a real and plausible way to get a better account of the GST. Because we have wasted that money, we now have to find savings in other areas. I have been on the record and very vocal about the cuts coming to basic government services and that local governments will now start copping it. Local governments will cop the flow- on; there will be cost shifting to local governments, and the amalgamation of local governments in the name of trying to —

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 233

Hon Jacqui Boydell: Is that relevant? Hon DARREN WEST: It is very relevant because of the declining — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson): Members, order. I remind the honourable member to focus on the motion before us. Please continue your remarks. Hon DARREN WEST: It is very relevant because we are talking about declining GST revenues from the federal government and something in state finances has to give. I have thought about what this “something” might be and I am suggesting there will need to be cuts to schools, health, police and also a reduction in the flow of funds to local governments. I can use cuts to the country local government fund as an example. If we are sincere when we say that we are not about whingeing and finger pointing and that we are about solutions, then all of these things need to be considered. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. COMMITTEE REPORTS — CONSIDERATION Committee The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson) in the chair. Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission — Seventh Report — “The timeliness of misconduct investigations undertaken or overseen by the CCC: Additional information” Resumed from 5 December 2013. Motion Hon NICK GOIRAN: I move — That the report be noted. I would like to make a few remarks on this very short report. By way of explanation, this one-page committee report tabled on the 5 December 2013 has been provided to the chamber to correct the record. Prior to the last state election, the then joint standing committee referred an issue to the acting parliamentary inspector, Mr Craig Colvin, SC. This was on the 28 November 2012. The committee asked Mr Colvin to inquire into the timeliness of misconduct investigations undertaken or overseen by the CCC. The committee chose that course of action because 28 November 2012 was close to the end of parliamentary sittings for that year and as there were fixed- term elections, the committee knew the election would be on 9 March, and there was the prospect, which did eventuate, that there would not be another committee for a period of time. Given the imminent likelihood that the Legislative Assembly would be dissolved, and therefore its committees, and that this committee operates under the Legislative Assembly’s standing orders and has members from that chamber, it was decided that the best course of action was to refer the matter to the acting parliamentary inspector. This was to ensure that work would be done on this important issue during the campaign and election periods and until the formation of a new committee. The matter was sent to the acting parliamentary inspector, Mr Colvin, because, at the time, there was no substantive parliamentary inspector as Hon Chris Steytler, QC, had retired. The current substantive parliamentary inspector, Hon Michael Murray, QC, was appointed and he provided a report on this matter to the committee on 31 May 2013. The report was tabled by the committee on 15 August 2013. The point of the parliamentary inspector’s inquiry was to look at how many matters were handled by the CCC for an extended period of time. Indeed, we were informed in the report from the parliamentary inspector that at the time the CCC had 13 investigations that had been underway for at least 15 months. The committee was concerned that if matters were referred to the CCC for investigation they should be dealt with in a timely fashion. If the CCC expects other agencies to adhere to prompt standards when investigating complaints, then, at the very least, they should do so themselves. I have said on many occasions in this place that I believe the standard required of the CCC should exceed that which it expects of the people that it oversees. On 5 October 2013, which is the best part of six weeks after the tabling of that report, the parliamentary inspector notified the committee that he had received a letter from Corruption and Crime Commissioner Mr Roger Macknay, QC, which identified five further complaints to the CCC that could have been matters that should have been included in his original report. In other words, the CCC by its own admission, no doubt inadvertently, had not provided the inspector with the correct information at the time. This led the parliamentary inspector to obtain further information on those five matters and, rather ironically, four of the five matters did not fall within the inspector’s original terms of reference because they had indeed been resolved within 15 months. One has to wonder why the CCC felt the need to advise the parliamentary inspector of five matters, four of which were not relevant to the terms of reference. Be that as it may, we were glad that that matter was clarified. However, one matter fell within the terms of reference. Indeed, WA Police were notified of that allegation on 16 August 2011. The police’s internal affairs unit investigation did not sustain the allegation. That

234 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] was its advice in a letter to the CCC on 12 September 2013. This meant that the investigation by WAPOL had taken more than two years and should have been included in the information provided by the CCC to the parliamentary inspector. In effect, this increased the number of inquiries that had taken longer than 15 months to be finalised as at 14 November 2012 from 13 to 14. In a nutshell, that is the reason for this report. In essence, the previous report contained an error due to the inaccurate information the CCC provided to the parliamentary inspector and which then came through to the committee. This report seeks to clarify that and ensure that the information before the Parliament is correct. Question put and passed. Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation — Seventieth Report — “Annual Report 2013” Resumed from 5 December 2013. Consideration of report lapsed. Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission — Eighth Report — “Report into emails between staff of the Department of Corrective Services and the Corruption and Crime Commission” Resumed from 12 December 2013. Motion Hon NICK GOIRAN: I move — That the report be noted. Just as an aside, I do not think it is too much to ask for members of a committee who have signed off on a report to stand up and ask that it be noted, even if they do not provide any explanation. I do not think that is too tough a task. Be that as it may, this is the eighth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. It had the potential of being a very serious report. It is a serious report, but when it first came to the attention of the committee and indeed the parliamentary inspector, it looked as though it could be worse than what turned out to be the case. By way of explanation to members, on 2 July last year an article was published in The West Australian titled “Dirty tricks email trail”. It continued on another page under the heading “Secret messages poisoned a department”. This had to do with a situation in which officers of the CCC and the Department of Corrective Services were emailing each other, shall I say, informally. It was not in the sense of formal or proper communication as one would expect. This was highlighted in this article in The West Australian. I recall the article very well because I made an error that previous night; I happened to get an early copy of The West Australian. A lesson to members is to not look at their emails or read the newspaper late at night, because I then stumbled across this allegation of improper behaviour by this CCC officer and the Department of Corrective Services. For the best part of the night I prepared an opinion piece for The West Australian to deal with this situation, which was printed the following day. Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 244.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS — PER CAPITA GRANTS REVIEW 25. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: (1) What is the status of the review of existing funding for per capita grants to non-government schools? (2) Has the minister or his office received a draft or final version of the report; and, if so, when was it received? (3) Did the scope of the review extend beyond per capita grants; and, if so, what is the extended scope? (4) When will the review be completed and when will it be made public? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Work has commenced on the review of the non-government schools funding model in WA. (2)–(3) No. (4) The review intends to provide outcomes and recommendations for consideration by the Minister for Education in October 2014 for input to the 2015–16 budget.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 235

SCHOOLS — FUNDING 26. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: Is the minister aware that one of the many impacts on the quality of public education as a result of the cuts to school funding in 2014 is that the primary extension and challenge program is now being offered in some schools in a reduced version over five weeks and that parents are being asked to pay a fee for their child to participate? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am not aware that parents are being asked to pay fees for PEAC. I am aware of PEAC and the role that PEAC plays. As I have said, it has always been the case with regard to funding in our schools that schools make a determination on where they direct their funding for particular programs. Whether it be behaviour management, literacy and numeracy, extension programs—whatever it might be—they have a pool of funds and they direct those funds accordingly. As a result of constraints across the board in the education sector, on average, schools have had a reduction of around 1.5 per cent of their school budget. They still have a very, very significant pool of funds and they can direct those funds accordingly into the area they feel is most needed within their school community. PEAC is a good program; it is still operating and it will continue to provide a service for school communities across Western Australia. Suffice to say, as I keep on saying and I will keep on saying, our schools are still extremely well resourced. In fact, they are the best resourced schools of any state in the nation. Hon Sue Ellery: You keep telling parents that and see how you go! You keep telling parents that. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is true. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! We cannot have a competition for the last word. ENERGY SAFETY — POWERLINES — VEGETATION CONTROL 27. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to page 55 of the “Department of Commerce Annual Report 2012–13” outlining a planned amendment to the Energy Safety Act 2006 to incorporate provisions for vegetation control near powerlines. When does the government plan to amend the Energy Safety Act 2006? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. It is planned for spring this year. ELLENBROOK BUS RAPID TRANSIT 28. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) What was the total cost of graphics produced for the proposed Ellenbrook bus rapid transit? (2) What was the total cost of animations produced for the proposed Ellenbrook bus rapid transit? (3) What other promotional materials were produced for the proposed Ellenbrook bus rapid transit? (4) What was the total cost of all promotional materials produced for the proposed Ellenbrook bus rapid transit? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport, I provide the following response. (1) $986.50. (2) $4 400. (3) Not applicable. (4) $5 386.50. BUNBURY HOSPITAL — ALLEGED ASSAULT 29. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON to the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the tragic circumstances of the 27-day-old baby now in the care of the chief executive officer of the Department for Child Protection and Family Support as a result of an alleged assault by his father, who is also in the care of the CEO. Yesterday the public advice was that the department had not identified any reason for the

236 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] father not to have access to the child. This morning the maternal grandfather commented that access was changed over the time the child was in hospital, and this morning the director general acknowledged that there was restricted access by the father, and stated — At one point, … to some degree, in so far as it was only to occur between visiting hours and not during the lunch break, and a time at which there would be adequate staffing on the ward and adequate support … Given that the DG has now confirmed that access by the father to the baby was restricted, does this not confirm that there was an identified risk to the baby’s safety? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for the question. I heard the father’s interview myself on radio this morning. I also heard the director general’s response to that interview and I hope the member did as well. I have to say, and I put on the record, that the grief from that grandfather was profound. It is not unusual for people in a situation like that to become mistaken about a variety of words used et cetera. I subsequently got the transcript of that interview as well. When the young father first came to the hospital—remembering that he is 15 years old and the mum is 16 years old—the hospital staff, the Department for Child Protection and Family Support staff and the family collectively worked on a sign-of-safety framework for ensuring that this child would have the best possible chance of going home to live with the mum and her extended family. In the process of that, it was determined that part of providing the best opportunity for this child was that the father would attend from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, which is normal visiting hours, and would not come during the sleep time or rest time. I think somebody in the interview said that it happened to also be lunchtime. Hon Sue Ellery: The director general. Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes. I think the member needs to understand that the reason people cannot just wander in and out of a maternity unit any time they wish has got lots to do with the need for the mother and baby to have the right amount of rest, and for the other babies and the other parents in that setting to also not be interrupted during a period of the day when they are attending to a whole lot of mothercraft. It was especially so for a young family like this for whom the mothercraft issues are significant and when the young mum was learning a variety of things around caring for the child and needed to have time in which to do that. The restrictions on the young man’s attendance were to attend between eight and eight, which is normal visiting hours, and not during the rest period or the lunchbreak as it was referred to. Those were the restrictions that were put on him. GOLDFIELDS–ESPERANCE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — PUBLIC SECTOR COMMISSION REPORT 30. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development: I refer to the inquiries by both the chairman of the Goldfields–Esperance Development Commission and the Public Sector Commission into activities of the board of GEDC. (1) Has the minister received any briefing notes or reports on the activities/roles of any current or former board members of the GEDC, either by his department, the chairman of GEDC or the Public Sector Commission into the activities of the board of GEDC? (2) If yes to (1), how many from the minister’s department, the chairman of GEDC and the Public Sector Commission? (3) If yes to (1), will the minister table these? (4) If no to (1), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I note, within the context of the question, that this was asked yesterday, so this was relevant to yesterday. (1) Yes. (2) The Premier’s office received a single briefing note on 18 February in anticipation of a question in this place. The Premier himself has not sighted this document. (3) No. (4) Not applicable.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 237

FIREARMS AMNESTY 31. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: A significant number of firearms were claimed to have been surrendered during the WA Police firearms amnesty between August and December 2013. (1) Can the minister please provide — (a) the total number of firearms received by WA Police during the amnesty period; (b) the number of handguns surrendered under the conditions of the amnesty; (c) the number of shotguns surrendered under the conditions of the amnesty; and (d) the number of rifles surrendered under the conditions of the amnesty? (2) Will the minister also disclose the total number of firearms delivered to WA Police by firearms dealers that were not subject to the conditions of amnesty but were claimed to be surrendered under the amnesty? (3) Is the minister aware that firearms dealers, as part of their commitment to safe firearms practices, deliver licensed but unserviceable stock and other legitimately held but obsolete firearms to WA Police for secure disposal? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: On behalf of the Minister for Police, I thank the honourable member for notice of the question. (1) (a) 1 281; (b) 131; (c) 240; and (d) 855. (2) Nil. (3) The WA Police licensing enforcement division provides an ongoing service to firearms dealers to account for and dispose of unserviceable firearms, parts and accessories. CRISIS ACCOMMODATION — MARGARET RIVER 32. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Child Protection: How many people from the Margaret River area have been housed in crisis accommodation since September 2013? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. Within the Busselton–Margaret River corridor, the Department for Child Protection and Family Support provides funding to Accordwest to operate Capes Accommodation, Support and Advocacy providing tenant support advocacy. The office is located in Busselton. From its office in Bunbury, Accordwest also provides a range of other accommodation and support services for people at risk of or experiencing homelessness. The 2012–13 annual report for Accordwest advises that its accommodation services supported 553 individuals and families and its housing support service assisted 270 people in 2012–13. These figures incorporate services provided to the Bunbury, Busselton and Margaret River areas. The Department for Child Protection and Family Support does not have a crisis accommodation service in Margaret River specifically. The department is unable to provide data on the number of people housed in crisis accommodation in the Margaret River area since 2013. A new shelter for women and children escaping family and domestic violence operated by Busselton Women’s Refuge Inc will commence operation in late February 2014. ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS 33. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to the government’s fiscal action plan announced in the 2013–14 budget. (1) Can the Treasurer list those enterprise bargaining agreements in which wages and conditions increases were greater than the projected growth in CPI, which is currently 2.5 per cent per annum, as per the requirement under the government’s new public sector wages policy? (2) Can the Treasurer list those agencies at risk of not meeting the CPI cap on salaries expenditure as imposed by the government as part of the 2013–14 budget? (3) What is the total estimated dollar value of failing to the meet the CPI cap?

238 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) There have been no enterprise bargaining agreements registered by the Industrial Relations Commission under the new public sector wages policy yet. (2) No. Compliance with the cap will continue to be monitored. (3) Not applicable. ARE YOU BUSHFIRE READY? — ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN 34. Hon ADELE FARINA to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: My question was lodged in the name of Hon Samantha Rowe, who is away on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the Minister for Energy’s answer to question without notice 921 on 3 December 2013 concerning the investment by Western Power of $999 788 in the Are You Bushfire Ready? advertising campaign. (1) Is it intended to conduct an evaluation of the campaign; and, if not, why not? (2) If yes to (1) — (a) who will be engaged to conduct that evaluation; and (b) will the Premier make the findings of the evaluation public; and, if not, why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) (a) Metrix Consulting; and (b) Yes. SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM 35. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the Minister for Fisheries: I refer to the government’s shark mitigation program. (1) For each of the south west operations and metropolitan operations, how much money has been spent to date on the drum line program, including the costs for security, equipment and contract monitoring? (2) For all drum lines, how many, in what locations, date and what size of each shark or other species — (a) have been caught in total; (b) have been released alive; (c) have been killed and dumped; and (d) have died on the hook prior to being landed? (3) How many animals, either shark or other, have been found on the hooks with injuries consistent with being attacked by a shark? (4) How many target sharks did the government calculate needed to be removed from the marine environment to reduce the risk of shark attack to a level the government considers is acceptable? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Full project costs are not able to be provided at this stage. (2) Please refer to information packages released by the Government Media Office on Tuesday, 18 February 2013, which I released in this Parliament yesterday. Several members interjected. Hon KEN BASTON: It is not pathetic because members can read it; it is easy and it is not very long. (3) Three. (4) The deployment of drum lines is a public safety measure that was introduced following the seventh shark-related fatality in three years. The government does not apologise for putting people’s lives before sharks.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 239

SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM 36. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the Minister for Fisheries: (1) Will the minister table the exemptions under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 as referred to in his response, reference 47-02950, to my letters of 23 December 2013, 3 January 2014 and 30 January 2014? (2) What is the survival rate of sharks that are captured on the large baited hooks on drum lines off WA’s popular beaches and then released? (3) Can the minister confirm that the survival rate of sharks caught and tagged for scientific purposes is higher when smaller hooks are used and the sharks are tagged alongside the boat rather than hauled aboard? (4) As 74 per cent of the sharks hooked on drum lines are smaller sharks, does the minister now accept that the use of bigger hooks is not an effective tool in the toolbox to select big sharks? (5) If the majority of these smaller sharks released are dying, does this provide a point of interest to bigger predators? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! There is only one person in this chamber who has the title of the Minister for Fisheries. I call the Minister for Fisheries. Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Details of exemptions are set out in the register maintained under part 12 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994. I seek leave to table two extracts from the register. (2) Forty-nine sharks less than three metres in length have been caught in the south west and metropolitan area; nine have been dead on the line and 40, or 82 per cent, have been released alive. (3) No. However, the reason that the large hooks have been used is to minimise the possibility of bycatch of other marine animals and was, as such, a key consideration for the exemption under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Using a smaller hook would likely catch a greater diversity of marine animals and would therefore be environmentally irresponsible. (4) No. “Smaller sharks” is a relative term. Any shark can be dangerous and the government is acting responsibly to target large sharks as far as possible. Interestingly, the strategy now being implemented is contributing significantly to our knowledge and research of sharks in south western WA. (5) The catch data released on Tuesday, 18 February, does not support this assertion. Leave granted. [See paper 1196.] SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM 37. Hon AMBER-JADE SANDERSON to the Minister for Fisheries: (1) What Department of Fisheries’ assets and human resources have been used in each of the south west and metropolitan drum line operations? (2) What functions, programs or duties have been foregone, amended or deferred by the fisheries department because resources have been used for the drum line operations? (3) Has the Department of Fisheries been given, or will it be given, any additional resources to compensate for the resources used for the drum line operations; and, if yes, how much and, if not, why not? (4) When will Department of Fisheries’ management of the drum lines cease and departmental staff and boats return to normal duties? (5) What performance indicators are in place for the drum lines? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Compliance services provided by the Department of Fisheries for work on the drum lines comprise one 20-metre patrol vessel that is staffed by two crews of three fisheries and marine officers. These crews operate 12-hour shifts and provide coverage for every day of the week. The compliance services are supplemented with research and fisheries management services as required.

