Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2014

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 12 August 2014

Legislative Council

Tuesday, 12 August 2014

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.00 pm, and read prayers. MALAYSIA AIRLINES FLIGHT MH17 Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Today, all members in this house are solemnly united as we acknowledge the devastating loss, on 17 July, of all 298 passengers and crew of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. Many Western Australians have been directly affected by this tragedy. Some of us here today knew people whose lives were taken that day; some of us know their families or friends. The rest of us can only feel profound compassion as we attempt to imagine how mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, grandparents and beloved friends will go on living in the face of such loss. On behalf of all here present, and indeed on behalf of the Western Australian community, I express our shared grief and the deepest of sympathy to all those people who have been affected by these terrible events. We will now stand and observe a minute of silence as a mark of respect for those we have lost, and in sympathy for those who have been left behind. [Members stood and observed a minute’s silence.] STATUTES (REPEALS AND MINOR AMENDMENTS) BILL 2013 Returned Bill returned from the Assembly without amendment. BILLS Assent Message from the Administrator received and read notifying assent to the following bills — 1. Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill 2013. 2. Electoral Amendment Bill 2014. 3. Revenue Laws Amendment Bill 2014. 4. Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Amendment (Validation) Bill 2014. 5. Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2013. 6. Taxi Drivers Licensing Bill 2013. HEDLAND HEALTH CAMPUS — MATERNITY WARD Petition HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [3.05 pm]: I present a petition containing 64 signatures and couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia, are in support of adequate staffing levels being established within the Maternity Ward at the Hedland Health Campus. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to support the active recruitment of additional staff to be employed in the Maternity Ward at the Hedland Health Campus. This request includes the assurance that the apparent employment freeze is lifted and that staffing levels are monitored to ensure midwives are not unfairly made to endure consecutive twelve hour shifts to make up for these shortcomings. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 1678.] GNANGARA ROAD — UPGRADE Petition HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.06 pm]: I present a petition containing 342 signatures and couched in the following terms —

4814 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents are concerned about delays to the upgrade of Gnangara Road between Alexander Drive and Pinaster Parade. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to seek a firm commitment and timetable from Government on this project and to expedite all decisions and processes that still remain required to enable work to commence. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 1679.] STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS — THIRTY-FIFTH REPORT — “INQUIRY INTO THE SANDALWOOD INDUSTRY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA” Government Response — Statement by Minister for Mental Health HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [3.06 pm]: I would like to update the Legislative Council on the government’s response to the 11 recommendations contained in the thirty- fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, titled “Inquiry into the Sandalwood Industry in Western Australia”. Firstly, I congratulate the standing committee on the completion of the second phase of this important inquiry, and I welcome the committee’s report. In the lead-up to the state election in March 2013, the government committed to introduce new biodiversity conservation legislation. I am pleased to advise that drafting instructions are progressing well, and it is intended to introduce a biodiversity conservation bill into Parliament during the current term of government. The new legislation may be an appropriate mechanism to address a number of the committee’s recommendations, including appropriate penalties for illegal harvesting or processing of sandalwood, and effective regulatory and enforcement powers to support a strong compliance culture. The committee recommended that the regulation and licensing of the sandalwood industry should be in a single agency. The government considers that this is already the case, with the Department of Parks and Wildlife responsible for these elements. As a statutory authority, the Forest Products Commission is responsible for the marketing and sale of the state’s timber resources, including sandalwood. It is not considered necessary to change this situation. The committee advocated a reduction in the quantity of sandalwood harvested from both crown and private land by recommending a review of the Sandalwood (Limitation of Removal of Sandalwood) Order 1996. The order will be reviewed before the 2016–17 season. The committee also recommended that harvesting contracts include mandatory compliance with regeneration and sustainability measures. These requirements have been reviewed, based on a research program spanning a number of years. The FPC currently implements a more effective mechanical procedure that annually sows more than 3.5 million seeds along 700 kilometres of cultivated rip line. The committee further recommended that the FPC simplify the tender process for the production of sandalwood, and the FPC has committed to doing so within state supply requirements. Two of the recommendations addressed market issues, including assistance for local manufacturers and the sale of seized, illegally harvested sandalwood. The FPC has advised that it expects that the sales strategy for 2016 onwards will continue to provide opportunities for domestic processors. The FPC and Parks and Wildlife are discussing the sale of seized sandalwood to the commission, which would then release it in a controlled manner to avoid any adverse impacts on the market. Overall, the government supports the recommendations made in the standing committee’s report and will work to implement them. I now table the government’s response. [See paper 1670.] OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH — PROPOSED LEGISLATION Statement by Minister for Commerce HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Commerce) [3.09 pm]: I rise to inform the house of the government’s intentions surrounding the continuing quest to improve occupational safety and health in Western Australia’s workplaces. The enhancement of occupational safety and health is a matter of national as well as state concern. Accordingly, since 2008 Western Australia has participated in the harmonisation process implemented under the Council of Australian Governments’ Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety. The fundamental objective of the intergovernmental agreement was to produce the optimal model for a national approach to occupational safety and health regulation and operation, one that would enable the development of uniform, equitable and effective safety standards and protections for all Australian workers; address the

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4815 compliance and regulatory burdens for employers with operations in more than one jurisdiction; create efficiencies for governments in the provision of OSH regulatory and support services; and achieve significant and continual reductions in the incidence of death, injury and disease in the workplace. The intergovernmental agreement committed each state and territory to the development by the commonwealth of national model work health and safety legislation supported by model WHS regulations and model codes of practice. Certainly, uniformity of safety standards is an important initiative that should assist all workplace participants, from large and small employers to contractors and workers, to understand what is required of them. However, while acknowledging this, it became clear, as was noted by the former chair of Safe Work Australia, Mr Tom Phillips, that as the harmonisation process progressed, it had become more about consistency across jurisdictions rather than rationalisation or reform. It is fair to say that the progress of the development of the model legislation and the regulations and codes of conduct supporting and implementing it has been plagued by delays and controversy. Despite the commonwealth government devoting enormous resources, supplemented by funding from the states and requiring the commitment of considerable resources by the states, the commonwealth repeatedly demonstrated that it was incapable of meeting the time limits it set for itself; set unrealistic time limits within which the states were required to respond to its proposals and draft legislation and supporting instruments; and was unable to formulate a uniform set of laws that would demonstrably improve work health and safety regulation in a cost-effective way. Indeed, since the signing of the intergovernmental agreement, events have moved on. Not only has there been a change of federal government, but some jurisdictions have legislated. This is of significance not only for the question of whether harmonisation as originally envisaged is possible; it also allows Western Australia the opportunity to observe their experience, to measure the costs of any changes that have been implemented and to consider the advantages and disadvantages of their having made them. In particular, what has been lacking in the national approach has been a comprehensive and robust regulatory impact assessment to determine whether what had been proposed and formulated would be not only viable but worthwhile. A national decision regulatory impact statement, or RIS, was prepared but had only a national rather than a jurisdictional focus. It eschewed separate detailed assessments for each state and territory, which might have taken into consideration specific geographic and industrial differences and needs. It did not meet the requirements of Western Australia’s regulation impact assessment process and did not address the potential impact on our state and its commerce or workplaces. Both Victoria and South Australia have published their own RISs. The Victorian RIS is uncomplimentary of the model WHS scheme and presumably informed that state’s decision not to adopt the model WHS laws. The South Australian RIS supported the implementation of the model laws. However, of late South Australia has ended a number of construction codes due to their detrimental impact on that industry. Western Australia commissioned its own RIS, which was conducted by consultants Marsden Jacob Associates. It reported its findings in December 2012. However, Marsden Jacob performed its assessment assuming that harmonisation was to occur and used the model WHS bill as its starting point, focusing not on the desirability of harmonisation through the adoption of the bill but on the advisability of adopting the proposed regulations and codes of practice. Despite its focus, the RIS reflected generally on the model WHS regime overall, including the model legislation, regulations and codes of practice. Among its findings, based on research evidence, was that WHS regulation and regulatory activity suitable for large businesses is not equally suitable for small businesses; a big business regulatory approach is much more likely to fail small businesses and potentially lead to a decline in safety; and the benefits and costs of harmonisation will differ across types of business. The report states — The benefits of harmonisation per se are therefore often not directly relevant to small businesses which operate the 96 per cent of workplaces and account for 49 per cent of employment across WA. It also found that some of the model WHS regulations would present challenges for employers in small businesses and those in regional areas, which is obviously not a desirable outcome of a process established to create optimal legislation. It concluded — Between the two extremes of complete rejection or complete acceptance — Of the model WHS regulations — finer consideration is required. Accordingly, I table the Marsden Jacob Associates RIS, which will also be published this week on the website of the WorkSafe division of the Department of Commerce. While the WA government continues to support the idea of occupational safety and health consistency across jurisdictions in principle, it does not support entering into uniform schemes for their own sake or consider that harmonisation is a desirable end in itself. The state government takes the view that the paramount consideration is that any changes made to our occupational safety and health regulatory regime should be in the best interests

4816 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] of Western Australian workers and workplaces. There is a serious and well-founded concern on the part of the government that implementation of the proposed model WHS scheme has the potential to be detrimental to workplace safety in Western Australia. Western Australia’s OHS regime has been and continues to be a sound one. Its effectiveness is clearly evidence by the statistics for lost time, injuries and diseases and traumatic work- related fatalities, which, since the commencement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, continue to decline, notwithstanding the increase in WA’s population and workforce and the increasing complexity of our work environments. Nevertheless, it is important that we review our current legislation to ensure it continues to be appropriate for a modern and developing working environment, and strives for the best achievable practices. Further, as I have acknowledged, there are advantages in having some uniformity in standards across jurisdictions to promote understanding of what is required at the workplace by those who operate over jurisdictions. In view of the lack of a sound case for blanket uniformity and the failure of the harmonisation process, the state government’s view is that the best approach is to develop a version of the model WHS legislation that is tailored to Western Australia’s environment. As I have indicated, we are not alone in this respect, as other jurisdictions have also made adjustments to their model WHS legislation to suit their local conditions. Accordingly, I propose to introduce a Western Australian version of the model WHS bill, based on the model WHS law and reflecting its core provisions, but refined to reduce red tape and to maintain the compliance burden at an acceptable level. I intend it to be a green bill, inviting public comment for a period of three months. In May this year, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to investigate ways in which the model WHS laws could be improved, with a particular focus on reducing red tape. This review is underway and is due to be completed by the end of the year. It will look at whether the model WHS laws are evidenced-based, cost- effective and proportional to the WHS risks they seek to address; are simple and streamlined; and, when possible, allow duty holders flexibility in how they comply with their obligations. The outcome of this review, together with the comments submitted on the green bill and the Western Australian RIS, will provide a foundation upon which the government can consider the best WHS regime for Western Australia. This will also meet our requirements for a statutory review, as required under section 61 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. Taking this approach, I am confident that the state government can craft the best version of the model WHS legislation, and one that will be adapted to and suitable for the Western Australian working environment. [See paper 1680.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from 26 June on the following motion moved by Hon Helen Morton (Minister for Mental Health) — That pursuant to standing order 69(1), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 1449A–E (2014–15 budget papers) laid upon the table of the house on Thursday, 8 May 2014. HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [3.22 pm] — in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the 2014–15 budget. As members are aware, the budget has been framed in very difficult circumstances, while the economy is expected to remain strong and easing of growth is expected as business investment continues to moderate from its recent peak. This moderation in domestic economic conditions is flowing through to lower employment and wages growth. This in turn is resulting in weaker growth in taxation collections, particularly payroll tax, the state’s largest tax base. At the same time as our tax collections are moderating, the lag nature of the GST distribution process means that we are receiving significantly less GST revenue from the commonwealth. Given the subdued revenue outlook and continuing strong demand for government services driven by a rapidly expanding population, this budget includes a new package of revenue and savings measure totalling $2 billion over the next four years. The new corrective measures implemented in this budget have enabled significant additional funding to key front-line services while still projecting general government operating surpluses. In 2014–15 alone the government is increasing appropriation to WA Health by $480 million or 11.4 per cent, education by $200 million or 5.6 per cent, the Disability Services Commission by $53 million or 8.3 per cent, the Mental Health Commission by $55 million or 9.7 per cent, and child protection and family support by $32 million or six per cent. In this way, the budget is ensuring that we continue to protect the most vulnerable in our community and achieve sustainable financial outcomes into the future. This budget provides for an asset investment program of $6.7 billion in 2014–15, with the total investment of $23.7 billion over the next four years. This investment reflects the state government’s extensive commitment to improving public infrastructure, ensuring ongoing access to quality schools and hospitals, modern road, rail and power networks, and other essential infrastructure. Of note, the delivery of key health infrastructure projects has been the

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4817 hallmark of this government, and the Liberal–National government is spending $7 billion to upgrade and redevelop the state’s hospitals and health services. This incorporates expenditure on three new hospitals for the Perth metropolitan area, as well as four new major health campuses and six other new healthcare facilities in regional Western Australia. The government’s infrastructure spending enhances the provision of high quality government services to all members of the community regardless of income. Balancing the state’s ability to meet the demand for services and infrastructure, keep increases in tax and charges within reason and deliver sustainable financial outcomes is a challenging task for the government. Nevertheless, the 2014–15 budget achieves these objectives by responding to the state’s changing economic circumstances, building on the government’s achievements and focusing on delivering essential reform while also responding to growth in demand for health, education, disability services, child protection and other front-line services. It is a budget in which tough but responsible decisions have been made to secure our economic future. Once again, I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the recent state budget. Question put and passed. APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) RECURRENT 2014–15 BILL 2014 APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) CAPITAL 2014–15 BILL 2014 Cognate Debate Leave granted for the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Recurrent 2014–15 Bill 2014 and the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Capital 2014–15 Bill 2014 to be considered cognately. Second Reading — Cognate Debate Resumed from 25 June. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.28 pm]: Mr President, I commence my remarks by joining in the remarks you made earlier this afternoon passing on the condolences of this chamber to the many people in not only Western Australia, but also Australia and around the world who lost family or friends on flight MH17. I concur with you in that, and I know there are a lot of people in Western Australia who were severely touched by this. An officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food was one of those people, and we should all note that; and as the shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food, I am sure that, along with the minister, we pass on all of our sympathies and condolences to the staff in the Department of Agriculture and Food who were affected and touched by this incident. Having said that, I move on to the matter before the house this afternoon—the debate on the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Recurrent 2014–15 Bill 2014, which is to be an act to grant supply and appropriate and apply out of the consolidated account some $19 020 283 000 as supply granted for the current financial year. On top of those funds, other moneys are standing appropriations that will be spent by the Barnett government. We are concurrently debating the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Capital 2014–15 Bill 2014, which is a bill to appropriate $2 484 968 000. Of course, that is only a small component of the capital works program, because—I am sure we will continue to have debates about this over coming years—significant money will be borrowed for the capital works program. I look forward to when we next debate a loan bill, which is something that has been rare in the past but is becoming all too frequent for the Barnett government. I want to focus heavily on my portfolio areas on behalf of the opposition. At the outset, I do not know whether I have done this formally in the chamber, but I congratulate Dean Nalder on his appointment as Minister for Transport; Finance. I have lost track of exactly how many Ministers for Transport I have now shadowed; I think it is around four. Some have been and gone and then come back, and there has been a fairly constant turnover. Hon Liz Behjat: You will always be the shadow. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Sorry, there are noises from the backbench on the other side of the chamber. The PRESIDENT: Order! It was an unruly interjection. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I wish the latest Minister for Transport for the Barnett government all the very best in the portfolio. It is a very wide-ranging and challenging portfolio. I think it is fair to say that the minster has to pick up a fair degree of mess left for him to sort out because for the past four or five years of the Barnett government, there has been no proper planning or process and the focus has been completely on the politics of issues and very little on policy. I always approach politics from the position that we have to get good policy first, and then turn that into good politics. Starting with the politics and not worrying about good policy will, over the long term, get one into deep and considerable trouble. If a party makes politics the issue at an election, post the election, the party is either left to implement poor policy outcomes, which ultimately it will always be found out on, or the party has to change its policies and break the policies it took to the electorate. My personal view is that the vast majority of people for the majority of my time in politics have been people who sought to act with integrity on the commitments and promises they have made. Sometimes circumstances change and people are

4818 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] forced to break their election commitments. I think that is a very different proposition from people going to an election and telling what they know to be complete lies to the electorate. Hon Nick Goiran: Is that like the carbon tax? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I think that is a perfect example, Hon Nick Goiran, in which circumstances after an election changed. I am more than happy and will talk about the carbon tax in my comments this afternoon—do not worry about that, Hon Nick Goiran! The member’s government is not showering itself with merit in that area. Circumstances change. But if a party goes to an election promising to build infrastructure that it knows it has no capacity to build and that will be useless unless it does other things first or if a party makes an issue of something such as the location of stations at the airport a key defining issue, knowing that they would be built in the wrong location, and in making that promise is deliberately lying to the people of Western Australia, they are very different things from circumstances changing. I refer to when people know the circumstances and their actions are cold and calculated. My history in this place is that that has not been the case. Hon Nick Goiran: That is what she said, “There will be no carbon tax.” You are somehow trying to differentiate. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I hope that if that is Hon Nick Goiran’s view of the world, when I sit down — Hon Nick Goiran: I cannot believe you don’t agree. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I put two things to Hon Nick Goiran: Prime Minister Julia Gillard said that she always wanted an emissions trading scheme and a price on carbon, and when the circumstances changed, the carbon tax was the best and only way to get that because of the intransigence of the Liberal Party, which had previously promised to bring in an emissions trading scheme, but it changed its position after misleading the people of Australia prior to the election when it said that it would support that position. Nonetheless, if Hon Nick Goiran is so outraged about that tax, I look forward to him standing in this place when I finish speaking and directing his comments to the President and railing against the clear and deliberate broken promises of the Barnett government, which clearly went to the election promising more than it could deliver on public transport and things it knew were wrong—and I promise not to interject. Let us go through some of these issues. I focus on the recurrent issues first. In the budget before us today, we have one of the most fundamental changes I have seen a government make to the way that it treats people in regional Western Australia that I have seen for a long time. I have always taken the view that we should seek to treat everybody in Western Australia equally. People who have to pay government charges should pay the same charges no matter where they live. Whether people live in Perth, Albany, Kununurra or Port Hedland, they should pay the same fee if it is to get the same government service. This budget changes all of that. I have no doubt the answer from the government will be that this is just a small amount for these matters, but it fundamentally changes the principle of universal tariffs. Of course, when the Liberal Party was in government back in the 1990s, the now Premier was very keen to get rid of universal tariffs for household electricity charges. Thankfully, a campaign led by Geoff Gallop and Eric Ripper stopped that from occurring and as a result, to this day, residential consumers of electricity pay the same no matter where they live. However, as a result of the Barnett government’s latest budget, as from 1 July this year people taking their motor vehicle in for inspection to meet the requirements of government legislation will pay different amounts depending upon where they live. For example, people living in Port Hedland will have to pay 19 per cent more than what people in Perth pay. People in Kununurra will pay 15 per cent more, and in Geraldton and the goldfields, 4.5 per cent more. I think that is absolutely outrageous and it is my intention at a later stage to seek to move a motion of disallowance of the regulations that allow that to happen. I give members notice now to go away and start thinking about this, and about whether they actually believe that people in regional Western Australia should not be treated equally, and should have to pay a fee for the delivery of government services based on cost recovery. Where does it stop? Do we charge a boat owner in Dampier more than we charge a boat owner in Perth? We could go on and on. Do we charge people greater motor vehicle licence fees because they have longer roads in the Pilbara and Kimberley? This is a fundamental change, and I think it is something that everyone in this house should be incredibly concerned about. I can assure members that Hon Darren West, Hon Stephen Dawson and I will be campaigning long and hard on this. Hon Darren West: It’s not fair. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is not fair; it will fundamentally change the way people are treated, and it will not stop. If this is passed, future governments will continue to expand and look for opportunities to increase cost recovery, and it will make the cost of living in those areas even higher than it already is. The irony of it all is that the government argued that it was basing this on a regional price index—the same regional price index that says it is actually cheaper to live in certain regions of Western Australia; but did the government then say, “Well, we’ll reduce the fee that they pay”? No. The government argued that it was moving down a path of privatisation of motor vehicle inspections and therefore had to use authorised inspection centres rather than government employees for the inspection of motor vehicles. When we get to debate on the disallowance motion I will go into

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4819 a lot of detail. I am happy to brief members on these matters outside the chamber. There are many other ways for the government to ensure that its privatised inspection services in the Pilbara, Kimberley, goldfields and midwest recover a reasonable return on the services they provide without damaging the principle of universal government fees and charges. That is the first thing in this budget that I think is absolutely outrageous and needs to be contended. I am pleased that members raised the issue of the carbon tax earlier during this afternoon’s debate. On 1 July the Barnett government increased public transport fees by 10c for zones 1 to 6, and by 20c for zones 7 to 9. It was very clear at the time: an increase of 10c was announced in the 2012–13 budget, and the government said that it was due to inflation, but it also said that there would be a further increase because of the carbon tax. This is the Liberal Party, at both state and federal level, that claimed that the carbon tax would add to Western Australians’ cost of living. The Liberal Party said that it would remove the carbon tax to bring down the cost of living; that is an issue on which it went to the people, and on which Tony Abbott was elected. Members opposite may not have realised, they may have been asleep or on holiday, but the carbon tax was removed about three or four weeks ago and the savings on energy prices are to be backdated to 1 July, so the additional costs being incurred by the Public Transport Authority will not be incurred. Have we seen public transport fares come down by 10c? No. We have heard the Treasurer mumble something about complexities and how everything needs to be moved in 10c allotments. Absolutely, it has to be moved in 10c allotments; if we put it up by 10c, we bring it down by 10c. Every day that the government fails to do this, it is collecting another $10 000 from the commuters of Western Australia, and that is on top of the $2 a day it collects from people who park at train stations, and all its other fees and charges. Where are the voices of the Liberal Party backbench today complaining about the fact that their government is using the carbon tax to continue to rip people off? It is not good enough to say that it will be done in the midyear review. I will lay London to a brick that if it is done in the midyear review, the government will not agree to backdating fare increases, even for SmartRider. Of course, those people who have bought cash tickets cannot be backdated. If the Liberal Party were really serious about the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living in Australia, as soon as it was announced that the carbon tax had been repealed, it would have reduced public transport fares by the 10c it was increased by. Of course, it has not. What kind of example is that to businesses throughout Australia? If governments like the Barnett government can rip people off, why would not every other business in Australia take the same approach? “Oh, it’s all very complex; we have to spend six months contemplating our navels before we can work this out, even though it was very simple at the time we increased prices.” It went up by 10c, bring it down by 10c. That is pretty straightforward. There is also money in this budget for the government’s taxi action plan. I say at the outset that I support reform of the taxi industry; anyone who sat in this chamber as we went through the Taxi Drivers Licensing Bill 2013 will know that I support reform of the taxi industry. I have campaigned for reform of the taxi industry for some considerable time—things like better complaints mechanisms and ensuring that the industry is meeting demand. The government’s approach of just releasing more plates, whilst it will have some impact, still does not fulfil and answer all of the problems in the industry. We have to have tools to allow the industry to better respond to areas in which it is not meeting public demand. It is clear that complaints and the standard of taxidrivers are two such areas in which the industry has not met public expectations. That is why I have advocated a central, coordinated, easy-to-use complaints system. That would be a good start. I have also argued that releasing more plates is not the answer, but that there are ways in which we could use the plates that are already out there more efficiently. One of the problems is that there often might be taxis out there, but they simply will not go to the jobs that people need them to go to. Taxi dispatch services need to have some ability to direct taxis to go to specific jobs or to be based in specific areas; that would be a good measure. Of course, it will cost taxidrivers if they have to meet those requirements, but there is the capacity within the $13 000 that the government charges per year for a leased plate to be able to negotiate with the industry a discount to allow drivers to meet demands such as being available at times when the dispatch services want them to be available or to be located in particular areas. We could go to places such as Bunbury or Mandurah. In Bunbury, the cooperative always ensures that a taxi is based in the Australind area to meet the demand of the people in Australind. That is a good way of operating. We need to be able to give those tools to the industry in Western Australia, and I have been talking about that for a long time. There is also no doubt that technology will change the way in which the industry operates. For some considerable time—this is not new—the government has been meeting with and talking to groups such as Uber and goCatch. On the weekend, the libertarians of the Liberal Party, led by that intellectual giant Paul Miles, as I understand it, put up a motion that the government should remove all barriers to the introduction of Uber into Western Australia. It is funny that Hon Robyn McSweeney is laughing about that, because I am going to get to people like her who have railed against the erosion of private property rights in this Parliament for some time. A very simplistic motion was put forward that said that all the barriers to entry into the industry for groups such as Uber should be removed and the industry deregulated. As I understand it, Dean Nalder’s initial position was to not talk about complete deregulation and was not supportive of the motion that was being moved. As a result of getting rolled at the Liberal Party conference, he

4820 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] came out and said a couple of very important things after the passage of that motion. The first was that it is inevitable that the taxi industry will be deregulated, and the second was that when the taxi industry is deregulated, there will not be compensation for taxi plate owners. Dean Nalder is a minister of the Crown. His words have power and effect. As a result of him making that statement on the radio yesterday morning, he has devalued the value of taxi plates in the state of Western Australia. With those simple words uttered on the radio, as a minister of the Crown, he has immediately wiped out thousands and thousands of dollars of mums’ and dads’ savings. People who have worked in the industry for 20 years and were buying a plate saw the ability to sell that plate one day as their superannuation, but the minister has wiped that out. I have absolutely no doubt that over the coming weeks and months we will hear further tales. I have no doubt that Liberal Party backbenchers will understand that what the minister did with those comments was wipe out the value of taxi plates. It is not an orderly running down of the value of taxi plates over the next 10 years; yesterday, plates lost their value because of that statement by the minister. I have sat in this chamber for a long time. I served on a committee with some very fine members that looked at the actions of government that erode private property rights. I have listened to members of the Liberal Party such as Hon Robyn McSweeney complain about the erosion of private property rights. I know that many members of this place meet with Hon Murray Nixon on a regular basis to talk about the erosion of private property rights. Did one of those members stand up at the state conference or have they spoken to the Minister for Transport and said, “What are you doing, eroding private property rights?” because that is what the minister did yesterday and what the Liberal Party did at its state conference on Saturday? They said, “Let’s erode people’s private property rights—hundreds of thousands of dollars in private property rights—and let’s not pay them compensation.” We now understand where the Liberal Party is today. It is not about private property rights — Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is not about private property rights. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Feel free to interrupt when I am quiet but not when I am trying to speak. I cannot hear the member if I am speaking. The Liberal Party has made it very clear. Those members with that libertarian streak, or whatever they want to call it, who will deregulate completely and not care who they hurt on the way through, are now winning the debate against those who claim to argue for and protect private property rights. I do not think the minister even understood what he was doing when he said that. When he was asked a question today about these matters, he was unable to say why, if it is inevitable that taxis are going to be deregulated, the Barnett government was selling taxi plates to people in the last term of government. Why did the government sell them to people? A whole range of people went to the government and traded their peak-period transferable plates. They paid the government money—over $100 000. I am not going to say the figures; I want the minister to go away and research it because he clearly does not understand it. But people paid money to the government. They paid stamp duty as well, as I understand it, to get their peak-period plates upgraded. The government sold those plates; it made money out of it. Therefore, when the minister says that the government does not make money out of the taxi industry, either he is deliberately misleading people or he does not understand his portfolio. If he does not understand his portfolio, he should not go out there and make comments that destroy the life savings of mums and dads; he should not do it. He should hold his tongue until he understands what he is dealing with, because that is what he did. The other thing that I found absolutely bizarre about the minister’s comments was interesting to say the least. He said that the value of a plate should not be based on government regulation but on the customer proposition. It is interesting again that members who have been in this place long enough will recall that in about 2004 the then Labor government was concerned about the rapidly increasing value of taxi plates that did not seem to have any connection to anything other than an investor making a significant profit on those plates. We realised that that would be a long-term problem for the industry. Hon Alannah MacTiernan, one of the great visionaries of Western Australia, realised that we needed to do something. Did she go out and say, “We will deregulate the industry without compensation”? No. She put forward a proposal to buy back those taxi plates at their then value so that the government could stabilise the value at a more realistic level and it was not driven by investors making returns and customers paying for the constant increase in the cost of those plates. That was to get some stability back into the industry as part of a long-term reform process for the taxi industry in Western Australia. Hon Jim Chown: Did that happen? Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, it did not, Hon Jim Chown. Why did it not happen? It was because Hon Jim Chown’s mob blocked it. His mob said no. When I was Alannah’s parliamentary secretary, it was always interesting to ride in a taxi with her. At that stage, she was not always the most favourite person. Hon Jim Chown: It was blocked in this house, was it?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4821

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am going to come to it. Just wait. Hon Jim Chown: It’s your story. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, it is my story. I will tell it how I want, but Hon Jim Chown will love it. I am surprised that, as the parliamentary secretary, he does not know a bit more about it. Hon Simon O’Brien knows this story well, and he gets a few cameo performances in this little number. Hon Jim Chown: We’ll be very interested to hear your version of events. Go ahead. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Of course, Hon Jim Chown is right; that never occurred; what eventually occurred was a system of future plates that, rather than being sold, were leased. Again, when Hon Dean Nalder says that the government does not make money out of the taxi industry, I point out to him that he currently has $28 million from the lease plates sitting in the taxi industry development fund. Again, that was done in a way that ensured that there was not a wholesale devaluation of these plates; in fact, interestingly, the full conventional plates have continued to climb in value as a result of those initiatives. Therefore, it did not have a dramatic interest with respect to the lease plates. If the Liberal Party wants to deregulate the industry, something that the minister believes is inevitable and that the party called for on the weekend, it should very much thank Hon Alannah MacTiernan for putting that situation in place. If that had not been done and plates had continued to be sold, as was done in the 1990s and back in the Liberal Party’s last term of government, when big dollops of cash were gotten for those plates, the government would be looking at a far greater compensation figure than it currently is. That lot in the government should again thank Hon Alannah MacTiernan for having done that. Of course, at the 2008 election taxis were a pretty big issue. Members may not recall that, but the Liberal Party went to that election with a plan to improve taxi services. It has been going downhill since 2008, but the Liberal Party went there with a plan. A press release was issued by Hon Simon O’Brien, the then shadow Minister for Transport, later to become the first failed Minister for Transport in the Barnett government—the first of many. In that press release he promised the following — • The opportunity for drivers to invest in their future (if they wish) through a lease-buy scheme of license plates, rather than simply paying “dead money” to Government coffers through weekly leasing. The Liberal Party actually promised that during the 2008 election campaign, Hon Jim Chown. The Liberal Party opposed the concept of not only buybacks, but also leasing and it said it would turn it back; of course, it never did. Hon Simon O’Brien got rolled out of the portfolio. Hon Troy Buswell came in and when he saw the money rolling in, his eyes lit up. He knew he needed to find some revenue from somewhere and that any money sitting in a bank account would mean that state debt was kept down, so he was not going to sell them off when he saw the beautiful revenue streams coming out of leasing taxi plates. The Liberal Party never honoured that election commitment and it was probably one of the first Liberal transport policies destined for the graveyard of Liberal Party transport policies in this state. That is where we get to. The Liberal Party opposed sensible reform a decade ago, it made promises to the industry that it never kept and now it is telling the industry that it will deregulate the industry and not compensate. As I see it, that is a pretty fair summation. There is no doubt that there is a significant difference between small charter vehicles and taxis. It is a very simple proposition for anyone wanting to run a small charter vehicle to get that set up. If they want to run a taxi, they have to buy or lease a plate, privately or from the government. The cheapest way for someone to do this is probably to lease one from the government, which is 250 bucks a week before they even get anyone in their cab. They would have the exact same car that they would have if they were operating a small charter vehicle. They are required by law to pay a rank fee of about $150. They are required to implement meters and cameras, and there is a range of other expenses such as annual registration fees. Just to install the camera, the dispatch meter and all that other equipment, a person is up for about eight grand, or so I am told. Hon Jim Chown interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: They have to get the new driving licence. I do not know what that will go up by, but I am sure that the cost will increase when the government brings it through, Hon Jim Chown. I have no doubt that when the government announces the fees for the new taxidriver’s licence, as it is a Barnett government initiative, the cost will be up. There will probably even be a levy on it for the carbon tax, even though the carbon tax has gone! Hon Helen Morton: That is so funny. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am not trying to be funny; I am being very serious, Hon Helen Morton. These are very serious matters. The government will realise how serious these matters are when it starts getting mums and dads losing their life’s savings thanks to its Minister for Transport’s actions yesterday—the value of plates will have immediately reduced. I think the minister said that he now wants to work out not what to do, but how it will be done. The government does not have to worry about that, because it has already done it. Those words had effect and meaning as he said them on the radio yesterday; they cost people money as he said them. I have no doubt that people will realise over the next couple of weeks that the value of plates has been stripped out with those