240 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

(2) Implementation of the drum line policy has required some temporary reallocation of priorities across the Department of Fisheries. The fisheries and marine officers who are currently implementing the drum line policy would normally be conducting other compliance activities in recreational and commercial fisheries, marine park and aquaculture compliance. The department anticipates receiving additional resourcing to compensate for this reallocation. The net effect on departmental compliance resources, unrelated to the drum line policy, is expected to be nil. (3) Refer to answer (2). (4) The current drum line operation is expected to cease on 30 April 2014 and the relevant staff will be reallocated to other departmental activities. (5) The department is required to manage the drum line program in accordance with the requirements set out in the “Shark Drum Line Deployment, Management and Associated Services” tender document. The department is reporting to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as required in that document. The department also understands that the drum line operation is to be the subject of a review following 30 April 2014. MINISTER FOR POLICE — MEETINGS WITH MEMBER FOR GERALDTON 38. Hon DARREN WEST to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: (1) Since 1 January 2014, has the Minister for Police — (a) met with the member for Geraldton for the purpose of discussing crime and community safety in Geraldton; and, if yes, when did they meet; (b) received any written correspondence from the member for Geraldton regarding crime and community safety in Geraldton; and, if yes, what date was the correspondence received; and (c) received any emails from the member for Geraldton regarding crime and community safety in Geraldton; and, if yes, what date were the emails received? (2) Has the minister visited Geraldton for the purpose of discussing crime and community safety in the Geraldton area? (3) If yes to (2), what date was the visit? (4) If no to (2), does the minister have any intention of visiting Geraldton for the purpose of discussing crime and community safety; and, if yes, when will the minister visit? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: On behalf of the Minister for Police, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) (a) The minister met with the member for Geraldton earlier this month to discuss crime and community safety. (b)–(c) The minister has received numerous written and email correspondence from the member for Geraldton concerning crime and community safety in Geraldton since 1 January2014. Staff from the minister’s office have also received a number of calls from the member for Geraldton regarding community safety in Geraldton. (2) Yes. The minister has also accepted an invitation from the member for Geraldton to meet with members of the community to discuss crime and community safety, and is in discussions with the member to identify an appropriate date. (3)–(4) The minister has previously visited Geraldton as follows: in late 2012, the minister attended a community forum on community safety; in mid-2013, the minister visited the Geraldton Police Station to discuss crime in the local community; and in late 2013, the minister launched the Geraldton trunked radio network, an upgraded regional radio communications network to assist police response. EDUCATION — COMMONWEALTH FUNDING 39. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: (1) Has a new heads of agreement between the state and federal governments been signed with respect to the national school funding agreement; and, if not, why not? (2) Minister Pyne has referred to each jurisdiction having “a different application of the national schools funding model”. What model will be applied in WA? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 241

(1)–(2) No. At this stage negotiations are ongoing but it gives me a great opportunity to identify exactly why we did not sign up to that original model. Hon Sue Ellery: Tell me about the model. Hon PETER COLLIER: I am telling the member about the model; she should give me a chance. This is a very good question; I thank the member for it. The funding model—the so-called Gonski model—was always based upon how we resourced our schools. We in Western Australia resource our schools extremely well so we were originally offered $180 million over six years—an absolute insult as Western Australians. We said no thanks. Not only that, conditions were attached to that funding model that were unpalatable to the Western Australian government. We simply would not allow the commonwealth government to provide governance and reporting requirements within our schools conditional on funding. We said thanks but no thanks. The federal Labor government then upped it to $600 million on a two-for-one basis to the state government. While the funding was much more attractive, the governance provisions contained within the Australian Education Act 2013 were still there. They are embedded within the Australian Education Act. We said we would not sign up based upon that premise, not the funding so much. Suffice to say—this gets to the heart of the honourable member’s question— after the election, Christopher Pyne put through a new model. I will not go through the whole thing because I appreciate that other members have questions, but I would not mind an opportunity to have a forensic debate on this issue. Hon Ken Travers: Take as long as you like and just extend question time. Hon PETER COLLIER: I always do. I say to Hon Ken Travers that the opposition always gets 24 to 25 questions; he cannot complain. What Christopher Pyne offered was over four years as opposed to six years. That was the same for Western Australia as it was for every other state. Most of the money was beyond the out years. New South Wales was offered $5.4 billion because it under-resourced its schools, the same as the other states. We in Western Australia suffered because we resource our schools so well. That is why we got offered less than anyone else. The proof is in the pudding. Hon Sue Ellery: You wouldn’t sign because you wouldn’t agree not to make cuts because you knew you were making cuts. Hon PETER COLLIER: That is abject nonsense. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Let the minister finish his answer without interruptions. Hon PETER COLLIER: The Leader of the Opposition needs to learn a little more about this issue because she is 100 per cent wrong. The commonwealth funding has absolutely nothing to do with what we do within our schools in Western Australia. What we are doing within our schools in Western Australia is fund our schools better than any other state. I will repeat it, I will repeat it and I will repeat it. That is why we suffered at the hands of the former Labor government, which gave a pittance of an offer to Western Australians. As I said, I would like to go on and on and on but I will not bother because I would like to allow a little more time for other questions. What I will say to the honourable member is this: we have now been offered $31 million for year 1; the final offer from the previous Labor government was $14 million for the first year. We are now going to get $120 million over the four years, and then after those four years—the same as every other jurisdiction—we will go back to the drawing board with the federal government, and that is how it should be. That is exactly how it should be. I say to Victoria, New South Wales or any of those other states that are really crying wolf because of the fact they are not getting their billions: do what we do in Western Australia and adequately resource schools. Education is a state issue; it is not a federal government issue. To those other states, if they want their schools to do well, do not blame the federal government, do not blame Christopher Pyne; they should go into their pockets, bring out the money, write a couple of cheques and resource their schools the way we do in Western Australia. We resource our schools in Western Australia better than any other state in the nation. Government members: Hear, hear! DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE — ENERGY SAFETY DIVISION — ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS 40. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to page 151, item (e) of the Department of Commerce “Annual Report 20l2–13”, which states that the remuneration offered for electrical inspectors at EnergySafety was not attractive compared with private sector rates of pay. (1) What are the current vacancy levels in the inspectorate? (2) What is being done to improve attraction of experienced electricians? (3) What action or actions have been taken to improve retention rates in the inspectorate?

242 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) There are currently six vacant electrical inspector positions. (2)–(3) The attraction and retention incentive—ARI—currently being offered by EnergySafety brings the remuneration rates more in line with those in the private sector. It is expected that this ARI will help attract and retain officers in critical positions, especially electrical inspectors. ORD–EAST KIMBERLEY EXPANSION PROJECT — PIPE LEAKAGE 41. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: My question is with regard to the report by The West Australian on 9 February 2014 that huge pipes installed to irrigate new farmland under the Ord expansion project are leaking under pressure. (1) What sort of repairs will be required to rectify the situation and ensure that the problem does not arise again? (2) What will be the total cost of the repairs? (3) Given that this is a taxpayer-funded program, what portion of the repair bill will be paid by the state government and which entities will pay the balance? (4) Given the recent record rainfall in the Ord region, will the government table a statement of the full extent of damage to taxpayer-funded infrastructure for the Ord irrigation area and the cost to the public for repairs; and, if not, why not? Hon COL HOLT replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) A rectification strategy is the responsibility of the contractor, and this is currently being discussed with them. (2) This will depend on the rectification strategy adopted. (3) The cost of rectification is considered to be a contractor issue to be resolved by the contractor. (4) Preliminary investigation indicates minimal damage to infrastructure. A full assessment will been undertaken after the wet season. There is no relationship between the need to rectify the pipes and the minimal impact on the Ord infrastructure from the recent rainfall. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT — LEAVE LIABILITY 42. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Did the Department of Transport reach its target for leave liability at 30 June 2013? (2) If no to (1), what was percentage increase in leave liability since 30 June 2012? (3) Does the Minister for Transport believe this was a failure of management? (4) If yes to (3), what action has the minister taken to ensure that there is the necessary leadership in his agency to address this failure of management? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport for the question, and I provide the following response — (1) No. (2) 12.1 per cent. (3) The advice is that the 2012–13 result for the Department of Transport was heavily influenced by the transfer of staff and associated leave liabilities from the Office of Shared Services. However, like all agencies, it is the minister’s expectation that these targets be met, and greater effort should be made to reach them. (4) Not applicable. PRE-BIRTH SAFETY PLANS 43. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON to the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the pre-birth safety plans prepared in cases where an unborn baby is at risk of being harmed by its parents after birth.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 243

(1) What is the policy and casework guidelines on pre-birth safety plans in cases when an unborn baby is at risk of being harmed by its parents after birth and will the minister table these; and, if not, why not? (2) What level of officer signs off on a pre-birth safety plan and what triggers a review of the details of the plan? (3) Does the child-centred family support team have any role in developing pre-birth safety plans; and, if so, what is that role? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Policy and practice guidelines are set out in the department’s “Casework Practice Manual”. I table the relevant sections—4.1 and 5.1—of this manual. I also table the bilateral schedule between the Department for Child Protection and Family Support and the Western Australian Department of Health, which provides for the interagency collaborative processes when an unborn or newborn baby is identified as at risk of abuse and/or neglect. (2) In most instances a team leader would be responsible for approving the plan; however, if a child needed to be brought into care, this decision would be made at the level of the district director. Safety plans are dynamic and reviewed regularly as part of the case management process. (3) Pre-birth planning is an assessment and planning process and can be undertaken by any district team. It can involve relevant family members, caseworkers, other relevant department staff and professionals from other agencies. In addition, people identified as part of the safety network would be included. [See paper 1197.] AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT — DISABILITY — EVIDENCE LAWS 44. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Attorney General: (1) Is the Attorney General aware of a recent Australian Human Rights Commission report that shows that people with disabilities who are the victims of a crime, accused of a crime or a witness to a crime do not enjoy equality before the law? (2) If yes to (1), did the Attorney General note the call for Western Australia to adopt uniform evidence laws to remove some of the barriers to equality? (3) Does the Attorney General intend to adopt these laws; and, if not, why not? (4) If yes to (3), when? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) The Australian Human Rights Commission report “Equal Before the Law: Towards Disability Justice Strategies” does not call for Western Australia to adopt uniform evidence laws. The report acknowledges that Western Australia has its own legislation that addresses barriers to access to justice for people with disability. (3) No. See answer (2). (4) Not applicable. ASSET INVESTMENT PROGRAM — REGIONAL HEALTH 45. Hon DARREN WEST to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I asked a question C024 yesterday of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health, who suggested to the house that she would be able to give the answer at a later date. I am just wondering if that answer is available. The PRESIDENT: Is that your question? Hon DARREN WEST: Yes; is the answer available? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I was going to table it at the end of question time, but I will give Hon Darren West the answer now. The original funding allocation for each of the hospitals remains unchanged as follows —

244 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

(a) $8.630 million; (b) $35.430 million; (c) $17.460 million; (d) $39.860 million; (e) $31.l6 million; and (f) $14.86 million. Funding for the overall program has not been cut, but timing of the program has been adjusted. NON-GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA — PRODUCTION Question on Notice 686 — Answer Advice HON KEN BASTON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [5.09 pm]: I table the attached document in relation to question on notice 686, asked by Hon Lynn MacLaren. [See paper 1198.] COMMITTEE REPORTS — CONSIDERATION Committee The Chair of Committees (Hon Adele Farina) in the chair. Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission — Eighth Report — “Report into emails between staff of the Department of Corrective Services and the Corruption and Crime Commission” — Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I will continue my earlier remarks when I was discussing the eighth report that was tabled in December last year. It is a report that had its genesis in an article published in The West Australian on 2 July, 2013 titled “Dirty tricks email trail”. As I mentioned before we adjourned, it was then a subject of concern to me, which manifested itself in an opinion piece published in The West Australian the following day. I might add that, unbeknown to me, it was plainly the concern of the parliamentary inspector, Hon Michael Murray, QC. I am hoping to draw members’ attention to the fact that on 4 July last year the parliamentary inspector wrote to the joint standing committee alerting us to this inquiry that he initiated. He clearly had concerns about the conduct of the relevant people within the Corruption and Crime Commission and the Department of Corrective Services. I also draw to members’ attention that a number of findings are made in this report—indeed, there are seven. The first four can be grouped together. Finding 1 states — In 2011 the Corruption and Crime Commission did not notify Parliamentary Inspector Steytler of a complaint from the Director of the Department of Corrective Services’ Internal Investigations Unit against a Commission officer. Finding 2 is — The Corruption and Crime Commission’s failure to notify the then-Parliamentary Inspector of the complaint from the Director of the Department of Corrective Services’ Internal Investigations Unit against a Commission officer prevented him from fulfilling his functions, or to use his powers, under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 at the relevant time. I will pause there in regard to the first four findings to indicate that, naturally, that was of concern to the committee. Plainly it was of concern to the parliamentary inspector, hence the need for the findings that there might be matters that warrant investigation that were not being provided to the parliamentary inspector. It was therefore appropriate to make those findings in order to identify the relevant failings. One of the benefits of this inquiry was that it resulted in finding 3, which is — The Corruption and Crime Commissioner has agreed to notify the Parliamentary Inspector under section 196(4) of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 of every allegation that “concerns, or may concern, an officer of the Commission” that is not of a trivial nature. What also arose as a result of that was some concern that maybe, if there is the possibility of a parliamentary inspector and a Corruption and Crime Commissioner having a different view of the act then the Parliament needs to be engaged to amend the act to ensure that it is crystal clear. However, I am pleased to report that finding 4 states — Both the CCC Commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector agree that section 196(4) of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 does not need to be amended.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 245

They are the first four findings. The following two findings—5 and 6—relate to either the specific matter before the Parliamentary Inspector or the more systemic and broader issues. Finding 5 reads — The Parliamentary Inspector has concluded that the Corruption and Crime Commission proceeded correctly to discipline Mr Pollitt. Mr Pollitt was the officer in question and his name is no secret because he was mentioned in the various media reports. I will now refer to the Parliamentary Inspector’s comments on this particular point. I quote from the committee chairman’s foreword to the report — The PICCC makes no findings or recommendations in this report on emails between staff of the CCC and DCS. He concluded, however, that the CCC had correctly proceeded to discipline its staff member and — This quote is from the Parliamentary Inspector’s report dated 7 November 2013 — … to reinforce to its officers generally the care which needed to be taken in the course of email exchanges or other professional communications to speak formally in appropriate terms, to maintain the integrity of the Commission as an important investigative agency of the State, and to take scrupulous care not to accidentally divulge information which it was their duty to keep secret. As I said at the outset, although it is pleasing that this matter has not been concluded in a less concerning fashion than how it began, I am pleased to see that the parliamentary inspector has indicated that the action taken by the CCC was indeed correct in this instance. It is never good to see any concerns or possible concerns around misconduct in the peak integrity body in this state. This fell short of that standard but it was, nevertheless, appropriate for the CCC to discipline the person concerned. Finding 6 looks at the more systemic issue and states that — The Parliamentary Inspector has concluded that the Corruption and Crime Commission’s current Code of Conduct, IT Usage and Email Usage policies give appropriate guidance to Commission officers. The last finding made by the committee in this report is — The Parliamentary Inspector’s inquiry on this matter demonstrates how investigative bodies such as the Corruption and Crime Commission need to be extremely vigilant to ensure that the conduct of their staff meets the highest standards of probity. I will now conclude as I know I do not have much time although, Madam Chair, under the new standing orders you have some discretion to give me an extra five minutes if no-one else is willing to speak. I will touch on one final issue concerning the CCC’s reluctance for the committee to table the report at this time. I note that the second last paragraph of the chairman’s foreword to the report states that — Commissioner Macknay recommended that the Committee should not at this time table in Parliament the PICCC’s report as there may be a matter in the report adverse to the Commission and “[t]here is substantial material which is plainly adverse” to the staff from the DCS and CCC. That is obviously a serious matter that was brought to the attention of the committee. The typical practice of the committee is to exercise caution in such instances. What was undertaken, as is indicated in the report, was that the committee sought a response from the parliamentary inspector. One must remember that this is, in essence, a report from the parliamentary inspector to the committee. If there are adverse matters then that is something the committee may want to bring to the attention of the parliamentary inspector to see whether he felt the need to undertake any further action in that regard. As indicated in the report, the parliamentary inspector did not feel that needed to happen. I draw that to members’ attention and I invite comment if people are so inclined, at either this time or a later stage. It is an interesting issue in itself, as you would be aware, Madam Chair. If there is a potentially adverse matter in a report by the parliamentary inspector to the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, who has the obligation to draw that adverse matter to the attention of the person concerned? Is it the parliamentary inspector or, indeed, the joint standing committee? That was, in essence, the matter for discussion. In any event, there can be no question that the Corruption and Crime Commission did not have an opportunity to respond because plainly it did. Indeed, the CCC is the one who brought the adverse matter to our attention. It had ample opportunity to say anything further as it might wish to do. If I am not mistaken, appendix 2, starting at page 19 of the report, is a copy of the CCC commissioner’s letter dated 29 November 2013. The committee has also provided in the report at appendix 3 the parliamentary inspector’s subsequent letter of 3 December 2013. Everyone has had the opportunity to have their view brought to the attention of this chamber. Therefore, there can be no question that due process has not been followed.

246 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

I conclude by saying that this matter could have been deeply concerning. Perhaps I will put it at the level of moderately concerning. It could have been a lot worse. I am pleased to see that once again the integrity system in this state is working well. A system of checks and balances is in place. If people have concerns about the CCC, they have the opportunity to complain to the parliamentary inspector. If people have concerns about the parliamentary inspector, they have the opportunity to complain to the joint standing committee. It seems to me that each and every time this has happened, a thorough investigation has taken place and, pleasingly, in recent times there has been no finding of misconduct in respect to these higher officers. I commend the report to the house. Question put and passed. Progress reported, pursuant to standing orders. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PHOTO CARD BILL 2013 Third Reading Resumed from 18 February. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [5.24 pm]: The Labor Party will still support the Western Australian Photo Card Bill 2013 in the form in which it has come out of the committee stage of the debate. We sought to move an amendment in this place as it is our very strong view that the cost of this card should never be greater than the cost of an equivalent driver’s licence. It would have been nice to have it in the legislation to guarantee that and to protect those people from the regular cash grabs by the Barnett government. We accept the will of the house, as we always do, and acknowledge that, but I want to make it very clear that it is the Labor Party’s view that the photo card should never cost more than it costs a person for a driver’s licence. We will continue to campaign for that and I hope that when the government comes to finally set the fees after the third reading has passed, they will see the sense in that. We will certainly do all we can to ensure that the government sees sense. I know my colleague Hon Margaret Quirk is out there getting signatures on a petition. I have distributed that to people on her behalf and got very positive feedback. Hon Simon O’Brien: What is the petition? Hon KEN TRAVERS: It calls for the government to ensure that age pensioners do not pay for the photo ID card, as they do not for their drivers’ licences. Hon Simon O’Brien: Is that necessary, do you think? Has there been any indication — Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, the government has continually said it intends to charge age pensioners $35. Was Hon Simon O’Brien not listening to the debate yesterday? Hon Simon O’Brien: I was listening all right. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is the whole problem. That is our concern. The government continually says that its expectation is that everyone will pay $35 for the photo ID card. An age pensioner can get a driver’s licence for free, but if they want this card, they will have to pay $35. Hon Simon O’Brien: I was not aware that the government had arrived at such a position. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the honourable member had listened to the debate, he would have been aware of that. The photo ID card is a great initiative. I hope members such as Hon Simon O’Brien will talk to their government colleagues about this. If I am wrong and the government does not charge age pensioners for the photo ID card, I will be happy about it. I encourage Hon Simon O’Brien to work with his backbench to ensure that when this good initiative is brought to bear—hopefully, in the very near future that will be the case as we pass the third reading of this bill—we get the government to accept the position, which I think Hon Simon O’Brien is agreeing with me on, that an age pensioner should not pay for this card in the same way that they do not have to pay for a driver’s licence. That is the key issue. I am not trying to be smart here; I hope that now Hon Simon O’Brien is aware of that, he and his colleagues can have those conversations with their ministerial colleagues. During the debate everyone said that it is only $7, which is not much. However, it is easier for the government to find that money to subsidise everybody than it is to expect pensioners to try to find that money. I will give the government some free political advice. For what it is worth, members opposite should get this message through to their ministers: the pain of charging pensioners $35 for this card when they can get a driver’s licence for free will take away the goodwill the government would otherwise receive from finally bringing through this measure. The government deserves the credit for bringing this in, but my view is that it will lose that credit if it keeps these fees. If the Liberal Party backbench is unsuccessful, can the National Party at least ensure that the Country Age Pension Fuel Card can be used to pay for this measure? They can get the card to pay for gas, so maybe they can also use it to pay for this. It is a bit like “pittances” or whatever word was used today by the Leader of the House. We redefine words in this chamber from time to time, much to the joy of Hansard reporters! If we cannot

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 247 get it across the board, let us at least try to get it paid for through the Country Age Pension Fuel Card. I think the preferred option is to have the fees for the photo ID card mirror the fees for drivers’ licences. I congratulate the government on bringing this bill through and getting it to this stage. We will support it. I just make that final plea to the government backbench to try to make sure the fees match the fees for drivers’ licences so that we do not lose the goodwill from this initiative. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [5.30 pm]: Hon Ken Travers raised a point—I recall that when this matter was dealt with late yesterday evening, I was out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business and that is why I am not familiar with the exchange that Hon Ken Travers said took place and I have not yet had an opportunity to look at Hansard. As Hon Ken Travers said, he would like to stand corrected in due course if that is how it turns out; I hope that I do not. I want to put some things on the record as well. Hon Ken Travers interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Adele Farina): Order! Hon Simon O’Brien has the call. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am not a representative or an apologist for this government but with respect, Hon Ken Travers, I do not think that it has been established that the Barnett government plans to charge aged pensioners more for an ID card than for a driver’s licence. Whether or not they land there remains to be seen, but I do not believe with what I know of the processes of government that that would have been broadly contemplated. I think a department would have decided that everyone needs to be charged for reasons that we can all comprehend. The question of what fees, including the so-called $35 for five years that has been bandied about, still has to go through the relevant processes of cabinet, including submissions regarding fees and charges. That is an annual, or in many cases, a six-monthly process. I hope we do not emerge with a political point from the third reading of this bill on what everyone knows is a good idea. I will say—I hope this gets through to the government—that I have always found it surprising that governments charge people for ACROD parking permits, but they give out Seniors Cards and provide all of the administrative support to do that for free. Hon Helen Morton: ACROD parking permits are now free. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That is right, but I might add that various parts of the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do that. I do not see why Seniors Cards should be dispensed for free when other concessions are not made available to people who in many cases have a greater or equivalent need. I am sure that the government will contemplate those things in due course. I hope Hon Ken Travers and his friend the member for Girrawheen do not get too carried away and shove petitions under the noses of people prematurely, because I do not know whether any declarations have been made about fees. I will tell members that if the anomaly that he fears were to be contemplated, I shall take it up with the government and offer a contrary point of view. I do not know how far I will get, but I will take it up, and for good reasons. For now, we all need to support the third reading of this bill. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and passed. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2013 Second Reading Resumed from 10 December 2013. HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [5.35 pm]: I rise to speak for the opposition on the Local Government Amendment Bill 2013. The minister’s second reading speech alluded to the fact that amendments to the Local Government Act have been a long time coming. It states — In February 2009, the former Minister for Local Government announced an agenda to reform the local government sector to strengthen the structural viability of local governments. Since that time, the Liberal–National government has continued to press forward with these important reforms. A long time has passed since 2009; and it has been a rocky road—I think that is a good way to put it—and there have been a number of challenges on that road that has led us to where we are this evening. I will give a bit of history of how we got to this stage with this bill. In February 2009, the Western Australian Local Government Association was given six months to draw up optimal plans for voluntary mergers or, as the government suggested, a legislative sledgehammer would be used to force mergers. In 2010, a steering committee was formed and found that 61 of Western Australia’s 139 councils were unsustainable and that targeted intervention was required. In April 2011, the process fell over because one of only two merger proposals that had emerged from that process failed. The Perenjori electors used the Dadour provisions—I will speak more about the Dadour provisions later—to oppose amalgamation with their neighbouring councils of Mingenew, Morawa and Three Springs. In 2011, the then minister announced the Robson review, and on 24 June of that year, the then minister,

248 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

John Castrilli, announced the appointment of a high-level independent panel to examine the social, economic and environmental challenges facing Perth. The review’s terms of reference were to — • Identify current and anticipated specific regional, social, environmental and economic issues affecting, or likely to affect, the growth of metropolitan Perth in the next 50 years • Identify current and anticipated national and international factors likely to impact in the next 50 years • Research improved local government structures, and governance models and structures for the Perth metropolitan area, drawing on national and international experience and examining key issues relating to community representation, engagement, accountability and State imperatives among other things the panel may identify during the course of the review • Identify new local government boundaries and a resultant reduction in the overall number of local governments to better meet the needs of the community • Prepare options to establish the most effective local government structures and governance models that take into account matters identified through the review … The review was also to — • Present a limited list of achievable options together with a recommendation on the preferred option. At the time, the minister was quoted in a press release — … it would be the panel’s objective to submit recommendations to him by June 2012 on optimal local government structures or governance, resulting in the drawing of new local government boundaries. The press release continued — The panel would directly engage with the Perth community, local governments, peak bodies, and government agencies and departments. I have to say that the Robson review did some very good work. It was commissioned in June 2011 to give guidance on what the future process should be for the metropolitan area. I think recommendations were released about 16 months later. The final report was presented to the minister in July 2012. Chair of the Metropolitan Local Government Review, Emeritus Professor Alan Robson, AMC, stated in a letter to the minister, Hon John Castrilli, that the panel had unanimously made 30 recommendations in accordance with its terms of reference that they believed would build the strength, capacity, effectiveness and authority of local government. The Metropolitan Local Government Review went through quite a comprehensive process and it involved a fairly high-powered panel of individuals, including vice-chancellor emeritus Dr Peter Tannock, AM and Dr Sue van Leeuwen, chief executive officer of Leadership WA. Those 30 recommendations went to government and sometime later the minister provided the government response to them. Out of the 30 recommendations, some were supported, some were not, some were deferred and some were not supported at present, so the good work of the Metropolitan Local Government Review certainly was not followed in full. After that, it is fair to say that the process stalled. Then, in the lead-up to the 2013 state election we had a very firm commitment by the Premier and his local government minister at that time about forced amalgamations. The member for Darling Range stated that the Liberal Party will not and does not support forced amalgamations. I quote from a press release from Tony Simpson, MLA, of 21 February 2013. Apparently at a Liberal Party function he said one thing, but afterwards made this statement correcting the record. I quote from the statement — I recently made some remarks at a local forum that the Liberal Party supported forced council amalgamations. The Liberal Party does not support forced amalgamations, I got it wrong, it was my mistake. I apologise for the confusion this has created. That was on 21 February 2013, not long before the state election in March. Also around the same time the Premier, Hon Colin Barnett, MLA, the member for Cottesloe, in the summer edition of his resident’s newsletter that he circulated, talked about local government reform. I quote from this newsletter in which the Premier said — There has been much said about local government over recent months. I have always believed that a combined council covering Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove makes sense, however claims that the State Government will use its powers to force such an amalgamation are simply not true. Therefore, we had the now Minister for Local Government saying the government would not force amalgamations and we had the Premier saying it. Hon Kate Doust interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I have to say that the Premier placed on the record his long-held view that some of the western suburbs councils should combine; however, I am not quite sure it is correct when he says “claims

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 249 that the state government will use its powers to force such amalgamation are simply not true”. Perhaps they are true this evening; however, between now and then, certain other things may have happened. That was in the lead-up to the state election—a very firm commitment from the Premier and his now minister that forced amalgamations would not happen. In fact, I believe that this issue has been raised previously in this chamber in some debates on broken government promises when members in the chamber were reminded that amalgamations would not be forced. Yet, later on it came to our attention that press releases came out saying that the number of metropolitan councils would be reduced from 30 to 14 by July 2015, which is in clear contradiction to the previous statements. The Liberal Party and the minister will say that the promise was not broken and that no councils have been forced, and that is certainly the case in one respect. However, we have certainly seen since that time lots of to-ing and fro-ing between the councils and the ministers, lots of backtracking by ministers and lots of overruling by the Premier when certain people have raised concerns about the process. It is important to raise the key point of this bill. This bill went through the other place first and, indeed, the Labor Party had a view in that place, which is on the record. However, I want to place perhaps a different view on the record in this place. When the debate happened in the Legislative Assembly in November last year there was a different set of circumstances. What we know since is that the minister has used weasel words to say that the government will not force amalgamations but it will use boundary changes to change the composition of councils in the state. Hon Alanna Clohesy: Amalgamations by stealth. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It is amalgamation by stealth, but I will not get into that at this stage; I will get to it in good time, Hon Alanna Clohesy. Hon Nick Goiran: In the fullness of time! Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: In the fullness of time, thank you, Hon Nick Goiran! Hon Ken Travers: One of the good things about being lead speaker is that you get the fullness of time to make all the comments you want! Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Thank you, Hon Ken Travers. I am a new member, so I promise members that I will not speak on this bill as long as say, perhaps, Hon Ken Travers has spoken on bills, because I do not think I would be able to contribute as well as he contributes on a range of bills. Hon Ken Travers: I guarantee you that at the end of your career one day you will come close! Several members interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I appreciate the assistance honourable members are giving me; however, I will get back to my notes and my contribution. Hon Ken Travers: Have you kissed the Blarney Stone? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I have kissed the Blarney Stone, but that is a story for another day! As I said, WA Labor did not oppose the Local Government Amendment Bill through the Legislative Assembly; however, we may do something different in this place. From my reading, the amendment bill essentially does six things. It adds four more members to the Local Government Advisory Board, bringing the total to nine members; it increases the discretion of the advisory board regarding submission periods; it provides the Local Government Standards Panel with a discretionary power to dismiss frivolous or vexatious complaints; and it provides for the withdrawal of complaints that have been made to the standards panel. There is a clarification of members’ fees and allowances relating to regional councils, which I do not think are related to reform, but which are part of this bill. The bill also ensures consistency in provisions limiting the termination payments of local government CEOs and officers to one year’s remuneration. In the other place, and indeed in this place, Labor has said that it is not opposed to additional members being added to the Local Government Advisory Board, bringing the total to nine members. However, we have a concern about how the members are appointed and the potential risk that the minister can appoint people to the board who may well be supportive of his views. I understand that out of the four extra members, two will be community representatives. I presume that process will be organised by the minister’s office and perhaps the minister in charge of the bill can answer this when she speaks at a later date. Hon Helen Morton interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Sure, I am just interested to know how the process around the two community representatives will happen. I presume that the minister will put an advertisement in the paper and possibly applications will go to the minister’s chief of staff and the minister will decide who these two people will be. There is a question about that. The reason Labor questions the way these appointments will be made is because, plain and simple, we know that the government has an agenda in this area; we know it wants to get amalgamations done; and we know it will use stealth. What will the process be around this? How will these extra people be put on? I want to make another point about the two extra representatives from the Western Australian Local Government Association who will be appointed to this board. Obviously, as the minister interjected a few minutes ago,

250 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

WALGA will go through a process to propose more names. At the moment the minister chooses two names from a list of nine for the appointment of two WALGA representatives on the Local Government Advisory Board. As a result of this amendment bill, the minister will make four WALGA appointments to the board from a list of 12 names. I must point out that the minister will choose not only representatives on this board, but also deputy delegates to the board. People might think that if WALGA is going through a rigorous process and provides 12 names to the minister, it will be a balanced process with some people on the board aligned to one party and some to another party so that the board will have a good mix. Hon Ken Travers: And the minister goes, “I want that one and that one.” Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It will not be a case of the minister picking four WALGA representatives at one time, because that is not how it will work. There are already two WALGA representatives on the board. Under clauses of the Local Government Amendment Bill, the minister will pick only two members out of the 12 names provided to him because the turnover will be only two. There will never be four members changing at the same time so that the minister could pick four from 12; he will pick only two. Really, the opposition’s concern is that the minister will make sure he picks only people with similar views to his. Hon Alanna Clohesy: People with sympathy for his own views. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Perhaps sympathy with his own views. Perhaps, if I may be bold enough to say, he will pick Liberal Party — Hon Kate Doust: Puppets. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: That is Hon Kate Doust’s word. I did not say “puppets”. Hon Ken Travers: People who will do the government’s bidding for them. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No disrespect to the current chair of the Local Government Advisory Board, but I have heard people in the media and in this place refer to him as a Liberal Party apparatchik. I do believe that he has previously run as a candidate for the Liberal Party. Rightly or wrongly, because of his past association, that man has been called a Liberal Party apparatchik. He has been tarred, but certainly his views and his political leanings are known to us and to the community. There is therefore already at least one Liberal Party person on the board. Our concern plainly and simply is that the board will get an extra two local government representatives, which will provide an extra two voices. They may well be Liberal Party apparatchiks as well but certainly they may well be picked and placed on the board by virtue of holding similar views to the minister. It does not really give us confidence. Although we do not oppose the appointment of additional members, I understand that there has been a lot of horsetrading on adding more members. Perhaps I will go into that later, as there are only two members of the National Party present in the chamber. We therefore do not oppose those extra members on the board — Hon Helen Morton: If the majority of people do support that way of thinking, why would the minister pick someone from a minority position? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I do not understand the question. Perhaps I might answer it in this way: my fear and the opposition’s fear is that the minister will place people on the board with similar views to his because, plainly and simply, everybody knows now what the Liberal Party’s view is on this issue. Hon Helen Morton: Yes, but if the majority of the people in Western Australia support that view — Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am certainly not sure that the majority of people in Western Australia support the view of the Liberal Party. I will refer to this later and I might refer to some of the correspondence. Hon Helen Morton: There was a big majority at the election on it. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Hang on! Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Adele Farina): Order, members! Hon Ken Travers interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: My apology, Madam Deputy President. I think by taking interjections at that time, it is my fault that we ended up with that hysteria. Let me just remind members that Tony Simpson said there would be no forced amalgamations, and the Premier in his newsletter said — Hon Donna Faragher: Minister Simpson. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Minister Simpson, I beg your pardon. No, it refers to Tony Simpson, MLA, in his press release —

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 251

Hon Nick Goiran: Hon Tony Simpson. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am just quoting from the press release that refers to Tony Simpson, MLA, as the member for Serpentine–Jarrahdale, or whatever he was. Hon Nick Goiran: As he then was. Hon Helen Morton: He wasn’t the minister then. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: As he then was; correct. Tony Simpson, the current minister who was then just plainly and simply a member of Parliament, said that there would be no amalgamations. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! I think that if members give Hon Stephen Dawson the opportunity, he will be able to tell them exactly what he is trying to say, rather than everybody else imposing their thoughts on what he is trying to say. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I probably should have sat down again when you were speaking. I beg your pardon. I remind members again of the minister’s statement of 21 February 2013 headed “Tony Simpson MLA: Member for Darling Range” — I recently made some remarks at a local forum that the Liberal Party supported forced council amalgamations. The Liberal Party does not support forced amalgamations, I got it wrong, it was my mistake. I apologise for the confusion this has created. I will not go over again what the Premier said in his newsletter. Suffice it to say that Liberal Party members went to the election saying that there would be no forced amalgamations. That is plainly and simply what they went to the election saying. Yes, they went to the election with that policy; yes, they won the election; and yes, they are sitting on that side of the chamber, but what have we seen since? Hon Helen Morton: No forced amalgamations. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: We have certainly seen Liberal Party members try. Hon Ken Travers interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! If Hon Ken Travers would like to make a contribution to this debate, I am sure an opportunity will be provided to him. Hon Stephen Dawson has the call. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Madam Deputy President, I will go back, if members will stop for a second. The point I was making, before I was rudely interjected on by many people around the chamber, was that plainly and simply we have a concern about how the minister may well pick the extra members of the Local Government Advisory Board. There will be four new members. We have a concern about two community representatives and we have a concern about the two extra local government representatives because there is the potential for intervention. That is the first point I want to make. The other points are about increasing the discretion of the advisory board on submission periods. Again, the opposition is not opposed to these clauses. But we are concerned, I have to say, and I put this on the record, that given the bill has still not passed Parliament and new members have yet to be appointed, the Local Government Advisory Board will not be fully constituted to review submissions and to report in the time line set by the minister, which is to have final proposals determined by July 2014. Given that submissions to the minister or to the board are not due until 13 March this year, given that final proposals have to be determined by 2014 and given that there are five members of the board now and there will be nine members soon, we are concerned about the process and that there will not be a properly constituted board or enough of a properly constituted board to go through the work to ensure that the proposals get proper scrutiny and are sent to the minister. We do think that it will be a rushed job, I have to say. Proposals are due to be submitted by 13 March. If this bill gets through Parliament this week, obviously there has to be some sort of public process for calling for members of the board, and I dare say that those appointments will eventually be made by the Governor. That process may well drag out. It may be April by the time we have a full board. In fact, it may well be the middle or the end of April by the time we have a fully constituted board under the new amended act. The concern is about how these people will get up to speed on the issues. Bear in mind that many of these people will be new to the issues. It is fine for the current members of the board who are involved and who are probably looking through proposals as they come in now, but it is a concern that the new members will have to be brought up to speed very quickly and will have to make a contribution. It is fair to say that the time line is a concern. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Before we rose for the break, I was on my feet and had only just commenced talking, as Labor’s lead speaker on the Local Government Amendment Bill 2013, about our views on the bill.