4822 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] words alone, so there is no opportunity for orderly progression. At the very least, why would anyone now pay more than $130 000, which is 10 years’ worth of state government lease plates? These are things that the government should have been working on over the last couple of years. The government should have had a plan; this should have all been part of its taxi action plan, but, of course, it was not. The government has had a completely chaotic and dysfunctional approach to taxis over that period. I feel incredibly sad for those people who own taxi plates who have now been put into this position, because there is not much that this government has been able to do in the area of taxis without making a mess of things. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Everything! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am focusing on taxis, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, but I do not disagree. I struggle to think of an area in which the government has done things well! We regularly get things such as what we were told back on 13 June, when the Minister for Transport said that within a matter of weeks the credit and debit card surcharges would be halved. Has that happened? I do not think it has. I have not seen any announcement to that effect and I am sure that this government would have put out a big press release about it. It says it will do things within weeks, and months later we are still waiting for them. I will talk about this government’s public transport master plan in a little while—that is a good one. I hope that we can get some semblance back and I hope the government will realise the damage and correct the record, and that the minister will not be bullied by a few backbenchers who do seem to be uncaring and the Young Liberal Movement. I hope that he will try to restore an orderly debate around how we reform the taxi industry in Western Australia. If he intends to continue to proceed with the process of deregulation, I hope he sits down with the Treasurer and works out a way to compensate people for the erosion of their private property rights; otherwise, those members who sit on the other side who rail against the erosion of private property rights will have lost all credibility in this house the next time they speak. Of course, since we last met, paid parking has been introduced at train stations and there has been a series of complaints from motorbike riders and shift workers. There is a range of problems not just with the policy. We are vitally concerned about not only the impact of yet another charge by the government on the cost of living for motorists in Western Australia, but also the way in which this has been implemented. People have been told that they have a choice of paying cash or using SmartParker, but motorbike riders do not have that choice. When people get to the train station, they realise that the only way they can pay cash for a ticket is at the entrance to the car park, so they have to park their car, walk over to get their ticket and then walk back. I spent a bit of time at Whitfords train station just after the paid parking was implemented and a young woman came up to me and said, “I used to be a Young Liberal but, after this, not anymore.” At one level I thought: that is fantastic; we have another vote. But it is not worth getting votes if it causes so much damage to people and makes their lives miserable. I would prefer to get our votes in a better way than because the Liberal Party is causing people who cannot afford it to be even worse off. Hon Helen Morton: Did you know that our numbers are the highest of any political party anywhere in Australia? Hon KEN TRAVERS: What numbers? Hon Helen Morton: The membership numbers of the Liberal Party are the highest of any political party in Australia. Hon Stephen Dawson: It doesn’t mean the electorate is happy with you. Hon Helen Morton: You’re talking about people not wanting to stay as a Liberal, but actually our numbers are increasing. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I think the young woman was talking about voting. If the minister checks the more recent polls, she will see that the party’s record numbers are in fairly rapid freefall. People see through the government’s dishonesty; it did not tell them that it was going to charge them for these sorts of things. This is a poorly thought out plan of the government. Not only is the government charging people more, but also it has yet again failed to implement paid parking in an orderly and systematic way. It has made a complete mess of it. What do shift workers do? If they park there before nine o’clock, they have to buy a ticket for that day, but they cannot buy a ticket for the next day even though they might get back from their shift the next morning and so they run the risk of getting a fine. There is no provision for that. I heard the government say on the weekend that fly in, fly out workers will be able to use the airport rail line. I also saw the Public Transport Authority’s polling about FIFO workers. There is no doubt that FIFO workers think the airport rail line is a good idea, but because the government does not have an integrated and coordinated plan that will deliver 17 000 additional car parking bays across the state of Western Australia, it cannot offer a solution to FIFO workers with its plans for an airport rail line. Although I think some 70 odd per cent of the people who were polled said that they think the airport rail line is a good idea, only about one-third said that they would actively consider using it and a range of those listed the things that they would need before they could use

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4823 it. One of the things that a group of these people wanted was secure parking at railway stations. The Barnett government has, as part of its paid parking system, stripped the secure parking areas from our rail stations. There is no longer any secure parking. The secure parking that people used to pay for has now gone; the government has got rid of secure parking. People will not get secure parking and they will not get long-term parking at train stations because there is so much pressure for the parking area that is available. If the government had the coordinated and integrated plan that Metronet offered, options would have been provided so that an airport line would work in that regard. It could have had satellite car parking bays to provide assistance in that process, not necessarily for FIFO workers but for others. The government should have built the Butler railway station at its original location with permanent car parking rather than at a site that will have no car parking within 10 years. This government just does not understand those sorts of things. It picks up little snippets. It sees the plan Labor proposes to fix the transport issues and it grabs an element of it, but it does not understand it and it does not implement the plan in a proper sense and so it makes a mess of it. People need to be able to get to the airport quickly, particularly early in the morning. The vast majority of FIFO workers simply will not be able to get to the airport in the time required for their flights. If members opposite look at their own polling, they will see that most FIFO workers are at the airport an hour before their flight. If they come from Mandurah, it will take them at least an hour and a half by train because there is no provision, even in the long-term planning, for a connection along a southern circle route that would get them to the airport quicker than it would if they went into Perth and back out again. Hon Helen Morton: That’s not true. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is true. The government does not have a plan for a southern circle line, or is it going to copy Metronet completely now? Is that the cat out of the bag—the long-term plan is to build Metronet? Are the Liberals now adopting Metronet? I look forward to it. Hon Helen Morton: I can sense your absolute grief at not having Metronet. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I would be very happy if this lot picked up Metronet because it is the right thing for Western Australia. As long as the government does it properly and does not make a mess of it, I would be more than happy with that. I want to see a long-term plan that fixes the problems. Before I get to the capital works, on the weekend the Premier announced the airport rail line. Of course, the big announcement on Saturday was that the cost of the government’s fully costed project had blown out by $300 million. Again, the Premier took the opportunity to talk about the GST distribution in Australia. We have had that debate and we all understand the complexities of the debate. One of the reasons the Premier wanted us to focus on the GST debate is that he knows that, thanks to the deal that he and Richard Court signed with John Howard and Peter Costello, that issue will be able to be fixed only if there is agreement from all the other states in Australia. However, there is something that the Premier did not mention. Even though he announced a major capital works project—a major airport rail line—he did not mention an area in which the commonwealth government could assist the state of Western Australia; that is, it could fund some of that essential infrastructure for Western Australia. We know that there was $500 million in the budget for public transport in Western Australia, but it was taken out by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey not to make savings, but so that they could spend more money on road and rail projects on the east coast of Western Australia. That is where it went. It was taken out and transferred to the eastern states by a Liberal government. Was there a comment on the weekend by the Premier about that? No. That does not require the agreement of the other states; that requires a simple political decision by Tony Abbott and the federal Liberal Party. It would require the Minister for Finance, a Western Australian senator, to demand that we get back the money for our public transport. If ever there was a project that the commonwealth should invest in, it is an airport railway line. What will that airport railway line do to the value of airport land? I can get study after study that shows that railways lift the value of land. Who is the owner of Perth Airport? It is the commonwealth government. Who will be the big beneficiary of the Perth Airport railway line? The commonwealth government, when it renegotiates the lease terms at Perth Airport. So why is the commonwealth government not contributing to the Perth Airport railway line? Why has it taken that money away? And why does Mr Barnett not focus on attacking it for that? It would be a simple political decision for the commonwealth government to actually give Western Australia a better deal. The last federal Labor government spent a record amount on road and rail in Western Australia. We had previously struggled to get decent money out of the commonwealth under Abbott and Howard, but the Rudd and Gillard governments were prepared to, and did, spend money on infrastructure in Western Australia. There was the sinking of the Fremantle railway line, the construction of Great Eastern Highway, the interchange out at Midland, the widening of the freeway as it heads south, and the upgrades at Esperance, Mandurah and Bunbury—they are major road projects. The $200 million of roadworks that have just begun in Port Hedland were funded by the previous federal Labor government, as was the Dampier Highway in Karratha. There were upgrades to rail infrastructure; the money spent to upgrade tiers 1 and 2 rail lines for the grain task was provided by the federal Labor government, with very little money coming from the state government. There is a history of that happening.

4824 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

I know the Premier’s aim. He is saying, “Wow, look up in the public gallery, people! What’s going on up there?” He is trying to distract us from the fact that Tony Abbott has taken money off Western Australia that he could give back tomorrow by way of a simple political decision. The Premier is trying to focus us on something that cannot be easily controlled, that will never be brought to resolution, and will not fix the problems for Western Australia. I think it is most outrageous. Again, if the Liberal Party were serious about trying to get a better deal for WA, it would understand that there are two ways to do that. The first is to fix the distribution of funding through the commonwealth grants process, which would be very hard. I might add that the interesting thing I got out of a press release of the Premier on the weekend was the highlighting of Eric Ripper’s superb negotiating skills. We were in decline on the distribution, and Eric Ripper got us an increase. Sadly, it continued to decline, but he actually got — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He’s my hero! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s and mine too! I probably do not quite worship him in the same way Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich does! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: We’ll have to share him! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I do not quite worship him in the same way as Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich does, but Eric did a fantastic job of securing support from the other states to get us a better deal. Sadly, it has continued to decline, and because of that agreement in 1999, without the agreement of the other states it will be very difficult to change. But the state government can get us back the $500 million. As federal Minister for Finance, Senator Mathias Cormann could return WA’s fair share tomorrow if he wanted to. There is absolutely nothing stopping him. Even if the commonwealth government does not want to be seen to be investing in rail, the state government should tell it that it would be investing in its airport rail line and providing an uplift to the land it owns. Just ask the commonwealth government to build the section from where the airport boundary starts to where the airport boundary finishes. If it could just build and pay for that section, that is all we ask it to do on this occasion. It should be asked to give WA its fair share to help grow its economy so that good things can continue to be done for Western Australia. I will now talk again on a range of public transport plans, and start by putting things into context. Three years ago, on 14 July 2011, the then government released a public transport plan that I think had been significantly worked on by Hon Simon O’Brien. The transport plan used population projections for Perth that stated that it would get to 2.2 million people by 2031. On the day it was released everyone said, “What are you talking about? You’re way out on your population projections. You’ve missed it. Perth is growing a lot faster than that; we will be well over 2.2 million by 2031.” In fact, the prediction was that by 2026 we would have 1.99 million people. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for Perth tell us that we already have 1.972 million people, so we are almost there in 2014. According to the government’s public transport plan, we were supposed to reach that population just before 2026! It was an extraordinary miscalculation. Members would think that that being the case, the government’s response would be to say, “Well, we probably need to do more quicker, and make sure that every dollar we spend on public transport and infrastructure is spent to derive the most benefit.” The Liberal Party went to the election with a range of promises it never intended to fulfil because it was unable to. In 2011, the government set its sights on this public transport master plan that had woefully inaccurate statistics that predicted that we would not get to the population we are at today until sometime around 2026; we have surpassed the population it predicted for 2021. The public transport master plan identified a number of priority projects. I have a beautiful map of its stage 1 priority projects that were due to be completed by 2020. The minister’s press release stated that the two transformational priority projects that the Barnett government would be getting on with would be the extension of the rail to Yanchep and a light rail into the northern suburbs of Perth—into Mirrabooka—and that it would be planning bus rapid transits, and the first one it would be getting on with would be the Ellenbrook bus rapid transit system. Of course, the government started to spend an awful lot of money developing each of those projects. By 2020, the government suggested, according to this plan, that it would have a light rail system running from the University of Western Australia, through the city to Curtin University and out north to Mirrabooka. There would be a bus rapid transit service from Ellenbrook to Bassendean, and across to Morley. There would be a railway line from Butler out to Yanchep. There would be a bus from Curtin to Canning Bridge, a bus rapid transit heading south out of Fremantle and a Karnup rail station; all these good things were proposed by the Barnett government. That was because by 2020 the government thought we would be at about 1.86 million people; of course, we have well and truly surpassed that. The government did some projections on the passenger modelling that would occur as a result of that population growth. I have always tried to get out of the government its projections in a tabular format, but it said they were in its public transport draft plan, which of course is a map; I have had to interpret the map. That map shows that by 2031 it was expected that north of Butler there would be between 10 000 and 30 000 people a day travelling on that rail system, and on the north–south rail line, as it got closer into the city, there would be more than 50 000 people a day. The map shows that between 10 000 and 30 000 people were expected to travel on the

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4825 northern suburbs light rail. I subsequently learned that the government’s more detailed modelling shows that by 2031, 49 000 people a day are expected to travel up and down the Metro Area Express light rail from Mirrabooka to the city. That is not the whole MAX light rail, but the northern leg to Mirrabooka. According to this modelling, the government estimated that there would be somewhere between 3 000 and 10 000 people a day on the railway line out to the airport. Of course, as a result of campaigning by Andrew Waddell, we were successful in getting up the idea that the rail needed to go beyond the consolidated terminal and out to the Forrestfield–High Wycombe area. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 4835.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE SCHOOLS — NEW FUNDING MODEL 737. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: Given that some of the secondary schools losing money under the new funding model are in the state’s most economically and educationally disadvantaged areas—for example, Fitzroy Valley District High School and Girrawheen Senior High School—with significant gaps between their National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy achievements and those of other schools, why does the minister think those schools deserve, to use his word, to receive further cuts on top of those they received in 2014? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I say at the outset that the Leader of the Opposition was a bit selective with my quote. I said a school gets what it deserves on a per student basis. That is only one aspect of the quote. Every student in Western Australia will get what he or she deserves in terms of the challenges faced by that student. Whether a student is from a high or low socioeconomic area or is an Aboriginal student—whoever it may be—we have a very transparent and equitable funding system that is the envy of the nation. We fund our schools better than any other state in the nation funds its schools and we are ensuring that those funds go to where they should go—most importantly, to each and every student. Western Australia has record levels of funding, but the funding level has been inappropriately directed. That means that there has been a significant horizontal imbalance in the funding of schools. Schools that are mirror images of each other are receiving different amounts of funding. For example, two low socioeconomic schools may be mirror images of each other but have a great disparity in their funding pools. That cannot continue to exist. It is exactly the same in the regions and the outer metropolitan area. There is a massive disparity in the horizontal distribution of the pie. As the result of highly complex funding models and multipliers upon multipliers, the situation is simply unworkable. Principals and the Department of Education understand that, but, unfortunately, the situation has been left to exist for years upon years. Principals have pleaded to have the system changed to a more equitable, transparent system of funding. Some secondary schools will not get as much funding next year as they had anticipated. They will still get a lot more money as a result of the year 7 students going into high school and the fact that we injected another $188 million into education this year, but they will not get as much as anticipated. The corollary of that is that some secondary schools will get more and, significantly, primary schools will also get more. Early intervention in education is absolutely imperative so that foundation literacy and numeracy skills can be addressed at a very early age. As students move from the upper echelons of primary school and enter secondary school, they will be in a much more advantageous position to cope with the additional stressors of secondary school. I have pretty much answered the honourable member’s question. Suffice to say, our secondary schools will still be the best resourced of any state in the nation. The disparity between the funding for primary and secondary schools is the highest in the nation. Our secondary schools are funded to the tune of 38 per cent more than our primary schools. We are, dare I say it, equalising the balance somewhat. Secondary schools will be funded about 25 per cent more than primary schools. However, that is still very generous compared with other jurisdictions, and our secondary schools will still be extraordinarily well resourced. Just to conclude, the funding model ensures that every school has sufficient base funding to provide a quality education. Funding for those five areas of need identified by Professor Teese will be allocated to each student based on whether they are Aboriginal, speak English as a second language, have a disability, are from a low socioeconomic background or live in the regions. It is a sensible and visionary step forward. The education sector has been calling out for it for years upon years and we have been bold enough to deliver. KINDERGARTEN — FEDERAL FUNDING 738. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: What steps has the department taken to advise parents of children who will be four years old in 2015 that the number of hours of kindergarten available in 2015 is not certain, which would enable those parents to investigate

4826 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] alternative options in the event that funding is reduced as a result of the federal Liberal government’s proposed cuts to funding for universal access? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This has been discussed at a number of ministerial council meetings. Before I give my response, I say that every state and territory minister to a man or woman has prosecuted the argument for the continuation of universal suffrage quite vocally, including me. Hon Sue Ellery: Parents will have to make alternative arrangements sooner rather than later. Hon PETER COLLIER: I am conscious of that, but we can do only so much from this end. I have been to several ministerial council meetings over the past 12 months. Hon Sue Ellery: I am sure you have, but it is about giving parents appropriate notice if they have to think about alternative arrangements. Hon PETER COLLIER: As I said to the honourable member, I will give my response. I gave a preliminary comment to give some background to the fact that a significant amount of debate and dialogue has taken place. In fact, I wrote to the minister just recently to voice my opinions yet again. This matter is due to be discussed at the Education Council meeting to be held on Friday, 15 August 2014. Western Australia is strongly advocating for the continuation of commonwealth funding for the additional four hours of kindergarten. As soon as the outcome of this meeting is known, school communities will be advised. As I said, until we get certainty from the federal government—we are not sure it will fund those additional four hours for universal access—we simply cannot provide any more clarity to parents. I understand the concerns of parents and school communities. We are doing all we can at a state level to ensure that the federal government meets its obligations with universal access. PERTH FREIGHT LINK 739. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) When will the government release the business case for the Perth freight link? (2) When will the government release details of the toll on trucks travelling between Muchea and Fremantle port? (3) When will the government release the business case for the airport rail line? (4) When will the government release details of the patronage modelling for the airport rail line? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: (1)–(2) The business case for the Perth freight link and the freight charge details will form part of a cabinet submission and will be considered for release after cabinet approval. (3)–(4) The business case and patronage modelling undertaken for the Forrestfield–Airport Link project formed part of the cabinet submission recently considered by government and, therefore, will not be released. SUICIDE — FLY IN, FLY OUT WORKERS 740. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON to the Minister for Mental Health: I refer to deaths by suicide of fly in, fly out workers in Western Australia. (1) How many deaths by suicide have been recorded in Western Australia within the FIFO group in each of the following years — (a) 2009–10; (b) 2010–11; (c) 2011–12; (d) 2012–13; and (e) 2013–14? (2) Is the minister aware that the number of deaths by suicide in the Pilbara over the last year has caused the Pilbara coroner to call for a special inquiry into the deaths? (3) Is the minister concerned to hear of the high number of suspected deaths by suicide amongst FIFO workers? (4) Will the minister establish an independent inquiry into the mental health issues faced by our fly in, fly out workforce?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4827

Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) (a)–(e) Cause of death data in Australia, including suicide, is not reported or published by profession or employment. We gather information on this through various means, but the formal information does not show profession or employment. (2) I am aware that the district coroner has raised with the State Coroner that a number of suspected suicides in the Pilbara require investigation. As an independent judicial officer, the State Coroner will make her own decision as to whether these deaths will be either individually or collectively the subject of an inquest. In the event the State Coroner makes a recommendation on mental health issues, this would be considered by the state government. (3) The Mental Health Commission has previously identified in a variety of documents that fly in, fly out and drive in, drive out workers have greater exposure to the risk factors that are known to contribute to death by suicide. In particular, risks due to social isolation, family and relationship stress and being exposed to high-risk activities such as those undertaken by underground miners, riggers, blast crews et cetera are greater for FIFO–DIDO workers than for others. The consultation that we have commissioned and other research into the mental wellbeing of FIFO and DIDO workers, including the Lifeline–Edith Cowan University study, “FIFO/DIDO Mental Health Research Report 2013” that was released earlier this year, along with other documents, have informed our development of support resources that are soon to be released. The online resources will include strategies that support mental health and wellbeing for FIFO workers and their families, services and supports, and personal stories of dealing with challenges and strengthening resilience. In developing these resources, project coordinators have spent time working on Pilbara mine sites, getting firsthand experience of the lifestyle. I draw the member’s attention to some research that was done on this matter by the federal Standing Committee on Regional Australia. Its report titled “Cancer of the bush or salvation for our cities? Fly- in, fly-out and drive-in, drive-out workforce practices in Regional Australia” was released in February 2013. A WA Department of Health review of the health of fly in, fly out workers was released after 2010, but it covered the period from 2008 to 2010. That review studied 388 FIFO workers and 916 shiftworkers. The Lifeline report that I referred to previously surveyed 924 FIFO workers, and followed up with a number of interviews with specific FIFO workers. There has been some recent good research around the issues of mental health, FIFO and suicide prevention, which is work that we are relying on and which is feeding into the development of the resources that are about to hit the deck. I think that within four weeks the information that has been provided in this area will be available. (4) Mental health issues faced by our fly in, fly out and drive in, drive out workforce are being addressed through a number of initiatives, as outlined in the response to part (3). Our efforts are focused on taking action on the ground now. This action will have real impacts based on the information already gathered on how best to support these workers. Some of these research projects are quite specific about how best to deliver that support. To assist in this process, the vacancy on the Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention arising from Sam Walsh leaving the state has been filled by Mr Andrew Harding, chief executive at Rio Tinto Iron Ore. I am absolutely certain that Mr Harding will bring the FIFO–DIDO perspective to the council and its action planning and implementation. They are the actions that the government is focused on at the moment. The PRESIDENT: Thank you for that very detailed and comprehensive answer, minister. AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY 741. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: I refer to the minister’s statement “Affordable Housing Strategy ahead of schedule” on 6 August. (1) Does the affordable housing strategy 2010–2020 rely on federal funding? (2) If yes to (1), what is the dollar figure of these components and when is each funding component due to expire? (3) How much of the $115 million provided to states and territories by the federal government for homelessness initiatives delivered by the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness will WA receive? (4) How will the government fund its commitment to 20 000 affordable housing opportunities by 2020 beyond 2015 when the federal money for the NPAH expires?

4828 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Department of Housing advises — (1) The affordable housing strategy is part of a whole-of-government approach to address the state’s economic, population growth and affordable housing challenges through partnering with the public, private and not-for-profit sectors to deliver innovative housing solutions and viable alternatives to social housing. Commonwealth funding supports this strategy, in part. (2) Relevant commonwealth funding is $117 million for the National Affordable Housing Agreement in 2013–14, which is an ongoing agreement; $191 million for the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing in 2013–14, which agreement runs until 30 June 2018 and funding has been provided in the commonwealth’s budget and forward estimates; and the estimated net present value of the commonwealth’s share of approved incentives under the national rental affordability scheme over 10 years, which is $239 million, with no further incentives to be approved. (3) WA will receive $14.97 million administered by the Department for Child Protection and Family Support. (4) Although the government will continue to advocate strongly for a sustained funding commitment from the commonwealth to address homelessness, including funding to build more facilities for homelessness services, there is no significant impact arising from cessation of NPAH funding on the government’s ability to achieve its targets under the state affordable housing strategy. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 742. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the minister representing the Minister for Water: (1) Please provide an update on progress regarding proposed law reform for water resources management in Western Australia. (2) When does the minister expect to introduce a bill for water resources law in Parliament? (3) To what extent are current water allocations based on the latest projections for a drying climate in south-western Western Australia? (4) Given growing water demand and predictions of a continuing drying trend due to climate change, would the minister agree that updating laws that govern the management of water resources in WA has now become urgent? (5) Will new water resources laws be put in place before new large-scale irrigation precincts are established under the state government’s Water for Food program? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Water, I answer — (1) I am currently considering the responses from public submissions arising from the position paper that was released in late 2013. (2) Timing has not yet been determined. (3) Water allocation limits are set on our current level of understanding of the social, economic and environmental requirements incorporating the latest climate science projections. (4) The Liberal–National government is taking a considered approach to water reform with significant input from stakeholders. We are committed to ensuring an effective framework for the management of the state’s water resources in a drying climate, which includes introduction of properly considered policy and legislative reform. (5) The timing of any new legislation is yet to be determined. FOOD PRODUCERS — CONSUMER BOYCOTTS 743. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to The West Australian’s opinion piece by Paul Murray on 6 August 2014 titled “Freo fisherman victim of green campaign” regarding a hardworking businessman who was unwittingly a victim of a campaign that placed him on a “Don’t Buy Blacklist” as a consumer boycott. (1) What protections are available to innocent food producers who are targeted for boycotting by irresponsible environmental fundamentalists?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4829

(2) Do innocent food producers and businesses have any recourse to compensation for any loss of income and damage to reputation from unsubstantiated claims and actions by these fundamentalist groups? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) There are no specific protections against boycotts available under state legislation. (2) Boycotts are dealt with by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under the commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2010. In particular, sections 45D to 45DB of that legislation prohibit secondary boycotts that affect trade or commerce. However, in this instance, an exemption may apply under section 45DD if the dominant purpose of the conduct relates to environmental protection or consumer protection. Any person the victim of a boycott should contact the ACCC to clarify their rights and protections in relation to that conduct. The individual could also seek legal advice as to the application of defamation laws in this instance. AGRICULTURE — DOPPLER RADAR 744. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: (1) What research has been conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Food to fully understand the value of Doppler radar technology to the agriculture and emergency services sectors since the matter was raised in the chamber this year? (2) Is DAFWA aware that Doppler radar technology is not only commonplace in all other Australian states and territories and around the globe, but significantly enhances efficiencies and advances in agriculture as well as being a valuable tool for fire and emergency services, bushfire control, aviation and mining? (3) Given that this government remains committed to increasing the availability of new technology to the WA agriculture sector and $10 million in royalty for regions funds, what steps has the Department of Agriculture and Food taken to develop a business case for the installation of Doppler radar in WA? (4) If a business case is currently being prepared, when will this document be released? (5) How confident is the government that Doppler radar technology will be installed in strategic locations, such as WA’s wheatbelt, for the 2015 growing season? (6) If no progress has been made on the development of a business case for the installation of Doppler radar, why is this matter not on the government’s agenda? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Department of Agriculture and Food has commissioned a consulting company to provide the state government, DAFWA and agribusiness with information concerning the likely benefits and costs arising from expanding the availability of radar and telecommunications services within Western Australia in terms of enhancing the competitive position of farm businesses and the wellbeing of rural communities. (2) The Department of Agriculture and Food provided consultants with a Bureau of Meteorology map that details the location of high resolution Doppler radar in other states as well as a list of many of the benefits potentially accruing to rural businesses and communities from the availability of high resolution Doppler radar. (3) Refer to the response to (1). (4) The Department of Agriculture and Food anticipates the consultant will complete its report by the end of September. (5)–(6) The consultant’s report will need to be assessed before any decision can be made on whether the matter should be progressed. APPRENTICESHIPS — ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDENTS 745. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: (1) Can the minister explain why there was a 23.4 per cent reduction in apprenticeship commencements for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander students between December 2012 and December 2013? (2) Can the minister explain why there was a 40.3 per cent reduction in school-based apprenticeship commencements, including Aboriginal schools-based apprenticeships, between December 2012 and December 2013?

4830 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(3) Has the government deliberately turned its back on Aboriginal training? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The decline in school-based apprenticeships reflects an overall decline in apprenticeship commencements over the same period. Employer demand for apprentices has been impacted by generally moderating economic conditions and reductions to the commonwealth employer incentives scheme. The demand for Aboriginal school-based apprenticeships was also significantly impacted by the cessation of commonwealth funding for the Aboriginal school-based traineeship program, which included apprentices, during 2012. (3) The state government provides significant support for Aboriginal apprenticeships. This includes a guarantee to fund training delivery for all Aboriginal apprentices, including Aboriginal school-based apprentices; specific incentives for group training organisations to employ Aboriginal apprentices, including increased funding to offset the reduction in commonwealth funding; and payroll tax exemption for employers of Aboriginal apprentices. PILBARA UNDERGROUND POWER PROJECT — KARRATHA, ROEBOURNE AND ONSLOW 746. Hon DARREN WEST to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the Minister for Regional Development’s media statement of 16 July 2014, announcing an extra $75 million in funding for the underground power project. (1) How many properties are still awaiting connection to underground power in — (a) Karratha; (b) Roebourne; and (c) Onslow? (2) How many properties have been connected in — (a) Karratha; (b) Roebourne; and (c) Onslow? (3) Was a business case prepared for the project when it was first announced in 2010? (4) If yes to (3), will the minister table it? Hon COL HOLT replied: Happy to be back! I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) Karratha, 2 272 lots; (b) Roebourne, 20 lots; and (c) Onslow, 221 lots. (2) (a) Karratha, 1 032 lots; (b) Roebourne, zero; and (c) Onslow, zero. (3)–(4) In 2008 Horizon Power submitted a project concept, including letters of support from local government agencies, to the Minister for Energy for the undergrounding of power within its service area for coastal towns from Wyndham to Esperance. Horizon Power received endorsement in 2008 from the state government for the undergrounding of power for South Hedland, Wedgefield, Onslow, Roebourne and Karratha, based on the project concept. A business case was not developed because the project concept received a commitment from the state government and was established on work done by the Office of Energy. SCHOOLS — FUNDING 747. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the Minister for Education: I refer to changes to the funding model for Western Australian public schools. (1) Can the minister confirm that in 2015, Belmont City College, Kalamunda Senior High School and Darling Range Sports College will each be worse off under the new funding model by approximately $250 000, compared with the current funding model?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4831

(2) If no to (1), what is the estimated difference between the funding for Belmont City College, Kalamunda Senior High School and Darling Range Sports College in 2015 under the current model compared with the new model? (3) Does the minister expect that these schools will be able to maintain current standards, given the large funding cut? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Almost all secondary schools will have an increased budget in 2015 because of the transition of year 7 students to secondary. Some secondary schools will not receive as much as they may have expected under the current funding model because of the rebalancing of resources between secondary and primary schools, combined with the impact of allocations for student characteristics which ensures that funding provided to schools matches student needs. Where the student-centred funding model budget for 2015 is less than the expected budget, schools will be transitioned to the new funding amounts so that the difference is no more than $250 000. Based on preliminary budgets, Belmont City College, Kalamunda Senior High School and Darling Range Sports College will have a $250 000 difference in funding compared with the current model. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. All schools will continue to be provided with sufficient funds to operate and meet student needs. WATER CORPORATION — CARBON TAX COMPONENT 748. Hon AMBER-JADE SANDERSON to the minister representing the Minister for Water: I refer to the repeal of the federal carbon tax and guarantees by the state Treasurer that savings would be passed on to consumers in full. (1) What was the total additional amount charged by the Water Corporation because of the carbon tax to both householders and business customers in 2013–14 for both water and sewerage services? (2) Can the Minister for Water confirm that the Water Corporation is no longer charging its customers the additional carbon tax component, and that the savings will be passed on in full? (3) Will these savings be backdated to 1 July, as was the case with Synergy charges; and, if not, why not? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) It was $12 million. (2) The Water Corporation’s target implementation date to remove charging for the carbon tax component is 1 November 2014. This is the earliest practicable date, as the relevant government approval processes need to be complied with, including required changes to the pricing regulations; the corporation’s billing system also needs to be updated. (3) Subject to verification of reductions in the Water Corporation’s actual costs as a consequence of the repeal of the act, the corporation is considering the appropriate arrangements for refunding customers for the period 1 July 2014 to 1 November 2014. The average customer refund is estimated to be around $3 for this period. DERBY, KNOWSLEY, MOWANJUM, FITZROY VALLEY — GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES 749. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Water: I refer to the Water for Food, West Kimberley program. (1) What evidence is there that the groundwater supplies at Knowsley, Mowanjum and the Fitzroy Valley are adequate and sufficiently sustainable to support intensive irrigated agriculture projects such as those announced recently? (2) What will be the environmental and health impacts of the drawdowns being proposed, especially in Derby, where there has been an inland migration of the salt water interface and a consequent rise in salinity levels of drinking water for some years? (3) What monitoring will be put in place to measure the rate of salt water intrusion into the Derby town water supply, and what contingency procedures are in place? Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question.