252 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

For those members who were not in the chamber, I will briefly recap. I had spoken, first of all, about the chequered history of this bill. It commenced in 2009 and there had been various stages along the way. Various things were trialled and there were various reports, such as the Robson report. Various steering committees were established and various recommendations were received by government and not accepted by government. It was a stalled process. I mentioned the state election and the current Minister for Local Government’s statement he made to a Liberal Party meeting. I also mentioned the Premier’s comments in a newsletter that he did not support forced amalgamations. Then I had started to talk about Labor’s view on the issue. Essentially, I had started off talking about the six key things that we believe would happen as a result of this bill. I had spoken about the concern we have about the expansion of the Local Government Advisory Board. It is not so much a concern with the expansion necessarily, but the process around the expansion. We have no beef with the fact that the board is being expanded by an extra four members—that is, two community representatives and two more who will come through the Western Australian Local Government Association’s process. The names will be given to the minister. However, I had placed on the record our concern about the process by which those people were picked. I will quickly reiterate because I believe it is important to make the point that we do have concerns, and rightly so, about the extra community representatives who will go on the board. In this bill there are amendments whereby WALGA will present the minister with at least 12 names of potential councillors who have been vetted or elected through the WALGA process. Then, from that process, we will see at least initially two people selected from that list to go on the board. Our concern was that these two people could well be picked by the minister’s office or by the minister by virtue of them being Liberal Party members or sympathisers. This could well be the minister stacking the board, essentially—putting people on the board who are of the same belief as him. Therefore, we had concerns about that process. Members who have read the amendment bill know that we will see four WALGA representatives on the board. Members might think, “Well, four from 12 is not too bad”, but we will never actually see four councillors selected at the same time to go on the board. We will actually see probably only one or two. We will see two initially, but in the future we may not see more than one at a time because, presumably, the membership will be staggered—that is, some will get five-year memberships, some will get three, and people who are on the board now may be changed over next time et cetera. Labor has a concern about that process, as we have certainly advised in the other place. The shadow Minister for Local Government, David Templeman, has put that on the record and the minister knows our concern about that issue. The other issue with membership relates to the two extra community members being added to the board. It is not a concern about the fact that two extra community members are going on the board per se; it is about the process that will be used to pick those two community representatives. I dare say that this process will be run by the minister’s office. There will be an ad and the minister will get to decide who is on this board. The minister could well go about choosing two people who he knows are of the same persuasion or have the same view as he does. Even if he is not directly partisan, how it looks to those outside is problematic. Perception is a very important thing and the perception of many people will be that he has picked people by virtue of them being members or sympathisers of the Liberal Party. We are not opposed to additional members, but we remain concerned that the minister has the power to appoint people supportive of his views. The opposition is not opposed to the clauses concerning increasing the discretion of the advisory board regarding submission periods. I had just started on this point before the dinner break. We are concerned that given the bill has not passed through Parliament and new members are yet to be appointed, the Local Government Advisory Board is not fully constituted to review submissions et cetera and to report in the time line set by the minister to have final proposals determined by July 2014. I said before the break that submissions to the board close on 13 March. If we get this bill through fairly soon, a recruitment process will have to start. I presume that we would have to advertise for extra members on the board for at least four weeks. Consideration might take two weeks and the names would have to go before the Governor for tick-off. All that might take eight weeks. If we are to constitute a new board in April, it does not give the board much time to start. The board would have only three months to get on top of the issues, get a decision made and make a recommendation to the minister. It is a concern for us. We are concerned that perhaps it will be a rush. Bear in mind that some of those people will be new. The five on the board already may well be up to speed, but we are bringing four extra people on board, and that may have an impact. I want to ensure that the process is not rushed and it is rigorous. We want to make sure this is done properly. One of the other points is that the amendment bill essentially provides the Local Government Standards Panel with the discretionary power to dismiss frivolous or vexatious complaints. The opposition is not opposed to these changes. In the other place, the shadow minister challenged the definition of “frivolous and vexatious complaints”. I was pleased that in the briefing provided to me by the department and the minister’s office—I thank Sheryl and Jessica for taking time to brief us this week—the advisers were able to point to a number of acts in which “frivolous and vexatious” is already defined. That has given us a bit of comfort; we are not

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 253 defining “frivolous and vexatious” solely through this bill as there is common practice in place. It is commonly used in legislation already. That was another concern and I am pleased that it was addressed in the briefing. Another key element arising from the amendment bill relates to providing for the withdrawal of complaints that have been made to the Local Government Standards Panel. This is simply a procedural amendment, and we support that and have no issue with it. Another element relates to the clarification of members’ fees and allowances. I understand that at the committee stage, we will be asking some questions about some of those items. However, we are generally supportive of those clauses, so I do not think those issues will be insurmountable. Another element relates to ensuring consistency in the provisions limiting the termination payments of local government chief executive officers and officers to one year’s remuneration. Again, the opposition does not oppose these clauses. The major change that has emerged since this bill passed the Legislative Assembly in November last year is that Minister Simpson has made submissions to the Local Government Advisory Board that propose that a number of councils be ultimately merged through boundary changes rather than through amalgamation. Minister Morton’s second reading speech states — This bill makes no amendment to the Dadour provisions. Under the current act, the Dadour provisions allow a poll to be held on amalgamation proposals. If at least 50 per cent of electors in a district participate in the poll and at least 50 per cent of those participants vote “no”, the proposal will be defeated. This means it is currently possible for 25 per cent of voters in a single district to defeat an amalgamation proposal, even when it is supported by the majority of voters in the other districts involved in the proposal. The Minister for Local Government believes these poll provisions are contrary to the principles of a democratic local government system, but he does not want discussion on this to be a distraction from what he is trying to achieve—a local government system in the metropolitan area suited to the needs of the community today and into the future. What the Minister for Local Government has been saying recently, essentially, is that the Dadour provisions in the act do not need to be amended, because the act already allows for the amalgamation of councils simply by changing the boundaries. However, that is amalgamation by stealth, and we have a concern about that. All members in this chamber would have received lobbying over the past few months about the Dadour provisions. Do not forget that the government’s plan last year was that it would remove the Dadour provisions from the act so that there would be no vote by local councils and no local poll. However, there is a lot of confusion in the community and in councils. Even though the Dadour provisions will now not be changed, Minister Morton’s speech and Minister Simpson’s speeches over the past three weeks have caused a lot of concern, and councils are seeing it for what it is—the minister will be amalgamating councils by stealth. The City of Kwinana, the Town of Mosman Park, the Town of Claremont, the Town of Cottesloe, the City of Nedlands, the Shire of Peppermint Grove and the City of Subiaco all have concerns about the local government reform agenda. It is not just councils that have concerns. I have received a range of letters from individuals in not only the metropolitan area, but also country areas, because they too are concerned. I am aware that the National Party was not happy with the initial bill when discussions occurred last year. I am also aware that the National Party raised concerns about increasing the membership of the Local Government Advisory Board from five to seven members. I certainly am aware that the National Party made comments that it was behind why we now have nine people on the board. I make no comment on that. I do not necessarily see how an extra four people on the board will safeguard anything; nevertheless, it has happened and we are not against those extra four people. At that stage, the government proposed that the Local Government Advisory Board had to take into account government policy. The government would state that it believed in X, Y and Z. In this case we believe in removing the Dadour provisions from the act; we believe in the ability to amalgamate councils. The National Party has taken credit for the fact that this has now been removed slightly. Although it no longer states in the amendment bill that the Local Government Advisory Board has to take into account government policy, it now only states that the Local Government Advisory Board must “note” government policy. Indeed, if the minister provides policy for “noting” to the local government board, there will be a safeguard in the act to ensure that the policy that has been sent to be noted appears in the agency’s annual report. That is probably a good safeguard. I congratulate the National Party for at least engaging in this issue and at least being somewhat responsive to its constituents and to community concerns. We have had some change as a result of concerns expressed. I think it was following a meeting between the Minister for Local Government and the National Party that these provisions were changed. We also saw in the media around that time that the former Minister for Regional Development confirmed that regional amalgamations were off the table. I think the phrase at the time was, “We have done a deal with the Premier.” Since the maps were released, it can be seen that the Premier has slapped away a deal that had been done with the National Party. Again, he countered or contradicted what the then Leader of the National Party said had taken place. Although regional amalgamations are off the agenda at this stage, I would contend that if the

254 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] minister says that the existing act allows for boundary changes that will make amalgamations in the metro area, there is no reason why that minister at some later stage, once this is out of the way, could not say the same thing about regional councils. Hon Darren West: Any minister could do it. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Any minister could do it—absolutely: “We do not need to change the Dadour provisions and we do not need to have local votes or plebiscites. Simply by the stroke of a pen, I will move the boundaries of the council; I get rid of one.” That concern still remains for a lot of people. This week the Shire of Wagin has been in touch with a range of organisations expressing its concern about what can still be done in this act. Hon Nick Goiran: It is not even in the metro area. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: That is right; the Shire of Wagin is not in the metro area, but it is concerned because if these amalgamations can be made in the metro area by the stroke of a pen, there is nothing to stop the same thing happening in regional areas. Bear in mind that a lot of these councils are committed to some sort of reform in the local government area. Lots of councils have been involved in one of the steps along the way, whether it was a review in 2009 or 2010, or a commitment to Robson and Robson’s report. Lots of councils are saying that they need to lift their game, they need to change or they need to become more sustainable, but they are concerned that government is using a heavy hand. Although some people are happy that the removal of the Dadour provisions is off the agenda, they are concerned by the minister’s comments recently. It is kind of a two-fingered salute in one respect; it was not a peace sign, essentially, and some councils saw it that way. The minister basically said that the government does not need to remove the Dadour provisions, because—guess what?—the existing act allows him to use a pen and amalgamate by stealth, and councils, I think quite rightly, are concerned about that. Hon Darren West interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Absolutely. Some councils have tried to go through the amalgamation progress, including, I think, York before Christmas. In that case, the Local Government Advisory Board nobbled the amalgamation. That is one of the other issues that came out of the briefing, which I did not realise. If the Local Government Advisory Board says no to amalgamation, the minister does not have the power to say yes to it, even if he thinks it is a good idea and the councils are asking for it. That is another anomaly that we can look at. The minister in charge of the bill is looking at me quizzically. Hon Helen Morton: I am surprised that you only just found that out. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: To be honest, local government has not been my forte, minister; I have been busy with other issues. Hon Helen Morton: We have been saying that all along. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I have been busy with other issues, believe me. I was surprised to hear that, and in that instance I feel sorry for York. It had taken on the spirit of reform and acted on it, yet it was nobbled by the process. Hon Helen Morton: Basically, you’re saying that the minister cannot force that amalgamation. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am not saying that, because it was not actually a forced amalgamation in that sense; the councils asked for it. But what I am saying, still, is that regardless of the removal or not of the Dadour provisions, the minister’s quite strong statements recently have been about the fact that he does not need it. He does not need to remove the Dadour provisions because, plain and simple, he can use the existing act; he can use the stroke of a pen and he can change the boundaries of a council and therefore get rid of a council. I appreciated Hon Nick Goiran’s interjection when I was talking about Wagin, but I will go back to the metro area now and talk about some of the councils that have a concern with the process as it stands. Hon Phil Edman: Which ones? I actually really want to know; I am not being rude. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am sure Hon Phil Edman does know; as a member for South Metropolitan Region, there is a great number of concerned councils in his electorate. He does not need me to read my notes to him or he certainly should not need me to do so; he should know, as should Hon Nick Goiran, because they share an electorate. He too should know. Both those members should know how many councils in their electorates are very, very unhappy, not just about the process that has gone on so far, but about where we are at in the bloody process now. They are very concerned. Excuse me, Madam Deputy President; I said a word and I withdraw it. I had a bit of passion. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Liz Behjat): Order, members! Let us just take a moment to centre ourselves and think about what we are saying, and we will let Hon Stephen Dawson continue with his remarks

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 255 uninterrupted by interjections from the government side of the chamber. Hon Stephen Dawson will not invite those interjections; he will address his remarks through the Chair, and he will be conscious of the language he is using in the chamber. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I again apologise for my passion. I will, of course, ensure that I direct my comments through you. I was saying in all honesty that there is a range of councils in the metropolitan area that are very, very concerned by this government’s plans. Hon Phil Edman: Can you name them for us? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I can. People in South Perth and Victoria Park are concerned. Hon Sue Ellery: This ratepayer in Victoria Park is concerned. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Even members of this chamber are concerned about the amalgamations. However, I am talking about councils that are concerned, including the City of South Perth, the Town of Victoria Park, the City of Vincent and some of the City of Perth. One day Perth is concerned with elements of it and the next day it is not. Other councils that are concerned include the Town of Bassendean, the City of Bayswater, the City of Canning, the City of Gosnells, the City of Belmont, the Shire of Kalamunda, the City of Cockburn, the City of Kwinana and the Shire of Serpentine–Jarrahdale. A range of councils are concerned. The boundary adjustments proposed by the Minister for Local Government are causing concerns in the City of South Perth, the Town of Victoria Park, the City of Vincent, the City of Perth, the Town of Bassendean, the City of Bayswater, the City of Canning, the City of Gosnells, the City of Fremantle, the Town of East Fremantle, the City of Cockburn, the City of Kwinana, the City of Swan, the Shire of Mundaring, the City of Armadale, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, the Shire of Kalamunda, the City of Belmont, the City of Stirling and the City of Melville. Seven western suburbs councils also being proposed to be amalgamated are concerned, and members know that a lot of those councils—in fact most of them—are in the Premier’s electorate. It was important for me to read out that list, because it is important to get it on the record so that members in this place realise the number of councils that are concerned about the bill, the second reading speech and the local government reform process. People are concerned about the government saying that it can use amalgamations or boundary changes to amalgamate local government by getting rid of one council and leaving one behind. Local communities are unhappy about this issue. I have been talking about what has changed since the process started and since the Local Government Amendment Bill was introduced in the other place. As I have said, the state government is not proposing amalgamations now, but simply boundary realignments. It is saying that the Local Government Advisory Board is saying this, so I dare say we might see that mentioned in a future annual report of the board. The government is saying in short that under a boundary realignment that comes into place on 1 July 2015, council A will remain and council B will be abolished. I will use the example of the City of Vincent and the City of Perth, because it is a good example. The Vincent community has been very concerned about the idea of forced amalgamations. The member for Perth, Ms Eleni Evangel, has been outspoken on this issue. She has approached the Premier and the minister on this issue and has done that because people in the City of Vincent are very concerned. In the case of Vincent and Perth—council A and council B—let us say that Vincent is council B. Quite likely, Vincent will be abolished and Perth will remain in place, and it will remain in place to govern until 2015. A boundary alignment process is not a fair and equal merger between two councils, because one council is simply abolished. It is a takeover. In anyone’s words it is a takeover. It is a real concern to that community and it is undemocratic. It is undemocratic to leave council B ratepayers, like Vincent residents, without locally elected representation for about four months and probably at a critical stage of decision making when this new entity is looking to guide future structure and policies of the combined new entity. We all know that the relationship between Vincent and Perth over the past few months has been fiery. We all read the paper and listen to the news. We all listen to each other speak in this place; we know there is concern there. If there is a four-month window when Perth is in charge and there is no Vincent anymore, the City of Perth will have an enormous capacity to decide future structure and policies for this new city council. Hon Sue Ellery: There’s a four-month window. The minister said that’s what is going to happen. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I say “whether there will be” because I am just not sure, Leader of the Opposition, about the whole time line. I know what the minister has said, but given where this bill is at the moment and given that the minister is talking about putting more members on the board, I just cannot see how the time line is possible. Submissions close on 13 March. Those submissions will take however long they take, but the minister says that he has only until July for the board members to make a decision on them. If the minister is putting four

256 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] more members on the board, it will take at least eight weeks and then it will be the middle of April. I do not understand how a board originally with five people and now with another four new people can make that decision in two to three months—and these are big decisions. These councils have been around for a very long time. Bear in mind that many of these councils are unhappy about the process and unhappy about what is going to happen. I just do not understand how this can all happen in that short period. That is why I question that four- month period. The Leader of the Opposition is correct in that the minister has said that there will be a four-month window. These councils are concerned; certainly councils that are likely to be chewed up or replaced as a result of a boundary realignment are very, very concerned. The simple reality is that whichever councils remain after 1 July 2015, it is more likely that their policies, their culture, their structure and their council institutions will remain and will dominate the new councils. It is not a fair playing field. Certainly the residents in those areas will risk a lot and could well lose out on a lot. That is one of our concerns. I will get back to the point. This has been a rushed process notwithstanding that it has taken a long time—from 2009 to now. I will leave all that aside and talk about this bill in this place now. It seems to have been a very rushed process to have got to where we are now and councils are very concerned. The government—when I say “we”, I am talking not about us but about the government—is denying local communities the right to choose their own future. Some of these councils would be happy to amalgamate but they actually want to go through a process to work out how to do it. The government, by saying that it does not need to move on the Dadour provisions and can simply use the existing act, is denying the rights of local communities. Most councils want a constructive and positive approach and they want fair and equal mergers. They do not want to mess up. It is not fair for their residents to be the ones who are simply subsumed by the stroke of somebody else’s pen. I guess we are saying that, plainly and simply, the minister’s actions have now demonstrated that he will do whatever he can—in fact, he will do anything—to force councils to amalgamate. He, the Premier and indeed the government have abused, and in some cases totally abused, the trust of the local government sector. The minister and the Premier are forcing amalgamation by stealth. We as an opposition will not be a party to any attempt by this government to force its will on metropolitan communities after breaking this promise. We will at some stage seek to move some amendments to this bill because we believe they are justified. If those amendments are not accepted, we will likely vote against this bill, and we will do that because we have listened to the concerns of communities, be they in the metropolitan area or in regional Western Australia. We are still hearing those concerns and, yes, they have had big concerns about the removal of the Dadour provisions. They have even more concerns now because the minister said, “Do you know what? I do not need to remove the Dadour principle and all the campaigning you did was for nothing. I do not need it; I never needed it. The existing provisions of the act allow me, by the stroke of a pen, to change the boundaries and amalgamate councils.” Several government members interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am nearing the end of my contribution this evening, so I will not take any interjections, particularly from the minister who is responsible for the bill. I have a number of questions that I will ask the minister when we get to the committee stage of this bill, as will other members on this side of the house. The opposition is concerned by this bill and I will ask the minister some questions. My point is that I am not in the hot seat tonight; the government is. The government is breaking its promises and it could well destroy communities. It is the government that is leading to a lot of unhappiness throughout the local government sector right around the state. It is the government that is in the hot seat and has to answer to constituents. I appeal to members of the National Party who did a deal that would in their eyes make this bill better. I will put it this way: if the minister can, with the stroke of a pen, amalgamate councils, he will! The minister will stack the board. Plainly and simply, the board will be stacked. The minister will have a Liberal Party apparatchik as chair, and Liberal Party councillors who will come through the Western Australian Local Government Association process, because he has picked Liberal Party councillors! The minister will have Liberal Party–picked community representatives on the board. The minister has all the power. The minister can do what he wants. We already know, because it is on the record, that the minister will use his pen and amalgamate by stealth, and everybody knows it! I was appealing to the National Party, through you, Madam Deputy President, to remember that if the minister and indeed the government can take this action to amalgamate councils in the metropolitan area, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing the same in regional Western Australia. National Party members should not think regional councils are safe, just because their former leader, the former Minister for Regional Development, did a deal with the Premier. The Premier has said there was no deal, so National Party members should find out from the person who did the deal—he is not the leader anymore—whether there was ever a deal and was it written down, because the people and the process have changed. I contend that if the government can amalgamate by stealth in the metropolitan area, then it can absolutely do the same in regional Western Australia. With those few words on the bill, I will sit for tonight.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 257

HON PHIL EDMAN (South Metropolitan) [8.08 pm]: I have reflected on what Hon Stephen Dawson has said, but I take a different perspective on the Local Government Amendment Bill 2013. Before I was elected as a member of Parliament — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Are you going to cross the floor? Hon PHIL EDMAN: Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, please! Why not get it all off your chest and then I will speak. I know it is only our second day here and we are all getting the cobwebs out of the cupboard. I was a councillor for the City of Rockingham for some four years, and I came very close to nearly winning the federal seat of Brand in 2004 against Hon Kim Beazley and getting one of the biggest primary vote gains ever, but that is not what we are talking about. During the time when I was a local government councillor for the City of Rockingham, I learnt a lot not just about getting on my feet and speaking, but about the process of local government. I have some very fond memories of being a councillor, including citizenship ceremonies and all the other different things. I remember seeing Hon Kate Doust on a couple of occasions and Hon Simon O’Brien many times. We could not get Hon Simon O’Brien out of the City of Rockingham; it was fantastic! I am talking about the Local Government Amendment Bill 2013 and I am reflecting on the good things that local government does. I have had some experience—only four years, which is not a long time, unlike many others, and I respect that. In relation to the views of the opposition and local governments, we need to show the economic benefits of this process. I am interested to hear about those benefits. We have seen the Western Australian Local Government Association ads many times, with the guy wearing a black shirt as though he is ready to go to Pinocchio’s, which is no longer open, and the rubbish bin that drops down: “We’re not just here to empty your bin. Local government does a lot more” and all that sort of thing. I liked those ads, because local government does do a lot more than just empty people’s bins. Local government could do a lot better job at emptying people’s bins. I hope the state government will show some real leadership on waste issues in this state. Members in this house have heard me talk many times about waste to energy. I hope that that comes to fruition while I am still in this house and that waste to energy happens whereby ratepayers pay around $110 a tonne. Local government needs to do better in waste management. I am waiting for an interjection from members opposite. I can see Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich scratching her chin; she is getting a bit edgy. I am waiting for an interjection from anybody who disagrees that local government could not do waste management better. It could. There is definitely massive room for improvement. In my experience in local government, one of the things that really got up my nose—there is probably room up there — Hon Simon O’Brien: Not in the cranium cavity! Hon PHIL EDMAN: Hon Simon O’Brien, I remember your sideburns, too, mate, when you used to come down all those times! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PHIL EDMAN: I am sorry, Madam Deputy President. Some local governments have played politics as well. If anybody disputes that, I am happy to have an argument about it. I have seen local governments in this state, even in my own municipality, play politics, but it has changed. I will not name political parties tonight, but some councils have been very controlled, especially when I was involved in federal politics for that very short stint. Does there need to be reform? Is it time for reform in this state? I reckon it is. I reckon we have gone on for long enough about this. Hon Stephen Dawson said that it has been a rushed process. He was not in Parliament during the last term, but I have been listening to the debate on local government reform for a while now, so it has not been rushed. Hon Samantha Rowe interjected. Hon PHIL EDMAN: This has been talked about for quite some time, Hon Samantha Rowe. I believe that some councils could stand on their own. Maybe some of them should not be amalgamated, but maybe some in the bush should. That would probably upset some members. Hon Stephen Dawson: Is that the next plan? Hon PHIL EDMAN: I reckon that is where it was all supposed to start. Hon Darren West: What does the National Party think? Hon PHIL EDMAN: One of the things I have learnt about being a member of the Liberal Party is to be completely honest, and I am doing that tonight in this house. I move on from my experience and my personal views on the matter. One of my jobs under this government is to chair the Western Trade Coast Industries Committee.

258 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Hon Peter Collier: Which you do very well. Hon PHIL EDMAN: I thank my leader, Hon Peter Collier. It looks after the area from Cockburn right down to Rockingham. Last year I toured the east coast equivalent to our western trade coast. I toured Gladstone. I do not know how many members have been to Gladstone. I was given a brief history of the Gladstone Regional Council. Hon Nick Goiran: Which state? Hon PHIL EDMAN: This is in Queensland. The member knows that anyway; he is just testing me tonight. The shires of Miriam Vale and Calliope — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why are you delaying your own legislation? Hon PHIL EDMAN: I will continue because I have only 37 minutes. While the member keeps talking, I might just drag it all out. The shires of Miriam Vale and Calliope amalgamated with the City of Gladstone in 2008. There was initial dissension amongst those affected by the change, but this region has since become an industrial powerhouse. A liquefied natural gas plant is being developed just off the city. It is incredible what is happening in that area. It has become one community, not simply a sum of all parts. I believe this will be the case with WA local government reform and the proposed boundary changes once implemented. I am talking only about my electorate. I do not know everything about everybody’s electorates in Western Australia. I am not going to stand here and say I know it all because I probably know only a small amount about things in this state. The western trade coast as it currently stands comes under the jurisdiction of three local governments. They are the City of Cockburn, the City of Kwinana—it never was a city a few years ago, and I am pretty proud of that— and the City of Rockingham. Under the proposed changes, they should all come under one local government body. I am of the belief that the western trade coast could become an industrial powerhouse such as what I saw firsthand in Gladstone in Queensland. I should not say that because it already is an industrial powerhouse. I checked these figures yesterday, and I hope they are right. The western trade coast employs around 11 500 people. Its economic impact in direct sales is close to $15 billion. The Premier’s mandate is for all that to double. That is what we are working on. My belief is that it should really be under one local government body. It does not matter which government it ends up being; we might have to call it a new one, but I guess there would be a greater coordinated focus on industry. It is incredible. All three of these councils have different ways when it comes to the planning process or planning approvals. They are not all the same. I listen to all these whinges and complaints, especially when we get into the Cockburn–Kwinana area. They get treated very differently. There is some merit in running an industrial park, which is very important for the state of Western Australia. Our industrial park in the south is very important for the state. Without it, there would be big changes. We are lucky to have it. That is not to say that the residential areas of that same region will be forgotten either. The residential areas will also benefit from the economic stimulus created after the reluctant improvements to infrastructure and amenities. In looking at the current plan—I do not know whether it will be subject to change yet again— hopefully even the IP14 land in the City of Rockingham can be brought into one local government municipality. I would say to anybody with any money left in their imprest account—I do not know whether that is what it is called anymore—to get over to Queensland and have a look at this industrial park. I hate to say this, and the media and whoever else are probably going to pick on us, but Queensland is probably doing it a little better than we are. That is my opinion, and I am trying to be honest, but they are doing it a little better than we are. In this place I have always said that there is always room for improvement. I think if members could get over there, they would see the result of three local governments having been amalgamated into one and that it is best for economic development in relation to more jobs, and there is a real synergy in relation to the community and facilities—it is really working. That is a perfect example of what we need to be doing. I am not going to spend 45 minutes going on, because I do not think most people need that long, and I like to keep it brief anyway. But it has been hard for me, especially in the last year, being a member for South Metropolitan Region. There are citizenship ceremonies, Australia Day and Christmas parties, and it is hard because local governments are affected and they are spending a lot of money for survival and the chief executive officers do not want to lose their jobs. It is a hard time and I understand how they feel. But at the same time I really think we cannot beat around the bush. It is time for reform; it really is. It is time to have some sort of reform in local government. I am simply asking that members look at the big picture. Western Australia changes all the time. The way we are running things today is not the way things were in 1987 or 1977 or whatever. Things are constantly changing, so we have to look outside the box and make decisions on what we think is best for the state and what we think is going to be good for our children and their children and so forth. I believe what our government is trying to do is right. I am not saying that our government has dotted every “i” and crossed every “t”, and for the tenth time in this house in five years, this government is not perfect. It is definitely not perfect, and there is always room for improvement.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 259

At the end of the day we are trying to make Western Australia a better place to live, and the positives and the negatives have to be looked at. I think with all of us together as a group of members of Parliament, no matter what party we are from, we can make the right decision and bring on policy that is good for Western Australians and, most of all, decent for our ratepayers and councils. HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [8.23 pm]: I think we need to put on the record that the Greens (WA) will not be supporting these amendments because, in essence, the amendments are about deceit. We only need to go to the fifth paragraph of the second reading speech, which reads — The Liberal–National government has decided not to legislate for new local government boundaries. Instead, the government will use the mechanisms — That is, deceit — already available in the Local Government Act 1995. This bill contains provisions for the reform of the local government sector that were required, according to the minister, to strengthen the structural viability of local government. The minister has failed to explain what is meant by “structural viability”. I am at a loss to understand why structural viability matters more than social, cultural or indeed financial viability. I was a former councillor for the Town of Port Hedland, and one of the things that the Town of Port Hedland always suffered with was economics due to state agreement acts and the ability to have a rate base. RUN ON It is something that is still going on out there. I am mindful that my own Shire of Derby/West Kimberley cannot now attract up to 18 officers because it is financially not capable of paying for them. Yes; fine; it is supposedly all about structural viability. The minister referred to the fact that Western Australia is the only Australian state that has not yet achieved structural reform, but the proposal fails to refer to the experiences of other states that have already gone through such reforms—for example, Victoria—and I will quote some material, but not yet. The Centre for Local Government at the University of New England evaluated local government amalgamations in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania and came up with the following conclusions. Regarding Victoria, it stated in its working paper — Real savings from Victorian council mergers have been assessed at about eight to nine per cent … The Kennett government regularly stated that huge savings from amalgamations of up to $400 million had been achieved. Yet Australian Bureau of Statistics figures comparing Victorian local government operational expenditure between 1991–92 and 1996–97 in real terms suggested that operating costs had increased so that strong grounds existed to argue that local communities had not made any substantial economic gains … Other factors associated with the reform process had additional cost implications and distracted staff away from their normal duties into areas in which they had little training and experience, complicating the establishment of new service levels and increasing the burden on already diminished council resources … The conclusions on the South Australian local government reform state — The South Australian Local Government Association sponsored Inquiry took place seven years after the South Australian local government amalgamations process and it is noteworthy that the FSRB — That is, the South Australian Financial Sustainability Review Board — reported that there was not a strong relationship between a councils size and having a strong financial position or good annual performance. Further, the size and density of councils seemed to play little role in explaining the differences in the sustainability of the long-term financial performance and position of South Australian councils … The FSRB also suggested that fewer, larger councils were not a panacea, that amalgamation brought considerable costs and often exaggerated benefits, and that there were intermediate forms of cooperation or integration between councils with amalgamation being the most extreme and confronting … In Canada, the Commissioner on the Future of Local Governance used the term “viability”—a term we have heard mentioned—when talking about the ability of communities to develop and sustain themselves effectively over time. Again I quote — A viable local government … • Governs and democratically represents the interests of its community with significant community support and involvement • Carries out administrative, service and infrastructure responsibilities in accordance with provincial legislation and local by-laws. • Provides necessary services and infrastructure at reasonable costs

260 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

• Funds services from local resources and through partnerships • Contributes actively to the demographic, social, cultural, environmental and economic well-being of its community Those were the drivers, not some mystical fiscal ideology that seems to be coming out of the Premier’s office. It continues — A local government is less viable when it has … • A small or declining tax base • A lack of land available for industrial, commercial and residential growth • A small, aging, and / or declining population • Continuing council conflicts, or a lack of interest in the community and/or its council Certainly, that is something that has been acknowledged in Queensland with the amalgamation of councils there. People have lost connection with their councils. The New Brunswick fact sheet continues — • A lack of adequate staff As I just mentioned, that is a problem facing many of our rural councils — • Difficulties in providing the full range and level of services required under legislation and by residents, at reasonable costs • A lack of cooperation with other local governments Again, we have seen much progress within the administration of local governments whereby we are now sharing infrastructure and managing our fiscal issues better that way. However, that has been by a voluntary process and not by some form of forced amalgamation. The fact sheet on to state — • Increasing the population base • Accommodating future growth • Increasing interest in serving on council • Obtaining better administration services (more capacity to hire adequate staff) • Reducing costs by avoiding duplication of services and/or by achieving economies of scale These are the sorts of things that WALGA has been very much pursuing and, indeed, many councils have taken them on board — … • Providing for required infrastructure, facilities and equipment • Increasing financial stability by combining tax bases and by strengthening and diversifying the economic base I would be really grateful if, at some stage, the minister responsible for local government could enlighten me on whether these viability criteria have been considered or are even relevant to WA. What criteria were used to determine the lack of viability? According to the Minister for Local Government, WA local governments are characterised by a high level of bureaucracy, decreased efficiency and ever-increasing costs to the WA ratepayers. I would appreciate more details on what local councils he is referring to in this assessment. It seems that a lot of glib words are being spoken about what can be achieved, but without any base information. It is an ideological view that we should amalgamate councils. I will go back to amalgamation shortly, as well as many of the debates that occurred around 1975 when the Dadour provisions were brought in. It would be really important if the minister representing the Minister for Local Government could in her response identify where the problems with decreased efficiency, which the minister referred to in his statement, seem to lie. According to the minister, the outcome of this reform aims to facilitate an efficient and well-regulated system of local government that is responsive to the needs of the community today and in the future. It is a very, very good statement because the key words there are “responsive to the needs of the community today and in the future”. Now the community across the board is saying, “We do not want forced amalgamations.” I know members opposite will say that there are no forced amalgamations in this, but we are using smoke and mirrors; we are using stealth fighters. It is just amazing that we can go through a process that is against the very principle that was established in 1975 when we implemented the Dadour provisions. It appears that three key performance indicators are the preferred outcomes of the government reform—namely, efficiency, being well regulated and being responsive to the needs of the community. This bill gives significant independence for major decisions about the restructure of local government in the metro area to the Local Government Advisory Board. This is an independent statutory body established to advise government on local government matters. Its main role is to assess any proposals and provide recommendations to government about

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 261 their merit. Currently, this board consists of five members. The board will in future consist of nine members, including two members representing the interests of the community and two appointed from a proposal by WALGA. The Western Australian Local Government Association proposal will make a number of recommendations to the minister and the minister will cherrypick out of those recommendations. One would suggest that the minister will cherrypick people who are more or less supportive of his ideology. We are fully supportive of the idea of more community involvement in this process and, indeed, of eventually having a larger board. However, the board should maintain its independence, which really depends on who is appointed to the board. The board members and the minister have significant influence here in choosing all the members of the board, who sit for a five-year term. I acknowledge that the WALGA representatives are chosen from a list of candidates that went through a WALGA selection process, but the minister is free to select candidates who are supportive of his political agenda. Also, the appointment of new direct community representatives is not clear. Can people self-nominate? Can elected groups propose people? What criteria would a candidate have to fulfil to become an eligible board member? I hope that the minister will be able to expand on how that will occur in the future. I saw the debacle when the minister appointed Elizabeth Carr to the board of the Environmental Protection Authority. We then found out that she was fully conflicted as she had been part of the government agency that had processed the same liquefied natural gas development proposal that she then sat and deliberated on as a board member of the EPA. Therefore, we know appointments can be flawed. Another committee involved in the local government restructure process is the Metropolitan Reform Implementation Committee, which was established by the minister to provide advice and oversight for the amalgamation of local governments and which held its first meeting on 29 August 2013. Members of the Metropolitan Reform Implementation Committee are local government representatives, the director general of the Department of Local Government and Communities, the Western Australian Local Government Association and Local Government Managers Australia WA. It is really important for the minister to clarify the relationship that will exist between the Metropolitan Reform Implementation Committee and the Local Government Advisory Board into the future. How will they work together? Are they in competition? What will happen there? The Local Government Act, as we know, contains the Dadour provision. Nothing has been done to change the Dadour provision, which allows the voice of electors to be heard and gives a veto right to electors if a participation rate of 50 per cent is reached and 50 per cent of participants object to a proposal. This provision is not proposed to be changed by the bill. I want to go back and enlighten people on what was identified in 1975 when Dr Dadour introduced the provisions. Dr Dadour was a former Liberal and then an Independent member who was very, very well respected in the community. He was a founding member of the Subiaco — Hon Ken Travers: Local GP! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes, he was a local GP and a founding member of the Subiaco Football Club, if I am right. I know very little about football. It is important to quote some of the things that Dr Dadour said when introducing the amendment. He said — The important thing, as far as I am concerned, is that democracy still lives with this Bill of ours because under it people will have the right, by referendum, to learn where they stand. In this way we will maintain the true democratic system of the three tiers of government as we know them. Something that the Greens hold very, very dear. He continues — If the Federal Government interferes with the State Government boundaries, it is God help it. If the State Government starts interferring with local government boundaries, the local authorities should be given the same authority the State Government has in respect of its boundaries. We told the people we would submit this amendment and we are honouring our obligation. It is only right that this legislation should be introduced. A number of local authorities have stuck together through this fight for an amendment. They are the City of Subiaco, the Town of Claremont, the Town of Cottesloe, the Town of East Fremantle, the Town of Mosman Park, the Shire of Peppermint Grove, and the Shire of Bassendean. I must commend the town of East Fremantle because the Johnston report recommended that the town be almost doubled or trebled in size to include parts of Fremantle and other neighbourhood authorities. Despite this, the Town of East Fremantle stuck to its guns and it still supports the Bill. This will probably jeopardise its ever getting the extra land virtually offered to it under the Johnston report. It is important at this point to add another piece to this debate. There have been many attempts to amalgamate local authorities. The White report of 1954 recommended two alternatives—a reduction to 11 authorities, or 19 authorities in the metropolitan area. The Local Government Assessment Committee of 1968 recommended that the number of councils in the state be reduced from 144 to 89, with the number of metropolitan councils being reduced from 27 to 17. Neither of these recommendations in the White report was implemented, and the recommendations of the Local Government Assessment Committee in 1968 were not implemented. Further, the

262 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Local Government Boundaries Commission in 1972, which was set up by Hon R.H.C. Stubbs, recommended that the number of metropolitan councils be reduced from 26 to 18. That recommendation also was not implemented, because the government of the day wanted to listen to the community. Those are lovely words— listen to the community. Hon Kate Doust: They must have had their hearing aid turned off! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes! I will go back to what Dr Dadour had to say. He said also — What we are doing is correct because it is right that the people should be given the opportunity to determine whether they wish to join another local authority, and if so, which one, or whether they wish to retain the status quo. That is all the Bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to amend the Act to require a petition before two or more municipal districts can be united to form one municipality; and to make it mandatory for ratepayers in districts which would be affected to be given the opportunity to demand a poll when a petition seeks certain boundary alterations, and for the alterations to be prohibited if the poll negates the proposal. Clearly the thinking at the time was that a government should not be allowed to do away with councils or amalgamate councils. It was never anticipated that this government would, many years later, try to use the deceit of disbanding a council and then modifying the boundary, which in essence is nothing more than the amalgamation of two councils. Yet because it does not fit within the words contained in the Dadour provisions, the community is silenced and marginalised. I will now move on from what Dr Dadour had to say about the issue to make some other points. This reform will be implemented through boundary changes rather than amalgamations. It is to circumvent the Dadour provisions. If the amalgamation of local governments, which has been acknowledged by all governments over time, has some validity, what is the minister afraid of by listening to what the community and the councils have to say? We have certainly amalgamated Geraldton with Greenough. That went through with the community and the councils’ involvement. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I think they might have just disaggregated it. Hon Ken Travers: We did not; they did it themselves. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: That is right. Hon Ken Travers: It was not the local government minister forcing it. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No; that is right. It was their decision. A member interjected. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: The issue here is that we really — Hon Ken Travers: The National Party is supporting forced amalgamations now—unbelievable! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: In the wheatbelt! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: They will be amalgamating the Shire of Derby–West Kimberley with Kununurra shortly! We know that they are all in financial trouble up there. Hon Ken Travers: I think we should have a forced amalgamation of the coalition! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: We will never do that. I will move on. The Minister for Local Government would have to be interested in the view of the community as one of the aims of reform is to meet the needs of local community. He says it is meant to meet the needs of local community, yet he is afraid to listen to local community. Having wide community support would therefore, in my view, be one of the prerequisites to achieving the goals. In the Pilbara, we have seen the Shire of East Pilbara, the Town of Port Hedland and the Shire of Ashburton come together and actually amalgamate many services. They have not amalgamated councils but they have achieved economies of scale by working together. That can be done with many metropolitan councils; they do not have to amalgamate. Councils can certainly work together to reduce costs. As I have already pointed out, previous reports into amalgamations have found that in essence they have not achieved any fiscal benefit anyway. I have prepared an amendment—which I will now talk to briefly, although I will read it in a little later—to reinstate the intent of the Dadour provision; that is, should two councils amalgamate, which is the removal of a council, the Dadour provision remains. It is a simple word change that two councils amalgamate to be effectively one council; removing them gets the same provision as Dadour. Hon Ken Travers: Whilst I do not necessarily oppose Hon Robin Chapple’s proposed amendment, I do not think it is necessary. If the member goes to the Northern Land Council case, it will be found that the government incorrectly —