4832 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

On behalf of the Minister for Water, the answer is that information is not available in the time required, and I therefore ask the honourable member to place the question on notice. SURROGACY ACT — STATUTORY REVIEW 750. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the parliamentary secretary’s answers to my questions during the budget estimates hearing on 27 September 2013 and further to my question without notice on 20 November 2013 in which she advised and then subsequently reconfirmed that the statutory review of the Surrogacy Act 2008 was intended to commence on 3 February 2014 and conclude in June 2014. (1) When is the review now expected to conclude? (2) What has been the cause for the need to revise the expected conclusion date? (3) How many submissions to the review were received? (4) Who were the two parties that requested extensions beyond the submission deadline? (5) Who was the key stakeholder who made an unexpected late submission? (6) In which month in the calendar year of 2014 does the parliamentary secretary presently plan to table a copy of the review? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Health. (1) The review is expected to conclude on 30 September 2014. (2) It was not possible to anticipate the complexity and breadth of issues that have been raised in submissions. Consequently, the submissions require considerably more analysis and research, in particular comparison with other Australian jurisdictions and global practices. (3) Sixteen submissions were received. (4) Surrogacy Australia, but it did not provide a submission; and the Reproductive Technology Council. (5) It was Professor John Yovich, PIVET Medical Centre, Leederville, Western Australia. (6) In October 2014. TAXIS — LONDON-STYLE CABS TRIAL 751. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: I refer the Minister for Transport to the current trial of the TX4 London-style taxicabs. (1) Has the small-scale pilot for the carriage of passengers who use wheelchairs commenced? (2) If yes to (1), when did it commence and how many drivers and passengers who use wheelchairs are involved? (3) If no to (1), when will the pilot commence? (4) Who will be involved? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) It will be upon appointment of an occupational therapist through a tender process. (4) It is envisaged that approximately five vehicles/drivers and five to 10 passengers will participate in the trial. SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014 — WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 752. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Commerce: My question without notice of which some notice is given is in the name of Hon Kate Doust who is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4833

I refer to the commonwealth Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 that was read into the Parliament of Australia on 19 March 2014. (1) Is the minister aware of the proposed changes to the commonwealth workers’ compensation legislation contained in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, and, if passed, the potential impact on Western Australian workers? (2) Does the Western Australian government support this bill; and, if not, why not? (3) Can the Western Australian government or the minister assure this Parliament and guarantee that no Western Australian worker will be worse off if this bill passes the commonwealth Parliament, given the inferior workers’ compensation arrangements under Comcare? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Access to self-insurance within the Comcare scheme is a matter for the commonwealth government. (3) The government is not in a position to give any assurances regarding the impact on individual workers. However, workers’ compensation entitlements under Comcare are generally comparable to those available under the Western Australian workers’ compensation scheme. TAXIS — CREDIT AND DEBIT CARD SURCHARGES 753. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Has the government introduced regulations to halve credit and debit card surcharges for taxis? (2) If no to (1), when does the Minister for Transport expect this will occur? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(2) Unfortunately, I am not very happy with the response I have in front of me and will be seeking a more detailed answer to the member’s question. CHILDREN — STATE CARE — SCHOOL FEES 754. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: I refer to public comments by the Minister for Child Protection that the issue of payment of school fees for children in the care of the state remains unsettled. (1) What documentation did the Department of Education have to lead it to believe that in fact the Department for Child Protection and Family Support’s final position was that it would no longer pay voluntary school fees for the 2 300 kids in its care? (2) Will the minister table that documentation; and, if not, why not? (3) What was the most recent advice as at 4 August 2014 from the Department for Child Protection and Family Support to the Department of Education in respect of payment of school fees? (4) Will the minister table that advice; and, if not, why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) It was a letter dated 10 February 2014 from Mr Terry Murphy, director general, Department for Child Protection and Family Support, informing the Department of Education of the intention to cease paying voluntary contributions to schools for students in care. (2) Yes. I table the letter. (3) Refer to (1). (4) Not applicable. [See paper 1681.] EDUCATION — LONG SERVICE LEAVE LIABILITY CAP Question without Notice 586 — Supplementary Information HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Education) [5.07 pm]: On Thursday, 15 May 2014, Hon Sue Ellery asked question without notice 586 regarding the projected savings in the 2013–14 budget and the capping of long service leave liabilities, and I would like to provide further information to my answer.

4834 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 1682.] The following material was incorporated —

Original Latest forecast Forecast

growth growth Difference

$’000 $’000 $’000

2013/14 61,918 40,083 21,835

2014/15 70,219 - 8,441 78,660 2015/16 77,264 - 20,478 97,742 2016/17 84,486 - 84,486 Total over 4 years 293,887 11,164 282,723

Note: The impact of the table above compares forecast total leave liability growth before the cap was introduced with the Department’s latest forecast leave liability levels. The Table has not been updated to reflect the Department’s 2013/14 financial statements which are still being reviewed by OAG.

FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — CONTRACTS OF SALE Question on Notice 1213 — Answer Advice HON KEN BASTON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [5.07 pm]: I wish to inform the house that under standing order 108(2), the answer to question on notice 1213 asked by Hon Lynn MacLaren on Thursday, 8 May 2014 to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Forestry will be provided on Thursday, 14 August 2014. The advice that has been provided by the Forest Products Commission is taking considerable time to ensure that all commercially sensitive information contained in the requested contracts is not disclosed. In addition, customers have been contacted to ensure that they are aware of what contractual information will be tabled in Parliament. The advice that the Forest Products Commission has provided has taken longer than anticipated and considerable time to assess. The contracts that will be tabled have had commercially sensitive material redacted.

NANNUP TIMBER MILL — JARRAH EXPORTS Questions on Notice 1223 — Answer Advice HON KEN BASTON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [5.07 pm]: Mr President, exactly the same explanation is provided for questions on notice 1223 and 1223. Do you want me to read them out? The PRESIDENT: The parliamentary secretary should table the answers to those questions and seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard; I think that is the best way to go. Hon KEN BASTON: I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 1683.] The following material was incorporated —

I wish to inform the house that under standing order 108(2) the answer to question on notice 1223 asked by Hon Lynn MacLaren on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Forestry will be provided on Thursday, 14 August 2014. The advice that has been provided by the Forest Products Commission is taking considerable time to ensure that all commercially sensitive information contained in the requested contracts is not disclosed. In addition, customers have been contacted to ensure that they are aware of what contractual information will be tabled in Parliament. The advice that the Forest Products Commission has provided has taken longer than anticipated and considerable time to assess. The contracts that will be tabled have had commercially sensitive material redacted.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4835

FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — CONTRACTS OF SALE Question on Notice 1233 — Answer Advice HON KEN BASTON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [5.07 pm]: I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 1683.] The following material was incorporated —

I wish to inform the house that under standing order 108(2) the answer to question on notice 1233 asked by Hon Lynn MacLaren on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Forestry will be provided on Thursday, 14 August 2014. The advice that has been provided by the Forest Products Commission is taking considerable time to ensure that all commercially sensitive information contained in the requested contracts is not disclosed. In addition, customers have been contacted to ensure that they are aware of what contractual information will be tabled in Parliament. The advice that the Forest Products Commission has provided has taken longer than anticipated and considerable time to assess. The contracts that will be tabled have had commercially sensitive material redacted.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 1014, 1317, 1179, 1243, 1225, 1229, 1230 AND 1247 Papers Tabled Papers relating to answers to questions on notice were tabled by Hon Ken Baston (Minister for Agriculture and Food), Hon Jim Chown (Parliamentary Secretary), Hon Alyssa Hayden (Parliamentary Secretary) and Hon Col Holt (Parliamentary Secretary). APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) RECURRENT 2014–15 BILL 2014 APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) CAPITAL 2014–15 BILL 2014 Second Reading — Cognate Debate Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [5.10 pm]: It is amazing what a half-hour break for question time can do! I took the opportunity to have a browse of my emails and I expect that members on the other side will start to get them through shortly as well. Having made those comments about the impact on taxidrivers, I sat down and read the emails that have come in throughout the day from taxidrivers who are clearly actually beside themselves about what has happened to the industry as a result of the Minister for Transport’s comments yesterday. They wrote about how much money they had borrowed—I will not go into specifics—how they were in debt and had loans to pay for these plates, which in some cases were plates they had bought from the Barnett government themselves not that long ago. The other comment I made earlier was about taxi cab surcharges and the inability of the government to deliver what it says it will. I mentioned that on 13 June 2014 an ABC news report stated the following — Taxi cab surcharges are to be slashed in half within a matter of weeks, WA’s Transport Minister Dean Nalder has said. That was to be within a matter of weeks after 13 June. We are now a matter of months after 13 June—not weeks, months. We are now two months after 13 June and I asked a question today: has the government introduced regulations to halve credit and debit card surcharges for taxis, and if no, when does the Minister for Transport expect this will occur? Leader of the House, I take at face value that the answer was too appalling to give and the parliamentary secretary did the right thing by saying he wanted to get further answers. Hon Peter Collier: We have a higher standard here. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I know that; a couple of answers occasionally slip through, but I accept that the Leader of the House has a higher standard. I worry though that the answer was such that the parliamentary secretary could not even give me a yes or no answer to that question. That is beyond a low standard. The parliamentary secretary could not even decipher the answer that the minister gave him. It sounds like he got a whole lot of gobbledygook babble. I appreciate that the Leader of the House demands a high standard and, I am sure, wears out his welcome regularly at cabinet meetings reminding ministers of the fact. When I was parliamentary secretary, I was always very thankful for Clive Brown’s attitude that I understood the Legislative Council. He told me to make sure that answers to questions were written in the way of the Legislative Council, and he always backed and trusted me. If I was not happy, we would get the answer written in the way that would meet the standards of this place. I think this highlights the fact that the government is not able to give a simple answer to that question, and its chaos and dysfunction on the issues that matter, whether it is the big issues or the little issues.

4836 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

I now go back to where we were before the adjournment when I was talking about the impacts of the public transport plans. Before I get into the details of all of that, I have to say I am just astounded, again, by another answer I got during the question time we just had. I asked of the minister when the government will release the business case and the details of the patronage modelling for the airport rail line, and I was told that they had been undertaken and formed part of a government cabinet submission, had been recently considered by government and therefore would not be released. What a complete nonsense. Just because something is wheeled through the cabinet room does not preclude the government from releasing that information. Even in Victoria for its monstrosity of a tunnel, its government has, at least in a modified form, released elements of the business case. I just wonder why the government is so petrified to release the business case and the modelling for what should be its shining statement. It is the only one of its election promises that it is continuing to deliver. I will not say it is the only election promise that it will meet, because, of course, it will not meet its election promise as there is a range of things that will not be as promised, such as the fact that it will not be built by 2018 or that the railway stations will not be in the promised locations. Therefore, unfortunately I cannot say that that is a transport promise that will be met, but the government is generally continuing with the theme of what it promised, rather than the specifics. Then, I found out that apparently Minister Nalder told people late this afternoon that when the government announced the Forrestfield–Airport link on the weekend, the $2.2 billion price tag—the $300 million blow-out on the costing that it said was fully funded, fully costed before the election—did not go to Treasury. Hon Sue Ellery: So who did the costing? They did it themselves on the back of an envelope? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I do not know; it has blown out. I would imagine that some work was done within the Public Transport Authority, but it does not strike me as a rigorous process. Now we hear the minister using saying things such as, “We are sure it will be in the ballpark.” It is like that famous technical term that the previous Minister for Transport used to use about the Metro Area Express light rail—not Hon Simon O’Brien and not the last one, but the one before, so Hon Troy Buswell. Of course we all know that the last minister before Dean Nalder was a guy called Colin Barnett, who had probably the least negative publicity during his term as Minister for Transport. That is probably why it was taken off him, because he had not had any negative publicity in the time he held the portfolio. Troy Buswell apparently said — Hon Sue Ellery: What was the technical term? Hon KEN TRAVERS: The technical term was “north of a billion dollars”. Remember that technical term used when the government costed that MAX light rail? It was going to be north of a billion dollars. It strikes me that the chaos and dysfunction in transport planning is continuing—that this government does not actually understand what it is doing. I now want to go back to the public transport master plan released by the Barnett government on 14 July 2011— we have to go back a long time—just after the demise of the first transport minister in the Barnett government. A press release was put out by Hon Tory Buswell entitled “Light rail, bus rapid transit and railway to Yanchep part of 20-year public transport plan”. I quote — “Our two key transformational projects to redefine travel and development patterns are the extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway to Yanchep and a light rail from Mirrabooka to the CBD. Later on it states — “Rapid transit services will provide connections to strategic centres, which have a large workforce or are centres of education or health, where demand for public transport is currently high and will grow significantly,” he said. “Our first priority for the implementation of this type of service is for Ellenbrook, where projected passenger numbers show a Bus Rapid Transit service between Ellenbrook and Bassendean, and across to Morley is feasible.” It then refers to all the money the government will spend on planning these three very important initiatives. Of course, over time we started to see glossy leaflets for the beautifully named Metro Area Express, with the colour scheme of the Liberal Party’s branding colours of blue and yellow, which it spent thousands of dollars on. It put it all together in lots of glossy leaflets and spent up to $28 million on developing MAX as part of stage 1 of the projects. Of course, the government did a lot of modelling and it found that 49 000 people a day would use the MAX light rail by 2031 and that the MAX light rail, including not just the northern leg but also the connection from Victoria Park to Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, would cost just under $2 billion. I recently noted that the Minister for Transport suggested that he thought that the northern leg would cost about $1 billion. He did not use the technical term “north of”; he just said that it would be about $1 billion. I suspect that the term “ballpark” is now used, so for in the ballpark of $1 billion, 49 000 people a day would use public transport in the north central corridor.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4837

Of course, we know that the Ellenbrook bus rapid transit service almost got to the point at which it was announced by the Barnett government. We know that there was a big flurry of activity in January when the Minister for Transport’s office was sending emails back and forth seeking to secure promotional material for a range of announcements. We know that on 31 January everything had been delivered to the Minister for Transport’s office for the announcement about the Ellenbrook bus rapid transit to go ahead the next day, 1 February—my birthday, I might add. We also know, based on an email sent on 31 January 2013 at 8.45 am between the minister’s office and the portfolio coordinator at the office of the director general of the Department of Transport, that there would be upcoming announcements about an airport link, a Thornlie–Mandurah rail connection and the MAX light rail. We have talked about MAX. What do we know about the Ellenbrook bus rapid transit? Hon Alyssa Hayden is an expert in this area; I know that she has given speeches about it. We know that the government expected that by 2031 about 6 500 people would be using the bus rapid transit system from Ellenbrook to Bassendean. Let us not forget that that was based on old population projections. The government significantly underestimated the population of Ellenbrook in the short term and also the build-out population. The figure of 6 500 people was based on old population data. There has been a significant increase in the speed at which both the population in that corridor and the final build-out population are growing. Almost on a daily basis we hear about new areas and potential areas for rezoning in the Ellenbrook corridor. I think it is fair to say that 6 500 would have been the minimum number of people. I estimate that anywhere up to 10 000 people would have used the bus system, and even more would have used the rail system, because there is the sparks effect. On a figure of 6 500, the government estimated that 8 000 people would use a rail system, so we can extrapolate from there. Again, that was based on a very narrowly defined corridor, and we know that corridors are often a lot bigger than people estimate. According to another briefing note sent on 31 January that outlined some details in readiness for the announcements the next day, a P90 cost estimate put it at $115 million and the BRT service would run at a frequency of 10 minutes during peak periods to match the train frequency at Bassendean. There was no point in the bus frequency being more than every 10 minutes because people would just have to wait at the Bassendean train station, as nice as it is. The Bassendean train station was rebuilt by the previous Labor government. We have not seen those really good quality redevelopments of train stations for some time and there certainly have been nowhere near as many as occurred under the previous Labor government. Nonetheless, the service was going to cost $115 million and would deliver people to the station 40 per cent, or 13 minutes, faster than the current bus service. We know that congestion is increasing on the roads in that area. I was driving home from a function in the Swan Valley at about 5.30 or six o’clock the other night and the traffic was a nightmare. I thought that a good way to avoid the heavy traffic would be to duck along Lord Street, but I noticed that the traffic on Lord Street turning on to Benara Road was banked up like you would not believe; it was chockers. The traffic in that area will just get busier and busier as the population grows. We know that the government estimated that the Ellenbrook bus rapid transit service would be approximately 40 per cent, or 13 minutes, faster than the current bus service. The other project was the extension of the railway line to Yanchep. That seems to have been forgotten, even though in population terms the City of Wanneroo is the fastest growing local government in Western Australia. It is amazing. People need to drive along Marmion Avenue almost on a daily basis to keep up with the growth in that area. People who have not been there for a couple of weeks will notice that whole new areas have opened up. If they have not been there for a month, they will notice that a whole new shopping centre has opened up. There is constant growth in that corridor. It is booming. Again, there is very little detail, but we know that work was done on developing a master plan for the extension of the rail line to Yanchep. That now seems to have evaporated somehow; no-one knows where it is. We know that a business case for the Yanchep railway was presented to the Minister for Transport in December 2012. The government was in a position to progress this project—one of its transformational priority projects—back in 2011. Again, money had been spent on it. The government has not released any details, but I think we can make a reasonable assumption that the government was initially preparing to look at four railway stations and that they would be used by the same number of people who use the Clarkson station—that is, a minimum of 2 000 people. In fact, I think the Public Transport Authority likes to build stations only if a minimum of 2 000 people are likely to use the station. Again, we know it is somewhere up to 8 000 as a minimum; it may be a bit higher—up to 12 000. The cost of building the extension of the rail line to Yanchep, based on figures released by the Minister for Transport before the last election, would be around $400 million. The final public transport project on that list I mentioned earlier is a Thornlie–Cockburn rail link. Andrew Waddell was very successful in getting the government to change its initial plans to have an airport rail line terminate at the consolidated station; he wanted the government to take it out through to High Wycombe and Forrestfield. I remember going to a very well attended forum out there where Andrew raised the very issue that really, I think, started that ball rolling in getting that line to go through. When the government announced its public transport master plan, people said, “This is crazy; you’re not planning to do anything down in the southern suburbs at all. Clearly, the number one priority is to build the public transport link between Cockburn

4838 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] and Thornlie.” The local members down there—in particular, the member for Gosnells, Chris Tallentire, and his neighbours—have argued it long and hard. In fact, I think the Liberal member down there actually promised, during the 2008 election campaign, that the Canning Vale station would be opened. But of course when the master plan came down, it was not shown. From the modelling I talked about earlier in the draft plan, we know that 10 000 to 30 000 people a day would be going down the corridor from Canning Vale—at that stage using a bus rapid transit system—to Murdoch station, putting real pressure on Murdoch. So, the government, in its wisdom, started to develop a plan for a Thornlie–Cockburn line, realising that it had forgotten that as part of its original public transport planning. We know that the area of Southern River, Thornlie, Huntingdale, Piara Waters and Harrisdale—all that area from South Street to Ranford Road—has become a corridor of massive growth that is probably the second-fastest growing area after Wanneroo, and if it had continued it would have put so much pressure on Murdoch station that it would have been in real trouble. The government submitted that proposal to Infrastructure Australia in August 2012, and at the time it estimated that it would have a benefit–cost ratio of 1.6. We also know, from documents released by the Minister for Transport prior to the last election, that it would cost around $315 million; that was the government’s estimate. From documents I obtained under a freedom of information application, we know the government was planning to announce that it would have it open by 2018. The government did not give me the cash flow, but it gave me the document that shows the years; the dollar figures were blanked out, but it showed the years for the cash flow that would have resulted in it being completed in 2018. That also makes sense because it would change the way in which the transport solutions at the new stadium would work. If I get time tonight I might have a bit of a conversation with the house about the problems of trying to deliver the transport solutions for Burswood station without that link. As the government has it, it wants to try to run all these trains into the city from Burswood; my view is that it is simply not possible, and when we try to ask detailed questions on it, the government does not give direct answers. We have been here long enough to know that when simple questions are asked and the government cannot give straight answers, it is because the government knows it has a problem. I think anyone who looks at this issue would know that the government is simply not going to deliver, in an hour, 25 000 people across the Swan River on the rail system. But it could take people out south and along the Thornlie–Cockburn link, and put people on the Mandurah line; the biggest group of people who visit the football use that line. It is the biggest single rail line for people wanting to get home after the game. The rail would be able to take them to Cockburn. They would have to change trains if they wanted to go to Bull Creek, Murdoch or Canning Bridge, but they would have had to do that anyway under the government’s plans of taking them into Perth and then having to walk through to get on the Mandurah line. In fact, it would be a lot easier to do it at Cockburn Central because the train can be turned around, people can be dropped off — Hon Jim Chown: So what you are saying is that for the southern line you would have adopted the previous Liberal Court government’s line in coming through Victoria Park and across the causeway because it would have been more beneficial for the new stadium, as opposed to coming down the freeway and blocking a lane of traffic and costing another $600 million to the borough of Perth? That’s what you’re actually saying. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Well, no, Hon Jim Clown—sorry, Chown; I will not use the term that Hon Jim Chown’s backbenchers use to describe him. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Alanna Clohesy): Order! Hon Ken Travers has the call. Hon KEN TRAVERS: There are a number of problems — Withdrawal of Remark Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: I just think it is very unparliamentary to mispronounce a name on purpose, as Hon Ken Travers did. If it was a mistake, I accept that, but I think he should actually correct that and make an apology. Hon Ken Travers: I said I wouldn’t use the term the backbenchers used. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Alanna Clohesy): Which standing order is the member referring to? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: Seriously? Okay. Bear with me. I know there is one there for unparliamentary — Hon KEN TRAVERS: Maybe I can speed up the house; I will withdraw my comment. If there was anything I just said that offends, I withdraw it. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Thank you. Hon Ken Travers has offered to withdraw the comment and has withdrawn it. Debate Resumed Hon KEN TRAVERS: I will correct a couple of the comments made there. Firstly, if we had built the main commuter line between Perth and the southern suburbs and adopted the original Kenwick deviation, trains would have taken 12 minutes longer. As we know from the information I have mentioned on time-saving on an

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4839

Ellenbrook line, those sorts of time savings have a significant impact on increased patronage. We would not have had a Murdoch station; I have just mentioned that Murdoch station is now the busiest station in the northern suburbs that has allowed Fiona Stanley Hospital to be built with a connection to the public transport system. That would not exist. We would not have the busiest station, we would not have Bull Creek station, and we would not have Canning Bridge station that ultimately will provide a connection through to Curtin University—one of the busiest centres in Perth in terms of daily visitation. We would not have had people looking to relieve pressure on Murdoch station because there would not be as many people using the train system, and all those other issues. Hon Jim Chown must have forgotten that we did not take a lane away from cars on the Kwinana Freeway. Hon Jim Chown: It was a bus lane. Wasn’t there a bus lane there? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes. We did not take it away from cars and private motor vehicles; we replaced a bus lane with a train that is now estimated to carry the equivalent of eight to 10 lanes of motor vehicles. If we did not have the Mandurah railway line — Hon Jim Chown: The buses are now on the freeway. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, and there are a lot fewer of them because a lot of people now come up on the train. If we did not have that train line, Hon Jim Chown would not be worrying about a bus lane; he would be trying to build eight to 10 lanes. The freeway would just about be getting across to the University of Western Australia, or the government would be resuming very expensive land in South Perth. Not only is the minister in the other place demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of these issues, but the parliamentary secretary in this place is now demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of these issues. To argue that we should not have taken the faster direct route up the middle of the freeway is simply extraordinary. However, the parliamentary secretary is right insofar as after having developed the rail network by building the main spines into and out of the city—with the exception of the north eastern corridor of Perth and, for that matter, the south eastern corridor when we get the airport line—we need to start to join the east–west connections and begin the construction of a Thornlie–Cockburn line. The information released through the freedom of information process indicates that there would be two stations: a Park ‘n’ Ride station at Ranford Road and another one at Nicholson Road. Those two stations would, again, carry an equivalent number of boardings to the Thornlie line, which at the time of this document—I suspect it is higher now — Hon Sue Ellery: Maybe even more because there are huge developments happening at the bottom of Southern River now. Hon KEN TRAVERS: This document indicated that there would be at least 2 117 boardings. Again, I think it is reasonable to assume that a bare minimum of around 4 000 people would use that line. Hon Sue Ellery is absolutely correct; I suspect it will be significantly higher than that. That is why the government was able to deliver a 1.6 benefit–cost ratio. The submission to Infrastructure Australia states that for every dollar we would get 1.6 times the benefit. It is interesting to note that the airport railway line had a BCR of only 1.4. Of course, a southern connection coming into it would significantly increase the benefits. If the stations were developed to allow transit-oriented development to occur around them, the benefit–cost ratio would increase. It is interesting that at the election the Liberal Party railed against the idea of building the airport west station off airport land so that housing could be developed around the station to stimulate a transport-oriented development. The government ran attack advertisements against the Labor Party and commented on it having the temerity to suggest that. What did the government announce on the weekend? Did it announce that it was delivering on its promise to have a station that delivers patrons directly into the domestic terminal? No, it announced that it would deliver something not quite as good, as its proposal will not allow that connection to the people who live on the other side of the Tonkin Highway in Redcliffe. It announced a significant improvement on what it previously proposed and something far closer to the Metronet proposal. The station at the international terminal is identical to the Metronet proposal. The government took journalists on a bus tour and tried to misrepresent the truth. Nothing the government says can provide any defence to the argument that the Premier and the then Minister for Transport deliberately set out on a strategy to mislead and to lie to the people of Western Australia in their election announcements. They knew what they were saying was a lie and that they would not deliver on that promise. Maybe they were dumb enough to think that they would deliver a train station into the terminal. That is their one defence. The Premier and the minister were silly enough to believe what they were saying, which was that they would deliver a train line that took passengers directly into the forecourt of the international terminal. Anyone who had even the remotest understanding of these matters would know that the train station would sit south and be in a position that would allow it to connect to future domestic terminals that will be created when Qantas relocates. A station should accommodate the future growth that will occur south through the expansion of terminal 2. That was always the logical place to build. We found out on the weekend that the government will now deliver that as it has proposed a station in the same location proposed through Metronet. The government was either too dumb to realise what it was doing and only realised later, after having looked at the Metronet plan, that it had its station in the wrong location, or the government deliberately lied to the people of Western

4840 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

Australia. From what I understand from talking to people, I think the government knew what it was doing and it deliberately lied, as it did with the domestic terminal on the other side. What do we get? With all those four projects that we talked about, some 67 500 people a day will use public transport for an investment of about $1.8 billion. The government announced on the weekend that the rail line will cost $2.2 billion. Initially, Troy Buswell and the modelling released some months ago suggested 12 000 to 15 000 people would use the railway line. The government now refers to 20 000 to 30 000 using it, but it will not release that patronage modelling. Why will the government not release the patronage modelling? Seriously, there is no reason that information should not be in the public domain. We know that the government submission to Infrastructure Australia referred to a benefit–cost ratio of 1.4, while the BCR for the Thornlie to Cockburn was 1.6. We need to build infrastructure for Western Australia. An airport railway line definitely has to be part of that infrastructure, but it is incumbent upon the government to explain why it has ditched its previous priorities and chosen to prioritise this plan. How has it chosen to honour this promise? The government promised the MAX light rail to the people. It promised an airport line. As the government lied about having its promises fully funded, it had to break one of its promises. If the government has arguments to put forward about why it chose to prioritise this project, it should put forward the arguments. It should not be ashamed of it; it should be proud of the reasons it chose one project over another. The people across the state are entitled to that explanation from the government and do not deserve secrecy. If the government is to build an airport railway line, it should build it properly so it has a transit-oriented development on the western side. I am glad the government will build at the Metronet location, despite its outrageous lies at the election. The eastern side should be designed so that we maximise the use of the station through urban infill and density feeding into the station. At the moment the Shire of Kalamunda will have only 71 000 people by 2031, which means the population catchment of the airport line will be way less than that of the Ellenbrook line by 2031. The government needs to look at how it can increase density on that other side and capture some of that value so it can put it back into funding this railway. If the government is to do the airport line, it should make sure it allows for that southern connection out of the airport, which will ultimately give us greater benefits in the long term. It should not stop at Forrestfield or High Wycombe; it should continue and join the south circle line. Do not do the job in half-measures; do it fully. The government will find that the benefits achieved will lift, which might help the government explain how it chose which promises it will break and which promises it will at least claim to be fulfilling, even though we know it will not deliver on what it promised at the time of the election when it cynically manipulated the people of Western Australia. The bottom line for Western Australia is the real urgency that if we do not get our public transport planning right, there will be a major cost on our economy. Hon Sue Ellery: It is already. Hon KEN TRAVERS: There are already predictions about what that cost will be, but because our population is growing so fast, I suspect it will be a lot higher than the previously estimated cost of $2 billion. If the government has this right, it should be able to explain to the people of Western Australia that it has chosen the projects that will deliver the maximum bang for our buck. WA cannot afford projects that do not immediately provide bang for our buck, because we are already behind. Basically, in the six years of the Liberal–National government we have not seen any additions to our public transport system. In the same time frame the previous Labor government had opened the Thornlie spur line, Clarkson extension, Greenwood station and the first trial trains were running on the line to Mandurah, which would be opening in about 12 months. In the same time frame the Labor government doubled the public transport system in Perth. We have not seen that under this government. At best, we will get one initiative—a very expensive initiative—by 2020. We need to know that will deliver maximum bang for our buck, otherwise we need an explanation of how the government will deliver an orderly public transport system. The government is extending the time frame—again not the time frame it promised at the 2013 election—to construct the Mitchell Freeway north of Burns Beach Road to Hester Avenue. That is great, but if the public get on to the freeway and there is no public transport north of Butler, where all of those new houses are located, they will have a very long, slow unreliable crawl to wherever they are trying to get to down that freeway system, whether it is Joondalup, Stirling or the Perth CBD. The government needs to get on with identifying and ensuring that we get the absolute maximum bang for our buck when it spends money on public transport, and that it does it quickly. The work is there to be done. We know the government has promised that work; it needs to put that out there for people to have their say. The government should be proudly saying that it is doing this work because it will give us maximum bang for our buck with our expenditure. If the government cannot do that, something is horribly wrong, and it is continuing to get it horribly wrong with its public transport planning in the way it chops and changes. Earlier I mentioned the Perth Stadium. As I said, a lot of questions still need to be answered by the government about how it will move 27 trains in one hour on the main line into Perth station, which is what it says it will do. I asked questions about this in the estimates hearings. The government says it will have 14 trains on one line and will reverse the line coming out of the city to Armadale to allow trains to travel on that line into the city. However, the government has to get 27 trains into the city. It also has to get eight trains back down the Armadale

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4841 line to maintain services, or is it going to close down the Armadale line for people trying to get out of the city? How on earth can we get that number of trains down that line? That is still a question that the government will not, or cannot, answer. In our recent estimates hearings, the government simply refused to answer those questions. In my view, that is a looming disaster. We will end up with a stadium that is predicated on everybody walking a significant distance from the station. The majority of stadium patrons expect to use public transport. I will not even go into how the government intends to get 7 500 people to walk from the stadium to the East Perth train station, which it does not intend to upgrade. Anyone who has been to the East Perth station will realise that people will be falling in the gap between the platform and the train cars. People saw the incident at Stirling train station, where we had that fantastic community response to such an incident. The ability for people to fall in the gap between the platform at the East Perth train station and the railcars is significantly higher than at Stirling. If members go out to East Perth, they will see the major gap between the platform and the railcars when they pull in. Part of the government’s solution for the stadium problems is for the East Perth train station to carry 7 500 people—without elevators, and with ramps that I doubt would meet disability standards today. That is another major issue looming with how stadium transport problems will be delivered and resolved. I want to make a couple of other comments about issues in transport that the government needs to deliver on, and I will finish off on the government’s election commitments. One of the reasons that the government has got itself into such a financial pickle is that it went after what it thought was politically popular and not what was good, sound policy. For instance, the government announced it would build the Perth–Darwin highway, the Swan Valley bypass and the Perth City Link project—whatever it wants to call it—but it did not announce that it would upgrade Tonkin Highway with grade separations at Collier and Benara Roads and Morley Drive. Of course the government cannot upgrade and divert more traffic on to that road as it would cause those intersections to fail. The government needed to do that, but it did not make that commitment before the election. People might remember that Labor did make that commitment, because it fitted in with our north circle line and our Ellenbrook rail line. It needed to be built as part of Labor’s commitment, and the costing for those grade separations was included. This government did not do that. It made a commitment and afterwards, because it had not put in all of the things it needed to make it work, it realised it needed to come back and commit to this and find the money, which is another reason the government was not able to deliver on its election commitments. We have the situation of the Berkshire Road overpass on Roe Highway. Labor said before the 2013 state election that the government’s proposal to spend $15 million to change that intersection was stupid when it could incorporate that as part of the Gateway project for about $30 million or maybe a little more. The government would not have had to find much more money, and our view is that there would have been savings from the Gateway project sufficient to do that for not much more than that $15 million, but the government said no. I remember the former Minister for Transport ridiculing Labor’s suggestion to do that and saying it was impossible, it could not and would not happen and was a silly idea. Now the government is doing that, but it has to find additional money because its election commitments did not include a promise for that road at that location. The other thing I wanted to touch on this afternoon is last night’s television report that the Department of Transport had issued a licence to somebody who was not eligible to drive. The government’s response is that it is the obligation of the driver to look on the internet to see whether or not they are authorised, and that someone whose licence had been suspended should not be driving. It is, but surely it is also the responsibility of the government not to issue a licence to someone who is not eligible to hold a licence and that it would look up its records to check that before it issued the licence. I would have thought that when this was brought to the government’s attention it would immediately be worried about that and, firstly, would conduct an audit, and, secondly, would look at how it could ensure it did not happen again. The government should not rely on issuing the licence and saying it takes all care but has no responsibility and that this is up to the driver; the government should try to identify whether someone is eligible before it issues a licence. This is a known dangerous driver. This government is schizophrenic in its approach to road safety, because it claims, on the one hand, that it is concerned and it will be tough, but then, by its actions, it shows that it has complete disregard for road safety matters. I find the way the government does that absolutely extraordinary. Finally, this budget will be heavily funded by increased taxes, fees and charges on families, but I will leave that until after the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon KEN TRAVERS: Just before the break I was saying that before I conclude my remarks on these appropriation bills I want to make a couple of final comments about the revenue measures. It was interesting that again we had a break—this time the dinner break—in my speech. Yet again members are getting enlightened about the chaos and dysfunction in the Barnett government. We found out that government members in the other place were unable to understand the connection between revenue and expenditure. The simple fact is that in Western Australia, because we are not like the commonwealth, we have only two ways of generating revenue— we get it either from taxes and charges or through borrowings. The commonwealth could print money. I thought