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 263

Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I am coming to that shortly. Hon Ken Travers: To put it beyond doubt it may be worth supporting Hon Robin Chapple’s proposed amendment, but I do not accept the premise of what the government is doing will be found to be legal anyway. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: We will go to Toohey in a minute; I will cover that shortly. Quite clearly that is what the problem will be. If the government accepts the amendment, it is great—it will not have Toohey coming down on it like a tonne of bricks—but if it does not accept the amendment, we will see them in the courts. Hon Ken Travers: It reminds me very much of its native title legislation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): Order! Hon Robin Chapple is trying to address the Chair and Hon Ken Travers, who will no doubt seek the call, is distracting him. Hon Robin Chapple, when you are ready. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Yes, I am ready to resume. The idea is section 8 of the Local Government Act 1995, schedule 2.1: to reduce the minimum number of districts to be affected from two to one. This will ensure that in any case of amalgamation that results from the termination of one local government body, the electors are to be heard upon the request and can veto the dismissal by boundary or go through the whole thing through a proper process of amalgamation of two or more councils. I have already drawn the attention of the house to the motivation of Dr Dadour when he proposed the amendments in 1975 and I have already read in what he had to say about this. Those commitments still ring true and it is quite interesting to note, going back over the whole debate, that it was actually the opposition of the day—I am not having a shot at anybody here—that was actually looking at amalgamations and it was the Liberal government that was bringing in regulations to stop amalgamation and to enshrine the Dadour provision. I just hope members on the government side understand the history behind this. Hon Ken Travers: When are you claiming that to be? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: It was 1975. The Dadour provisions were amended several times and I hope my proposal to strengthen the Dadour provisions for this reason finds good support. On 5 February the local government minister launched an online reform toolkit preparing both practitioners and elected members with tailor-made information stepping them through the process in the lead-up to July 2015. The project, managed by the Western Australian Local Government Association, was jointly developed by three partners including the Department of Local Government and Communities, Local Government Managers Australia and WALGA. The toolkit contains principles as guidance for the transitional period: embrace opportunity and strive for best practice; attract and retain quality staff and develop career opportunities; engage the community and work together; increase local government capacity and improve community outcomes; reduce local government bureaucracy and streamline systems; and deliver open and transparent communication. Those are the sorts of things we really should be focusing on in local government rather than this notion that amalgamation will be the panacea for everything. On 4 February 2014, one day before the toolkit came out, the Local Government Advisory Board invited public submissions on 34 proposals submitted during the metropolitan local government reform process. The LGAB received 21 proposals from local government, 12 from the Minister for Local Government and one from the electors of the City of Cockburn. The closing date for public comment on the submissions is Thursday, 13 March 2014. I remember quite a while ago going to a meeting of local government managers, it was very early on in the piece, and the words being bandied around in the very early days of amalgamation were, “We are going to force amalgamation.” There was a great deal of fear among councils that unless they put forward an amalgamation proposal, they would be sidelined. Therefore, many of those amalgamation proposals came forward because of the threat, not because of a genuine desire. I find it really untenable that in the early part of the debate, when there was all this talk about forced amalgamation, we were actually coercing or forcing councils to put forward amalgamation proposals. WALGA and the overwhelming majority of the local government sector in WA supports the need for reform, and that is stated in many WALGA documents, but they are adamant that the participation needs to be voluntary to ensure community support and to help enhance the prospects of any changes being sustainable for the long term. One only has to look around the world—that sounds like a Blues Brothers’ comment that goes something like, “You only have to look around the round, round world”—to see that at any time governments or local governments are forced to do something that they are not interested in doing, they do not end up with a good result. They end up with internal conflict and a lack of desire to progress because they do not have that level of —

264 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Hon Helen Morton: You have never had to push anything through. You have never been in government where you have had to make something happen. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): Order! Hon Robin Chapple has the call. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I must apologise to the member opposite, because I am not wearing my headphones. I have made the comment often that I find interjections very difficult to hear. So keep them coming because I cannot hear them! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can hear interjections and they are unruly. Hon Robin Chapple will be allowed to continue his remarks without them. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: The bill also proposes other minor changes to the Local Government Act 1995, so in some regard it is a bit of an omnibus bill because it will tidy up a number of other issues. The bill makes provisions on the limitations of severance pay to local government employees who lose their jobs in a restructure. Permanent employees will get compensation equivalent to two years’ pay. For other employees, compensation is limited to one year’s salary without regard to the duration of an individual contract. These provisions seem reasonable and have the support of the Greens. I also comment on the proposed amendments to increase the discretion of the Local Government Standards Panel about whether a complaint is investigated. A withdrawal of complaint will no longer directly terminate an investigation. Further reasons have to be provided by the standards panel about any decision made and will now include the rejection of a complaint as vexatious. The Greens support these changes and I hope that the house will support my amendment to the Dadour provisions. It is also important to touch on this matter and to refer to the interchange I had with Hon Ken Travers earlier. On Christmas Eve 1981, the High Court of Australia ruled in R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council that an extension of the City of Darwin made by the administrator under regulations was invalid as it was made for illegitimate purposes to defeat a native title claim instead of for planning purposes. This ruling clearly will have an impact on any such decision, and the verdict might provide good arguments against forceful amalgamation through boundary changes. It would be interesting to get a response from the minister to say whether she believes, on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, that such legal action is possible in this state. Obviously, the action is available only through the court. My proposed amendment would clarify that and resolve whether future governments and/or local governments have to take legal action against the state for forced amalgamation using boundary changes. That is all I have to say. I found it very enlightening to read the Legislative Assembly documents around the time of Dr Dadour. It is also important to refer to one other pertinent comment made in the debate by Mr Rushton, the then Minister for Local Government, who stated — I hasten to say that none of the metropolitan local authorities which were asking for amalgamation or the annexing of areas during the turmoil when the previous Government was in office and was attempting to bring about amalgamations has requested amalgamation at the present time. It brings the situation into focus when it is realised that we are making provision for councils which come to agreement by negotiation to have the power to make changes, as they should have, being elected by the ratepayers; but when the decision of the councillors is not in accordance with the wishes of their neighbour who is seeking to amalgamate the ratepayers are entitled to have a say. I consider that boundary changes are more likely to be achieved by negotiation, and this is the aim of the amendment. That is, the amendment moved by Dr Dadour. It continues — Previous efforts to force boundary changes have generally been unsuccessful, and I contend that people prefer to be led than to be pushed. This is what we are endeavouring to achieve with this legislation. I hope that those words ring true to members opposite. I most probably need to seek clarification from the Clerk. Should I move my amendment now or do it in the — Hon Peter Collier: No; put it on the notice paper. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No. I will do it in committee. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): Order! The time for an amendment on the supplementary notice paper to be moved is in the Committee of the Whole House, if that is the amendment the member is referring to. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: It is an amendment in the committee stage. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks. We will look forward to hearing from Hon Robin Chapple further at that stage.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 265

HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (North Metropolitan) [9.01 pm]: I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the Local Government Amendment Bill 2013. Hon Stephen Dawson has more than adequately put on the public record the opposition’s position on this bill; that is, we intend to move amendments and that there is some likelihood that we will possibly not support this bill. This is a very interesting piece of legislation indeed. I have to say that I have some very serious concerns about it. The primary purpose of the bill, of course, is to introduce a number of regulatory changes to the local government sector for the purposes of facilitating the government’s metropolitan reform agenda, and that reform agenda is forced amalgamations in the metropolitan area. I read the second reading speech with some interest because it is very telling about the way in which the government has gone about trying to bring forward these reforms. I want to quickly refer to a few paragraphs because I have some concerns. In February 2009, the former Minister for Local Government announced an agenda for the reform of the local government sector to strengthen the structural viability of local governments. That sounds all right. The only problem with that particular opening paragraph, of course, is what does “strengthen the structural viability” actually mean? It all sounds very good until we start to analyse it. I would be very interested to know through the minister—I note that her advisers are present—whether she can actually tell us what she means by the “structural viability of local governments”. As far as I am concerned, it is just a lot of gobbledegook. It is typical bureaucratic speak that does not actually say anything. The announcement goes on to say that since that time the Liberal–National government has continued to press forward with these important reforms. I have to ask: important to whom? To whom are these reforms important? It is not to councils, because most of them do not want them. Councils certainly do not want them. It is certainly not important to ratepayers. I do not hear individual ratepayers screaming about the need to have their council reformed. In most part they do not care. They want their rubbish collected, they want their amenities provided and they are very happy. They pay a good price and most of them are happy to pay their rates so that these things can be done for them. By and large most of them are appreciative of the excellent services provided by their existing local governments. So, who are they important to? They might be important to some developers, who clearly want to deal with fewer councils— 10, 15 or 20 councils, or whatever the final figure might be. That is to whom it is important; it is important to developers, and I will come to developers a little later. It is certainly not important to councils or ratepayers. The second reading speech states — Historically, the structural reform of the local government sector has been difficult to achieve. We are the only state that has not achieved a strategic reform of local governments to ensure that they meet the modern needs of our population. I do not know what those modern needs of the population are, but I would be very interested to find out. Do we as a population have some needs that we do not know about that are modern, whereas the ones that we know of are old? I do not know! I would be very interested to find out what my “modern needs” of a local government council actually are. The speech continues — The need for local government reform is well established and clearly overdue. No, absolutely not! The need for local government reform has never been explained to anybody. I do not know why there is a need for local government reform or that this need is well established. I do not even know that it is established at all, let alone well established. Is it overdue? If it is overdue, by how much? Who said that we have to have it? I do not know the answers to these things. I do know that there has been no business case and no cost- benefit analysis for local government reform. All we have had is a whole lot of motherhood statements, such as: we need this; it is going to result in efficiencies and we need to reform local government. When it comes to the crunch with this bill and this policy, there has been very little evidence, quantitative or qualitative, that provides real reasons for why this reform needs to take place and why we should support this bill. Hon Robin Chapple also commented on the following extract from the second reading speech — The Liberal–National government has decided not to legislate for new local government boundaries. Instead, the government will use the mechanisms already available in the Local Government Act 1995. Clearly, that is just a way to bypass the Dadour provisions that give local residents the right to veto a merger proposal. This is very concerning. I want to put on the public record that this bill to enable amalgamations to take place is, firstly, bad policy; secondly, it has been poorly implemented; and, thirdly, I do not think it has ever been costed. It is shifty, undemocratic and lacking in transparency. Personally, I think the bill is fraught will all sorts of problems. Hon Peter Collier interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The opposition has told the Leader of the House that it will move some amendments—I opened with that—and depending on the information that is provided to us, we will decide whether or not we support it.

266 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Hon Peter Collier: So you will potentially go against your lower house colleagues? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: We will do what we will do. The Leader of the House will have to be patient, because all we are going to do is ask the government to provide some information and, hopefully, it will be good enough to do that. A lot has been written over time about council mergers, and the government has said that it definitely is not going to amalgamate. That was the position of the government. The Premier said on the public record on 6 August 2009 that the government was not going to force amalgamations. On 30 July 2013, he publicly made the statement, at Parliament I understand, that the number of metropolitan councils would be reduced from 30 to 14 by July 2015. On 31 July 2013, in clear contradiction to his previous comment not to force amalgamations of local governments, the Premier announced that the number of metropolitan councils would be reduced. There has not been any decrease in the number. It is clear that there has been a betrayal of trust. We do not know the final number of councils and we do not know whether it will be reduced from 30 to 14. That is the number provided in some information that is publicly available; other information states that it will be reduced from 30 to 15. We do not know what the final composition will look like. What I know is that the real problem is the wheatbelt councils. There are 42 wheatbelt councils. I think Hon Stephen Dawson is correct; the agenda of the Barnett government, and certainly the Liberal Party part of the Barnett government, is to do the metropolitan councils first and once it has sorted them out, it will go to the bush and amalgamate those councils. In fact, it has already started. There was a very interesting article in the South Western Times of 13 February 2014. It has a lovely picture of the honourable Premier looking very relaxed with his cappuccino. It must have been taken somewhere on the strip. It was taken in Victoria Street, Bunbury. Obviously, some country members from the wheatbelt would not be reading about what is happening in Bunbury. Hon Paul Brown: Where is it? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This is Bunbury. Hon Paul Brown: Where? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: In the south west. Hon Paul Brown: Never heard of it! Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This is not in the metropolitan area; this is in the south west. For those members who believe that the Premier will not come looking in rural and regional WA with this policy to merge councils under his arm, they have got another think coming. They are off with the fairies. Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I was local government minister and I did not support amalgamations anywhere. I do not know why members opposite are getting so excited. I am just trying to inform them about what is going to happen. Hon Martin Aldridge: You’re exciting us. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am exciting them! In this picture, poor Mr Castrilli is a little in the background and there is the Premier, red faced to match the lovely checked shirt that has some red in it. The heading is “Mergers a must for growth of second city, says Barnett”. The opening paragraph states — An amalgamated Greater Bunbury with a major State Government presence would cement the city’s place as WA’s second capital. If the Premier is going to merge only those councils in the metropolitan area, what is he doing in Bunbury trying to sell the message? What was he doing in Bunbury trying to convince Mr Castrilli, the local government member, that a merger between Bunbury and other councils in the south west would be a good idea? As I said, the article is headed “Mergers a must for growth of second city, says Barnett”. It makes me wonder how Bunbury got so big without a merger. I did not see Bunbury stop growing 15 or 20 years ago; it has got stronger and stronger. It has a good local government authority, of which Mr Castrilli was a mayor for many years. It has grown and prospered. It is a great place to live, work and recreate. At the end of the day, the Premier is spruiking the message of amalgamation outside the metropolitan area. If members from regional and rural WA do not believe that the Premier will be coming after them and their councils, they had better think again. We will put that to one side. There is no doubt that once the first lot of reforms goes through and the councils in the metropolitan area are amalgamated, clearly, the regional and wheatbelt councils will be the next cab off the rank. I was going to read out the names of the 42 wheatbelt councils but on second thoughts, that might be a bit boring for members so I have decided not to.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 267

Hon Paul Brown: Don’t deny us the opportunity, please. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Let us not get excited. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: We can hardly blame them. I seek leave to table this document and have it incorporated in Hansard. There are 42 local government authorities and this document shows the subregions within the wheatbelt. Hon Peter Collier: How many pages are there? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: There is one page. Leave granted. [See paper 1199.] The following material was incorporated —

• Avon • Shire of Beverley • Shire of Cunderdin • Shire of Dowerin • Shire of Goomalling • Shire of Koorda • Shire of Northam • Shire of Quairading • Shire of Tammin • Shire of Toodyay • Shire of Wyalkatchem • Shire of York • Central Coast, comprising:

• Shire of Dandaragan—WDC office in Jurien Bay • Shire of Gingin • Central Midlands, comprising:

• Shire of Chittering • Shire of Dalwallinu • Shire of Moora—WDC office in Moora • Shire of Victoria Plains • Shire of Wongan–Ballidu • Central East

• Shire of Bruce Rock • Shire of Kellerberrin • Shire of Merredin—WDC office in Merredin • Shire of Mount Marshall • Shire of Mukinbudin • Shire of Narembeen • Shire of Nungarin • Shire of Trayning • Shire of Westonia • Shire of Yilgarn • Wheatbelt South

• Shire of Brookton • Shire of Corrigin • Shire of Cuballing • Shire of Dumbleyung • Shire of Kondinin • Shire of Kulin • Shire of Lake Grace • Shire of Narrogin—WDC office in Narrogin • Shire of Pingelly • Shire of Wagin • Shire of Wandering • Shire of West Arthur • Shire of Wickepin • Shire of Williams

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I want to address another issue; that is, the cost of council mergers. Not much has been said about the cost of council mergers. However, on 14 February 2014 a story appeared in The West Australian that was quite alarming. It was headed “$100m for one council merger” and states —

268 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

The State Government’s plan to amalgamate metropolitan councils will cost nearly $100 million in one region alone … The first detailed economic analysis of local government reform to be released, the report estimated the carve­up of the south west metropolitan area would cost $97.8 million. The Government proposes to create 10 merged councils and adjust the boundaries of two others. Clearly, we are talking about some very, very serious money, which could run into hundreds of millions of dollars. It may be $100 million or $200 million; I do not know how many hundreds of millions it will be, but it is a very substantial sum of money. I then took it upon myself to see where I could find this money within the budget, because insofar as I understand, a lot of the work has been funded from internal local government resources. But for the actual cost of amalgamation—pushing this government reform program forward—there clearly needs to be some serious money on the table. This is what I found: in budget paper No 2 for the financial year 2012-13, under “Significant Issues Impacting on the Agency” there are two dot points that give us some clues about the cost of funding this government reform program. The first dot point states — Since announcing the Local Government Reform Strategy in 2009, the State Government has expended over $16.0 million to progress local government reform. This includes funding to support local governments engaged in structural reform and funding to build capacity in strategic planning, asset management and financial planning. This investment has enabled participating local governments to identify additional opportunities for their communities and to better understand their financial and capacity constraints. The second dot point states — The State Government’s additional investment of $3.0 million in the Metropolitan Local Government Review was announced in June 2011. An independent panel was appointed and is on track to provide its report in mid–2012. As of the 2012-13 financial year, on page 727 of budget paper No 2, a sum of $16 million was spent, and then $3 million was added to that; for the mathematicians in the room, that is $19 million. Keep in mind that another document states we are going to need $100 million for one council merger. That is probably overstating it—even I would agree that that is probably overstating it—but I do know from what I have read about the local government reforms in Victoria and Queensland in particular, that this is a very, very expensive exercise. Clearly, $19 million, which was the spend up to 2012-13, is just not going to cut it, and it will fall way, way short. I then went from the 2012-13 budget papers to look at the latest budget papers. I look on page 778 under “Significant Issues Impacting on the Agency”, thinking I was going to find a bucket of money there—maybe $50 million for an implementation program. I see the Leader of the House has that look on his face that this is very scary, because he knows there is no money there. He has that look of concern on his face, and I do not blame him for being concerned. If I were him, I would be concerned. Hon Peter Collier: I was actually drifting off. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Drifting off to la-la land! There I was, looking at the latest lot of budget papers, thinking there is going to be a big pocket of money there. The first dot point under “Significant Issues Impacting on The Agency” states — Local governments in Western Australia play a key role in servicing the evolving needs of our communities. The Department will focus on building a strong and sustainable local government sector through its capacity building and reform initiatives, and by providing oversight of governance and probity standards across the sector. In 2013–14, $2 million has been provided as an initial allocation to support metropolitan local governments in planning for the implementation … That is $21 million all-up. But, of course, elsewhere it is estimated that we will need at least $100 million for one council merger. Hon Nick Goiran: You said that was in metro. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This is metro. Hon Nick Goiran: You said that is exaggerated. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This is exaggerated, but it is not exaggerated too much. So far we have $21 million, and the government is going to need at least $300 million or $400 million to be able to implement these reforms. That has really fallen short. I then thought to myself, “Where can I go next, because surely the government is not serious about this reform when it has spent only $21 million? The process really hasn’t started because the legislation has to go through before the amalgamation program can start. So where is