4842 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] it was probably worth checking whether the Perth Mint could print money and whether, if the eastern states do not give us a better deal on the goods and services tax, we could start printing our own money to make up for it and see what impact that has. However, I suspect that there is probably some commonwealth–state agreement that the Perth Mint will not do that. I know that it still produces legal tender, because at the City of Joondalup we always present a lovely dollar coin printed by the Perth Mint as a citizenship memento, so that may be a solution. However, until we go down that path — Hon Liz Behjat: It can produce bullion but not notes. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But it is legal tender. It raises an interesting question. Income and expenditure are very much connected. Of course, we know that one of the things that this government is very good at is hitting the ordinary punters of Western Australia for extra revenue to fund the government’s uncontrollable waste and mismanagement. Earlier tonight I talked about a number of projects. I am aware that, collectively, at least $35 million has been spent on projects that the government is now not proceeding with. An extraordinary amount of money has been wasted. I refer members to the last couple of budgets. I am not going to focus on all the areas of government in which fees and charges have been increased, whether it be the emergency services levy, the waste management levy or any of the other levies, or the increased cost of power, which has hurt ordinary constituents. In the transport area, we have seen a significant increase in the cost of public transport. Every day, people now pay 10c to go into Perth and 10c to go out of Perth for the carbon tax that is not there. That money is just going into the consolidated account. But in the last couple of budgets this government has introduced a number of other measures that have hurt Perth commuters and people who have cars in Perth. There is the Perth parking tax. An additional $20 million will be collected as a result of decisions announced in the most recent budget. The Barnett government will collect $60 million a year from the Perth parking tax. Since the Barnett government came into office, it has been increased five times. In equivalent terms, the government would have previously collected about $12 million from the Perth parking tax. It is now $60 million, with the amount now being more than $1 000 a bay. There is the train station parking tax. Again, the government will collect some $10 million from that measure. There is the abolition of the family concession for motor vehicles. The government will get additional revenue as a result of abolishing that measure. On top of that, the government has put up motor vehicle licence fees above the rate of inflation. However, by abolishing the family concession for motor vehicles—half in the last budget and half in this budget—the government will get additional revenue of $90 million per annum. All up, the government is now collecting some $160 million through those measures— that is, the two parking taxes and the abolition of the family motor vehicle concession. My preference is for the government to not put its hands into the pockets of ordinary Western Australian families. In this area, if the government cannot control its addiction to other people’s money and it is just going to pick their pockets, I would have thought that, at the very least, one of the things it might do is say, “If we’re going to get all this additional revenue out of the public in Perth, is there some way we can collect it that provides a good policy outcome? Can we change the way we collect it so that it will deliver policy outcomes as well as revenue into our pockets?” Of course, the government did not in any way attempt to find that solution. I am not a fan of a congestion charge, mainly because I am yet to be shown any way of dealing with the equity issues of a congestion charge. It is great for the economic fundamentalists to argue that it will change behaviour and, therefore, people will have choice, but many people on low incomes simply do not have that choice. A single mother who has to drop off her kids at school before going to work does not necessarily have the choice of using public transport, so she has to drive her motor vehicle. That single mother does not have the option of choosing an alternative. She just ends up getting taxed more. Therefore, until I can be shown a way of dealing with the equity issues, I will not support a congestion charge. Although I see merits in other respects in how a congestion charge may benefit the city, I would need to be convinced about the equity issues and, as I said, I have not been. If the government is going to collect, in an indiscriminate way, about $160 million from those measures, I am sure that with all our brains and all our intelligence we might be able to find another way of collecting that money, because at the moment there is no ability to share the load based on people’s capacity to pay. Surely we could try to find a way of collecting revenue that delivers a good policy outcome as well as collecting the additional revenue. If we must have the Barnett government taxing us more, we should try to maximise the benefits that we get from that additional taxation. That is my final comment, other than asking: is that money going into the government spending more money on roads? It is quite fascinating. Of course, in terms of the way we fund roads in WA, it depends on three sources. There is the money that comes under the Road Traffic Act through the motor vehicle licence fees, which of course the government is getting more of given it has ripped $70 million out of its revenue support for local councils; which, I am amazed, have just meekly accepted that cut to their revenue. I do not know what is happening in local government these days. They seem to be a shadow of their former selves in standing up for local communities. Maybe it is the case of their having been bullied and harangued for so long and hard by this government that they have just given up.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4843

Again, the money the government gets out of the motor vehicle registration fees is now at absolute record levels. When this government came to office, the revenue it got out of motor vehicle licences was $415 million a year. According to the forward estimates in 2017–18, it will be $930 million. In a decade it will have doubled. The government has more than doubled the amount it is collecting and, in fact, we are almost there this year when we will get $794 million, which is up from $415 million. Therefore, we are getting more out of motor vehicle licences. Then there is the commonwealth money and, as I said earlier, we are receiving more money than ever from the commonwealth government as a result of those commitments given by the previous Labor government and thankfully, with the exception of public transport, will be continued by the current government. However, we have lost $500 million. I would argue that we are still—given our productive contribution and the benefits that that money, invested in the right infrastructure, could return to the national economy—not getting our fair share in that regard, but I do acknowledge that it has increased significantly from where it was in the Howard– Costello days. Then, of course, there is the final area, which is what comes out of the money that we appropriate out of the consolidated account, which is the bill that we are dealing with today. If people go to the very back of the bill— they need to keep up with where it appears in the budget papers—they will see that under the heading “Capital Works” a consistently declining amount of revenue is going from the consolidated account to the Commissioner of Main Roads. According to the bill, $127 million will be appropriated. In 2004–05, the appropriation for roads out of the consolidated account was $142 million. We are spending less today on roads out of the consolidated account than we were a decade ago, and it gets worse. Next year, according to the forward estimates, it will be $3 million. The state government has walked away from its contribution. We now have a situation in which the only money that goes into roads in this state is money that comes from the road trauma trust fund, from the commonwealth government or from motorists through motor vehicle licence fees. The government is on the path of removing itself as an agency that is funded out of the consolidated account, and yet at the same time it consistently charges motorists more and more. I could go on all night about the lack of planning imports, the lack of future budget allocations for managing the port tasks—issues that will again constrain not just the Western Australian economy, but the national economy, which is another area where the commonwealth government could assist us to grow our economy. I have not talked about active transport measures such as cycling and walking—an area that, again, the government made huge promises at the last election and we are failing to see them materialise. Government members will say, “But we’re delivering on our commitments”, but what they are doing is delivering on the amount they promised over three years but will now be delivered over five years. Its own draft “Western Australian Bicycle Network Plan” recommended that we fund people—namely, that we have at least about $10 million a year in capital works. That is what it initially committed to and now it is just pushing it further and further down the list of promises as we look down the path of those promises being delivered in terms of alternatives. That is very much why we have a congestion crisis: because this government has walked away from providing the solutions that are required. As I say, there are so many issues that I could raise tonight, but I think I have probably said enough. I am sure there will be plenty of other opportunities for me to comment on the other areas in which this government is failing to deliver for the people of Western Australia. In conclusion, we are now at a point where when we spend money in transport, we need to ensure that because we have a congestion crisis—because the government has not invested in the way it should have over the last six years—we need to get maximum bang for our buck. We need government members to clearly articulate how and why it takes the decisions it does and the benefits that will derive out of those decisions compared with the alternatives, because we have a long list of promises. We know the government will break the majority of them and it will not deliver the remaining ones in the time frame. It needs to explain to the people of Western Australia how it has chosen—that is, which promises it will continue to seek to deliver and which ones it has completely dropped. To date, government members have not done that, and to suggest today that they will not release the business case or even the patronage modelling for the Perth airport line in my view just shows what a secretive government it has become, and secretive governments normally have something to hide. I just wonder what it is. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (North Metropolitan) [7.46 pm]: I rise to support the two bills before us that are being dealt with cognately; namely, the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Recurrent 2014–15 Bill 2014 and the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Capital 2014–15 Bill 2014. I particularly want to make comments about a couple of portfolios—in principle, that of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Housing. Many of the comments I will make will be about item 58 of schedule 1 of the bill, which deals with the Housing Authority. I note it seeks appropriation from the consolidated account of $72 947 000. I also wish to make some comments about the portfolio of training and workforce development, which seeks an appropriation of $421 120 000. Before I go into some of the detail of the issues I want to canvass in this place, I want to make some general comments about the mean spiritedness of both the federal and state governments. My colleague Hon Ken Travers made a very, very good point only a minute ago by saying that the government —

4844 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

Hon Ken Travers: It is the one about Eric Ripper! Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Apart from that one! He talked about the government walking away from finding funding solutions. I think that is spot on the money. We have a very, very serious problem with finances both at the commonwealth and state levels. The federal government has withdrawn funding support across a wide range of areas, leaving the state to mop up as best it can, and, of course, given the parlous state of the finances in WA, given the poor priorities of this government, given its lack of ability to find solutions, we see it has done a pretty poor job. What we are seeing is the continual erosion and reduction of services right across government and across all portfolio areas. We are seeing time and again insufficient funding for an appropriate level of service delivery across the government’s range of portfolios. It is a very sorry state of affairs in which we find ourselves. I want to touch on the matter of housing. I had cause to go to Sydney a couple of weeks ago and I stayed around the Market Street–George Street area. My partner, Eric, was with me and on that trip I said to him, “I can’t but help notice the number of homeless people pretty much on every corner.” I just could not believe how many homeless people there were, and I thought that was very, very sad indeed. Last week I had cause to go to the Perth CBD. I had not been to the CBD for quite some time and I mentioned to the person I was with the difference in Perth and that there did not appear to be any homeless people in the Perth CBD. I was reminded by my friend that the reason they were not in the CBD was that they had been pushed out of sight. I remembered that and thought to myself, “Why would they be pushed out of sight?” The clear and obvious reason is that it makes things look much better than they are. It means that the problem is swept somewhere else, and the hundreds or thousands of people who go into the CBD on a daily basis do not have to see such a sight as homeless, disadvantaged people. It is very convenient for policymakers and decision-makers to pretend that the issue is not an issue and that it does not exist. And so it is with our own homeless people who have been pushed out to the margins. This problem of homelessness in Western Australia is so bad that the Chief Justice recently had cause to make a speech about the cost of homelessness from a legal perspective at the Homeless Persons Week Conference, which was held at the Parmelia Hilton Hotel on Wednesday, 6 August 2014. The Chief Justice spoke about the moral dimension arising from the shared obligations of humanity and the economic dimension of this growing problem. Indeed, it is a growing problem. In his speech, the Chief Justice made the point — Homelessness undoubtedly has a moral dimension, arising from the shared obligations of humanity. Shelter is a basic human need, and our community long ago accepted the obligation to provide the necessaries of life for those who are unable to provide for themselves. He went on to say that clearly this is a growing problem and that the number of people who cannot provide for themselves continues to grow. It continues to grow at the same time as the government has abdicated its responsibility to assist these people. Consequently there is no option for them; they have nowhere to go and they end up on the streets. In particular the Chief Justice spoke about the plight of Aboriginal people and made the point that Aboriginal Western Australians are significantly over-represented among the homeless. According to the data from the most recent census in 2011, Aboriginal Australians were more than 17 times more likely than non-Aboriginal Western Australians to be homeless. He went on — The rate of Indigenous homelessness in Western Australia was, at the time of that census, the third highest in the country, whereas the homeless rate for non-Indigenous Western Australians was the lowest. It is depressing, and very sad to note that the rate of Indigenous homelessness in this State would be even higher but for the even greater overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in our prisons — In other words, the prisons are serving as a home to many Aboriginal Australians — —where the comparable multiple is 25—that is, adult Aboriginal Western Australians are 25 times more likely to be in prison that non-Aboriginal Western Australians. Western Australia’s rate of Indigenous incarceration remains by far the highest in the country. He went on — Recognition of the economic cost of homelessness is not new. Almost 20 years ago the then Social Justice Commissioner Mick Dodson described the flawed economics in policies of eviction of public housing tenants for rental arrears and tenancy debts in these terms: Although carried out in the name of good business and cost recovery a strictly enforced eviction policy costs the state dearly—the costs are manifested in dollar terms in the criminal justice system, in welfare agencies, in schools and in health centres and hospitals. The social costs of this approach are also significant—rising crime rates, social unrest and increased levels of violence. The human cost involved, especially to the kids, is enormous—physical, mental and emotional stress which often shapes a child’s future.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4845

What has been the Barnett government’s response to homelessness? It has not been great. There is no question in my mind that the government could and should be doing more about it. I will get on to the comments that the minister made, so she should just sit there quietly! The Barnett government’s response has been to introduce the three-strikes policy—exactly the punitive measures that the Chief Justice says it should not be introducing—which discriminates against certain cultures, as we all know that it does. It certainly discriminates against Aboriginal Western Australians and it certainly discriminates against people with mental illness. I have to say that once a complaint has been lodged against a tenant, the appeal process is such that it is almost impossible for a person against whom the allegation is made to have the decision overturned—almost impossible! So, what happens? People are evicted. Those people most in need are the first to be evicted. Aboriginal people, as we know, are often given move-on notices. Whether they be in a park or in Northbridge, they are given move-on notices and fines. Often they do not pay the fines because they do not have the means to pay them, and invariably they end up in the prison system. We have a culture, therefore, of making Aboriginal people criminals in their own land. I have to say to you, Mr Acting President (Hon Simon O’Brien), that this is really most unsatisfactory. Increasingly, we have a growing problem with homelessness. The Chief Justice went on — Of course, the criminalisation of homeless people because they are homeless is not the only legal dimension of homelessness. Other aspects of that dimension include: • Homeless people are more likely to be convicted or imprisoned than those who are not homeless. • Prisoners who are released to unstable housing (often indicative of homelessness) are almost three times more likely to return to prison than those released to stable housing, and 61% of those released to homelessness return to prison, compared to 35% of those released to adequate housing arrangements. In 2011, 10 000 people in Western Australia were reported to be homeless—10 000 people! That is an astonishing figure for a country that prides itself on being a First World nation, and for a state that prides itself on being the economic powerhouse of that First World nation. Ten thousand people were reported as being homeless. If this government and the minister responsible for this portfolio area believe for a minute that that figure is something to be proud of, I suggest they think again. Many people with mental ill health find themselves, through a range of circumstances, in the position of being homeless, so input was sought from the Minister for Mental Health at that conference. The Minister for Mental Health, Hon Helen Morton, told the delegates at that conference that a range of strategies to decrease homelessness were having a significant impact. Even she knows that it is not good enough and that services are stretched. At that conference she referred to a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare that states that 21 000 Western Australians access specialist homeless services. What she did not tell that conference was that most of those people did not get a secure bed on a permanent basis. The minister knows that. Hon Helen Morton: What she did tell them, though, was that 87 per cent of people got their needs met. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: They “got their needs met”! Hon Helen Morton: Yes; 87 per cent of people got support to maintain their housing. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The minister would have counted half of the people she referred to as a successful interaction because somebody had picked up the phone at the other end. They had made contact, minister. Hon Helen Morton: Okay; 87 per cent of people had their housing — The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Simon O’Brien): Order! Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: We are talking about getting people off the street and into secure accommodation. Hon Helen Morton: They got the assistance they — The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! When I say “order”, it means that everyone else in the chamber is to become silent. Thank you. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich has the call and will not be constantly spoken over. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Clearly this is something the Minister for Mental Health does not like to hear, but the point is that she went to that conference and made the bold statement that 21 000 Western Australians access specialist homeless services. That could be any manner of thing; that could be just having an interaction by making a phone call and getting some information. Hon Helen Morton: That might be all they needed.

4846 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: But at the end of the day the minister is trying to project the image that 21 000 people in some way managed to get a bed and have somewhere safe to live. That is simply not the case. Hon Helen Morton: That was not me saying that; that was the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare saying that. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: But the minister used that statistic to try to project something that was misleading to that conference, as though in some way she, as a representative of her government, had done something really constructive in assisting homeless people to get a home. The simple fact is that she has not; 10 000 people sleeping on the streets is not good enough. It is simply not good enough. An elderly constituent came to my office. He is disabled and has a gopher—that is how he gets around—and he has been living in a most unsatisfactory housing arrangement. I do not want him identified, but he came to me in relation to one matter and I had cause to visit his place of residence. He is living in a shared arrangement with very young people—this guy is close to 80 years old—and I realised that although, technically, he had access to the whole house, he actually resided in a very small cubicle at the back of the block. It was no bigger than a three metre by three metre square room, where he had his refrigerator and a bed and that was it. I thought it was most inappropriate for a nearly 80-year-old gentleman to be in a shared arrangement with very young people who had not much regard for the fact that he was elderly and was not into loud music and parties until one o’clock in the morning and all the rest of it. I said to him that I would do what I could to try to find him more suitable accommodation. He had also said to me that because he is on a gopher he could not access the main part of the house and he often went to the shopping centre to wash. Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Yes. There are plenty worse than that, but that is just an example. I said to him that I would do everything in my power to help him find suitable accommodation. I got in contact with a service provider, and basically we were told that he could be put on the waitlist for priority housing, but currently there is two-year minimum wait. That is priority housing, so I do not know what the wait is for non- priority housing. I know people working in electorate offices get a lot of inquiries—as do I—in relation to housing matters and are often forced to tell the constituent that they are terribly sorry but it is unlikely that those people will get accommodation for at least the next five, six, seven or eight years. I do not think anyone thinks that is good enough or appropriate, yet that is exactly what is happening out there. I noticed that there was a national partnership agreement on affordable housing and one on homelessness that expired on 30 June 2014. I would be very interested to know from anybody what has happened and what the value of that particular national partnership agreement on affordable housing was to Western Australia. Hon Helen Morton: Put a question in on notice and you will find out. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I probably will put in a question on notice. My point is that 63 of these national partnership agreements, of which this is one, expired on 30 June 2014, and a reasonable question to put to this house, given that this agreement has expired, is what the value of this agreement was; and, if the agreement has expired, is there another agreement to take its place or is the state left to find the funding that the commonwealth is not prepared to put in? If that is the case, is the state government prepared to put that money in? Hon Helen Morton: Ask the question and you shall be told. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Being a smart alec just does not suit the minister, although we know she is. It is a reasonable question. Hon Helen Morton: Just ask the question then; put it on notice and you will get all the information you want. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The point is we do not get the information we want. That is the problem. One of these days it will all tumble down on top of the minister because she can run but she cannot hide. Hon Helen Morton interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: If the minister wants to make a contribution, I am sure we are all more than happy for her to get up in this place and say something sensible. She has been here for years and it has not happened yet! Anyway, she can get up and make her comments. It is a very reasonable question to put to the minister. The house has the right to know what has happened to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness and what the government will do about it. Quite clearly, 10 000 people are already homeless. Unless the government has a pot of money somewhere, this crisis will go from bad to worse. It will get much worse. I know that members opposite do not want to hear any of this, particularly the Minister for Mental Health, but unfortunately she is going to have to put up with it. Hon Helen Morton: It comes under the child protection portfolio, by the way. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I sat here day in, day out listening to all the babble that came out of the minister’s mouth about mental health and suicide issues. Day in, day out we listened to absolute rubbish. Then,

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4847 when Bryant Stokes tabled his report we realised that everything that she had been telling this house was absolutely wrong—wrong, wrong, wrong! Hon Helen Morton: You did not read the report then. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I have read the report; do not worry about that. This is a very serious issue. I am sure most Western Australians agree with me, and I agree with the Chief Justice, that housing is a really fundamental human right. The lack of availability is a very poor reflection on what is supposed to be a civilised society. In his speech, the Chief Justice said that prevention is better than cure. This brings me to the second part of the speech: how do we put in place measures to diminish the risk of people ending up homeless? One of the key ways that I believe we can—it certainly helps—is to make sure people have the opportunities that they deserve so they can better provide for themselves. I see and believe that the vocational and education training system has a very crucial role to play here. Having said that, the vocational education and training system is also under considerable pressure. During my time as Minister for Education and Training I established the Skills Formation Taskforce, chaired by Hon Clive Brown. It produced a 150-page report titled “Careers for life: Creating a dynamic and responsive apprenticeship and traineeship system”. The report resulted in what became the Skilling WA training policy, which provided a blueprint for vocational education and training in this state. When I moved on from that portfolio, the work was progressed by my successor, Hon Mark McGowan, who signed off on the final copy of Skilling WA. After the Labor Party lost government, Hon Peter Collier adopted that report. In fact, the Barnett government took that whole report and claimed it as its own. Even though the earlier draft had been signed off by Mark McGowan, Hon Peter Collier took that to be his own work. I do not have a problem with that—obviously, when government changes people cannot keep writing new policies. It does not work like that because agencies would never get anything done and nothing would ever be implemented. If it is good policy, it should stand the test of time; it should be carried through and fully implemented et cetera. One thing about politics is that one does not always get credit or give credit to other people as one should when it is deserved. Skilling WA really had a very strong focus, particularly on Aboriginal employment and other equity groups. Members might remember that the Gallop and Carpenter governments had a very strong vocational education and training policy. Apart from increasing the school leaving age and a whole range of other reforms, we introduced trade training and other vocational courses into years 11 and 12. When we made the decision that students would be required to complete 12 years of schooling, it was quite clear that not everybody was university bound and consequently we needed a wider breadth of vocational education and training opportunities. That is what we set out to do. These initiatives were important because Labor wanted to stem the flow of students leaving at year 10. We wanted to give vocational education and training choices to students in a structured environment, and that was within the school framework. My concern about vocational education and training is that this government has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to Aboriginal people in training. It is very wrong that it has taken its eye off the ball for most disadvantaged groups. The Department of Training and Workforce Development has really taken its eye off the ball in terms of access and equity. We are finding that those groups within the community who most need access to training are least likely to get it. The first of five strategic goals under the Skilling WA training plan is to — Increase participation in the workforce particularly among the under-employed and disengaged, mature- aged workers, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other under-represented groups. We need to ask: what has the department done? The answer is that it has reduced its equity and access programs. Instead of increasing and providing better access to access and equity programs, it has tightened the screws and made sure that they are not as successful as they used to be. Today I asked a question about the latest “Quick stats summary: Commencements and in training”. The information shows that from the 12 months to 31 December 2012 and the 12 months to 31 December 2013 there has been a 12.5 per cent drop in all training contracts, from 35 851 to 31 368. Secondly, the quick stats summary also shows that the number of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander apprenticeship commencements has dropped by 23.4 per cent. It shows that the number of school-based apprenticeships or commencements for apprenticeships, including Aboriginal school-based apprenticeships, has dropped by 40.3 per cent. The number of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander traineeship commencements has dropped by 16.8 per cent. The number of school-based traineeships, including Aboriginal school-based traineeships, has dropped by 38.2 per cent. The number of Aboriginal school-based traineeships has dropped by 35.3 per cent. That is simply not good enough. The government has clearly dropped the ball in the training of Aboriginal people. That is why I asked a question in the Parliament today calling on the government to explain the substantial reductions in the number of Aboriginal traineeships. I was interested to receive the response from the Minister for Training and Workforce Development. Even though the minister tells us time and again how well things are going in training

4848 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] and workforce development, this is not borne out by the statistics from his own department. I asked three questions of the minister today on training and workforce development. The questions were — (1) Can the minister explain why there was a 23.4 per cent reduction in apprenticeship commencements for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander students between December 2012 and December 2013? (2) Can the minister explain why there was a 40.3 per cent reduction in school-based apprenticeship—including Aboriginal schools-based apprenticeships—commencements between December 2012 and December 2013? (3) Has the government deliberately turned its back on Aboriginal training? The minister’s answer, presented by the Leader of the House, began — (1)–(2) The decline in school-based apprenticeships reflects an overall decline in apprenticeship commencements over the same period. Employer demand for apprentices has been impacted by generally moderating economic conditions and reductions to the commonwealth employer incentives scheme. Basically, there has been a reduction in one of the commonwealth-funded programs—the employer incentives scheme—and the level of economic activity has declined. I can accept both those statements, but I cannot accept that the government has done nothing about it. I know it is difficult to immediately change the economic conditions of the state; even I would grant the state government and the minister that. Having said that, the challenge of government is making sure that it is ahead of the game. The challenge of government is finding solutions to problems. For example, when I was Minister for Education and Training, the state was experiencing the opposite problem. There was a very high rate of economic growth and the housing sector was absolutely booming. We could not build houses fast enough. Because there was a skills shortage, I made the decision that we would move to a competency-based training system. In other words, we would not stay with the time-serving apprenticeship system, but we would move to a competency-based apprenticeship system, which meant that we could produce qualified apprentices at a faster rate, provided they met all the skill requirements. I had problems with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on that matter, but I argued for the state, and we carried out that reform. Just saying that the reason for the decline in Aboriginal apprenticeship numbers is that there is an economic downturn and the government has reduced the funding of the employer incentives scheme is simply not good enough. The real question is: what is the government doing about it? Seemingly the government is doing nothing about it. One thing that the government did, not long after the Minister for Training became the Minister for Training and Workforce Development—Hon Peter Collier, not the current minister—was to get rid of a very good program introduced by the previous government called the priority start program. This was about giving apprentices training opportunities in government public works contracts. The then minister got rid of that program, and as a consequence the government does not employ any apprentices. That is simply not good enough. The first part of the minister’s answer continues — The demand for Aboriginal school-based apprenticeships was also significantly impacted by the cessation of commonwealth funding for the Aboriginal school-based traineeship program, which included apprentices, during 2012. I am very interested to hear that, because here is yet another program historically funded under a partnership agreement—it could be under another agreement; I do not know—that made money available for apprenticeship training, and that money is no longer available. I am sure the Minister for Mental Health will tell me to put it on notice, but I will put it on preliminary notice, and I think it is a fair enough question to ask: how much was allocated to that Aboriginal school-based traineeship program, which included apprentices; when did it expire; what was the value of that agreement with the commonwealth; and, why has the government not funded it? There has been no attempt by the government to make sure that Aboriginal school-based apprenticeship training programs increase; instead we have seen a massive reduction in the number of those school-based apprenticeships, and a massive reduction in opportunities for young Aboriginal people, who desperately need qualifications so they can lead more productive lives and take part in building this great state of ours. Of course, that will not happen because the minister has not secured the funding. On the question of whether the government has deliberately turned its back on Aboriginal training, the minister replied — The state government provides significant support for Aboriginal apprenticeships. This includes a guarantee to fund training delivery for all Aboriginal apprentices, including Aboriginal school-based apprentices; …

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4849

This contradicts the previous paragraph, in which the minister said that the commonwealth funding has finished, and the minister has done nothing about it. The answer goes on to state that the government has also provided support for Aboriginal apprenticeships by — specific incentives for group training organisations to employ Aboriginal apprentices, including increased funding to offset the reduction in commonwealth funding; I am sure that we would all want to know how much the commonwealth agreement was worth in this program, and how much the state government is now funding it. I will put my money on the state not contributing to the same extent as the commonwealth government did, and therefore the Aboriginal school-based traineeship program is trending downwards at a very rapid rate. That is really sad, because when one looks at the Department of Training and Workforce Development website, the department prides itself on equity and access programs. Certainly, much is said about the importance of these programs to give young people and not-so-young people the opportunity to get those skills so that they can become employable and become productive members of society. Not only have Aboriginal school-based programs dropped substantially—by nearly 40 per cent—but also no concessions apply, even though the course fees are not particularly onerous, for many of the courses available, especially in foundation skills or equity courses. Those courses include such things as Aboriginal school-based traineeships yet no concessions are given by the department and that means that those who can least afford that training are those most likely not to access that training because of the cost impost on individuals. I want to put on the public record my disappointment at what the Minister for Training and Workforce Development and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs have done in this area. The Minister for Training and Workforce Development has sat on his hands and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs has done exactly the same. We need them to recognise the importance of equity and access programs and to recognise that young people should not end up without opportunity; we want young people to have opportunities, particularly Indigenous young people and not-so-young people so that they have the opportunity to become really productive members of the community and can make their contribution, just like everybody else. I am afraid that the roadblocks and lack of action by this government are totally unacceptable. HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural) [8.32 pm]: Like my colleagues before me, I rise tonight in debate on the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Capital 2014–15 Bill 2014 and the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Recurrent 2014–15 Bill 2014 to once again point out the many failures of the Barnett–Redman Liberal–National government. Given that we are talking about appropriation and the spending of money by the government of Western Australia in the state of Western Australia, there are plenty of topics in which I think the government can do better, and I will be running through those this evening, especially as they relate to the Agricultural Region. During the parliamentary break, at my own expense—just in case Geof Parry is reading Hansard—I took my family on vacation to Vietnam. It is the first time that as a family we have been overseas, and I am pleased that we did so because my children returned home realising that they are lucky to live in Australia, a country that at this point does not have a monstrous gap between rich and poor, as we saw in Vietnam. However, given the way the Liberal–National government is running the state of Western Australia, I fear that that gap between the rich and poor in our society will become wider. A trip to a country like Vietnam, where one can see the very rich and very poor together on show for all to see, should be a reminder to us that that is not what we want in Australia, especially in Western Australia, the powerhouse of the Australian economy. Members know, through the discussions that they have had in the chamber, that the state of Western Australia has lost its AAA rating. We know that the federal government, despite having states that are not performing as well, such as Tasmania— about which the Treasurer of Western Australia loves to wax lyrical on the great deal it is getting from the GST revenue and which is his explanation for the woes in the state of finances in Western Australia—still has a AAA credit rating. There has been a lot of talk about a budget emergency and how we need to tighten up and fix the books of the national economy, yet the federal government still has a AAA credit rating and Western Australia does not, and I think that points out the hypocrisy of the Liberals and Nationals when they talk about the federal budget. Higher taxes and charges in Western Australia and a massive blowout of state debt, from $3.8 billion when the coalition came to government to over $30 billion, should help people realise what a poor government the Liberal–National government has been. Lacking in policies, playing politics with every issue and promising one thing before an election only to abandon those promises after the election works for a while, but it is not a good long-term strategy and I am sure that the people of Western Australia will see through it and that, finally, the coalition government will be defeated and the Labor Party will return once again to restore the financial stability that Labor provides. I will talk more about particular increases in taxes and charges foisted upon the community, generally on those who can least afford it. I refer to groups such as seniors and those on low incomes who are the target of incessant

4850 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] attacks by the Liberal–National government that pushes the gap between the very, very rich, who feel as though they have the authority to get up and speak about what it is like to be poor, and, of course, those who have not had the opportunities in life that many of us have had. I talked about that in my inaugural speech and about how fortunate many people have been to have had opportunities and to have made the most of those opportunities. What about those who do not receive those opportunities? There have been several years now of complete dysfunction in, and mismanagement of, the state’s finances and, of course, the natural instinct is to cut. That is a conservative thing to do and that is fine. However, I have learned that it is better to increase the pie, grow the economy, create jobs and employment, and give those who need it a hand up so that they can contribute to the economy in the state of Western Australia. The Labor Party and Liberal and National parties differ on that issue, and that is okay. That is what the coalition believes it needs to do, but I will always be critical of measures that create further disparity between people who have and people who have not. As long as members are comfortable with that, I will move on. I am running through my list in no particular order, but I am most concerned and I read with horror about the increasing costs of vehicle examination fees that are rising more in regional Western Australia than in Perth by around 19 per cent. I believe very strongly—I know this is the ethos of progressive parties such as the Labor Party—that there should be parity between those who live in metropolitan areas and those who live in regional areas. For instance, a postage stamp should cost the same whether it is bought at the general post office in the City of Perth or in Kununurra, Warburton or Northam. Deep down a lot of people would agree with that, but that is not happening with vehicle examination fees. I am concerned about starting on the slippery slope of what economists call “full cost recovery”, because services are more expensive to provide in regional areas and where will it end? I cannot believe that such a measure would be approved by more than half of this house given that more than half of the members of this house come from country regions and half of the members of the house come from the city. I would have thought that such a measure would have difficulty passing through this house, but it seems that my colleagues on the other side do not seem to worry that things cost more in the country, including that vehicle examination fees cost up to 19 per cent more in country areas. Where will that end? We are already seeing an increasing disparity in the price of piped water. The further we live from water, the more we have to pay. Some members might argue that that is all right. Will that disparity then move to electricity and other such commodities? Will we think it is a reasonable notion to have a uniform tariff for everybody? That was of much concern to me. I think there is a slippery slope. Those who claim to represent regional areas are not making a big thing about this. I look forward to the contributions from my country colleagues who represent other political parties because it is certainly one area on which we should hold the government to further account on behalf of our constituents and those who vote for us. I have spoken a lot in the Parliament about the demise of the tier 3 rail service. I think it is a disgraceful piece of public policy in that we have a publicly owned asset that those who own it and use it want to remain open. I think I can say, without being unparliamentary, that the government has taken a bloody-minded approach to this issue. It does not care what anybody says or thinks. It does not care how much grain gets moved on those railway lines. It does not care what the road safety statistics are in the wheatbelt and the fact that they are seven times higher than in Perth. It does not care that there will be 85 000 extra truck movements mixed up with school buses, small cars, front-wheel drives and young drivers. It does not care about any of that. It is going to close these lines. They have been leased to Brookfield. The government has made some changes to the lease that it will not tell us about. It is a publicly owned asset that is now sitting idle as a direct result of government mismanagement. Many members on the other side need to have a good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why that has been allowed to happen. The fact that the tier 3 railway lines carted more grain in the last month of their operation than they have ever carted in the months before should tell members that this service is useable. This service can be maintained and looked after. It will keep freight off our roads and keep freight out of the metropolitan area because much of it will come down Brookton Highway, the Great Eastern Highway and Albany Highway into Perth as a result of the closure of these lines. I think that is a great shame because we have enough congestion in the city. The government has decided that roads are the future, not public transport. We are going to throw several more truck movements into that mix as well. I think this will be a key issue during the next state election. At the last state election, Labor was very clear on its policy. We announced that we would put $30 million on the table to negotiate an outcome between CBH, Brookfield Rail and the state because they are all significant players in the process. We made our position very clear. Seeing that that could be problematic, the coalition parties came out and said that they will support a viable tier 3. These were weasel words that made the electorate hear what it wanted to hear. It is true to say that a lot of the affected areas are very conservative areas. A lot of the people who live in these areas are naturally inclined to vote for either of the conservative parties—the National Party or the Liberal Party—which is effectively voting for Colin Barnett. I think they took the assurances that were made that we will either support a viable tier 3 rail or that we have to seize the opportunity under the agricultural policy to take $75 million out, knowing full well that that was not going to happen. That gave the electorate