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 269 this money?” I then went to the 2013–14 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement and to the section on spending risks, where it identifies all those things when governments are expected to spend more than has been allocated to them in the budget for projects. Of course, it identifies spending risks such as asset investment. More money will be needed for the fiscal action plan. There is education, and more money will be needed for that, and so on. But I am looking in the spending risks for some reference to a pocket of money that will pay for these reforms that are going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But do members know what? I shot a blank. Hon Robyn McSweeney: I thought that was a male prerogative. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: That is just an expression to mean that I did not hit the target. Gee whiz! There is nothing—absolutely nothing. There is nothing nowhere. Hon Liz Behjat: You’re a good education minister—“nothing nowhere”! Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Nothing nowhere; I could find nothing nowhere. Can anyone believe that this is real—a reform program that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and only $21 million has been allocated over the last two budgets, and there is no indication of any money going forward? It is not identified as a spending risk in the 2013–14 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement. I think that is a major cause for concern. It is totally unacceptable. The Premier needs to be called to account so that he can explain where this money will be coming from, because it is clearly not in the budget. The other day the media asked the Minister for Local Government a question along the lines of, “Well, how is all this going to be funded? How are you going to fund this reform program?” The Minister for Local Government replied by saying, “Well, I’m not going to bandy any figures around.” That is what he said. Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: He is not bandying them around because he does not have any. That is the first thing. Because he has already spent the $21 million; he has no other money allocated and he knows the reform program will cost hundreds of millions. Therefore, I do not want the Minister for Local Government to bandy the figures around. I just want him to provide those figures to Parliament—that is what I want. I want it clearly recorded in Hansard that I have called on the Minister for Local Government to provide Parliament with the total cost of this reform program, and to explain where this is accounted for in the budget, because so far I have had no success in trying to locate that information. I cannot find it because I believe it not to be here. I do not believe it has been allocated and I think it is another major problem for the government. As I travel around, one of the things that local government councillors say to me is that this reform program has been a disaster for them for a number of years now. Of course, this started during the government’s last term. Councillors had been told about this reform program; that they all had to prepare for reform and have capital works’ plans in place. Councillors were called on to provide future directions about what their local government authority would look like and so on and so forth. They have expended a lot of resources in the preparation for reform. However, they complained to me that this whole process has taken away resources from those areas where money would have been allocated to. They also make comments along the lines of them feeling as though they do not know what their future is and that it is very difficult to plan for a future when they do not know what it might look like. I certainly have a lot of sympathy with them in that regard. They were also asked to make town plans, and most of them have done that. I will cite a media report from www.abc.net.au on Saturday, 27 July 2013 titled “Councils concerned town plans will be wasted”, which states — Some local councils have expressed concern about what will become of their town plans if they are forced to amalgamate. The ABC revealed on Friday the State Government’s blueprint for the long awaited amalgamations and the Government is expected to announce them officially in the coming days. It is understood Cabinet has signed off on a raft of mergers, many of which will prove controversial. There is no doubt that is the case. I do not come across too many happy local councils. The case of the Belmont and Kalamunda councils is a classic. Anyone who knows the Belmont council will know that it has been a very successful council. It has managed to attract international and multinational companies into its CBD and has a very, very good rate base. It is economically and financially strong, et cetera. The proposal is for the City of Belmont to amalgamate with the Shire of Kalamunda. For those members who know Kalamunda, there are lots of — Hon Paul Brown: Trees! Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Trees! Absolutely there are lots of trees in Kalamunda! However, there are fewer houses and a lower rate base, which means less revenue. The fact is that there is a whole —

270 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): Order! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich needs to be heard! Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The fact is that the City of Belmont probably has a right to be aggrieved. I think some of its councillors are aggrieved about the idea that perhaps the council needs to marry up with the Shire of Kalamunda. It will be interesting to watch that one play out. Hon Steve Dawson went through a list of councils that are likely to amalgamate, but it is a moving feast and no- one really knows how the endgame will look. A lot of work has been done by councils, which has cost them a lot of money. Much of the work has been done by consultants and councils fear that a lot of it is likely to be wasted as a result of council amalgamations. Much has been said about the benefits of council amalgamations. “Big is better” is usually the standard line; councils will get efficiencies if they amalgamate. Certainly, that has not necessarily been the outcome in other jurisdictions where amalgamations have taken place. I refer to an article in The Daily Telegraph dated 27 May 2013. It is, basically, comments made by Professor Brian Dollery, who is an expert on local government amalgamations. He claims that amalgamations in Queensland came with an average cost to ratepayers of $7 million per council. He said that in Queensland the forced mergers cost councils $168 million. Another question goes with the question of how much money will be needed, as the money not in the budget cannot be found anywhere. The other part of that is: who will pick up that responsibility? We have to find a couple of hundred million or $300 million or whatever, and it is not in the budget papers and it is not seen as a spending risk. Therefore, is it the case—the minister may be able to answer this—that local governments will be forced to pick up their own cost of amalgamation? Perhaps through her advisers the minister can find out that information for us, because I am sure that local governments would be very, very interested to know, firstly, whether they will be forced into amalgamation and, secondly, whether they will be forced to pay for the amalgamation. It is a very brave government that will do this. If the government expects to be successful at the next election after denying local ratepayers the right to have a say through a democratic process by circumventing the Dadour provisions, I suggest it thinks again. If it thinks forcing local councils to do what they do not want to do—that is, to amalgamate with other councils that they do not want to amalgamate with—is a good policy, it better think again. It is crazy-brave, in my view, for this government to think that it will win a third term at the next election if it forces this on people and on councils who do not want this reform. It is crazy-crazy-brave. Hon Nick Goiran: I heard you say that locals do not really care about amalgamations. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: There are some locals who care, but the vast majority do not. Hon Nick Goiran: If people do not care, why would it affect the vote? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am being rudely interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): You are indeed, member, and I have taken down members’ names who will be seeking the call after we have heard the rest of your speech. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Just finally, the other day I read a very interesting letter to the Subiaco Post. The editor of the Subiaco Post, Bret Christian, needs to be congratulated as he keeps all his readers well informed on local government reform. Hon Michael Mischin: He keeps you well informed anyway! Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: He keeps me well informed. A very good letter was sent in by Colin Latchem, the chairman of the Western Suburbs Alliance in Sherwood Road, Dalkeith. He sent this letter to the paper and the paper subsequently printed it. It is dated 15 February 2014, and it is headed “Mergers will hit us all in the hip pocket”. I want to read into Hansard a number of the questions that Mr Latchem poses. In fact, I might as well read the lot. It reads — How can the electorate stand by and let Local Government Minister Tony Simpson, under Premier Colin Barnett’s orders, ram through council amalgamations? No public hearings. No publication of costly and time-consuming submissions. No verifiable evidence of benefits. As we face cuts in hospital and other services and increased taxes and charges in the forthcoming budget, surely we can expect Mr Simpson to answer three simple questions. 1. How many tens of millions has this process cost us so far in consultancies, studies, reports and meetings at the state and local government level? 2. What will the amalgamation process actually cost us? 3. What evidence can you give us that we shall be any better off financially?

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 271

The process that has brought us to this point has not been transparent, democratic or in accord with the Dadour Amendment. Evidence shows that amalgamations in other states have cost ratepayers dearly. Make no mistake, it is inevitable that: 1. The mayors of these larger councils will be paid salaries three to four times greater than at present. Councillors will receive payments of $120,000 per annum (plus expenses) rather than being reimbursed expenses as at present. CEOs and administrative staff will also receive massive wage rises in keeping with their increased responsibilities. 2. Our councillors will no longer be independent community representatives but aligned with the major political parties. 3. Our local representatives will have such large constituencies that it will be almost impossible to get their attention and support. 4. We shall have even less opportunity to challenge the property developers who have all along been openly in support of amalgamation. 5. The nature of our suburbs will be changed forever. 6. This will hit our pockets. I agree with everything that is identified by Mr Colin Latchem. I congratulate him for his clear and concise submission of the key issues surrounding local council amalgamations. To go back to my earlier point, this policy is very poorly thought out. It is bad policy. Its implementation has been shocking. It has not been costed, and no budget allocation has been made for it. It is lacking in transparency. This is a bad way to do business in Western Australia. The councils have had enough. They have been involved in a process that has cost them and their ratepayers dearly. This is reflected in increases in local government rates and charges. I do not know what the outcome will be. However, I can count, and I suspect that this will become law. As I said earlier, it is a very brave government that would go down this line. I hope that when the Minister for Mental Health responds, we will get some fulsome answers about the resourcing of this measure. Hon Nick Goiran: Do you support this bill? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I have told the member two times already what our position is, and I am not going to tell him a third time. He will have to read Hansard tomorrow. The PRESIDENT: I note that Hon Kate Doust stood to receive the call, but noting the time I will interrupt her contribution to take members’ statements. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM Statement HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [9:45 pm]: I was fortunate enough after a committee meeting this morning to have 15 minutes for a quick coffee in Hay Street. I happened to pick up a newspaper, the Western Suburbs Weekly, dated yesterday. Looking through the headlines, of course the first thing I came across was an article about sharks and drum lines. I thought it appropriate as the Shooters and Fishers Party representative that I put on record tonight my feelings on drum lines and sharks. A couple of interesting comments were made by Dr Peter Sprivulis, who works for the University of WA in emergency medicine. The article states in part — The specialist in snake and other dangerous species’ bites found great whites were responsible for 10 of the 12 fatal attacks in the four decades … The 11th fatal attack’s species was unknown and the 12th’s was a tiger shark. Hon Lynn McLaren indicated in her comments yesterday that there had not been any tiger shark attacks. According to this expert, there have been tiger shark attacks. It is also interesting to note that the article states that two of the key points made by Peter Sprivulis are that shark attack increase is linked to humpback whale population rising by 10 per cent annually; and winter divers in the south west are three to 11 times more likely to be attacked by a shark than be involved in a fatal cycling crash.

272 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Like everybody here, I would not like to see sharks endangered or any marine life endangered for that matter. I think it is very difficult to deny that whale populations have increased fourfold in the past 15 years. Seal populations have also exploded, particularly New Zealand fur seals, and our shark fisheries have been limited to a couple of gillnet licences in the south west. Putting all those things in place, of course shark populations will exponentially grow. Like any other animal species, when the numbers get too high they need to be sensibly managed. Of course drum lining has been controversial, but unfortunately until a better method of dealing with sharks is found it seems to be consistent with what other jurisdictions in Australia are using. I personally feel that the potential benefit to public safety by using drum lines in reducing shark numbers at this point in time significantly outweighs the environmental impact. A lot of parallels have been drawn with cycling; that a person is more likely to be killed on a pushbike than swimming in the ocean, but we have to understand that there are a lot more pushbikes on the road and a lot more people riding bicycles on the road than there are people in the water at any one time. We have had seven attacks in three years; 20 attacks in 100 years. Something is terribly out of balance with our marine environment. Some people may believe that sharks are more important than human life. Personally, I do not find that. Several members interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: It has been said to me. I find it abhorrent. To me, human life is paramount. Hon Ken Travers: What kind of people do you hang out with? The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon RICK MAZZA: If Hon Ken Travers likes, he can have his say on this later. At this point in time I am putting forward how I feel about this matter. I truly believe that human life is paramount. People should be able to go to the beach and they should be able to recreate in the ocean in relative safety. Sure, there is a small risk but at the moment we are finding there is a huge amount of risk. Some members may have watched the program 60 Minutes on Sunday night. People have different opinions on 60 Minutes, but we cannot get away from the fact that people have been harassing the girlfriend or widow, if you like, of Christopher Boyd, who was the last person taken by a shark. Krystle Westwood has been told to get over it, amongst other things that she has been told to do, which she did not want to disclose on that program. I find that absolutely despicable. Sure, people can campaign if they feel that something goes against what they believe in, but to then attack someone who is grieving over the loss of someone is absolutely despicable. It is disgraceful. Further in that program a member of the anti-shark culling campaign, whose name I cannot remember at this point of time, openly said that he would even consider, for want of a better word, stalking the Premier in trying to get his point across. Then people were shown on surfboards wearing black bandannas on their faces like some sort of terrorist. If people believe the shark mitigation program is wrong, they can protest, but they should not go to these levels. It is something that really concerns me greatly. One criticism I make of this program, though, is the waste we are finding at this point in time with the sharks that are caught. Those sharks are dragged out to sea and discarded and I cannot understand why, if we want to find out more about these sharks, we cannot use the larger sharks for scientific research. I do not know what the reason is for being unable to do that. It has been suggested to me that there is a federal issue as to why that cannot be done, but I think we could better use those carcasses rather than waste them. The other issue, as part of the food chain, is that we are now limited to some gillnet fisheries in the south west. I personally believe those licences should be bought out because those gillnets take a lot of bycatch and can be quite detrimental to the environment. However, there is nothing wrong with longlining and a good professional shark fisherman can longline; they can specifically target species like bronze whalers and other sharks that can be quite readily used as a food source and sold to fish and chip shops and fish shops. That would maybe cut down on the number of sharks out there without wasting them. There has been a lot of concern expressed to me by recreational fisherman, and it is an indication of how many sharks are out there these days, that for the first time in the 20 to 30 years that they have been fishing in the south west they are having sharks take their fish before they get them in the boat. That suggests to me that we have large numbers of sharks out there. I have fished in the south west for a long time and it has never happened to me, but many others are suggesting that it is happening to them quite regularly. JUDITH ENRIGHT Statement HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [9.53 pm]: A female pioneer of the Pilbara, and a friend, passed away last month. Judith Enright was born in 1938 and was raised in Queensland. She was the eldest child in a family of three girls and after school she studied and graduated as a primary school teacher, but continued to live at home to assist the family with finances. Judith continued to be a teacher until she had a daughter, Kathrine. As a single mother, Judith failed to gain approval from her parents, decided to start afresh in Port Hedland in 1971 and raised her daughter on her own. Judith rose above those opinions and went on to continue

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 273 teaching privately while raising her daughter. She was a very strong woman to make such a move to a remote town in Western Australia so far from home and she liked the challenge and did not mind the heat. The break from teaching while raising her daughter started her interest in volunteering and she joined of range of groups that she was involved in well into her senior years. She was a community-minded person and her interest in helping others started in a local Catholic church organising hymns, playing at services, singing in a choir and assisting at Sunday school for the children. Judith was elected and served as a shire councillor for Port Hedland in the early 1990s in the days when women were starting to be elected more to leadership roles. Over the years she was a volunteer for the Red Cross and the Blood Bank. She was involved in St Cecilia’s and St John the Baptist parishes organ playing, running the Sunday school for children and generally being a good parishioner. As a recipient of help from St Vincent de Paul she gave back by volunteering her time for that agency for many years. She was involved in the Pilbara Music Festival from 1984 to last year and was a member of the Rostrum club. Judith was able to buy her first house in South Hedland from an inheritance and it was one of the first non- mining homes in the area. Her daughter Katherine attended the local primary school and received a scholarship to attend a Catholic high school outside of Hedland. Katherine later married and moved away, but, before she did, she had four children, whom Judith loved dearly. Judith spent plenty of time with Asha, her eldest grandchild, who now has an eight-month-old daughter. Judith stayed in Hedland and continued to teach at Port Hedland Primary School until she turned 60. Retirement only meant that she could get around town more to do the things she liked, such as writing. She published three books, two of them religious and a book of self-written poetry. These books are available in the libraries in the Town of Port Hedland. Judith was well-known around South Hedland as the older lady who walked everywhere in the heat of the day to the shops or library, always pulling her trolley bag behind her. Judith was an active member of the South Hedland branch of the ALP, which she joined in 1993. She was the branch treasurer for over 10 years and at various times she held the positions of membership officer, Kalgoorlie north electorate council delegate and delegate to the WA Labor State Conference. Judith was always the first to volunteer her time for the Labor Party, whether it was serving on committees, sitting at polling booths in the summer sun, campaigning for elections, organising fundraisers and social events, and even writing letters to the editor of the local papers. At the WA Labor State Conference in 2013, Judith was recognised for her service to the party with life membership. She was a much-loved member of the South Hedland branch and will always be remembered for her support, passion and sense of humour. It was a very sad passing of a wonderful lady. Judith was last visited a few weeks ago on a Friday afternoon. She was delivered meals on wheels. It was early the next week that meals on wheels again went to visit Judith to deliver her meal for the day, only this time there was no answer at the house. After expressing some concern, people eventually got into the house and Judith was found. She had passed away over the weekend. It was found out at the time that Judith did not have air conditioning in her house and had simply perished over the weekend. This would not be an isolated case. Many people in the north west cannot afford air conditioning and many seniors in the north west rarely get visitors. It was a sad passing of a wonderful lady. She will be missed by the Port Hedland and South Hedland branches of the Labor Party. She will certainly be missed by me. Rest in peace, Judith Enright. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Statement HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [9.57 pm]: I want to follow up briefly on my statement from last night. Members who were here may recall that I was considering the whole issue of standing order 108(2) with respect to answers to questions on notice and the whole issue of what it means to receive a response within or including nine sitting days and what the process is thereafter. As I identified last night, the situation was that I was to receive a response by today or otherwise certain actions were due to take place. For those members who were away, I will explain what happened last night. Hon Ken Travers always likes to help me with my speeches and midway through what I was saying yesterday he stated, according to the uncorrected proof of Hansard , “I suspect that when you get the answer, it won’t answer your question anyway.” In response, according to the uncorrected proof of Hansard, I said, “Possibly, although the last time the department was helpful.” Hon Ken Travers also said something a little later that I want to get to in a moment, but the first thing I need to say is that I did get an answer today. I am pleased to inform Hon Ken Travers that they did answer the question and, indeed, it was helpful. In fact, it was incredibly helpful, and I do not believe that they realise how helpful they have been. However, that will be a discussion for another day. This is not the day, and certainly eight minutes will be insufficient to explain all that.