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4851 some assurance that it could still vote for the conservative parties, and it did, only to have that faith shattered. At the next election I think the conservative parties will get told loudly and clearly what the public that owns and uses those railway lines think about this flim-flam policy that we might want to help get in front of an election only to be dashed later on, and now we see that the lines have been closed for several weeks and that freight is going back onto road. I will talk more about that in the Parliament; I will not let this issue go. Those lines should be opened again. If an operator can use those lines, even if they break even or make a loss, we should be doing that for no other reason than to make our roads last longer and to try to stop the disparity between the road fatality rates in the wheatbelt and other areas of the state. We have had a very bad month in the wheatbelt. We continue to lose some of our good people through motor vehicle accidents. It will not get any better by increasing the number of trucks on the roads by a factor of around 85 000. I think we will have another very good season this year. We have had an excellent start to the season. We have had outstanding opening rains. Areas are looking out for more rain that I hope eventuates later this week and over the weekend to give those crops another much-needed drink. It is possible that we could get anywhere from 12 to 20 million tonnes of grain. We have already had two record harvests in the past three years. We could well get another record harvest this year if the season finishes like it did last year. That would make three record harvests in four years at the same time as the state government is closing down the tier 3 rail network. It makes no sense to me and I do not think it makes much sense to anyone who lives in the wheatbelt and the agricultural areas. We will continue to prosecute the government on that poor unexplained decision. We would like to know what changes were made to the lease in terms of performance standards because it does not make any sense without that information. We suspect that the standards that were maintained have been reduced to zero, which I do not really think the state government should have done. I think that was a poor decision. We would like that information. Why is the government being so secretive? I think it is because it will be embarrassed when that information is made public. It will be made public; it will come out eventually. Hon Nick Goiran, who has just popped out on urgent parliamentary business, mentioned the Clean Energy Act or what the conservative parties like to call the carbon tax. Here is another example of deceit from the conservatives in that the sky was going to fall in. Does anybody remember that Whyalla was going to be wiped off the map? Does anybody remember Barnaby Joyce, that intellectual powerhouse, saying that housewives will not like the carbon tax when it costs $100 for a roast? I was in Coles the other day. One can buy a leg of lamb for $7.99 a kilo. It just did not happen; it was just sensationalist nonsense being peddled about. We should learn to expect that from the federal Minister for Agriculture. Clive Palmer, in the federal Senate, is a mining billionaire who sells a lot of coal. Of course, he was always going to vote with the conservatives on issues such as the carbon tax. We all knew that. He played the game for a week or two and got some attention. Ultimately, that is what he was always going to do. As a result, the Clean Energy Act has been repealed. I am not a betting person but I would not mind having a go at this one. Members will see that all of these increased costs and all of this pain that was going to be shared around as a result of the carbon tax will not be reversed. As Hon Ken Travers pointed out, public transport fees are going up, even after the abolition of the Clean Energy Act. I know that the public is cynical but it really has not noticed any change since the repeal of the Clean Energy Act. Julia Gillard was often quoted as saying that there will be no carbon tax under a government that she leads. She did say that but that was only half of the sentence. The other half of the sentence was “but make no mistake, we will price carbon”. I do not think she told a lie. I think she had to adapt her position in a hung Parliament. I think the Prime Minister of today is finding out that it is not always easy. He has a much freer passage to get legislation through than the federal Labor government did but in its first seven months, the federal Labor government was able to pass 127 pieces of legislation and poor old Tony Abbott has only been able to pass seven. History will show that once all that nonsense and political spin and the politics are taken out of that, the Clean Energy Act was a good piece of policy. The thing that concerns me most about the repeal of the Clean Energy Act is that just about everybody younger than me knows that at one point we have to bite the bullet and invest in renewable energy. There is the incentive for companies to do that. We noticed an increase in solar power stations—there is a large one in my electorate— and wind farms. These are the technologies of the future because they never run out and get cheaper rather than more expensive over time. As a result of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 we would have had more efficient, renewable and lower cost in the long term electricity. It would have caused a bit of short-term pain, but I think that most people were prepared to wear that. Now, we are back to digging up as much coal as we can and burning it as fast as we can. We are the only country in the world to take a backward step on action against climate change and I am ashamed of that. This is the mantra we are trying to work against. Hon Nick Goiran brought the issue up and I could not let it go. I think if no action on climate change is going to be the legacy of the Abbott government and this era of “Liberalism” in Australia, I do not think it is anything to be particularly proud of. I do not think any government members are showering themselves in much glory with regressive, ultra conservative and, dare I say it, extreme right-wing policies. The government members need to come up with some policies for the future rather than just three-word slogans and 30-second sound grabs, because our kids are depending on us to do that.

4852 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

I want to talk briefly about other issues. I spent a lot of time in my electorate. Before the recess I was critical of the government for pulling $19.5 million, or a round figure of $20 million, of funding for upgrades to our district high schools. I know Gingin District High School has had its budget cut by $3 million. I have been to the school and the home economics lab was of my vintage, from when I was at school in the early eighties. Lots of the old stoves are still there and are clearly in need of an upgrade that is not coming as a result of the government’s decision. To make matters worse, $820 000 has been spent on planning for these upgrades. That is dead money that has gone now. I know from being in business that decisions have to be made earlier than that about whether to go or stay so that good money is not thrown at something it is doubtful will be done. That is extremely disappointing to the Gingin, Jurien Bay and several other communities. Even Yanchep has had a cut. It is not in my electorate, but I think it is a school in a growth area that could have done with those upgrades. I find that difficult to explain. Hon Ken Travers: It had its capital works program cut as well, Yanchep. Hon DARREN WEST: Yes, it has. Even Wyndham District High School has had cuts. It is a bit rough to deny schools like that. As I said, a lot of money has been spent. I have seen concept plans and even press releases with all the puff about how great it will be, but I have not heard too much from members on the other side of the chamber since these cuts were made. I think that it is also a regressive step. Education is where we should be trying to close that gap. I will come back to the theme of closing the gap between regional and city schools. Kids in the country are no dumber than kids in the city; they do just as well when they are given an equal opportunity. I think we should encourage our regional kids when they stay in their local schools, and give them the best opportunities they can get. Our seniors are not grumpy, Mr Barnett, they are absolutely furious. I have had so many responses to a letter I sent to seniors about the changes. We are getting 10 or a dozen responses a day. We are getting petitions sent to us and phone calls. I have returned 30 phone calls. Seniors are all of the common view that they do not understand why the state and federal governments are being so harsh on them. They have worked hard, paid a lot of tax, raised families and created the next generation of the workforce and now they want a modest retirement in their old age. Many seniors do not own homes, they rent, which is expensive. Our seniors are absolutely furious, they are livid at the changes the government has made. Many seniors have always been conservative voters and they now say to me, “Never again will I vote for this conservative government.” I went to Geraldton where Iluka Resources has scaled back its operations in the midwest. Iluka used to sponsor an indoor bowls tournament in Geraldton. But Iluka was quickly replaced; it is now the Darren West, MLC, bowls tournament. The winners of the tournament were terribly, terribly pleased to finally get something back from a politician, because the last 10 notices they had had from politicians told them that they had lost money. They are not happy at all. They have to pay up to 212 per cent more in licence fees for their cars. People have told me story after story about how difficult it is, aside from the federal government’s cuts and the $7 general practitioner co-payment, on which I think some sanity will eventually prevail. I have had a lot of contact with seniors, as I am sure all members have, asking what exactly the government is doing and why it is doing this. In the Agricultural Region we have had the second round of cuts to school funding, and we are seeing $4 million being cut from, predominantly, our high schools. Some of our primary schools are having cuts to funding. I think it is a good idea to have a simpler funding model; one can always tinker with these things. But when the figures got plugged in and showed that Rangeway Primary School, which I am told is the lowest school on the socioeconomic index in Western Australia, has a funding cut of $22 000, I thought that the government might just look at the figures and tinker around and come up with a slightly fairer plan. I notice that schools in the western suburbs have had significant increases. It makes no sense to me why that would happen. To say, “That is what you deserve” was a very insensitive and poorly made remark. I think schools are feeling very unloved at the moment, minister. Hon Peter Collier: It is called selective commentary. That is completely wrong. Hon DARREN WEST: Yes, okay. I will cop that. I get what is going on. I know Professor Teese said we need to put more money into early childhood education, and I agree with that. When I was chair of the board of the Sacred Heart Catholic School in Goomalling, we started a three-year-olds program and I think it is very important to get kids to school at a younger age. What I did not realise was how we profile those children. When they started in year 1, they were ready to go in year 1. I thought that was a great initiative that worked very well for us. It saves resources and cost down the track. I do not think Professor Teese ever intended that we would pull money out of high schools to pay for that. Hon Peter Collier: That is exactly what he said. Hon DARREN WEST: I am not so sure. Okay, we can beg to differ on that. I look forward to the minister’s explanation. Hon Peter Collier: That is exactly what he said.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4853

Hon DARREN WEST: I do not agree with that. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Liz Behjat): Order! Hon Darren West has the call. Hon DARREN WEST: Thank you, Madam Acting President. We can agree to disagree on what Professor Teese said, but I know his language changed over a period of a few days. I think it did. Hon Michael Mischin: Is there anything else that you have imagined? What is the world coming to? The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Hon DARREN WEST: Attorney General, there are lots of things but I cannot talk about them here. It is most concerning to me that seven schools in the Agricultural Region will lose the maximum amount of $250 000 in funding. In some cases this comes on top of an even greater amount that was cut last year. For instance, over two years, Geraldton Senior College has had a $580 000 cut to funding. I think the cut to John Willcock College is in the order of $520 000. Over $1 million a year is being taken out of the only two public high schools in Geraldton. For those who are not familiar with the education system in Geraldton, John Willcock is for years 8 and 9 and will also be for year 7 students next year, and Geraldton Senior College is the campus for years 10, 11 and 12. In recent years as little as four per cent of students from Geraldton Senior College have attended university. I know that is not the only criteria on which the success of a school is measured. The staff there are wonderful and they do a magnificent job, but I do not think those figures are acceptable. The percentage has gone up to 11 per cent, but the state average is around 23 per cent. As I have said before, I do not think that students in Geraldton are any less smart than students anywhere else. There is clearly an issue with the model up there. I know that the minister has been to Geraldton and made some announcements about how we can perhaps address some of the issues in public secondary schooling in Geraldton, but I think that cutting that sort of money out of the budget will not turn that statistic around. Also in my electorate are Northam Senior High School and Narrogin Senior High School, which need more money, not less. Merredin College is also in my electorate. I have often heard National Party members speak in this place about what a great job they have done in Merredin in building a new residential college. That is great, but the school has just lost $250 000; so has Mount Barker Community College. York District High School has lost $246 000, which I will round out to $250 000. When I did the sums for York and plugged in the number of students divided by the cut out of that school, it came to more than $3 000 per student. As I said, Rangeway Primary School, despite the movement of funding from high schools to primary schools, has had a cut of $22 000 a year on top of the cuts it had last time. I would have thought that if the government plugged those sorts of figures into a model and that figure spat out, it might reassess its approach. I hope that there is still time for that to happen, because a unique set of children attend Rangeway Primary School. Many of them are from single-parent families and many are Aboriginal. Rangeway Primary School has amazing staff who do a fantastic job, but the school can only do so much when its budgets are increasingly under threat every year. Also of concern for me in the education space in Geraldton and in the broader Agricultural Region are the increases that have been passed on by the Liberal–National government to TAFE students. The increase in fees at TAFE colleges is absolutely nonsensical when the fees are rising by so much for students in some of the areas of greatest need, such as aged carers and aged-care nurses. It is obvious that in 20 to 25 years there will be an acute shortage of those people—as there is already now. I know that the mantra is to bring in cheaper workers from overseas, but we have a lot of good people here who need training to get the skills necessary to do this important work that we need done in our local areas. We do not have to bring them into the state and we do not have to build them houses. They are already there in our local towns, cities and communities. There are already people there who want to work and stay in their area. They just need that education opportunity, and in many cases they cannot afford these exorbitant increases in TAFE fees. I know that TAFEs in my electorate are working very hard to find other client bases by trying to bring in overseas students, trying to offer different courses and trying to find ways to keep their colleges sustainable by having enough students walk through the door and have their budgets break even. It should not have to be that way. We should be encouraging TAFEs to offer the courses that we need, not the ones that people can afford. Also in talking about young people, I spoke before the recess about the Youth Connections program in Western Australia and the wonderful work that it does, particularly in the midwest with disengaged youth. I also spoke about the partnerships program and the breakfast program. I was fortunate enough to go to Geraldton recently with the shadow Minister for Youth, Mr Dave Kelly. Dave and I went to the breakfast program and met with about 10 or a dozen kids who have fallen through the cracks of the mainstream schooling system. They have tried the mainstream schools, they have tried the care schools, they have tried various different avenues of engaging in education, all to no avail, and have found themselves in the really inspiring Youth Connections program run by the Geraldton Regional Community Education Centre. It was quite amazing to see. We saw a

4854 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] boy who was there on his first day. He sat on a chair looking down at his feet, totally unengaged. We also saw people who told us their story about the courses they want to save up their money to do, the part-time work they are doing on weekends and what they want to do with their lives. We could see the whole circle of what was happening. When I spoke to some of the staff later, they said that they all come in like the boy on his first day. That is how they all start: totally disengaged. They are kids who have been bullied, who have been abused and who have come from tough families—kids who have not had that opportunity in life that we take for granted. It is really important that this program be retained in some form. As I said in the non-government business that we discussed before Parliament went on recess, it was a program set up by the federal government but it was always intended to be funded by the state. I am pleased to say that all the operators running that program are putting together a proposal to bring to government for funding in the order of $8 million to continue that important work with about 1 600 kids across Western Australia in some difficult-to-service, rural and remote communities. I think that it surely will be seen to offer good value for money to work in conjunction with the other mainstream schools, TAFEs, apprenticeship providers and of course the care schools as well, of which I have a fair knowledge. I also think we need to lift our game in all those areas of education and training, and for the kids who manage to sneak through the spaces and find themselves not engaged in education as we know it. While I was in Geraldton with Dave Kelly, who is also the shadow Minister for Water, I never smelt anything in Vietnam like I did in Utakarra, a suburb of Geraldton. There is a Water Corporation sewer depot, which is clearly over-capacity. It takes in probably half of Geraldton’s sewer effluent and it absolutely reeks. The people who live across the street from it and hundreds of other houses are affected by it from whichever direction the wind comes, and there is a kids’ playground right next door. I am told that the stinking gas that is making life a misery for those residents is hydrogen sulphide gas. It does stink; I have been there on three or four different occasions and it stinks. Even worse is that the Water Corporation assures residents that it is fixed. I like the quote from a gentleman called Paul McConnon. When he was asked by a reporter in front of a TV camera what he might say to the water minister, he said, “Get a whiff of that!” That needs to be addressed. The people there have been told that it is fixed. They have been putting up with this for two years. They have been to see all their local members. They have written to the water minister. It is a real issue in Geraldton that needs fixing right now. Their homes are worthless. People cannot hold a barbeque because no-one will sit in their backyard. I would urge that some attention be given and a priority be placed on this issue. It is not fixed. Do not say it is fixed. It is not fixed. About $800 000 has been spent there by the Water Corporation and a tough decision needs to be made to perhaps move that out of a residential area. Hydrogen sulphide gas is heavier than air and on still nights that gas settles in that hollow in Utakarra and makes life unbearable. It is also a health risk. I have had contact from one resident who says that she has been diagnosed with hydrogen sulphide poisoning, and it has been suggested that she move. That is another issue I found in my travels. Also in Kalbarri significant problems with the power supply have been documented, as many members would know. Over the summer, generators were moved up there to maintain the power supply. That is not fixed. Power is still going out in Kalbarri and I think we need to make a tough decision about an alternative power supply or feeder line into Kalbarri. The problem is that it is right out at the end of one line and when anything goes wrong with that line, there is no alternative way, as most of us have, for the power to get through. I therefore think that still needs to be sorted out. Kalbarri certainly could use some aged-care facilities, as there is quite a large ageing population in Kalbarri. There is no dental service in Kalbarri, and it is quite a way into Geraldton. I hope we will be able to have some negotiations about getting a mobile dental unit into Kalbarri, or perhaps even a dentist to come from Geraldton and use that really nice medical centre that has been there for about 15 years or so now. The facilities are there; we just need the dentist. Another issue I have found worthy of mention in Geraldton is the Department of Housing problem. There is an 18-month waiting list for Homeswest homes in Geraldton, and it is growing. It is impossible. We had a case of a family that was living out of town at the tannery when it burnt down. We were unable to find that family Homeswest accommodation, although there were houses sitting empty, awaiting maintenance. Homeswest would not even put a family with six children into that accommodation on a temporary basis because other people had been waiting 18 months. I think that is an unacceptable wait for the residents of Geraldton, and many of them give up. What inevitably happen is that two or three families will move into one house, and there is never a good outcome when that occurs. A lot of people are giving up and leaving—going back bush or moving in with relatives and friends. The other thing of much exasperation for me is that I was elected in March last year and identified an office in the CBD of Geraldton on 7 April 2013. I was told that nothing could happen until I commenced my time in the Legislative Council on 23 May last year. I still do not have an office in the main street of Geraldton. It has taken well over a year. Hon Mark Lewis: I am with you on this one.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4855

Hon DARREN WEST: Yes, good; that is great. Several members interjected. Hon DARREN WEST: Ironically, I will be in Geraldton on Friday — Several members interjected. Hon DARREN WEST: No; I still do not have the keys to the office. It is getting to a point now of it becoming an impediment to me being able to do my job. It was all right to have a temporary office in West Perth for the short term, but I am actually finding it really difficult to service the City of Geraldton without that office. It is becoming an impediment in me being able to perform the duties I have been elected to do and get paid to do. I think that if this government cannot organise an electorate office in well over 12 months, it is little wonder that I have so many areas of concern about its performance. I have not even got to royalties for regions yet, but I do not think I will have time; I will have to do that on another day, because I have as much on royalties for regions as I have on these other issues. These are things I have found in my travels around. So that is becoming an issue, and it is becoming an embarrassment when people say, “I thought you were moving into your office at Geraldton.” Yes, I am, but it has taken the government more than a year to get an empty office ready to go. I knew what it was going to cost, and it was well within the costs allowed to rent an office. It was all sorted. The local real estate agent up there has never seen anything like it in his life and just wished he had never had any contact with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in trying to set up this electorate office. I think that is an issue with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and I will have some questions, Hon Martin Aldridge—I know that one of Hon Martin Aldridge’s colleagues is having a similar problem. It cannot be that it takes more than a year to set up an electorate office for an elected member of Parliament. I could live with three months— maybe even a little more if there are fit-outs—but we have not even started fitting out that office. I am told it will be October, but time after time I have been told three months more, and it is becoming an area of immense frustration. I think it gives a little bit of an indication of how well the government is travelling. There are some well-known clichés I could use, but we will just stick with “could not organise an electorate office in 18 months”. The City of Greater Geraldton has pretty much come to a standstill in the past six years. When Labor was last in government, under that fine fiscal leadership of Treasurer Ripper, with the books in order and the state going ahead, Geraldton had an enormous boost. There was more than $700 million worth of projects in Geraldton: the port enhancement project; the southern transport corridor; a new TAFE; a new hospital; and a new police and community youth centre—if members can name it, it was done. Town Towers—the iconic building on Cathedral Avenue—which is about a six or seven-storey high-rise that can be seen from all over town, was fully tenanted; it was full of businesses. That is now an empty and derelict eyesore that is decaying to the point that the City of Greater Geraldton has threatened the owners with its demolishment. That is what has happened in Geraldton in the past six years. Nothing has happened there. Oakajee is getting further and further away; it was almost over the line. Had there not been a change of government, we would have Oakajee there today and the growth it would have brought to the midwest. An iron ore industry has been started, due to the port enhancement project; there are some issues with the biggest miner in the midwest, but I think they will be resolved. I think we will eventually have a strong and sound magnetite industry, thanks to the improvements made in transport links, the port enhancement project and other important pieces of public infrastructure, not to mention the new foreshore and the opportunities that it has provided in Geraldton. We were proud of our story in Geraldton, but we are now dismayed with what has happened up there since Labor left office. Certainly we will work strongly with the Geraldton community; as a matter of fact, I will be taking many of my shadow cabinet colleagues up there because many of the organisations in Geraldton, including the business community, have just had enough of being left behind and not cared about. No infrastructure to speak of has gone in there, no money to speak of has gone in there, promise after promise has not been delivered, and no-one is really standing up for Geraldton except us. We will continue to do that. Geraldton is a magnificent city and an area of growth. I spent a lot of my childhood up there and it is a very special place to me, but it is sad to watch the decline of Geraldton. If members walk down the main street, there are probably a dozen empty shops. Crazy Clark’s had a big store in the middle of town, but it has gone. There is an air of despondency again around Geraldton that has not been there since pre-2001. I think that is very, very sad, and I urge members on the other side to go to Geraldton and have a bit of a look around to see how significantly Geraldton is stagnating. Let us get into it; Geraldton is a very important city. I know it is not considered a seat with a small margin anymore, and maybe that is why the government is not very interested in it, but I still think it is important for fishing—$300 million a year is generated through the Geraldton Fishermen’s Co-operative—and for tourism with the opportunities that are about to be presented at the Abrolhos Islands, and with the north–south grey nomad and international tourist travel up and down the coast, and for agriculture; we have one of the best agricultural regions in the world. As I have touched on before, thanks to Labor we have an iron ore and mining industry in that area. I will talk more about Geraldton another time. Sadly, I am going to run out of time, and I have not got on to the mismanagement of royalties for regions and everyone

4856 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] from the Economic Regulation Authority to the Auditor General’s views on that, and the exorbitant payouts to the retiring director general. I have not had time to get on to those and some of the waste and mismanagement of that scheme. The government needs to lift its game; I tell members opposite every time and they never seem to listen. Maybe one day the message will be told by someone other than me. HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [9.17 pm]: If it were up to me, I would be standing to move a motion to give Hon Darren West an extension of time because he is the most eloquent spokesperson for the people of Geraldton. I think the people of Geraldton should take heart from the fact that one day people like Hon Darren West will be back in charge of that town, and then we will be able to restore Geraldton to the glorious heights it had attained in 2008 after some years of Labor government. Geraldton is a fantastic place. I am only sorry that I will not be able to join Hon Darren West and many of my colleagues next month when he hosts representatives of the Labor Party in town. Unfortunately, commitments in my electorate will keep me down south that weekend, but I am sure it will be an excellent weekend. However, the plan is not to give Hon Darren West extra time; it is to let me have a say, and so I shall make the most of the time that remains to me tonight. This has been an excellent debate so far on this side of the house. Hon Ken Travers, as usual, gave us an insight, largely through the prism of his shadow portfolio, transport. There is always plenty to say when talking about the benefits of public transport and this Liberal–National government’s total failure to come to terms with the very basic benefits that a good public transport system can deliver. In 2001 we were able to point to the fact that not one centimetre of rail had been added to the network during eight or nine years of the Liberal–National government. That is not quite true now because we have had that little extension to the northern line that has put a few more kilometres into the network. We saw last weekend — Hon Ken Travers: If we take off what the government closed in Fremantle, it is still in the negative. Hon SALLY TALBOT: The net negative—absolutely. Hon Ken Travers: There is still a negative in terms of its contribution to the rail network. Hon SALLY TALBOT: That is right, because fundamentally the notion of public transport delivered by rail does not enter the lexicon of those on the government benches. They would much rather see very large trucks on extremely poorly maintained roads, representing a major hazard to everybody using those roads and living along those routes. Hon Ken Travers: Even after they build the airport line—if they ever do—I still do not think they will be in the positive in terms of a contribution to rail kilometres. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Liz Behjat): Hon Ken Travers, I think you have made your contribution to this debate. Hon Sally Talbot has the call. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I plead guilty to encouraging Hon Ken Travers to elaborate on his earlier remarks. The ACTING PRESIDENT: He is not to be encouraged! Hon Michael Mischin: Two minds struggling with the same thought. The ACTING PRESIDENT: That is not to encourage anybody else either, Attorney General! Hon SALLY TALBOT: The other thing is the massive cost of that announcement at the weekend, given the fact that the government’s own planning research was telling it until five minutes before the last election that that was not the way to go with the provision of rail infrastructure in the metropolitan area. Hon Ken Travers made an excellent contribution to the debate. My colleague to my left raised the issue of homelessness, particularly as it relates to Aboriginal people, which of course is an issue of enormous concern. I will raise a number of different points specifically about the south west. I start by saying that there is no shortage of material on this side of the house when it comes to talking about anything to do with this budget. This budget is one of the cruellest, meanest series of acts of public policy we have seen for a very long time. Now we have that lethal contribution—yes, I know I have to stop at 25 minutes to. Hon Peter Collier: I do not think it is urgent; keep going. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you very much. Hon Peter Collier: Thank you for being accommodating, but I think we might read them in tomorrow. Hon SALLY TALBOT: So I have the full time? Hon Peter Collier: Yes. Hon SALLY TALBOT: We have that combination that can be in the wrong hands. Clearly I believe that when government is in the hands of the Liberal–National coalition, they are the wrong hands. We have that combination of state and federal governments being all dark blue—all deeply conservative. That has come

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4857 together in this perfect storm of far right rhetoric, which is basically stripping concessions and allowances away from the very people in our community who can least afford it. I will have a bit more to say about that later. When I made my main budget speech before we rose for the winter recess, I made the point that we are accustomed to talking about pain and gain in the budgetary sense. It is not always going to be easy. Sometimes we have to make allowances for particular economic circumstances—things that might be out of our control— but governments will almost always try to return some kind of gain to the community for the pain they are being asked to endure. The pain–gain equation in the case of these appropriation bills has been replaced by the pain– pain equation. There is no gain in this budget. There is only an increasing descent into debt. The government stands and talks about the need to exercise fiscal restraint. We have heard Hon Michael Mischin, wearing his Minister for Commerce hat, talk about the need for public sector wage restraint and that sort of thing. It always has to be seen in the context of this massive interest payment that the state is now committed to, virtually until time immemorial. Children who were born this year will still be paying that debt when they have been taxpayers themselves for 10 years. Hon Michael Mischin: Are you talking about the commonwealth budget or the state one? Hon SALLY TALBOT: The state government—the Liberal–National coalition. I am not at all confused here. Hon Michael Mischin might be because I know he is dipping in and out of this debate because he has his little watching brief there. The children born this year, 2014, will spend at least 10 years of their lives repaying the debt that the Barnett government has racked up during these long, hard years. Hon Ken Travers: On a per capita basis, your government’s debt is a lot higher than the federal government’s. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you, Hon Ken Travers. That is a — The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! What part of the word “order” do you not understand? Hon Sally Talbot has the call. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you, Madam Acting President. Hon Ken Travers interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Hon Ken Travers! It is the first day back; goodness. Hon SALLY TALBOT: In my earlier speech on the budget I referred to the document prepared by BIS Shrapnel titled “The Strange Case of Western Australia’s government finances: A AA Budget in a five star economy”. It was prepared as a sort of curtain-raiser to the budget. It states that periods of strong economic growth typically result in strong public finances, with revenues being swollen by increases in economic activity. There is absolutely no reason to assume that that would not be the case in Western Australia. We have had strong economic growth, but has that resulted, as it does typically, in strong public finances? Has it resulted in revenues being swollen by increases in economic activity? I cited the specific figures in my earlier speech on the budget. On the raw data, it can be quite clearly seen that the state’s coffers were indeed swollen by increases in economic activity. Unfortunately, we have a government whose priorities are absolutely wrong. Its priorities do not benefit the people who are most in need of assistance and support from their state government. There are food banks in Bunbury running short of stock because of the increase in demand. Homelessness in Busselton is running at such a level that the motel in town used by government agencies to house people in crisis accommodation no longer has any room. There is no dedicated homeless service provision in Busselton. Mental health services in the Margaret River–Bridgetown area have been told that if they want to continue to run their services, they have to relocate to Bunbury because state and federal governments are no longer interested in supporting those services out in the regions. Just in those three examples that came immediately to mind—people who are hungry, people who are homeless and people who are in need of help to manage a mental illness—people are being very poorly served by this government. It has used its swollen coffers—coffers swollen by economic activity during periods of strong economic growth; referring back to that statement in the BIS Shrapnel report—to go heavily into debt to fund such things as a sports stadium and Elizabeth Quay in the middle of town. That is absolutely the wrong priority. It is not the priority that looks after people who most need support and assistance from their state government. We have looked at the budget through a number of different prisms—Hon Ken Travers spoke mainly about transport infrastructure—but the broken promises go right across every portfolio area. The Premier, the members of the cabinet, government backbenchers and members of the National Party all know this, because people come into their electorate offices every day. They must be doing that, because they are coming into electorate offices of opposition members and talking about how badly they are affected by programs that have been cut, services that are no longer being delivered, the wrong priorities that this government has put in place, and the broken

4858 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] promises that the government seems to be quite cheerfully wading its way through—so cheerfully that the Premier took to the airwaves about a month ago to try to put the record straight about his broken promises. This is really the most extraordinary conjuring trick. It is a bit like watching Houdini, although Houdini always managed to get out of the chains he wrapped himself in. This was a bit like watching a third-rate Houdini, or a kamikaze Houdini. Some kind of weird imagery came to me as I listened to the Premier talk his way through this really odd explanation about why it was okay to break promises. I think it goes something like this. We know that before the election in March 2013 the government, as it was then and as it was re-elected in 2013, put a series of policy commitments to Treasury to be costed as part of the election process. There were 108 of them. I am not making this up; if members opposite have any doubts about it they can just google it, and they will find it all there, in black and white in their own documents—108 commitments costed by Treasury before the March 2013 election. The Premier went on the radio a couple of weeks ago and said that there were not 108 commitments. In fact, there were 58 commitments. He has lost 50 somewhere. We can find out which 50 they are, because I can put the two lists together and find out what the 50 were that did not make it to the Premier’s shortlist of promises. I am not sure how he decided which ones got on the list and which ones were excluded, except that it is fairly obvious, looking at that list, that he went to his staff and said that something had to be done about this; it was getting out of control. He knew that the government had submitted 108 commitments to the Treasury before election day, and also that he had fulfilled nowhere near that number. He asked for a list that was well short of the 108, and then asked which of those promises had been kept. He seemed to be moving around the concept of “significant promises”. Presumably, the other promises were insignificant, but I do not think he actually used the word “insignificant” Hon Ken Travers: No, but he did talk about significant promises. Hon SALLY TALBOT: He certainly used the word “significant”. I suppose we have to assume that the 58 that survive the cut from the 108 were the significant ones, in the Premier’s understanding. For a start, 50 insignificant projects have simply disappeared, never to be seen again, perhaps until the next election; they might resurface then. Hon Ken Travers: No, because if they just re-cashflow them into their fourth term, I think they still classify as delivering the promise. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Yes, that is right, because we are dealing with a strange time frame here. We no longer talk about promises being delivered. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Liz Behjat): Members, we are straying into a conversation again. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you for that reminder, Madam Acting President. We got down to the 58 that the Premier was talking about. He then talked about the fact that he had actually delivered 42 promises. The first question is: what happened to the 50 that were presumably designated insignificant? Then there is the question about what happened to the other 16. I suppose these might be slightly significant. The government has not done anything about them yet, but obviously the Premier is still keeping them on the list because he is still talking about a grand total of 58. Of the 42 promises that he said had been delivered I could find three immediately that I know have not been delivered. There may be a whole lot more. There were certainly some in the south west, and we need look no further than Collie Senior High School. Any list of schools should have Collie Senior High School in the top 10, for a number of very positive reasons. It is a fantastic school with some great academic outcomes and very happy kids. It is a lovely school, and very effective. Unfortunately, Collie Senior High School has made it into the top 10 on lists that no school would want to be on—that is, schools with significant repair bills, and extensive lists of things that need to be fixed. We are not talking here about the planting of lawns and the installation of drinking fountains; we are talking about repairs and renovations that need to be done for health and safety reasons. Sadly, Collie Senior High School has made it on to that list; it is one of the 10 schools in the state most urgently in need of repairs to deal with health and safety risks. That is absolutely disgraceful in a state where we have had had a period of strong economic growth with the coffers overflowing. The three unfulfilled promises that I found immediately among the 42 include the new Western Australian Museum. We do not have a new Western Australian Museum. I walk pass the Museum nearly every day, and it is the same old Museum. We do not have a new Western Australian Museum, and yet that was on the Premier’s list of one of the 42 promises that had been delivered. I do not think we have a Perth–Darwin highway. Do we have a Perth–Darwin highway, shadow Minister for Transport? Hon Ken Travers: Not the new section that the government talked about. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Not the new section at the government talked about—that was on the Premier’s list, and so was the Ballajura police station. Hon Ken Travers: The 24-hour one?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4859

Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is not there; the Premier has dreamt it, I think. I wonder how many other things on that list of 42 he has dreamt about, because at least three of them are not there, so we are immediately down to 39. That is 39 out of the original 108. That is not too good for a government that is nearly halfway through its second term. The Premier did another remarkable thing during that interview. He tried to distance himself from the “fully funded, fully costed” promise. We all worked very hard during the 2013 election campaign, and we all, on this side of the house as well as the other side of the house, saw the election material that was being put out by the Liberal Party. We all remember those red stamps that were all over everything saying “fully funded, fully costed”. I did not dream that; I saw it in everybody’s letterboxes and all the ads that were in the papers throughout the south west—“fully funded, fully costed”. However on 27 June, the Premier distanced himself from that, saying that it was just a slogan, and that we had all got far too excited over what we understood “fully funded, fully costed” to mean, because it did not mean fully costed and fully funded. He said that there was an assumption, and that he had not said that too often. Presumably this is some kind of rift between the Premier and his campaign team. He said that maybe the government did overpromise a little bit. That is a most extraordinary thing to say, for a government that has got itself into the most terrible financial mess, including losing the AAA credit rating. All the Premier can say is that maybe he did overpromise a little bit. Around about this time, the Premier made the now infamous speech, which was supposed to be a way of doing a King Canute, sending the tide of resentment back out again so that he did not get his feet wet, in which he said that he understood that people were a bit grumpy with him. “Grumpy” is a kid’s word, is it not? “Grumpy” is the name of one of the Seven Dwarfs. Grumpy is not the way to talk about an electorate that is actually not grumpy. I am talking about an electorate that is not a bit out of sorts; I am talking about an electorate that is blazingly angry because the government is spending its money on sports stadiums and Elizabeth Quay rather than on educating children, looking after sick people, feeding hungry people, housing homeless people and providing proper services for people suffering from mental illnesses. The electorate is extremely angry. It is not grumpy. “Grumpy” is a way of putting people down. It is a way of patronising people. It is a way of pretending that it will all go away if we look the other way; but this will not, because that resentment will grow between now and 2017, and this government will be out of office so fast that its feet will not even touch the ground. When I look more closely at what the Premier is saying, that maybe the government overpromised a little, I notice that what went wrong for the state government is what might be called the commonwealth problem. One of the many, many reasons the Premier had to back-pedal like a circus clown away from the fully funded, fully costed promise, the reason he had to break that promise, was maybe he genuinely did not notice at the time, because being the Premier is a very, very big job and he cannot read everything that is put in front of him, and maybe he did not notice that $3 billion of commonwealth funding had not been secured for the promises made before the state election. It was only $3 billion. That is only a couple of billion, is it not? One could easily overlook that. Hon Ken Travers: That was more than the commonwealth ever indicated that it would be prepared to commit to public transport programs. Hon SALLY TALBOT: There was probably a little bit of finger crossing by the Treasurer, whoever the Treasurer might have been. It is difficult to remember. Hon Ken Travers: It was straight-out lies. The commonwealth would have only ever funded 50 per cent. They were expecting more than 50 per cent from the commonwealth to fund their public transport. Hon SALLY TALBOT: That is something that has never happened in the past, and is never going to happen in the future. Hon Ken Travers: They only had to ring up Anthony Albanese and he would have told them—Abbott wouldn’t fund any. Hon SALLY TALBOT: That is right. This little commonwealth problem cropped up. Before I get to the commonwealth problem, which I may well leave to the second half of my speech tomorrow, I want to go back to these. Hon Ken Travers: I needed a reason to come in tomorrow. I have it now. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Something to look forward to. In finishing on the mix-up between the 108 promises that the Liberal Party had costed before the election and the 58 that it thinks it is down to now, and the 42 that it thinks might have been delivered—although it actually looks more like 39 on the optimistic take—what the Premier totally ignores are the broken promises on things like council amalgamations, holding increases in utility prices down to the cost of living, and all the promises that were not in the 108 that went to Treasury for costing but, nevertheless, are very real, big, significant broken

4860 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] promises. I tell you what, Madam Acting President, you would not want to come down to the Bunbury region at the moment to talk about local government amalgamations. While the Minister for Local Government is very happy—talk about crossed fingers behind the back—and is thinking, “This is what the Premier told me, and maybe it is even true, that they are only going to do the metro area,” every time the Premier looks out of his office window towards Bunbury, he sees local government amalgamations. Hon Jim Chown interjected. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Hon Jim Chown has no idea what he is talking about. He should wait his turn and get up and we will all have fun, because we value his contributions in this place; I look forward to them enormously. I invite any member sitting on government benches, including members of the National Party, to come with me to talk to the Shire of Harvey about local government amalgamations and to come with me and meet the people in the Shire of Dardanup and talk to them about what they are going to do. Did members know that there is a new date for country amalgamations? It is August. The minister is going to make an announcement about Bunbury in August. Hon Stephen Dawson: I thought he didn’t have a plan at the moment. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Last month the Premier did not have a plan, because the Premier had promised the Minister for Local Government that he was talking about only the metro area. Do the metro area, get it all done and then we will not touch the country—that was the deal, was it not? National Party members remind the house all the time that that was the deal: the government will not touch the bush. But they should wait, because it is August, we are told. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. FORMER MINISTERS FOR TRANSPORT Statement HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [9.45 pm]: Earlier today the house heard another lecture from Hon Ken Travers. I must admit I do enjoy listening to Hon Ken Travers—a bit. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: You would rather be spanked! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Let us not digress. I thought his reference to the last four transport ministers was interesting, and members were all trying to work out who the other one was. Did he do it once or twice? Hon Ken Travers: Who? I was only talking about the people, not the number of times that someone may have held the portfolio. I was just talking about the four people who have been transport ministers during your term of government, as sworn in by the Governor. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I did it once. Hon Ken Travers: And so far you are the best one! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Absolutely! In that spirit, I am not going to keep the house very long. When Hon Ken Travers was speaking I was not in a position where I could not make some meaningful interjections on one or two things that he was saying, so I take the opportunity now because I know he will be disappointed if I fail to do so. We heard a very good talk, and were reminded at some length and with some feeling, about the most recent general election in this state. The allegation repeated as a recurrent theme in Hon Ken Travers remarks was that there had been undertakings promised in the last election, and the previous one too, and that there had been no work done, no preparation and no planning. I think the expression he used was this “hopeless government” or sentiments to that effect and that, “You can’t plan anything in transport and you make undertakings that can’t be delivered on, at least not without imperilling the finances of Western Australia, because you haven’t done your homework.” I want Hon Ken Travers to go back one more transport minister, to Alan Carpenter—or it seemed to be, because he was the one who came out with a former member of the house, Hon Graham Giffard, who was the then candidate for the seat of Ellenbrook, frantically banging in the sign and saying that the Labor Party was going to build a railway there. Hon Alan Carpenter, as Premier, was there, saying, “Yes, we are going to do this.” That strategy did not work. One of the first things the Liberal Party said when it got into government was, “Okay, what are the merits of this railway?” No work had been done at all. There was no plan; no preliminaries— nothing. A cost, conservatively estimated at $700 million, was committed to during that election campaign and not one skerrick of planning had gone into it. Perhaps some of the allegations that Hon Ken Travers made about the current government might have some merit. Sometimes undertakings are given in the heat of an election campaign that perhaps can be criticised fairly by opponents at another time. He should not think for a minute that

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4861 it is limited to one side of government in this town because I have just given one blatant example of that happening. What would it have cost for what was promised by Alan Carpenter and my old friend Graham Giffard back in 2008 where no preparation had been done? Would it have cost $700 million, and for what? For something that, as the transport boss here in Western Australia would say, is a dog that does not fly. There is another interesting point to be made, and I will leave members on this. I go back to the fifth last transport minister, or whatever the count is up to now. Hon Alannah MacTiernan was nowhere to be seen when those promises were being made. Why not? She was the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. She was big on railways and vision and all the rest of it that Alan Carpenter and others were trying to sell at the time, but she was nowhere to be seen. Why? Because one of her agencies, the Public Transport Authority, would have advised her—I am not disclosing privileged information; I just know how these systems work—that that was one project that would not have merit and should not be contemplated because it simply was not sustainable. She was nowhere to be seen. The question is: what happened with the interaction between her and the then Premier at the time, and was she even consulted? If so, she would have told Premier Carpenter not to do it as it was the wrong thing to do. Perhaps she was not even asked. Let us face it, my good friend Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich and her partner were on holidays up in Exmouth when then Premier Carpenter went to the Governor. Those opposite should think of all those things before they think that those sorts of traits are the province of one side of government in this state. They are not. METRO AREA EXPRESS LIGHT RAIL AND AIRPORT RAIL LINE Statement HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [9.52 pm]: I was going to get up and speak very briefly on another matter but Hon Simon O’Brien has invited me to make a couple of comments. It is always interesting to see how people analyse things from their own perspective. He believes that because Hon Alannah MacTiernan was not at the announcement, it means that she did not support the announcement. It gives us a clear understanding of why the government completely threw away the $25 million it spent on planning for the Metro Area Express and did not proceed with it. Members opposite may have forgotten, but the Premier did not turn up for the announcement about MAX light rail into the northern suburbs when Troy Buswell and all the local Liberals got together in a park in Inglewood to announce it. The Premier was not there. Maybe that was because the Premier knew he never intended to deliver it. I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for the insight into the way in which the mind of a Liberal works. He has just given us a little insight into how it may have happened. I look forward to the day that the Liberal Party in Western Australia is game enough to release its public transport modelling because I have no doubt that the number of residential passengers who would use an Ellenbrook rail line will be significantly higher than the number of residents who will use the airport rail line. I accept that they are all on top of that. Other workers at the airport might use that and people going to the airport will use that line. I look forward to seeing what percentage of fly in, fly out workers use that line and how the government intends to get those FIFO workers to use the airport rail line, because it has done the polling that shows that a lot of work needs to be done before they will use the airport line. The key point I was making was that at the last election, the government did a whole lot of planning work and then threw it out for a project that had no planning work done. I think the Premier acknowledged at the time that the Ellenbrook rail line was the next logical project in Western Australia. He was not just matching Labor’s commitment but it was also the next logical project in Western Australia, and it advertised on it. The other thing I want to briefly say before we close tonight is that one thing I find really interesting is that when the other side feels it has to lie and misrepresent the policies of a political party, we know it is clearly concerned about either its inadequacies or the success of those policies. I noted today that the Minister for Transport is now somehow claiming that under Labor, to travel on the airport rail line from the station at High Wycombe through to the city would take 40 minutes. He claims that that was based on a press release put out in January 2013. I went back and looked at that press release. I want to make sure that people in this house understand that that press release did not say that the trip from High Wycombe through to Perth city would take 40 minutes. In fact, the press release pointed out that, according to Main Roads, the current travel time to drive from Haynes Street, Kalamunda, a fair way further east, to the city would take 53 minutes. The press release pointed out that as a result of the construction of the Metronet rail line to the airport, one would be able to catch a bus from Haynes Street in Kalamunda, transfer to a train and get to the city in 40 minutes, saving 13 minutes by not driving. The train trip was going to take 21 minutes of that time. At the time I estimated that the government’s proposed rail line would take 18 minutes but now, as I understand it, because of the full tunnel, which will mean the trains will not be able to travel at the same speed that they would have if they were outside the tunnel, it will take 20 minutes. There is only one minute difference but millions—Hon Simon O’Brien wants to talk about $700 million—of dollars difference in additional expenditure. The final point I wish to make is that the government claimed at the last election that it had a fully funded, fully costed plan. That would suggest it had done planning work on the airport rail line. Of course we now know that the fully funded, fully costed plan was the best estimate of an idea that has subsequently been completely

4862 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] changed to what it proposed at the last election, including promising to put stations under the international and domestic terminals. They were complete lies. The government either never intended to do that or it was too dumb to understand that that would be bad policy in relation to future growth and the place people will travel to in the future, and it is now mirroring Metronet. I take it as a great compliment that those opposite feel that they have to misrepresent Metronet in so many different ways and try to spread lies about it. It reminds me of the campaign run by Microsoft against Apple in the 1970s. It was called FUD—fear, uncertainty and doubt. The government knows it does not have as good a product so it has set out to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about what is clearly a better product. MY WAY PROGRAM Statement HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [9.59 pm]: I thought it would be worthwhile giving people an insight into the differences that the My Way program is making to individual people. As evidence of that change comes about, I am looking for opportunities to bring it to people’s attention. One of those opportunities came about during the last couple of weeks when a mother wrote to the Disability Services Commission about the change that has occurred for her son. I therefore asked the Disability Services Commission to check with the lady and the son concerned whether they would be happy for me to provide that information to people here, and of course they are very happy for me to do that, so that is what I wish to do. Ben is a 49-year-old man who has an acquired brain injury and psychosocial disability. Ben’s disability has had a severe impact on his general health and wellbeing, his ability to participate in his local community and his relationship with his family. He lives alone in his Department of Housing unit in Margaret River. Veronica, his 73-year-old mother, has been Ben’s main carer and support for many years. Ben has been found eligible for support through My Way and his life has turned around. Veronica has provided the Disability Services Commission with a report on the significant and positive outcomes that My Way has achieved for Ben. According to my notes, these are the words of his mother — • Over the past two years there have been significant positive improvements in Ben’s quality of life. He was first registered with DSC Margaret River in 2012 when we (Ben and I) met with Valerie Mansfield (My Way Coordinator). He commenced his My Way programme in August 2013. • It is now July 2014 and Ben is showing many benefits of the specialised support he is receiving. • Ben’s psychiatric diagnosis remains the same but he is well controlled on his medication. Ben’s support worker helps him to remember his pathology and psychiatric appointments each month and reminds him to collect his medication. • He is assisted with his OCD — That is, obsessive compulsive disorder — by a supportive friend who helps him get to bed each night. This means he regularly gets a good night’s sleep and can get up and function at a reasonable hour each morning which makes a huge difference to his life. He has had no further problems with swollen legs nor has he needed hospitalisation over the past twelve months. • There is a marked improvement in Ben’s hygiene, personal cleanliness and neatness of dress. With the persistent efforts of his Support Worker he is starting to develop habits of showering, shaving and putting on clean clothes each day. He is more reliably remembering to wash, dry and put clean clothes away although these behaviours still require some prompting. • There is also a big improvement in the cleanliness and neatness of Ben’s unit. In fact he is starting to take pride and pleasure in trying to keep it in good order. This is partly due to it being painted freshly throughout by a small team of support workers, Ben and his family. • Old, dilapidated furniture has been replaced, regular cleaning by Silver Chain instigated and Ben’s Support Worker has worked to develop regular daily cleaning patterns for Ben. However I doubt that Ben would be able to maintain these without ongoing encouragement and support. • Ben has lost about ten kilos (he now weighs 122 kilos) and is continuing to lose about a kilo a month thanks to help with his shopping, cooking and dietary habits, continually reinforced by his Support Worker. She also helps Ben in maintaining a regular exercise programme including visits to the gym three times a week. He is stronger, fitter and has warded off any illness this winter because of his improved state of health. • He has even been able to help me with heavy work in the garden, something he previously was not able to do. This is also very good for his self-esteem. Our annual visit to the dentist this year resulted in only a few small fillings for Ben. These cost considerably less for him and the Dental

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4863

Support Scheme than the thousands of dollars dental bills two years ago with which the family had to help because payment was beyond Ben’s means. The improvement in Ben’s dental health and the money saved (let alone saving his teeth) are directly due to Ben’s improved diet and dental hygiene which, as explained above, rely on his Support Worker’s ongoing guidance and encouragement. • Through the “My Way” programme Ben has met a wider circle of people who are positive, motivated and lead healthy lives. There is less opportunity for guys to sit around his house smoking because Ben is often out or has Support Workers with him. As a result Ben is less reliant on this often negative company and he is taking a much more positive constructive attitude to his life. • The highlight of this progress is that Ben had his first solo art exhibition in the local library in June, attended by over forty people, at which he has sold most of the paintings he exhibited. Under the auspices of his My Way programme he has had an art mentor once a week who inspired and motivated him and helped prepare and mount the exhibition. The success of this occasion and the warmth of peoples’ response to Ben and his work has given him a huge boost of confidence and belief that he can have a worthwhile life. • Lastly, but by no means least for me, is my huge relief that I am not the sole person battling to keep Ben afloat. I no longer have to be consumed with worry during my absences from Margaret River or about my eventually permanent absence from anywhere earthly. • I have been able to rest easy in the knowledge that other people are supporting him on a consistent and reliable basis with his interests at heart. It is like being supported by a band of angels. Heaven on earth! • The material proof is that this year I have not succumbed to any winter ills and my health and energy have enabled me to thoroughly enjoy working with the “My Way” staff in their work with Ben. The fact that I can do so as Ben’s mother, not as a sole and desperate supporter, has made our relationship considerably healthier and happier. • Ben continues to need support with his day to day routine and activities. However I think he now is ready to engage in more activities in the community. He would enjoy and benefit physically and psychologically from participating in such activities as cycling and in summer water sports. There are opportunities for these activities in the Margaret River community if Ben has appropriate support. There is a gentle cycling group each Friday morning under the auspices of the local bike shop. Ben was a good swimmer and surfer before he became disabled and could revive these skills in a suitable, safe environment. It would be of great benefit to Ben if he can have a male support person for some of these activities because, while he has several very positive females in his life he has fewer positive male role models. Other possibilities for positive male role models might develop through activities like The Men’s Shed or volunteer work where Ben’s physical strength would be useful. Ben has expressed interest in all these possibilities. • I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved from the Disability Services Commission for working so hard to achieve miracles in Ben’s life and mine. The “My Way” programme is invaluable both for the individuals you support, for their families and for the community. That was an unsolicited progress report from Ben’s mum. House adjourned at 10.07 pm ______

4864 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — CONTRACTS OF SALE 1014. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Forestry: Will the Minister please provide a list of all the buyers, other than sawmills, that have contracts of sale with the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of native forest products, and include: (a) contract name; (b) contract number; (c) product (species and grade); (d) quantity per annum; (e) current expiry date; and (f) final expiry date? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a)–(f) The attached table lists all of the buyers, other than sawmills, that have executed contracts of sale with the Forest Products Commission for the purchase of native forest products. The information contained in the table includes contract name, contract number, product (species and grade), quantity per annum and the current and final expiry dates of each contract. The quantity of the products allocated under each contract does not necessarily mean that these customers take their full quota each year [see tabled paper no 1684.]. The above information provided is current as at 6 June 2014. TRANSPERTH — DRIVER OFFENCES 1179. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) How many drivers of Transperth buses were charged with offences by Western Australia Police in 2013? (2) What offences were they charged for? (3) For each offence, on what date did Western Australia Police notify the Public Transport Authority that the driver had been charged? (4) For each offence in (2), was the driver’s licence to drive a bus cancelled or suspended? (5) If yes to (4), on what date was their licence to drive a bus cancelled or suspended? (6) If no to (4), why not? Hon Jim Chown replied: (1)–(2) Transperth bus services are provided under contract. Bus drivers are not employed directly by the Public Transport Authority (PTA) and therefore the PTA does not maintain records for drivers of Transperth buses that are charged with offences by WA Police. The PTA does however maintain records for camera related infringements. These infringements are initially received by the PTA who owns the vehicles (buses) however they are referred to the relevant contracted service provider to assign to the relevant driver who committed the offence. These are summarised as per the table. [See tabled paper no 1686] (3) For each camera related infringement, the approximate date that WA Police notified the PTA of the bus driver infringement was: 18/01/2013; 23/01/2013; 23/01/2013; 23/01/2013; 23/01/2013; 18/01/2013; 23/01/2013; 23/01/2013; 23 /01/2013; 23/01/2013; 5/02/2013; 5/02/2013; 23/01/2013; 23/01/2013; 29/01/2013; 30/01/2013; 23/01/2 013; 29/01/2013; 5/02/2013; 5/02/2013; 5/02/2013; 30/01/2013; 5/02/2013; 5/02/2013; 12/02/2013; 5/0 2/2013; 5/02/2013; 5/02/2013; 12/02/2013; 8/02/2013; 8/02/2013; 8/02/2013; 18/02/2013; 12/02/2013; 15/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 14/02/2013; 5/02/2013; 18/02/2013; 18/02/2013; 18/02/2013; 18/02/2013; 25/

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4865

02/2013; 28/02/2013; 28/02/2013; 18/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 20/02 /2013; 20/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 20/02/2013; 25/02/2013; 29/04/2013; 25/02/2013; 25/02/2 013; 25/02/2013; 25/02/2013; 25/02/2013; 25/02/2013; 28/02/2013; 28/02/2013; 7/03/2013; 7/03/2013; 7/03/2013; 7/03/2013; 7/03/2013; 7/03/2013; 7/03/2013; 11/03/2013; 11/03/2013; 7/03/2013; 7/03/2013 ; 20/03/2013; 20/03/2013; 20/03/2013; 11/03/2013; 14/03/2013; 13/03/2013; 14/03/2013; 18/03/2013; 1 5/03/2013; 15/03/2013; 15/03/2013; 15/03/2013; 15/03/2013; 20/03/2013; 20/03/2013; 20/03/2013; 20/ 03/2013; 20/03/2013; 27/03/2013; 25/03/2013; 25/03/2013; 25/03/2013; 25/03/2013; 25/03/2013; 27/03 /2013; 28/03/2013; 27/03/2013; 27/03/2013; 27/03/2013; 27/03/2013; 28/03/2013; 28/03/2013; 28/03/2 013; 3/04/2013; 3/04/2013; 4/04/2013; 4/04/2013; 4/04/2013; 8/04/2013; 8/04/2013; 10/04/2013; 8/04/2 013; 19/04/2013; 17/04/2013; 17/04/2013; 17/04/2013; 17/04/2013; 17/04/2013; 17/04/2013; 5/04/2013 ; 19/04/2013; 19/04/2013; 22/04/2013; 22/04/2013; 22/04/2013; 22/04/2013; 29/04/2013; 22/04/2013; 2 2/04/2013; 22/04/2013; 30/04/2013; 30/04/2013; 30/04/2013; 30/04/2013; 10/05/2013; 9/05/2013; 9/05/ 2013; 9/05/2013; 9/05/2013; 13/05/2013; 21/05/2013; 16/05/2013; 21/05/2013; 21/05/2013; 22/05/2013 ; 24/05/2013; 23/05/2013; 23/05/2013; 21/05/2013; 24/05/2013; 24/05/2013; 27/05/2013; 27/05/2013; 2 8/05/2013; 28/05/2013; 28/05/2013; 28/05/2013; 28/05/2013; 28/05/2013; 23/05/2013; 29/05/2013; 29/ 05/2013; 29/05/2013; 29/05/2013; 30/05/2013; 30/05/2013; 30/05/2013; 30/05/2013; 5/06/2013; 5/06/2 013; 5/06/2013; 5/06/2013; 5/06/2013; 5/06/2013; 5/06/2013; 5/06/2013; 10/06/2013; 7/06/2013; 7/06/2 013; 7/06/2013; 12/06/2013; 7/06/2013; 10/06/2013; 18/06/2013; 18/06/2013; 10/06/2013; 14/06/2013; 11/06/2013; 14/06/2013; 18/06/2013; 18/06/2013; 18/06/2013; 18/06/2013; 19/06/2013; 19/06/2013; 19 /06/2013; 19/06/2013; 19/06/2013; 19/06/2013; 24/06/2013; 24/06/2013; 21/06/2013; 24/06/2013; 24/0 6/2013; 25/06/2013; 25/06/2013; 19/06/2013; 27/06/2013; 27/06/2013; 28/06/2013; 28/07/2013; 2/07/2 013; 2/07/2013; 3/07/2013; 3/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/20 13; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 8/07/2013; 10/07/2013; 10/07/2013; 10/07/2013; 10/0 7/2013; 10/07/2013; 11/07/2013; 11/07/2013; 12/07/2013; 15/08/2013; 15/08/2013; 15/08/2013; 23/07/ 2013; 22/07/2013; 26/07/2013; 26/07/2013; 26/07/2013; 26/07/2013; 29/07/2013; 29/07/2013; 29/07/20 13; 29/07/2013; 29/07/2013; 30/07/2013; 31/07/2013; 31/07/2013; 2/08/2013; 2/08/2013; 2/08/2013; 9/ 08/2013; 9/08/2013; 9/08/2013; 9/08/2013; 9/08/2013; 9/08/2013; 26/08/2013; 14/08/2013; 20/08/2013; 19/08/2013; 23/08/2013; 2/09/2013; 26/08/2013; 23/08/2013; 27/08/2013; 27/08/2013; 27/08/2013; 2/0 9/2013; 2/09/2013; 3/09/2013; 3/09/2013; 3/09/2013; 3/09/2013; 3/09/2013; 3/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09 /2013; 3/09/2013; 3/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/ 2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 10/09/2013; 9/09/2013; 10/09/2013; 16/ 09/2013; 13/09/2013; 13/09/2013; 16/09/2013; 13/09/2013; 16/09/2013; 19/09/2013; 19/09/2013; 24/09 /2013; 24/09/2013; 19/09/2013; 24/09/2013; 24/09/2013; 24/09/2013; 24/09/2013; 24/09/2013; 25/09/2 013; 26/09/2013; 26/09/2013; 26/09/2013; 27/09/2013; 8/10/2013; 28/10/2013; 3/10/2013; 8/10/2013; 1 4/10/2013; 14/10/2013; 14/10/2013; 14/10/2013; 14/10/2013; 16/10/2013; 24/10/2013; 14/10/2013; 15/ 10/2013; 18/10/2013; 24/10/2013; 23/10/2013; 24/10/2013; 4/11/2013; 24/10/2013; 24/10/2013; 29/10/ 2013; 28/10/2013; 4/11/2013; 29/10/2013; 30/10/2013; 30/10/2013; 4/11/2013; 4/11/2013; 6/11/2013; 3 0/10/2013; 30/10/2013; 5/11/2013; 5/11/2013; 6/11/2013; 6/11/2013; 20/02/2013; 5/11/2013; 6/11/2013 ; 6/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12 /11/2013; 18/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 12/11/2013; 13/11/2013; 15/11/2013; 12/1 1/2013; 18/11/2013; 25/11/2013; 21/11/2013; 19/11/2013; 25/11/2013; 25/11/2013; 25/11/2013; 27/11/ 2013; 25/11/2013; 25/11/2013; 25/11/2013; 2/12/2013; 25/11/2013; 28/11/2013; 2/12/2013; 2/12/2013; 2/12/2013; 2/12/2013; 2/12/2013; 2/12/2013; 3/12/2013; 28/11/2013; 29/11/2013; 29/11/2013; 3/12/201 3; 29/11/2013; 6/12/2013; 6/12/2013; 11/12/2013; 6/12/2013; 6/12/2013; 6/12/2013; 9/12/2013; 11/12/2 013; 30/12/2013; 9/12/2013; 9/12/2013; 16/12/2013; 20/12/2013; 11/12/2013; 11/12/2013; 11/12/2013; 11/12/2013; 17/12/2013; 20/12/2013; 20/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 30/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 11/12/2013; 20 /12/2013; 24/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 27/12/2013; 2/01/ 2014; 30/12/2013; 30/12/2013; 24/12/2013; 3/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 8/ 01/2014; 8/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 16/01/2014; 10/01/2014; 8/01/2014; 10/01/2014; 13/01/2014; 16/01/2014; 17/01/2014; 17/01/2014; 17/01/2014. (4–6) The PTA does not maintain records for drivers of Transperth buses that are cancelled or suspended. Service providers contracted to the PTA are required to ensure that their drivers are properly licensed pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1974 or any other relevant State or Federal legislation. HOUSING — MAINTENANCE — SOUTH EAST METROPOLITAN REGION 1224. Hon Samantha Rowe to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Housing: (1) How many public housing maintenance requests were received by the Department of Housing from residents in the South East metropolitan administrative region in 2013? (2) What was the average waiting time for these maintenance issues to be resolved?