274 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

I want to go to Hon Ken Travers’ second comment yesterday. According to the uncorrected proof of Hansard, he said — I think one of the problems now is that some—not all—ministers’ officers don’t provide the answer until the ninth day. They will have it sitting there on their desk and they sit on it and wait until the ninth day. Some ministers don’t do that. I think that is something that needs to be looked at. Mr President, it is interesting that I was provided with the answer today on exactly the ninth day. I do not know how long it had been sitting there waiting. It is, to be charitable, possible that some final work needed to be dealt with yesterday. Remember, the department had the whole two months of the summer recess, but it is quite a technical area and possibly it needed that one extra day to get the answer over the line and insert the final figures. It is possible. I probably could not say that it is probable, but it is possible. I like to be charitable, Mr President, so I will leave that one alone. However, I do think that Hon Ken Travers made an interesting point yesterday about the possibility that things might sit on people’s desks until the ninth day. That is indeed interesting. I hope that is not the case. Maybe it is. As Hon Ken Travers said, maybe it is something that needs to be looked at. Mr President, I was, of course, as always very interested in your final remarks yesterday evening in which, if I paraphrase, you quite rightly reminded me that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges and that I have the ability to raise that matter in that committee. I accept that advice, Mr President. It is certainly something that I knew before I made my contribution last night. However, as a member of that committee, I do think that on a matter like this that affects all of us it is appropriate to flesh out the issues and to aerate them in this environment first just to get a bit of a sense of the vibe in the room — Hon Sue Ellery: The vibe is good! Hon NICK GOIRAN: Ha, ha—and whether there might be some genuine and authentic support for the idea of looking at something like that. I have had a bit of a warm feeling from members opposite over the last 24 hours, and that is quite unusual, Mr President. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Let us not go there, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, because I am limited to only another five minutes, regrettably. I think it is a matter worthy of some consideration. I very much thank Hon Helen Morton, the minister representing the relevant minister who provided the answer today, as always for her diligence and conscientiousness in ensuring that I was provided with the answer. I never had any doubt that this most excellent minister would ensure that that was done. Yesterday my grumble was more about the system than the people concerned. I think that the system warrants a little investigation. Perhaps—to borrow the phrase from Hon Phil Edman, who said it a few times tonight—there is always room for improvement. I think that is certainly the case with the words of the standing order. With those comments, Mr President, I foreshadow that I might continue to pursue this matter in that jurisdiction that you referred to last night. House adjourned at 10.03 pm ______

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 275

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

ROADS — INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE 635. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the reference, in the Main Roads Western Australia Annual Report 2012 on page 7, to road infrastructure damaged by natural disasters over the last twelve months, and I ask: (a) which roads were damaged and what natural disasters caused each instance of damage; (b) what was the extent of the damage in each case; and (c) the report says $41 million was provided to reinstate and reopen roads after natural disaster, yet on page 115 the report says the average cost of network maintenance per kilometre of road network target was not met largely due to excessive unfunded expenditure arising from declared natural disasters, what was the total cost of damage caused to roads by natural disasters referred to in the report? Hon Jim Chown replied: (a) In excess of 1 000 Local and State Government owned roads within the Great Southern, South West, Gascoyne, Midwest, Goldfields–Esperance, Kimberley, Wheatbelt North, Wheatbelt South and Pilbara districts were damaged as a result of 15 proclaimed natural disasters. These events are recorded by Australian Government Reference Number and DFES Event Name: 341 DFES Event Name: Tropical lows and associated flooding 364 Tropical Cyclone Laurence and associated flooding 384 West Coast Storm 418 Monsoonal low and associated flooding 427 Severe thunderstorm 433 Severe thunderstorms 434 Tropical Cyclone Carlos 435 Severe weather 436 Severe thunderstorms and associated flooding 440 Monsoonal trough and associated flooding 445 Severe thunderstorm (Toodyay) 453 Severe storm 465 Severe thunderstorms and associated flooding 470 Severe thunderstorms and associated flooding 487 Tropical Cyclone Lua and associated flooding (b) The extent of the damage ranged from complete loss of the road asset due to flooding or damage to unsealed pavement down to less significant damage such as scouring of unsealed shoulders, damage to signage or trees and debris across the road. (c) The total cost of damage was $46.8m of which $41.4m was provided for by the Australian Government via the Department of Fire and Emergency Services. Expenditure related to the above natural disaster events was unbudgeted / unfunded when the target was set for 2011–12 and therefore contributed to the increase in the average cost of network maintenance as reported in the Main Roads Annual Report. CYCLEWAYS 636. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the references to community satisfaction with cycle ways and pedestrian facilities in the Main Roads Western Australia Annual Report 2012, and I ask: (a) what is the reason for the sharp drop in community satisfaction with cycle ways and pedestrian facilities from 90 per cent last year to just 76 per cent this year; (b) is information available to distinguish between the reasons for this dissatisfaction in regional areas from those in the metropolitan area; (c) if yes to (b), will the Minister provide this information; and (d) what action is being undertaken to halt the decline of community satisfaction with cycle ways and pedestrian facilities?

276 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

Hon Jim Chown replied: (a) There are a number of elements that affected the 2012 score such as the significant increase in the number of people cycling in Perth and the significant increase in road work projects being undertaken, which have temporarily impacted pedestrian and cycling facilities including; City of Perth upgrades, Perth City Link works, road closures and detours. (b) No. (c) Not applicable. (d) The completion of projects impacting on pedestrian and cycling facilities will improve the situation. In addition, the Western Australia Bicycle Network plan 2012–2020 and Bikewest’s Integrated Transport System initiatives for cyclists and pedestrians will work to address many of these concerns in the medium to longer term. COALFIELDS HIGHWAY — MAINTENANCE 637. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the wear and tear on road networks caused by trucks, and I ask: (a) the closure of tier three railways will result in additional grain trucks using the Coalfields Highway, what measures are in place to deal with the resultant increased maintenance needs of the highway; (b) the Government secures road maintenance contributions from the resources sector, will similar contributions be sought from the agricultural sector or grain transporters; and (c) if no to (b), how will additional maintenance for our roads be funded? Hon Jim Chown replied: (a) Main Roads does not expect any significant or noticeable increase in the maintenance requirements of Coalfields Highway as a result of tier 3 rail closures. It is worth noting that the Liberal-led Government has invested over $53m to improve the Coalfields Highway, which is in stark contrast to the previous Labor Government who did not invest a single dollar in their two terms of Government. (b)–(c) No. ROADS — ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCE 638. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to page 61 of the Main Roads Western Australia Annual Report 2012, and I ask: (a) the report states there were nine instances of environmental non-compliance on Main Roads projects in 2009, can the Minister please provide the location and details of each instance of non-compliance; (b) the report states there were 12 instances of environmental non-compliance on Main Roads projects in 2010, can the Minister please provide the location and details of each instance of non-compliance; and (c) the report states there were four instances of environmental non-compliance on Main Roads projects in 2011, can the Minister please provide the location and details of each instance of non-compliance? Hon Jim Chown replied: (a) • Tom Starcevich/Coolgardie–Esperance Highway Intersection, Grass Patch — Vegetation clearing. • Bummer Creek area, Leonora–Laverton Road, Leonora — Non-compliance with Aboriginal heritage. • Sherwood Station, Goldfields Highway, Meekatharra — Non-compliance with Aboriginal heritage. • Goldfields Highway, Wiluna — Non-compliance with ground water licence • Great Eastern Highway, Victoria Rock (Southern Cross–Coolgardie section) — Vegetation clearing. • Goldfields Highway (Lake Raeside), Leonora — Non-compliance with Aboriginal heritage. • Indian Ocean Drive, Lancelin — Diesel fuel spilled. • Indian–Ocean Drive (formerly Lancelin Cervantes Stage 2 project) — Vegetation clearing. • Northampton–Kalbarri Road — Vegetation clearing.

(b) • Coolgardie–Esperance Highway, Six Mile Hill, Myrup (Esperance) — Vegetation clearing. • Great Eastern Highway, Chidlow — contaminated soil.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 277

• Sues Road and Mowen Road, Baudin (south of Vasse Highway) — Diesel fuel spill. • Great Eastern Highway, Yellowdine — Gravel removed without approval. • Great Eastern Highway, Kundana Goldmine Road (west of Kalgoorlie) — Non-conformance with permit condition. • Goldfields Highway, Woolibar Station (south of Kalgoorlie) — Fencing was undertaken without environmental assessment. • Great Eastern Highway, Bullabulling — Vegetation clearing by a third party without approval. • Great Eastern Highway, Coolgardie — Vegetation clearing by a third party without approval. • Coolgardie–Esperance Highway, Grass Patch — Vegetation clearing by a third party without approval and dumping of waste materials. • Coolgardie–Esperance Highway, Scaddan — Vegetation clearing by a third party without approval. • South Coast Highway, Dalyup — Unwanted soil was placed within Dalyup Nature Reserve and in unallocated crown land. • Coolgardie–Esperance Highway, Six Mile Hill Myrup (Esperance) — Non-compliance with permit conditions. (c) • Northam–Toodyay Road, Katrine Bridge — Non-compliance with Aboriginal heritage. • North West Coastal Highway, Ajana — Vegetation clearing. • Indian Ocean Drive, Wilbinga — Vegetation clearing. ROADS — CLIMATE CHANGE FACTORS 639. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to page 63 of the Main Roads Western Australia Annual Report 2012, and I ask: (a) under the heading Climate Change, the Risk to Road Infrastructure, the report states there is a prioritised list of highways and major roads at risk as a result of climate change factors such as rising sea levels, will the Minister provide a full copy of this list; (b) the report states these roads require closer assessment, what assessment work is being undertaken and when will it be complete; and (c) the report says “a pilot study will be undertaken at one of the highest priority sites to identify remedial or intervention treatments to mitigate the risk”, has the site of the pilot study been confirmed: (i) if yes to (c), what is the site and has the pilot study commenced; (ii) when is the pilot study expected to be completed; and (iii) if no to (c), when will the pilot study site be confirmed? Hon Jim Chown replied: (a) [See paper 1227.] (b) The content of the report is used by Main Roads staff on a case by case basis when assessing the need to upgrade or improve road infrastructure which is located close to the WA coast. (c) (i) A joint study of the Kwinana Freeway foreshore has been initiated by Main Roads and the City of Perth. (ii) The report is expected to be completed in mid-2014. (iii) Not applicable. MAIN ROADS WA — PERFORMANCE 640. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: The Main Roads Western Australia Annual Report 2012 provides a performance scorecard which shows in multiple areas of Main Roads responsibilities, including Road Safety, Road Efficiency and Management, and State Development very low percentages of contracts being completed on time were recorded, can the Minister please explain why there was such a decline in the number of Main Roads projects being completed on time? Hon Jim Chown replied: The results for each of these measures vary from year to year. A full explanation of the measures including reasons for contracts being delivered late as verified by the Auditor General are provided in the 2011–2012 Annual Report.

278 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

DRIVING ASSESSMENTS — OLDER DRIVERS 651. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Will the Minister for Transport table copies of all the evidence he relied upon in making the decision to no longer require people over the age of 85 years to have annual driving tests? (2) If not, why not? Hon Jim Chown replied: (1)–(2) This decision brings Western Australia in line with practices in every other Australian jurisdiction except New South Wales. The following documents were used in making a determination and are available online: • The Elderly and Mobility: A Review of the Literature — Monash University Accident Research Centre. • Australian Bureau Statistics — 3222.0 Population Projections, Australia, Table B5, Population projections, by age and sex, Western Australia — Series B. • Model Licence Re-Assessment Procedure for Older and Disabled Drivers — Austroads. • Older Driver Involvement in Fatal and Severe Traffic Crashes — Journal of Gerontology. • Motor Vehicle Trauma in Northeastern Ohio: Incidence and Outcome by Age, Sex and Road-Use Category — American Journal of Epidemiology. • Northeastern Ohio Trauma Study: Injury Rates by Age, Sex and Cause — American Journal of Public Health. • Older Driver Involvement in Injury Crashes in Texas: 1975–1999 — AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. • Inter-Relationships Between British Drivers’ Visual Abilities, Age and Road Accident Histories — Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. • Retrospective Evaluation of Alternative Vision Screening Criteria for Older and Younger Drivers — Accident Analysis and Prevention. • Incidence of Visual Field Loss in 20,000 Eyes and its Relationship to Driving Performance — Archives of Ophthalmology. • Visual/Cognitive Correlates of Vehicle Accidents in Older Drivers — Psychology and Aging • Dementia and the Older Driver — Clinics in Geriatric Medicine. • Drawing Clocks and Driving Cars: Use of Brief Tests of Cognition to Screen Driving Competency in Older Adults — Journal of General Internal Medicine. • The relationship of neuropsychological functioning to driving competence in older persons with early cognitive decline — Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. • Responsibility of drivers, by age and gender, for motor-vehicle crash deaths — Journal of Safety Research. • Reported Road Crashes in Western Australia 2010 — Office of Road Safety. • Australian Road Deaths Database — Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. • Ageing and Transport: Mobility Needs and Safety Issues — Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development. • Discussion Paper: The Review of the Older Driver Licensing System in Tasmania — Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources. • The Alternative Older Driver Licensing System for Tasmania — Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources. MOTOR VEHICLES — THIRD PARTY INSURANCE CLAIMS 652. Hon Nick Goiran to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Treasurer: I refer to question on notice No. 351 answered on 19 November 2013 in which the Treasurer advised that the total dollar amount of the general damages deductible/threshold not paid on claims either settled without the need for a judgment after trial or finalised by judgment after trial for the financial year ending 30 June 2013 was $42,212,583.81, and I ask what was that same figure in each of the preceding financial years since the introduction of the general damages deductible/threshold?

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 279

Hon Helen Morton replied: 1993–1994 — $81 440 949.31 1994–1995 — $47 748 064.93 1995–1996 — $29 493 792.89 1996–1997 — $35 397 770.60 1997–1998 — $36 567 457.82 1998–1999 — $37 433 167.11 1999–2000 — $43 553 120.18 2000–2001 — $39 598 229.58 2001–2002 — $43 183 375.42 2002–2003 — $44 995 441.25 2003–2004 — $44 302 377.52 2004–2005 — $44 266 442.51 2005–2006 — $43 972 643.13 2006–2007 — $41 124 079.74 2007–2008 — $40 614 942.53 2008–2009 — $46 079 477.64 2009–2010 — $46 649 025.08 2010–2011 — $45 306 303.60 2011–2012 — $47 260 399.16 FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — CONTRACTORS 654. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Forestry: (1) Regarding the 2012–2013 financial year for the native forest logging industry, excluding sandalwood, what was the total amount paid by the Forest Products Commission (FPC) to contractors engaged in the native forest logging industry? (2) What was the cost to the FPC itself for its engagement in the native forest logging industry? (3) How much did the FPC pay to: (a) the Department of Parks and Wildlife for its involvement in the native forest logging industry; and (b) the Conservation Commission for its involvement in the native forest logging industry? Hon Ken Baston replied: (1) $26.1m (2) $10.3m (3) (a) $4.4m (b) The Conservation Commission did not receive any payment from Forest Products Commission during the 2012–2013 financial year. GENETICALLY MODIFIED WHEAT — RESEARCH 656. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: (1) How much funding is allocated to genetically modified (GM) wheat research in agricultural research and development for 2013–14? (2) What proportion of the $100,000 in research grants in the 2013–14 budget for the Rural Business Development Corporation will be allocated to GM wheat research? (3) How much public money was allocated to GM research and development over the past 15 years? (4) What have been the returns to Government from its GM research investments over the past fifteen years? (5) How much has Roundup Ready GM canola contributed to the costs of controlling glyphosate-tolerant weeds? (6) What are the estimated costs of managing herbicide-tolerant weeds in 2013–14 to: (a) Government; and (b) farmers?

280 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

(7) How much research and development funding has been allocated in 2013–14 for the development of ecologically sustainable agriculture? Hon Ken Baston replied: (1)–(2) Nil (3) Between 1998/99 and 2006/07, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (DAFWA) spent a total of $3,873,600 on genetically modified (GM) cotton research and development (R&D). Since 2007, this GM cotton R&D has been conducted in collaboration with the Cotton Cooperative Research Centre or with industry on a cost-recovery basis. In addition to cotton R&D, DAFWA spent $60,000 in 2008/09, $460,000 in 2009/10, and $222,000 in 2010/11 on development related to the commercialisation of GM canola in Western Australia. In 2010/11, the State Government allocated $9 million for the New Genes for New Environment (NGNE) facilities. The NGNE initiative was designed to enable the evaluation of the world’s best candidate GM traits from both public and private research organisations under Western Australian conditions in a highly contained and safe testing environment. There have been two GM crop trials at NGNE, and DAFWA anticipates more in the future. These trials will be conducted on a fee for service basis. (4) The only financial return DAFWA receives is in relation to GM cotton through the sale of lint and seed produced. Due to the age of these transactions it is not currently feasible to provide details of payment amounts, however, a briefing can be provided to the Hon. Member if required (5) This information is not yet available for Western Australia. (6) (a) DAFWA’s Integrated Weed Management (IWM) project comprises three full time equivalent staff members devising, designing, researching and extending the means to manage herbicide tolerant weeds. This is a direct cost in the region of $250,000 per annum. (b) Direct costs experienced by farmers to manage herbicide tolerant weeds are difficult to estimate. (7) Approximately 50 per cent of the R&D conducted by the DAFWA Integrated Weed Management project is directed towards the development of ecologically sustainable agriculture — consolidated funding of approximately $350,000 per annum. GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA — PRODUCTION 685. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: (1) How many hectares of genetically modified (GM) canola were grown in Western Australia in each of the years: (a) 2008; (b) 2009; (c) 2010; (d) 2011; (e) 2012; and (f) 2013? (2) How many tonnes of GM canola were delivered to silos in each of the years: (a) 2008; (b) 2009; (c) 2010; (d) 2011; (e) 2012; and (f) 2013? (3) How much of this GM canola has been sold and to whom was it sold? Hon Ken Baston replied: (1) (a) None (b) 860 (trial sites) (c) 72,000 (d) 90,930 (e) 124,600 [i]

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014] 281

(f) 168,500 [i] [i] Estimated figures from Monsanto based on 2.5kg/ha seeding rate (2) For the purpose of answering the question, it is assumed that the Hon. Member is referring to deliveries for each season. (a) None (b) 1,223 (c) 47,491 [ii] (d) 130,842[ii] (e) 129,883[ii] (f) Data not available yet [ii] Data provided by Cooperative Bulk Handling (CBH) on deliveries made to CBH. (3) The Department of Agriculture and Food does not have this information and suggests the Hon. Member contact the Australian Oilseeds Federation who may have information about the markets where Western Australian canola (including GM canola) is sold. NON-GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA — PRODUCTION 686. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: (1) How many hectares of non-genetically modified (GM) canola were grown in this State in each of the years: (a) 2008; (b) 2009; (c) 2010; (d) 2011; (e) 2012; and (f) 2013? (2) How many tonnes of non-GM canola were delivered to silos in each of the years: (a) 2008; (b) 2009; (c) 2010; (d) 2011; (e) 2012; and (f) 2013? (3) How much of this non-GM canola has been sold and to whom was it sold? Hon Ken Baston replied: (1) (a) 919,500 [i] (b) 981,400 [i] (c) 984,600 [i] (d) 878,070 [i] (e) 1,162,400 [i] (f) 1,002,516 [ii] [i] Calculated by deducting the hectares of GM planted from the total canola plantings as published at page 165 of the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) report “Agricultural commodity statistics 2013” [See paper 1198.]. [ii] From Cooperative Bulk Handling (CBH) survey data (2) For the purpose of answering the question, it is assumed that the Hon. Member is referring to deliveries for each season. (a) 1,175,100 [i] (b) 1,030,077 [i] (c) 659,266 [iii] (d) 1,028,954 [iii] (e) 1,114,734 [iii] (f) Data not available yet [iii] Data provided by CBH on deliveries made to CBH

282 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 19 February 2014]

(3) The Department of Agriculture and Food does not have this information and suggests the Hon. Member contact the Australian Oilseeds Federation who may have information about the markets where WA canola (including GM canola) is sold.

______