4866 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

Hon Ken Baston replied: The Department of Housing advises: (1) 42 342 job orders were received. (2) The Department is unable to provide accurate average times for completing the above job orders without diverting significant resources to manually confirm the data for each job order. ORD EAST KIMBERLEY EXPANSION PROJECT — KIMBERLEY AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT 1225. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the ABC North West radio report on 1 May 2014, in which the director of the Ord East Kimberley Expansion Project, Peter Stubbs, said the Government had agreed to change its Ord Development Agreement with Kimberley Agricultural Investment, and I ask: (a) which party requested that the agreement be changed and on which date was it first requested; (b) what were the reasons given for changing the agreement; (c) has the new agreement been signed and, if not, why not; (d) please outline all changes made to the initial agreement; and (e) will the Parliamentary Secretary please table a copy of the new agreement? Hon Colin Holt replied: (a) Kimberley Agricultural Investment, 25 February 2014. (b) It was more advantageous to the project to focus on land development in 2014 than in minor cropping at a small scale. The Bank Guarantee provision needed clarification. (c) There is no new agreement. A deed of variation is currently being progressed for signoff by Kimberley Agricultural Investment Pty Ltd, Minister Redman and the Premier. (d) [See tabled paper no 1688.] (e) No. ORD EAST KIMBERLEY EXPANSION PROJECT — KIMBERLEY AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT 1226. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the Government’s Ord Development Agreement with Kimberley Agricultural Investment (KAI) which was signed in 2013, and I ask: (a) does the agreement have any termination clauses; (b) if yes to (1): (i) what are the conditions that can trigger the termination clause; (ii) is there any provision for the developer, if the development doesn’t proceed, to claim back the cost of capital investment in the project; and (iii) is there an early termination clause and, if yes, what are its provisions; (c) has an Aboriginal development package for the Knox Plains land been developed; (d) if yes to (c): (i) how many Aboriginal jobs will be created; (ii) how many Aboriginal training opportunities will be created; (iii) how many Aboriginal businesses will be developed; and (iv) what funding has KAI agreed to pay; (e) if no to (d), has KAI indicated a date for the completion of the Aboriginal development package and, if not, why not; and (f) can the Parliamentary Secretary please table a copy of the original agreement and, if not, why not?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4867

Hon Colin Holt replied: (a) Yes. (b) (i) Force Majeure events, insolvency of the developer, failure of the developer to comply with any material in respect to the Goomig Farm Design and Development Plan or environmental approvals, conditions precedents or subsequent, or development milestones not being satisfied by agreed dates, the provider of bank guarantees ceases to have the required rating, assignment of leases without prior approval of the State. (ii) No. (iii) See (i) above. (c) No. This is still a matter under development between the MG Corporation and Kimberley Agricultural Investment (KAI). (d) Not applicable. (e) KAI and the MG Corporation met on 26 June 2014 to advance this mutual interest in the Knox Plain Aboriginal Development Package (ADP). Agreement of an ADP requires both parties to be satisfied so it is not just a matter for KAI to set a date. (f) No. The Ord Development Agreement contains information that if made public could be prejudicial to the mutual objectives of the Government and KAI in developing the Ord scheme. ORD EAST KIMBERLEY EXPANSION PROJECT — PIPE LEAKAGE 1228. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to an article in The West Australian on 9 February 2014, which reports that irrigation pipes in the Ord Development are leaking and need replacing, and I ask: (a) what is the estimated cost of replacing the pipes; (b) has it been established which party is responsible for replacing the pipes and, if so, who; (c) if no to (3), why not; and (d) when was the Department of Regional Development first informed of the leaking pipes, and by whom? Hon Colin Holt replied: (a) It is anticipated that the value of the replacement works will be in the order of $12 million to $14 million. (b) No. (c) The State has taken action to reline and replace pipes where appropriate. Responsibilities are subject to contractual and mediation matters which are currently unresolved. (d) The Department of Regional Development was first informed that there could be an issue with the pipes on 11 September 2013, by a supervisor during a project site inspection. ORD EAST KIMBERLEY EXPANSION PROJECT — KIMBERLEY AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT 1229. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the announcement by the Premier and previous Minister for Regional Development on 6 December 2013 that they have signed an Ord Development Agreement with Kimberley Agricultural Investment Pty Ltd, which would provide a staged $200 million investment over four years, and I ask: (a) can the Parliamentary Secretary please break down the different components of the $200 million investment, including milestones and targets; (b) have any of these components changed since the agreement was signed; (c) if yes to (b): (i) what are the changes to the agreement; (ii) on which date were they made; (iii) at which party’s suggestion; and

4868 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(iv) what were the reasons given for the changes; (d) how many jobs, particularly local Aboriginal jobs, did Kimberley Agricultural Investment indicate that it would create as a result of the development; (e) what infrastructure is Kimberley Agricultural Investment required to develop as part of this agreement; (f) is there any requirements to develop Wyndham port and, if so, what are the details of these requirements; and (g) what is the cost per hectare of developing this land? Hon Colin Holt replied: (a)–(c) [See tabled paper no 1689.] (d) Approximately 450 jobs in the East Kimberley region by the time the development is mature and fully operational (by around 2020). KAI has no obligation to employ Aboriginal people. It does so willingly and its Aboriginal employment rate is currently at 40 per cent. (e) Goomig district on farm infrastructure - tail water return systems, internal farm roads and any other infrastructure that KAI requires. Knox Plain - all infrastructure required both on farm and off farm (drains, irrigation supply channels roads, tail water return systems etc.) (f) Under the Development Agreement KAI is required to provide to the State a development proposal setting out KAI’s plans for Wyndham Port (subject plan being acceptable to the State in its absolute discretion). Any capital requirements are to be at KAI’s expense. (g) The estimated cost per hectare for KAI for developing the Goomig land is approximately $7 500 per hectare. The cost of developing the Knox Plain is not established yet. KAI is still in the approvals and planning stage for that, but it is likely to be two to three times higher cost per hectare to develop than for the Goomig land because of the additional infrastructure KAI will need to create. ORD EAST KIMBERLEY EXPANSION PROJECT — KIMBERLEY AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT 1230. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the announcement by the Premier and previous Minister for Regional Development on 20 November 2012, that Kimberley Agricultural Investment (KAI) was the preferred proponent to lease and develop Ord Stage 2 land and that it would provide a $700 million investment over six years, and I ask: (a) can the Parliamentary Secretary please break down the different components of this proposed $700 million investment, including milestones, estimated costs and targets; (b) what were the commitments given to the Government by KAI as preferred proponent; (c) were there any obligations on KAI to deliver on every component in its proposal; (d) if no to (c), which conditions were they not required to deliver and why; and (e) at the time of this announcement, how many jobs, particularly local Aboriginal jobs, did Kimberley Agricultural Investment indicate that it would create as a result of the development? Hon Colin Holt replied: (a) [See tabled paper no 1690.] (b) KAI gave commitments to develop the Goomig Farmland, build all infrastructure and develop the Knox Plain Farmland (Option) if it chose to exercise its option to do so, to succeed the Government as environmental proponent, to build any export capacity it needed at Wyndham Port, to seek and develop sufficient land to justify its intended investment in processing facilities, to meet the requirements of the Ord Final Agreement. (c) No. (d) KAI is not contractually bound to deliver on investing in processing facilities, as this decision needs to be commercially based on things like having sufficient critical mass of land in production to support it. KAI is not contractually bound to employment targets, but understands that to operate effectively in a

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4869

region like the East Kimberley that it needs to employ as many local people as it needs to achieve its goals. KAI is not contractually bound to grow any particular crops as this should be market driven. (e) KAI estimated that its proposed development when fully mature and operational would generate approximately 450 jobs in the East Kimberley region. No separation was estimated for Aboriginal jobs. TRANSPORT — ROADS 2030 REGIONAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES 1231. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Has the draft Roads 2030 Regional Road Development Strategies been endorsed by the Local Government Advisory Committee? (2) If yes to (1), will the Minister table a copy? (3) If no to (1), why not? When does the Minister expect the document to be made public? Hon Jim Chown replied: (1) Yes. (2) This information is publicly available. (3) Not applicable (4) Refer to part (2). JUVENILE DETAINEES 1234. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Corrective Services: (1) In the past twelve months, how many people under 18 years of age, with no fixed address, have been detained either in police custody or at Rangeview Juvenile Remand Centre? (2) Of all the people in (1), what is the breakdown in terms of sex, Aboriginality, ethnicity, disability, mental health, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other chronic conditions? (3) How many children have ceased education or have their education seriously disrupted due to homelessness or as a result of evictions under the Disruptive Behaviour Management Strategy in the last 12 months? (4) How many of the children in (1) and (3) are on the Children with Special Needs programme in their schools? (5) How many of the children in (1) and (3) are missing out on urgent or ongoing medical care? Hon Michael Mischin replied: The Department of Corrective Services advises: (1) Rangeview Remand Centre ceased operations in October 2012. All detainees are now accommodated at Banksia Hill Detention Centre. Between 11 June 2013 and 10 June 2014, three young people under the age of 18 who were either remanded in custody or detained awaiting bail or a court appearance were recorded as having no fixed abode. Please refer matters relating to police custody to the Minister for Police. (2) Person 1. Male, New Zealand Maori, mental health Person 2. Female, Australian non-Aboriginal, substance abuse Person 3. Male, Australian non-Aboriginal, nil (3)–(5) The Department of Corrective Services does not hold this information. Person 3, is now in an adult custodial facility and is receiving medical care as required. HOUSING — DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 1235. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Housing: (1) Of all people in Western Australia that have been evicted due to the Disruptive Behaviour Management Strategy since its inception, what proportion are Aboriginal people?

4870 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(2) What ratio of evictions are of households with absent male parents or guardians? (3) What ratio of evictions are of households with parents or guardians being treated for substance abuse and comorbidities? Hon Ken Baston replied: The Department of Housing advises: (1) From 1 July 2011 to 31 May 2014, 188 tenancies were terminated under the Disruptive Behaviour Management Strategy. Based on self-identification by the tenant, 66% of these tenancies had Aboriginal people in the household. (2)–(3) The Department of Housing does not keep information that would enable it to provide answers to these parts of the question. INDIGENOUS STATE FOREST — MANAGEMENT PLAN 1236. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: (1) Given that section 55(1a) of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 requires that a management plan for an Indigenous State forest or timber reserve shall specify the purpose, or combination of purposes, for which it is reserved being, inter alia, timber production on a sustained yield basis, does sustained yield refer to quantity of timber, quality of timber, or both quantity and quality of timber? (2) Is the time frame for the sustained yield of quantity of timber, quality of timber, and both quantity and quality of timber for 10 years, 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, perpetuity or other (please specify)? (3) On what basis has this time frame been chosen? Hon Helen Morton replied: For the current Forest Management Plan (2014-2023), the sustained yield is the yield of first and second grade sawlogs that the forest available for timber harvesting can produce for an extended period of time, given the settings in the plan. (1) The sustained yield includes quantity and quality of timber. (2) The sustained yield is informed by projection of projects sawlog woodflows to 2070, with consideration of woodflows to 2110. (3) The timeframe relates to the period between harvests and the period over which realistic estimates can be generated. SMALL CHARTER VEHICLES — COMPLAINTS 1238. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) How many Small Charter Vehicle complaints were lodged directly with the Department of Transport in: (a) 2011-12; and (b) 2012-13? (2) For each complaint in (1): (a) what was the complaint; (b) was the complaint investigated; and (c) what was the outcome of the investigation? Hon Jim Chown replied: (1) (a)–(b) 28 (2) (a)–(c) Small Charter Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle/Omnibus breach of conditions, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle/Omnibus breach of conditions, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle/Omnibus driver unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle operator

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4871

unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Operator unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle/Omnibus breach of conditions, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle/Omnibus driver unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Small Charter Vehicle operator unlicensed, Yes, Enforcement action taken; Omnibus Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; Omnibus Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, No offence established; and Omnibus Vehicle unlicensed, Yes, Enforcement action taken. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT — BUS DRIVER COMPLAINTS 1240. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) How many complaints were lodged with the Department of Transport regarding drivers of Transperth buses in: (a) 2011–12; and (b) 2012–13? (2) For each complaint in (1): (a) what was the complaint; (b) was the complaint investigated; and (c) what was the outcome of the investigation? Hon Jim Chown replied: (1) (a)–(b) The Department of Transport has not received any complaints regarding the drivers of Transperth buses. (2) (a)–(c) Not applicable. PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — BUS DRIVER COMPLAINTS 1241. Hon Ken Travers to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) How many complaints were lodged directly with the Public Transport Authority regarding the drivers of Transperth buses in: (a) 2011-12; and (b) 2012-13? (2) For each complaint in (1): (a) what was the complaint; (b) was the complaint investigated; and (c) what was the outcome of the investigation? (3) How many complaints were reported to the Public Transport Authority by the contractors who operate Transperth buses regarding their drivers in: (a) 2011-12; and (b) 2012-13? (4) For each complaint in (3): (a) what was the complaint; (b) was the complaint investigated; and (c) what was the outcome of the investigation? Hon Jim Chown replied: (1) (a) 4 766. (b) 4 858.

4872 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(2) (a)–(c) The Public Transport Authority (PTA) advises that significant resources would need to be diverted from essential operational duties in order to answer this question in its current form. All Transperth bus driver complaints that are received by the PTA are referred to the relevant bus contractor and they are required to investigate each complaint. The outcome of every complaint investigation is reviewed to check that it has addressed the complaint. If the bus driver is found at fault, the course of action can range from a caution, counselling, retraining and possible dismissal which are all enforced by the relevant bus contractor. (3) (a)–(b) Nil. (4) (a)–(c) Not applicable HEALTH — MEDICARE BILLING FOR RURAL AREAS IN NEED PROGRAM 1243. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the Medicare Billing for Rural Areas in Need program, under the Small Rural Hospitals for Primary Health Care, Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Section 19(2) exemption initiative in Western Australia, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australia, and I ask: (a) which communities and towns are covered by this program; (b) what is the dollar value of the funds received from the Commonwealth Government for each of the last three years, by each of the communities and towns that are covered by this program; (c) what has been the income and itemised expenditure of these funds for each of the last three years, by each of the communities and towns that are covered by the program; (d) have all of the funds that have been expended by the implementation committees, in consultation with the communities, been for the purposes of improving access to primary health care services and supporting workforce retention in those rural and remote communities that have been experiencing workforce shortages: (i) if no to (d), what were the funds expended on; and (ii) if no to (d), was, or is there, a State-Federal agreement that the funds can be expended for other purposes: (A) if yes to (d)(ii), what are those other purposes; (e) what is the makeup of the membership and community/departmental representation on each of the implementation committees that oversee the distribution of funds in each of the towns and communities; (f) what role does the Western Australian Community Health Service (WACHS) play in determining the decisions and outcomes of the implementation committees; (g) how many services, and the income generated from those services, have been billed to the Medicare Benefits Scheme for each of the last three years by each of the communities and towns that are covered by this program; and (h) what percentage of patients attending hospitals under this program are Indigenous and Non-Indigenous in each of the towns and communities? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: (a) For WA Country Health Service (WACHS) the following communities and towns are covered by the 19(2) program: Kimberley Derby Fitzroy Crossing Halls Creek Kununurra Warmun Wyndham Pilbara Onslow

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4873

Midwest Carnarvon Exmouth Meekatharra Shark Bay (b)–(c) [See tabled paper no 1687.] (d) Yes, all funds have been used for Primary Health Care purposes as required. (e) Carnarvon: Carnarvon Medical Centre, Silver Chain Nursing Association, Carnarvon Medical Services Aboriginal Corporation, Carnarvon Physiotherapy, Goldfields Midwest Medicare Local, WACHS. Exmouth: Goldfields Midwest Medicare Local and WACHS. Shark Bay: Silver Chain Nursing Association and WACHS. Meekatharra: RFDS, Meekatharra Community members, Geraldton Aboriginal Medical Service and WACHS. Onslow: The committee has not yet been activated. The proposed committee will be made up in the first instance of one (1) community member, two (2) service provider members, and one (1) health service member (Chair), with one (1) - two (2) more community members being sought. Derby: RFDS, Community member, District Health Advisory Committee (DHAC) member, Boab Health Service, Derby Aboriginal Health Service and WACHS. Fitzroy Crossing: RFDS, Community member, DHAC member, Boab Health Service, Derby Aboriginal Health Service and WACHS. Halls Creek: Yuri Yungi Aboriginal Health Service Halls Creek, Boab Health, Kununurra Dental Clinic, Three (3) Community Members and WACHS. Kununurra: Ord Valley Aboriginal Medical Service (OVAHS), Boab Health, Kununurra Medical Practice, Kununurra Dental Clinic, Community member and WACHS. Warmun: Gija Total Health, Community members and WACHS. Wyndham: Boab Health, Ngnowar Aerwah Aboriginal Corporation, five (5) Community Members and WACHS. (f) WA Country Health Service (WACHS) does/will facilitate meetings, funds agreed services either by employing staff or funding external organisations to provide the service. WACHS has the same voting rights as all other committee members. WACHS ensures funding is directed to areas of unmet/high need to enhance long term health gain. (g)–(h) [See tabled paper no 1687.] SCHOOLS — HEALTH NURSES 1244. Hon Sue Ellery to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the election commitment to appoint an additional 155 school nurses and I ask, of the additional full time equivalent school nurses appointed since March 2013, which schools have those full time equivalent nurses been appointed to? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: As at 19 June 2014 - Metropolitan Perth School Health Nurses work as part of a team when providing school health services. For primary schools, nurse FTE, are allocated to clusters of schools rather than individual schools and these clusters include both public and non-government schools. For public secondary schools, nurse FTE is allocated to individual metropolitan public secondary schools in accordance with an agreed allocation model developed in partnership with the Department of Education. Remote and regional Western Australia

4874 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

Region Location Schools Fitzroy Crossing District High School Djugerari Remote Community School Wangkatjungka Remote Community School Bayulu Remote Community School Kimberley Fitzroy Crossing Muludja Remote Community School Ngalapita Remote Community School Yakanarra Remote Community School Wulungarra Remote Community School Kulkarriya Community School Pilbara Port Hedland South Hedland Primary School and Hedland High School Goldfields Kalgoorlie - Boulder Across primary and secondary high schools in Kalgoorlie / Boulder Allendale Primary School Beachlands Primary School Bluff Point Primary School Geraldton Grammar School Geraldton Primary School Leaning Tree School Meekawaya Aboriginal Kindergarten Midwest Geraldton Mt Tarcoola Primary School Rangeway Primary School St Francis Primary School St Johns Primary School St Lawrence’s Primary School Strathalbyn Christian College Waggrakine Primary School Walkaway Primary School Bunbury Primary Schools in the Greater Bunbury area South West Busselton Primary Schools in the Busselton/Margaret River area

QUOBBA, WAROORRA, CARDABIA AND NINGALOO STATIONS — GOATS AND STOCK 1247. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands: Please provide for the following stations, Quobba, Waroorra, Cardabia, and Ningaloo: (a) goat numbers for the last seven years; and (b) stock numbers for the last seven years? Hon Colin Holt replied: (a)–(b) [See tabled paper no 1691.] PASTORAL LEASES — RANGELAND DEGRADATION 1248. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands: I refer to the Report to the Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation on the condition of Western Australian pastoral resource base, 2013 by Dr PE Novelly and PWE Thomas, which indicates that “on-going rangeland degradation continues under present management on many leases, and that such management is therefore not in accordance with section 95 of the Land Administration Act 1997,” and I ask:

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4875

(a) will the Minister please provide details of any action that is being undertaken to address this situation, including but not limited to: (i) education of lessees; and (ii) improved administration of the Land Administration Act 1997; (b) if no action is being undertaken, why not; (c) does the Minister believe there is some urgency to address this situation as stated in the report; (d) if no to , why not; (e) as recommended in the report, is the department developing a compliance program in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Food, which has components that focus on: (i) promotion of land management standards required for compliance with section 108 of the Land Administration Act 1997; (ii) monitoring of performance including directives; and (iii) ultimately, enforcement action where management is unwilling to meet their obligations; (f) if no to (e), why not; (g) as recommended in the report, will the department implement well publicised proactive annual programs of inspection that target specific districts, outstanding directives or areas of special risk such as stock numbers well above assessed present carrying capacity; (h) if no to (g), why not; (i) given the report states that transitions or virtually permanent changes in rangeland resource being recorded are particularly worrying and indicative of totally inappropriate livestock management throughout much of pastoral Western Australia, does the Minister believe that the Rangeland Condition Monitoring system, whereby the pastoral lessee is responsible for assessing and reporting on rangeland conditions on their pastoral leases, is effectively enabling pastoral lessees to use methods of best pastoral and environmental management practice for the conservation and regeneration of pasture for grazing; (j) if yes to (i), please explain how and why; and (k) if yes to (i), please explain what other factors may be contributing to transitions? Hon Colin Holt replied: (a) Section 95 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA) relates to the functions of the Pastoral Lands Board (PLB). In 2013 the PLB conducted an audit of outstanding compliance issues, which identified that it had issued 364 directives since 2000 in relation to rangeland management. In January 2014 the Minister for Lands advised lessees that 65 of these directives remained unresolved and requested the relevant lessees to provide evidence in relation to any actions that they had undertaken. More recently, the PLB has endorsed in principle a new methodology for monitoring rangelands condition, which combines remote sensing and on ground monitoring. When fully developed, this new methodology will contain both an educational and a monitoring component and will provide an objective basis for any enforcement action that may be taken. Two additional FTEs have been added to the Pastoral Lands Unit, which assists with the administration of the LAA, since the creation of the Department of Lands on 1 July 2013. The Pastoral Lands Unit currently employs two liaison officers specifically to communicate and educate pastoral leaseholders regarding their obligations to rangeland management. These officers are working directly with lessees to educate them on rangeland management and to resolve any compliance issues that may exist. (b) Not applicable. (c) Yes (d) Not applicable. (e) Yes please refer to part (a). (f) Not applicable. (g) No (h) As indicated at (a), the PLB has recently endorsed in principle a new methodology for monitoring rangelands condition which combines remote sensing and on ground monitoring. This methodology will

4876 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

use on ground inspections as an auditing and ground truthing mechanism rather than as a primary assessment tool. (i) No. The Rangeland Condition Monitoring system is a voluntary monitoring tool, which though educational in nature does not, in and of itself, enable lessees to use methods of best pastoral and environmental management practice. As indicated at (a), the PLB has recently endorsed in principle a new methodology for monitoring rangelands condition, which combines remote sensing and on ground monitoring. This new methodology will be designed to assist lessees in understanding how their lease condition is tracking, with the ultimate goal of achieving improved management of rangeland condition. (j) Not applicable. (k) Not applicable. ANIMAL WELFARE — RSPCA INSPECTORS 1251. Hon Rick Mazza to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: In relation to the Minister’s response to my question without notice on 14 May 2014, the Minister responded to part (2), that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) cannot bring any prosecution in its own name, however RSPCA inspectors appointed as general inspectors under section 33 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 can commence proceedings under part 3 of the Act. The Minister’s response to part (5) of the same question was that Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (DAFWA) is not a party to prosecutions brought by RSPCA inspectors and has no oversight of those proceedings. I therefore ask: (a) for whom do the RSPCA inspectors act; (b) if in response to (a) the answer is the RSPCA, does that conflict with the Minister’s response to part (2) of my question without notice; (c) do the inspectors act for DAFWA; (d) if yes for , does that conflict with the Minister’s response to part (5) of my question without notice; and (e) will the Minister please clarify who is the prosecuting body? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) The Animal Welfare Act 2002 does not distinguish between general inspectors employed by DAFWA and those employed by the RSPCA. A general inspector employed by the RSPCA can commence proceedings for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (other than those relating to Part 2 and any matters in relation to using animals for scientific purposes). In practice this power would be limited to matters investigated by general inspectors employed by the RSPCA. (b) The response to part (2) of the question without notice is consistent with the Animal Welfare Act 2002. (c) See answer to (a). (d) The response to part (5) of the question without notice is consistent with the Animal Welfare Act 2002. (e) Proceedings for an offence under the Animal Welfare Act may be commenced by the Director General of DAFWA, a general inspector (who may be employed by the RSPCA) appointed under the Animal Welfare Act (other than offences relating to Part 2 of the Act and any matters in relation to using animals for scientific purposes) or a DAFWA officer authorised by the Director General of DAFWA. The Animal Welfare Act 2002 does not refer to the term “prosecuting body”. M-I AUSTRALIA PTY LTD — ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND LICENCES 1253. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: With regard to activities being carried out at two locations in Broome, being Lot 30, No. 6 De Castilla Street and Lot E3 Port Drive, by M-I Australia Pty Ltd, I ask: (a) is the Minister aware that the company has for some months been operating without environmental approvals and licences; (b) has the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) advised the Department of Health, Broome Shire Council, Broome Port Authority, Yawuru Park Council and Roebuck Bay Working Group of M-I Australia’s unlicensed activities, and that these have the potential to cause harm to the environment and human health;

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4877

(c) will the Minister order an investigation into the operations of M-I Australia Pty Ltd in Broome including, but not limited to, their waste management processes; and (d) has DER investigated the drainage and containment measures at both of M-I Australia’s Broome operational sites to ensure that environmental objectives for inland water quality, including that contained in aquifers, is being maintained? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a)–(d) The Department of Environment Regulation (DER) was notified of activities on the two locations in Broome and conducted site visits of both locations on 22 January 2014. The company made applications to DER for the relevant environmental approvals, which were issued on 22 May 2014, at which time I was also made aware of the issue. DER’s investigation determined that operations of both sites, including waste management processes, drainage and containment measures, were adequate and in line with standard practice for this type of activity. As the activities were not in breach of any standards the DER did not advise any third parties. ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT 1972 — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1254. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to the Minister’s media response to ABC Kimberley journalist, Erin Parke on 31 March 2014 and to an academic paper by lawyer, David Ritter titled ‘Trashing Heritage’ and published in Studies in Western Australian History in 2003 regarding proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA), and I ask: (a) is the Minister aware of the legal opinion that asserts that the AHA is inconsistent with the Federal Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) and the Federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA): (i) if no to (a), why not; and (ii) if yes to (a), how does the Minister intend to address the situation; (b) has the State Solicitor’s office provided the Minister with advice on the matter: (i) if no to (b), why not; and (ii) if yes to (b), what was that advice; (c) if yes to (b), will the Minister table the advice: (i) if no to (c), why not; (d) do the current provisions of section 18 of the AHA breach the RDA by permitting a developer the right of appeal but not the Aboriginal custodian of the site in question: (i) if no to (d), why not; (e) has the Minister sought legal advice on this matter: (i) if no to (e), why not; (ii) if no to (e), will the Minister now do so: (iii) if no to (e)(ii), why not; and (iv) if yes to (e), what was that legal advice and will the Minister table it: (v) if no to (e)(iii), why not; (f) will the Minister introduce amendments to section 18 of the AHA allowing Aboriginal parties the same rights of appeal as those enjoyed by developers: (i) if no to (f), why not; and (ii) if yes to (f), when will this occur; and (g) will the Minister introduce amendments to the AHA to make it consistent with the NTA: (i) if no to (g), why not; and (ii) if yes to (g), when will this occur? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) The Honourable Member does not make it clear which legal opinion he is referring to. Mr David Ritter’s 2003 article, to which the Honourable Member refers, does not appear to offer an opinion on whether the Act is invalid by being inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation.

4878 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(i) Not applicable. (ii) Not applicable. (b) I have not been provided with any advice from the State Solicitor’s Office on this matter. (i) Legal advice has not been sought on the issue as no aggrieved party has ever raised this issue in a legal challenge. (ii) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. (i) Not applicable. (d)–(e) Legal advice has not been sought on this issue as no aggrieved party has ever raised this issue in a legal challenge. (f)–(g) The proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 are contained in the Aboriginal Heritage Amendment Bill 2014 which is currently available for public comment. RENAL DIALYSIS SERVICES — KIMBERLEY DISTRICT 1270. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: Regarding the delivery of renal dialysis services for patients from the Kimberley, I ask: (a) how many dialysis facilities are there in the Kimberley, and in which towns and communities are they located: (i) which organisations run the dialysis facilities; and (ii) which organisations run the associated short stay accommodation facilities; (b) how many patients receive treatments at each dialysis facility and how many treatments do they each receive per month; (c) are the facilities running at capacity, and what is the capacity for each treatment centre and each accommodation facility; (d) what number of dialysis patients in the Kimberley are Aboriginal, and how many are non-Aboriginal; (e) how many dialysis patients travel from the Kimberley to Perth on a regular basis to receive their treatment: (i) which towns do they travel from; (f) are there plans to build more dialysis facilities, with associated short stay accommodation attached, in the Kimberley: (i) if yes to (f), will the Minister please provide details about where and when these will be built; and (ii) if no to (f), why not; and (g) has the Government allocated funds to build more dialysis facilities, with associated accommodation, in the Kimberley: (i) if yes to (g), will the Minister please provide details about where and when these will be built? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: As at 17 June 2014 — (a) There are four (4) dialysis facilities in the Kimberley, located in Broome, Derby, Kununurra and Fitzroy Crossing. (i) The Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Service Council operates the dialysis facilities under contract from the Department of Health. (ii) The organisations that run the associated short stay accommodation are: Broome — Aboriginal Hostel Ltd. Derby — Aboriginal Hostel Ltd. Kununurra — Kununurra Hospital. Fitzroy Crossing — No dedicated renal dialysis short stay accommodation. (b) Patient numbers and episodes of treatment per patient:

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4879

Broome — 40 patients averaging 12 episodes per month. Derby — 16 patients averaging 12 episodes per month. Kununurra — 12 patients averaging 12 episodes per month. Fitzroy Crossing — eight (8) patients averaging 12 episodes per month. (c) All renal dialysis facilities are currently running at contracted patient capacity as follows: Broome — 40 patients. Derby — 16 patients. Kununurra — 12 patients. Fitzroy Crossing — eight (8) patients. Accommodation facility capacity is: Broome — 20 patients (principally provided for renal patients). Derby — 49 patients (not dedicated for renal patients). Kununurra — 16 patients (short stay services and limited access for renal dialysis patients). Fitzroy Crossing — Not applicable. (d) Aboriginal people receiving dialysis in the Kimberley - 75. Non-Aboriginal receiving dialysis in the Kimberley - one (1). (e) Nil. Kimberley renal patients transfer to Perth for renal care and the commencement of dialysis and are waitlisted for return to the Kimberley for continuing dialysis. Other transfers do occur for dialysis/renal failure issues which cannot be treated in the Kimberley. (i) Not applicable. (f) Yes, there are plans to build more dialysis facilities and accommodation. The accommodation will not be attached to the satellite renal dialysis facility, but will be built close by. The actual hostel site location is subject to land availability. (i)

Number of New Renal Location Construction Completion Dialysis Chairs Date 2 Fitzroy Crossing May 2016 Number of New Renal Location Construction Completion Hostel Beds Date 20 Derby March 2016 8 Kununurra March 2016 20 Fitzroy Crossing March 2016 20 Broome September 2016 (ii) Not applicable. (g) Yes, the Commonwealth government has allocated more funds to build dialysis facilities and associated accommodation in the Kimberley. (i) Refer to (f). PATIENT ASSISTED TRAVEL SCHEME 1272. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: Regarding the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme (PATS) administered by the Western Australian Community Health Service (WACHS), I ask: (a) have any substantive changes been made to PATS during the past 12 months: (i) if yes to (a), will the Minister please outline these changes; and (ii) if yes to (a), what methods have been used to communicate and explain these changes to the public; (b) under what circumstances is WACHS obliged to fund patient escorts:

4880 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(i) what are the grounds on which WACHS can refuse to fund an escort; (ii) is WACHS obliged to fund an escort if the application has been authorised by a doctor; and (iii) can the administrators of PATS override a doctor’s recommendation regarding the use of an escort: (A) if yes to (b)(iii), will the Minister please explain the circumstances in which this is permitted; (c) what proportion of people using PATS are Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal, region: (i) what percentage of patients using PATS are accompanied by an escort who is a health professional; and (ii) of those who are not accompanied by an escort, who monitors patient health and safety enroute; and (iii) how many patients, by region, are assisted to travel under PATS by bus and by plane? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: As at 17 June 2014 - (a) There have been no changes to the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme (PATS) in the past 12 months. (i)–(ii) Not applicable. (b) An applicant is eligible for an escort where: the applicant being escorted is a dependent child; Centrelink has determined that the applicant is under the care of a principal carer; home dialysis patients are receiving training (a carer is required to attend as a condition of the medical specialist treatment); the escort is legally required to make decisions on behalf of the applicant; and/or the referring practitioner, prior to departure, specifies the reason why an escort’s presence is essential, on the PATS Application form, based on their assessment that the applicant would be unable to manage their treatment alone, particularly if the applicant is undergoing treatment for cancer or is disabled or frail. (i) The WA Country Health Service (WACHS) may refuse to fund an escort when the PATS escort’s eligible criteria outlined in (b) above has not been satisfied. (ii) WACHS is obliged to fund an escort when the referring medical practitioner has provided sufficient justification on the PATS application form that an escort is essential to accompany the patient. (iii) The PATS administrators may reject an application when the escort’s eligibility criteria outlined in (b) above has not been satisfied. The PATS administrators will generally consult the referring medical practitioner or a local WACHS Regional/Senior Medical Officer when insufficient information is provided to determine if an escort is essential. When an escort has not been requested by the referring medical practitioner, however there is sufficient grounds supporting the need for an escort, the local WACHS Regional Director can authorise the payment of a subsidy for an escort. (iv) Not applicable. (c) The provision of information regarding Aboriginality is not a mandatory requirement for completing PATS applications and therefore, may not always be recorded. The table below shows the number of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people per region that have completed this section of the form during the period 1 July 2013 to 31 May 2014. WACHS Region Aboriginality Other Goldfields 243 4,043 Great Southern 78 3,522 Kimberley 1,651 2,152 Midwest 446 4,701 Pilbara 631 2,208

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4881

Wheatbelt 49 3,589 South West 1 4,452 Total 3,099 24,667 (i) PATS is mainly used by people that are accessing ambulatory and outpatient services or who are travelling for a planned admission. Where medically justified, a clinical escort can be requested by the referring practitioner. There were 52 trips (0.06%) during the period 1 July 2013 to 31 May 2014 involving the provision of a health professional escort. (ii) When an escort is not deemed necessary by the referring practitioner, the patient is considered to be able to monitor their own health and safety en route. (d) The table below shows the number of PATS trips per region by air and surface transport (includes bus and train travel) during the period 1 July 2013 to 31 May 2014. WACHS Region Air travel Surface Bus/Train Goldfields 2,287 996 Great Southern 800 321 Kimberley 5,323 1,922 Midwest 2,958 661 Pilbara 6,445 340 Wheatbelt 1 186 South West 1 487 Total 17,815 4,913

RANGELAND CONDITION MONITORING — DATA COLLECTION 1273. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands: Up until 31 December 2009 Rangeland Condition Monitoring (RCM) was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (DAFWA) for the Pastoral Land Board (PLB) by onsite inspections. This system has ceased. The new RCM system requires pastoral lessees to monitor the Rangeland Condition and report annually to the PLB via an online portal called ARCADIA managed by DAFWA. All RCM sites must be installed and baseline data collected by the Department for Lands by 2015. I ask: (a) how many lessees have reported data during the period 31 December 2009 to 31 December 2013; (b) although mandatory reporting does not come into effect until 2016, how has Department for Lands and/or PLB monitored the 452 stations since 31 December 2009; (c) what guidelines will be used in determining whether a pastoral lease is renewed, and what constitutes a viable property, for example carrying capacity, soil, and vegetation condition; and (d) where it can be established that minimal pastoral activity is being undertaken, and by the use of a diversification permit income is realised by camping fees, should the pastoralist be subject to appropriate caravan park operator rates? Hon Colin Holt replied: (a) 56 (b) The Department of Lands (DoL) and the Pastoral Lands Board have a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Department of Agriculture Food Western Australia (DAFWA). As part of this MoU, DAFWA have continued to conduct a program of on-ground inspections of rangeland condition on individual leases. (c) The procedures for renewing pastoral leases in 2015 are detailed in Section 98 (11) of the previous Land Act 1933. Early on in this process, 18 small leases in the South-West Land Division were identified as being no longer appropriate for pastoral purposes due to their size and location. Four additional leases were identified as being required for conservation or national park purposes. All 22 of these leases were not offered renewal, and were informed of their non-renewal status by letter from the then Minister for Lands in November and December 1990.

4882 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

All of the remaining leases were offered renewal of their lease by former Minister for Lands Doug Shave in 1997 subject to five conditions pertaining to compliance with their lease conditions and statutory requirements. (d) DoL has advised that it is not aware of any such situations. In any case, the issue of caravan park operator fees is not relevant to the type tourism activities permitted under Section 121 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA), which must be pastoral-based. Permit holders are charged a rent determined by the Valuer-General under Section 124 of the LAA. ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 1274. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: Regarding page 173 of the 2014-15 Budget Paper 2, Volume 1, I ask if the Minister would please provide details on the progress of the development of the Aboriginal Governance and Leadership program and outline the stages of the process of development which have now been completed, the current stage of the process, and the sums of money which have been spent on this program? Hon Colin Holt replied: The development of the Governance and Leadership Development Program business case and Cabinet submission is being progressed by the Department of Regional Development. Consultations are continuing with members of the Aboriginal Affairs Coordinating Committee and the Western Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council to finalise documents to be provided to Cabinet as soon as possible. No monies have been spent on this program to date. Allocated Royalties for Regions funding cannot be released for expenditure until the business case is approved by Cabinet. STOLEN WAGES REPARATION SCHEME — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 1281. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: With regard to the amount paid to recipients of the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme Western Australia, I ask: (a) on what basis did the Minister determine that $2,000 should be the total sum of an ex gratia payment made to an eligible applicant; (b) were there any other sums of money considered or discussed as suitable ex gratia payments: (i) if yes to (b), what were they; and (c) did the Stolen Wages Taskforce recommend the amount to be paid: (i) if yes to (c), where was this recommendation recorded; (ii) will the Minister table the relevant documents; (iii) if no to (c)(ii), why not; and (iv) if no to (c), who did make the recommendation and on whose authority? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) The State Government’s response to the issue of stolen wages was largely based on advice from the Stolen Wages Taskforce which acknowledged that the lack of surviving records and the passage of time meant that it was not possible for the Western Australian Government to identify and repay the actual amount of monies that were withheld. The $2,000 ex-gratia payment offered was not an attempt to repay wages that were withheld, but rather an acknowledgement that the practice of stolen wages did occur. (b) Cabinet deliberations are confidential. (c) No. (i)–(iii) Not applicable. (iv) Cabinet approved the amount of the ex-gratia payment on 12 December 2011. BROWSE LNG PROJECT — ONSHORE LNG PROCESSING 1282. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: With regard to the Environmental Protection Authority’s new assessment, by three independent delegates, of the proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) hub near Broome to service the Browse Basin gas fields that was announced on 16 May 2014, I ask:

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4883

(a) are there currently any indications by private businesses or companies that they might be interested in using an on-shore LNG processing facility near Broome, whether at James Price Point or elsewhere in the Kimberley: (i) if yes to (a), which companies have expressed an interest and for which area of land; and (ii) if no to (a), to what end is the new assessment being carried out and for whom; (b) what will be the cost to West Australian taxpayers of the new assessment; and (c) what are the terms of reference that will apply to the delegates’ assessment and when will they report to the Minister for Environment? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a) (i)–(ii) The Government is not aware of any companies currently planning LNG processing facilities at James Price Point. There are extensive gas resources both off-shore and on-shore in the Kimberley region which may seek use of a gas processing precinct in the future. (b) The Office of the Environmental Protection Authority’s costs will be met out of the existing budget. (c) The Environmental Protection Authority, with my approval, has delegated its powers under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to assess the strategic proposal, to the three delegates. The process will be consistent with the delegated powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and carried out in line with the existing environmental impact assessment framework and procedures in Western Australia. Once the delegates have completed their assessment, they will report me with a recommendation as to whether the future proposals identified in the strategic proposal should proceed, and, if so, under what conditions. DRIVER’S LICENCE PROGRAM — HALLS CREEK AND KUNUNURRA 1283. Hon Robin Chapple to the Attorney General: In relation to the driver’s licence program in Halls Creek and Kununurra, I ask: (a) how long has the program been running; (b) how has the success or otherwise of the program been measured: (i) has the program been successful according to these criteria; (c) what have been the overall benefits of the program; (d) what have been the negative consequences of the program, if any; (e) has the program helped to reduce the number of people fined for driver’s licence related offences: (i) if yes to (e), what are the figures; (f) how many driver’s licences have been issued as a direct result of the program; (g) how many people have been kept out of prison as a result of the program; and (h) will the driver’s licence program continue: (i) if no to (h), why not? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a) The provision of driver training and education services for Aboriginal people in contact with the justice system in Halls Creek and Kununurra has been operating since June 2013. (b) The number of Aboriginal people participating in the program and the proportion that obtain a driver’s licence. (i) Yes. (c) Enabling Aboriginal people in contact with the justice system to obtain a driver’s licence. (d) None that I have been advised of. (e) It is anticipated that the program will reduce the number of people fined or jailed for driving without a driver’s licence. (i) Unable to be verified by the Department of the Attorney General. (f) 180 people are progressing through the six steps of the Department of Transport Graduated Driver Training and Licensing System and at the 31 March 2014 a total of 11 people had gained or regained a motor driver’s licence.

4884 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(g) This is not a performance indicator for the project and hence is not measured. (h) The Halls Creek and Kununurra projects will continue in 2014/15. (i) Not applicable. ABORIGINAL WORKFORCE — EMPLOYER INCENTIVES 1287. Hon Robin Chapple to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: Regarding page 158 of the 2014-15 Budget Papers 2, Volume 1, specifically the paragraph on “Increasing and retaining the participation of Aboriginal people in the workforce…”, I ask would the Minister to please explain why there are no meaningful incentives for employers to take on trainees or apprentices who are Aboriginal people, and in particular young Aboriginal people? Hon Peter Collier replied: As part of a joint Commonwealth-State initiative, the State Government allocates approximately $6 million for group training organisations to encourage employment of apprentices and trainees in skill shortage occupations; from under-represented groups; and in remote regions. Aboriginal people are one of the key target groups of the program and attract a total of $3,000 in employer incentives based on commencement and completion. The Commonwealth Government also provides a range of employer incentives for apprentices and trainees. TIMS THICKET MINE SITE — WASTE TRANSFER STATION 1295. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: I refer to question without notice No. 561 asked on 17 September 2013, regarding the old Tims Thicket mine site on Tims Thicket Road (West) in Dawesville, and I ask: (a) will the Minister please provide an update on the status of the possibility of establishing a waste transfer station at the site; and (b) will the Minister please include details of the preliminary scoping meeting held in November 2012 between Transpacific Cleanaway and the Department of Environment Regulation officers, if an application was submitted, and all relevant aspects of the proposal to be assessed against relevant standards and statutory requirements for the approvals process? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a) The Department of Environment Regulation (DER) has not received a formal works approval application for the old Tims Thicket mine site. However, a scoping meeting was held between DER and a prospective proponent on 27 June 2014 to discuss a proposal to establish a waste transfer station. In the event that an application is lodged, and it is accompanied by all relevant information, DER will formally advertise it for public comment and commence an assessment against relevant standards and legislation. (b) The preliminary scoping meeting held in November 2012 between Transpacific Cleanaway and the then Department of Environment and Conservation was an informal discussion outlining the possibility of establishing a waste transfer station at the Tims Thicket site. The discussion included information about the general licencing process under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and potential emissions and their controls relevant to the proposal. An application was not submitted therefore an assessment was not required. LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT — APPROVALS PROCESS 1299. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: I refer to the Australasian Land and Groundwater Association (ALGA) Forum, held on 3 June 2014, on the Environmental Approvals Process for Landfill Development and a question that I posed at that meeting, and I ask: (a) does the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) require proponents of landfill sites to identify the nature of material proposed to go into closed cells during the licence assessment stage for landfill sites; (b) does DER require proponents of landfill sites to the predicted landfill gas emissions from closed cells during the licence assessment stage for landfill sites;

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4885

(c) does DER assess sites to predicted landfill gas emissions from closed cells during the licence assessment stage for landfill sites; (d) if no to (a), (b) and/or , why not; and (e) if yes to (a), (b) and/or , how is this done and are these evaluations available to the public? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a) The Department of Environment Regulation (DER) requires a works approval or licence application for a proposed landfill or new landfill cell to specify the types of waste that will be accepted and buried during the operating life of the landfill (or cell), with reference to the Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 [as amended] (for example, putrescible waste, inert waste types 1, 2 or 3, contaminated solid waste meeting acceptance criteria specified for Class II landfills, etc.). A landfill (or cell) is closed and capped after waste acceptance has ceased. (b) No, DER does not require proponents to quantify the predicted landfill gas emission rates after a landfill or cell has closed in their works approval or licence application for a new landfill or cell. In their application, proponents are required to identify potential emissions and discharges from their premises and detail how these will be controlled and managed to prevent unacceptable impacts on the environment. For putrescible landfills, this includes landfill gas emissions. (c) No, DER does not seek to quantify potential landfill gas emissions after a landfill or cell has closed, when assessing a works approval or licence application for a new landfill or cell. The likely effectiveness of landfill gas management strategies and the risk posed by emissions to the environment are assessed by DER during the works approval and licensing stages, and during the operational life of licensed landfills. (d) With reference to (b) and (c), the quantity and rate of landfill gas generation are influenced by a number of factors, including the nature and age of the waste buried in the landfill, the quantity and types of organic compounds in the waste, and the moisture content and temperature of the waste. Due to these variables, DER considers that detailed planning for post-closure landfill gas management is best undertaken as part of overall closure planning, towards the end of the operating life of a landfill and based on operational experience. (e) DER documents its assessment and decision-making on applications in a decision document, which accompanies the works approval or licence granted for new premises and is published on the Department’s website. HEALTH — DIALYSIS MACHINES 1300. Hon Robin Chapple to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to dialysis machines in Western Australia, and I ask: (a) how many are there in Western Australia (please list amount by location); (b) are all machines in full operating order; (c) if no to (b), which ones are not in full operating order (please list by location); (d) are all machines being utilised to their fullest extent; (e) if no to (d), which ones are not being utilised to their fullest extent; and (f) if no to (d), why are they are not being utilised to their fullest extent? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: As at 17 June 2014 - (a) LOCATION AMOUNT OF DIALYSIS MACHINES Princess Margaret Hospital 5 Homes of PMH patients 4 Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital 22 (includes 3 emergency backup machines) Joondalup Health Campus 8 Midland satellite dialysis services 28 Stirling satellite dialysis services 28

4886 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

WA Home Dialysis Home Training Centre, Warwick 5 (includes 1 emergency backup) Armadale Health Service 14 Royal Perth Hospital 14 Fremantle Hospital and Health Service 14 Peel Health Campus 14 Rockingham Renal Satellite Unit 16 Spearwood Renal Satellite Unit 21 Cannington Dialysis Clinic 16 Rockingham General Hospital 1 Kimberley Satellite Dialysis Centre (Broome) 10 Derby Dialysis Unit 10 Kununurra Dialysis Unit 6 Fitzroy Crossing Interim Dialysis Unit 2 Port Hedland Regional Hospital 12 Geraldton Regional Hospital 9 Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital 7 Warburton Dialysis Service 2 Bunbury Regional Hospital 11 Busselton Hospital 6 Albany Regional Hospital 6 (b) No. (c) One (1) machine at the Peel Health Campus and one (1) at Geraldton Regional Hospital are currently being repaired. (d) No. (e) Location Amount of Dialysis Machines Midland Satellite Dialysis Services 4 Stirling Satellite Dialysis Services 4 Derby Dialysis Centre 6 Kununurra Dialysis Centre 3 Port Hedland Regional Hospital 3 Geraldton Regional Hospital 2 Warburton Dialysis Service 1 Albany Regional Hospital 3 (f) Midland Satellite Dialysis Services — 4 machines are kept as spares to ensure the rest (24) are fully utilised in meeting contractual obligations. Stirling Satellite Dialysis Services — 4 machines are kept as spares to ensure the rest (24) are fully utilised in meeting contractual obligations. Derby Dialysis Unit — an additional six (6) dialysis chairs and associated machines were constructed in May 2013. Under contract, these dialysis machines will be progressively opened and will reach full utilisation 2016-17.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4887

Kununurra Dialysis Unit — an additional three (3) dialysis chairs and associated machines were constructed in May 2013. Under contract these dialysis machines will be progressively opened and will reach full utilisation 2016-17. Port Hedland Regional Hospital — currently funded to operate nine (9) dialysis machines. Geraldton Regional Hospital — one (1) dialysis machine is awaiting repair and there is redundancy equivalent to one dialysis machine. Warburton Dialysis Service — used for respite dialysis. Built in redundancy as service comprises only two (2) dialysis machines. Albany Regional Hospital — only three (3) dialysis machines required to meet current dialysing workload. MIDLAND HEALTH CAMPUS — ADVANCE HEALTH DIRECTIVES 1302. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Health: (1) I refer to the Midland St John of God Hospital, and ask if the Catholic healthcare provider at the new Midland St John of God Hospital will carry out the wishes of advance health directives pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 for local residents who will be serviced by the new Midland hospital? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If no to (1), what procedure will the Government put in place to ensure the wishes of patients are adhered to in respect of their advance health directives pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990? Hon Alyssa Hayden replied: (1) Yes. (2)–(3) Not applicable. BHP BILLITON NICKEL WEST REFINERY — PIPELINE LEAK 1303. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: (1) With reference to question on notice No. 6007 of 16 October 2012, has there been an assessment to determine whether any enforcement action is to be taken? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1): (a) what was the result of the assessment; and (b) what action has been taken? (4) Is the matter in (1) still with the Department of Environmental Regulation? (5) If yes to (4), why has it not progressed further? Hon Helen Morton replied: (1) An investigation and assessment was made by the then Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), which determined that no enforcement sanction was justifiable, on the strength of available evidence. (2) Not applicable (3) (a)–(b) The then DEC conducted an investigation into the incident and was unable to establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case of a breach of relevant legislation, therefore no enforcement action was administered. (4) No, the matter is now closed and the pipeline decommissioned. (5) Not applicable BHP BILLITON NICKEL WEST REFINERY — GROUNDWATER REPORT 1304. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment: (1) Will the Minister please table the Groundwater Report that concerns the tailing ponds for the BHP Billiton Nickel West Refinery?

4888 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(2) Has an analysis of arsenic in groundwater been conducted at: (a) Baldivis; and (b) the refinery? (3) For each in (2), if no, why not? (4) Can the Minister confirm that the refinery was pumping out processed liquor solution? (5) How long did it take for the refinery to notice the 2008 leak? (6) Why was the leak not noticed immediately? Hon Helen Morton replied: (1) The Groundwater Report concerning the tailing ponds for the Nickel West Refinery is not required to be made publicly available under Ministerial Statement 377. Access to the Groundwater Report may be requested through a Freedom of Information application to the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority. (2) (a)–(b) Yes (3) Not applicable (4) The pipe which leaked can transport a water of different types of effluent, including main cooling tower blowdown water, demineralisation plant discharge, out-of-specification amsul cooling water tower solution (ammonia sulfate solution) and stormwater from the refinery to the Baldivis Compound. Samples collected from the leaked material indicated the liquid effluent was predominately amsul. (5) BHP Billiton Nickel West reported that it visually verified the leak approximately 24 hours after it believed the leak had commenced. (6) Findings from a then Department of Environment and Conservation investigation indicated that at the time of the refinery shut down, the Baldivis Leak Detection System alarm notification was exposed to a higher than normal number of triggered alarms in general, some of which were false alarms. No action was taken in response to the activation of the Baldivis Leak Detection System alarm as the technician believed it to be a false alarm. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE — COMPLEX LONG-TERM POLICY PROJECTS 1305. Hon Kate Doust to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to page 492 of the 2014-15 Budget Papers and the statement “The Average Cost per Policy Project increased by $80,192 (30.3%) from the 2013-14 Estimated Actual to the 2014-15 Budget target as a result of contributing factors including the cessation of Council of Australian Governments’ reforms, the deferral of projects in line with operational requirements and a number of complex long-term policy projects currently being undertaken.”, and I ask: (a) can the Minister provide a list of each complex long term policy project that is currently been undertaken by the Department of Commerce; and (b) what projects have been deferred, and for how long? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a) Statutory Review of the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act 2006; Review of retirement villages legislation and code of conduct, and implementation of stage 1 amendments. Stage 2 will commence when stage 1 is fully implemented; Combined review of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 1973 and the Motor Vehicle Repairers Act 2003; Review of the Co-operatives Act 2009 to implement amendments required to maintain consistency with the Co-operatives National Law; Development of the Consumer Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 2013; Review of the Limited Partnerships Act 1909; Drafting of a Bill to amend the Associations Incorporations Act 1987; Deregulation of travel agents; Fee deregulation for land valuers and settlement agents; Review of property industry codes of conduct;

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4889

Review of fines in consumer protection legislation; Review of tenancy arrangements in the boarding and lodging industry; and Development of options to reduce anomalies in the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987. (b) Preparation of a discussion paper for community consultation about the need to regulate tenancy arrangements in the boarding and lodging industry has been on hold since 1 March 2014 and it is hoped to recommence work in early 2015. ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS — DUNSBOROUGH FORESHORE 1306. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: (1) Has any Royalties for Regions funding been proposed, provided or set aside for a café on the Dunsborough foreshore? (2) Is the café to be a public or private enterprise? (3) What is the zoning of the proposed site? (4) How much land is required for: (a) the café building; (b) toilets; (c) parking; and (d) access? (5) Does the proposal for a café on the Dunsborough foreshore require an excise of land from the A Class Reserve? (6) Is funding from Royalties for Regions proposed for the ‘Dunsborough Foreshore Enhancement Project’? (7) If yes to (6), what is the Royalties for Regions funding in total, including funds provided to date and funding yet to be provided? Hon Colin Holt replied: (1) No. (2) The City of Busselton (City) intends seeking registrations of interest from parties to build and operate a café and/or kiosk on part of ‘A’ Class Reserve 22965. (3) ‘A’ Class Reserve 22965 is reserved for “Recreation” under the City Town Planning Scheme. It has a designated purpose of “Camping and Recreation” under the Land Administration Act 1997. (4) The City has determined that: (a) up to 150 square metres for the café/kiosk with up to 50 square metres for an adjacent alfresco area; (b) toilets would need to be provided within the 150 square metres; (c) no additional parking will be required within the 150 square metres but depending on the outcome of the expression of interest process, parking may be rationalised at a parking area adjacent to the area identified for potential development; (d) Access to any final development site will be determined as part of the expression of interest process. (5) No, although the City will need to seek and obtain the power to lease the portion required for development. (6) Yes. (7) A total of $3 643 090 Royalties for Regions funding was provided to the City. TAFE — FULL TIME LECTURERS 1307. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: (1) How many full time equivalent TAFE lecturers were there in:

4890 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(a) 2009; (b) 2010; (c) 2011; (d) 2012; (e) 2013; and (f) 2014 to date? (2) How many redundancies were there for each year in (1)? Hon Peter Collier replied: (1) (a) 2441 (b) 2529.36 (c) 2605.05 (d) 2618.95 (e) 2554.81 (f) 2363.08 (to 19 June 2014) (2) (a) Nine (b) Five (c) Five (d) Three (e) 27 (f) 17 (to 19 June 2014) TAFE — STUDENT ENROLMENTS 1308. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: (1) How many students were enrolled at TAFE in: (a) 2009; (b) 2010; (c) 2011; (d) 2012; (e) 2013; and (f) 2014 to date? (2) For each year in (1), how many students were: (a) aged 15-19; (b) aged 20-24; (c) aged 25-44; and (d) over 45 years of age? (3) For each year in (1), how many students were: (a) Indigenous students; (b) students with a disability; and (c) students from a non‐English speaking background? Hon Peter Collier replied: Notes: For (f), the most recent validated VET enrolment data currently available for 2014 is for the period January 1 2014 to March 31 2014.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4891

A number of students decline to answer enrolment form questions regarding age, Aboriginality, disabilities or language spoken at home. These students have been excluded from the figures in (2) and (3). (1) (a)–(f)

Number of Collection Year students 2009 122,881 2010 125,454 2011 125,303 2012 124,121 2013 120,850 2014 (to 31 March) 55,784 (2) (a)–(d) Number of students Collection Aged Aged Aged Aged Year 15-19 20-24 25-44 45 and over 2009 38,847 21,292 41,969 17,736 2010 38,037 21,063 44,393 19,274 2011 36,362 20,309 45,376 20,897 2012 35,054 19,895 46,917 21,057 2013 32,963 20,151 46,862 20,190 2014 (to 31 March) 17,042 11,095 20,099 7,451 (3) (a)–(c) Number of students Collection From Year Indigenous With a disability non-English speaking backgrounds 2009 5,913 5,308 15,953 2010 6,246 5,714 16,582 2011 6,685 5,984 17,277 2012 6,391 5,763 18,463 2013 6,318 5,700 21,819 2014 (to 31 March) 2,231 3,015 12,381

TAFE — STUDENTS 1309. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: (1) How many people were apprentices and trainees undertaking off‐the‐job training while enrolled at TAFE institutes in: (a) 2009; (b) 2010; (c) 2011; (d) 2012; (e) 2013; and (f) 2014 to date? (2) What proportion of 15-19 year olds in Western Australia were at TAFE in:

4892 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

(a) 2009; (b) 2010; (c) 2011; (d) 2012; (e) 2013; and (f) 2014 to date? (3) What proportion of 20-24 year olds in Western Australia were at TAFE in: (a) 2009; (b) 2010; (c) 2011; (d) 2012; (e) 2013; and (f) 2014 to date? Hon Peter Collier replied: Notes: For (f), the most recent validated VET enrolment data currently available for 2014 is for the period January 1 2014 to March 31 2014. Some students may be enrolled as both apprentices and trainees in the same year. A number of students decline to answer enrolment form questions regarding age. These students have been excluded from the figures in (2) and (3). For (2) and (3), Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated residential population figures were used for the years 2009 to 2013; Western Australian Department of Planning population projections were used for 2014. For (2) and (3), data only reflects enrolment data for first quarter to March 2014. (1) (a)–(f) Collection Year Number of students 2009 19,921 2010 19,207 2011 19,015 2012 19,111 2013 19,248 2014 (to 31 March) 10,234 (2) (a)–(f) Collection Year % 2009 25.2 2010 24.7 2011 23.5 2012 22.3 2013 20.6 2014 (to 31 March) 10.4 (3) (a)–(f) Collection Year % 2009 12.6 2010 12.2 2011 11.5 2012 10.9 2013 10.8 2014 (to 31 March) 5.9

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4893

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION — CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS 1314. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Education: I refer to the 145 child protection allegations received under central management in 2011-12 that were referred to the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC), and I ask: (a) how many cases were then allocated by the CCC to a Department of Education (DOE) investigator to complete an investigation; (b) how many DOE investigations took place; (c) how many parents were contacted by DOE investigators; and (d) of the parents contacted by a DOE investigator, how many were contacted via: (i) discussions with parents in person; (ii) by telephone; (iii) in writing; and (iv) other? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) 145 (b) 145 (c) 265 parents were contacted. Each parent may have been contacted multiple times. The term “parent” includes other caregivers. (d) (i) 62 (ii) 256 (iii) 456 (iv) 0 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION — CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS 1315. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Education: I refer to the 175 child protection allegations received under central management in 2012-13 that were referred to the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC), and I ask: (a) how many cases were then allocated by the CCC to a Department of Education (DOE) investigator to complete an investigation; (b) how many DOE investigations took place; (c) how many parents were contacted by DOE investigators; and (d) of the parents contacted by a DOE investigator, how many were contacted via: (i) discussions with parents in person; (ii) by telephone; (iii) in writing; and (iv) other? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) 175 (b) 175 (c) 419 parents were contacted. Each parent may have been contacted multiple times. The term “parent” includes other caregivers. (d) (i) 252 (ii) 459 (iii) 494 (iv) 0

4894 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

KIMBERLEY AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT ZONE 1316. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Fisheries: I refer to the Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone (KADZ), and I ask: (a) under the proposed tender: (i) how many tonnes can be allocated; (ii) can this allocation be increased and, if so, by how many tonnes; (iii) has the Minister undertaken the environmental, cultural, and social impact assessments for the land and sea based infrastructure required to support the operations of any increases to the allocation; (iv) does the tender allow for more than one operator; and (v) if no to (iv), why not;

(b) under the current tender: (i) who is the operator; (ii) how many tonnes has been allocated; (iii) how many tonnes can this allocation be increased to prior to the declaration of the KADZ and the expression of interest (EOI); (iv) will the increase in production capacity enabled by the KADZ process all be included in the KADZ EOI; (v) has the Minister ensured that all current environmental conditions of the current operator are being complied with; (vi) if yes to (v), how; and (vii) if no to (v), why not; (c) in either the new or current tender process, have the Traditional Owners been consulted, engaged, and included in any planning for capability and capacity to participate in this economic opportunity that will all take place on their saltwater country; (d) if yes to , please provide details of the consultation process, including who was consulted, when and the outcomes; and (e) if no to , why not? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) The following responses to questions under item (a) are provided on the assumption that “proposed tender” refers to limits on production for the proposed Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone. (i) 20,000 tonnes per annum. (ii) No (iii) Not applicable (iv) The zone will not necessarily be limited to one operator. The final number of operators is yet to be determined. (v) Not applicable (b) There is no current tender. The following responses to questions under part (b) are made on the assumption that “current tender” refers to the pre-existing aquaculture operator located within the area covered by the proposed Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone. (i) MPA Fish Farms Pty Ltd. (ii) 6,990 tonnes per annum. (iii) Production tonnage cannot be increased within the boundaries of the current aquaculture site. (iv) The 6,990 tonnes per annum specified in (ii) above will be included in the 20,000 tonnes per annum production limit for the proposed Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone. (v)–(vi) Aquaculture compliance is undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and includes random periodic inspections by Department staff.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4895

(vii) Not applicable (c) Yes. However, no tender process (“new or current”) has been conducted. The response to this question is made on the assumption that “new or current tender process” refers to the development process for the proposed Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone. (d) Traditional Owners have been consulted through the Kimberley Land Council, Dambimangari Aboriginal Corporation, Mayala Native Title claimants and the Bardi Jawi. Consultation has occurred through 2012 and 2013 with feedback incorporated into the planning process for the Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone. (e) Not applicable LYNAS CORPORATION — CANOLA FIELD TRIALS 1317. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to pages 1 and 6 from the “2013-10-29 “Lynas ASX Release — CEO Address AGM” located at http://www.robinchapple.com/pages-2013-10-29-lynas-asx-release, and page 6 of the document which refers to trials in Western Australian canola fields of the use of solid residues emanating from the water leached purification system from the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP), near Kuantan in Pahang, Malaysia, and I ask: (a) where are these field trials occurring; (b) was permission granted by the Minister for these field trials to occur; (c) if no to (b), why not; (d) if yes to (b), why; (e) has the chemical composition of the solid residues emanating from the water leached purification system been tested for chemical and or radioactive material; (f) if no to (e), why not; (g) if yes to (e), will the Minister table the results of those tests; (h) was permission sought from the Minister to import the solid residues emanating from the water leached purification from the LAMP in Malaysia; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) if yes to (h), when did this occur; (k) if yes to (h), was permission granted or refused; and (l) if permission was granted in respect of (k), will the Minister table documentation to support that decision? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) I am not aware of the specific location in Western Australia of the Lynas trials. (b) No (c) There is no requirement for permission from the Minister for Agriculture to conduct fertiliser field trials in Western Australia. The Department of Agriculture and Food WA has not been involved in these trials. The material must meet the import requirements for fertiliser under both Federal and State legislation. (d) Not applicable (e) Yes (f) Not applicable (g) The results of independent testing have been provided by Lynas who have agreed to them being tabled. [See Tabled Paper No 1685.] (h) No (i) There is no need for specific permissions from the State Minister for Agriculture and Food. The material is subject to the normal State and Federal import requirements for fertilisers. Lynas has advised that it has received an import permit for the product, and that it has been classified as non-hazardous and non-radioactive, from the then Australian Quarantine and Inspection Services of the Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. (j)–(l) Not applicable

4896 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

PREMIER — KIMBERLEY AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT — CHINA MEETING 1319. Hon Ken Travers to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the article in The West Australian on 29 March 2014, which stated that the Premier met with the President of Shanghai Zhongfu and the Chief Executive of Kimberley Agricultural Investment (KAI) during his recent trip to China, and I ask: (a) which party requested the meeting, and what were their reasons for requesting the meeting; (b) where was the meeting held, and on what date; (c) who attended the meeting; (d) what was discussed at the meeting; (e) did the Premier have any discussions regarding using 457 visas to import staff to work on KAI projects in the Kimberley; and (f) were any changes to the Ord Development Agreement discussed and, if yes, what were the changes discussed? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a) The Department of State Development’s China office requested the meeting as a courtesy call on President of Shanghai Zhongfu. Shanghai Zhongfu is a parent company of KAI. (b) Pui Ngai Wu, President of Shanghai Zhongfu; Jian Zhong Yin, Chairman of Shanghai Zhongfu; Hon Colin Barnett MLA; Peter Conran, Department of the Premier and Cabinet; Danielle Benda, Office of the Premier; Nathan Backhouse, Department of State Development (c) Zhongfu Group office — Shanghai; 8 April 2014 (d) An outline of this meeting was provided in a Brief Ministerial Statement to the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 13 May 2014. (e) No (f) No WALLCLIFFE ROCK SHELTERS — ITEM OF MODERN ART 1320. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to combined site file numbers 5848, 5849 and 21899 at the Wallcliffe rock shelters and a photograph of a piece of modern art work (item) now located in one of those rock shelters http://www.robinchapple.com/wallcliffe-cave, and I ask: (a) who placed this item in the rock shelter; (b) who was consulted regarding the placement of this item in the rock shelter; (c) if no one was consulted, why not; (d) was permission sought from the Aboriginal people or any representatives before the placement of this item in the rock shelter; (e) if no to (d), why not; (f) was permission sought from Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) or the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC) for this item to be placed in this culturally sensitive rock shelter; (g) if yes to (f), when; (h) if no to (f), why not; (i) was a section 16 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 applied for in respect of disturbance of the site, and/or the placement of this item in the rock shelter; (j) if no to (i), why not; and (k) what action will the Minister or DAA take in respect to: (i) the removal of this item;

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4897

(ii) the failure of the perpetrator of the placement of this item to negotiate with the Traditional Owners; (iii) the failure of the party or parties to seek permission from DAA or the ACMC; and (iv) the failure of the party or parties to lodge a section 16 or 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 with DAA? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a)–(j) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) is not aware of who placed the structure within the rockshelter and when it was done. There have been no statutory applications for any works relating to this item being placed in the shelter. (k)–(i) The rockshelter is on privately owned property and DAA does not have any information that this particular rockshelter is one to which section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 applies. DAA will investigate the matter further. REGISTRAR OF ABORIGINAL SITES — REPORTED PLACES 1329. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: (1) How many places have been reported to the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites under section 15 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, for the following months: (a) July 2013; (b) August 2013; (c) September 2013; (d) October 2013; (e) November 2013; (f) December 2013; (g) January 2014; (h) February 2014; (i) March 2014; (j) April 2014; and (k) May 2014? (2) Of the places reported to the Registrar in (1), how many were assessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee within each of the listed months? (3) Of the places assessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee in (2), how many were assessed as sites according to section 5 of the Act, within each of the listed months? (4) Of the places assessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee in (2), how many were assessed as not meeting the terms of section 5 of the Act for each of the listed months? Hon Peter Collier replied: (1) (a)–(k) The following numbers of Aboriginal heritage places were lodged with the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites (the Registrar) from July 2013 to May 2014: Month Lodged July 2013 36 August 2013 78 September 2013 13 October 2013 2 November 2013 16 December 2013 59 January 2014 60 February 2014 88 March 2014 337

4898 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

April 2014 473 May 2014 127 Total 1,289 (2)–(4) The majority of places assessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee from July 2013 to May 2014 were submitted with Notices lodged under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. These places were processed in line with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ 70-day performance target for section 18 Notices from receipt to Ministerial decision, and were therefore assessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee approximately eight weeks after lodgement with the Registrar.

Month Number Assessed Site Not a Site July 2013 65 4 61 August 2013 43 4 39 September 2013 113 25 88 October 2013 48 23 25 November 2013 160 10 150 December 2013 142 12 130 January 2014 No meeting No meeting No meeting February 2014 193 12 181 March 2014 3 1 2 April 2014 104 3 101 May 2014 116 8 108 Total 987 102 885

POLICE — NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS 1332. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: I refer to page 77 of the 2014-15 Budget Papers, Number 3 which states that Western Australia is currently party to around 63 National Partnership agreements with the Commonwealth Government, relating to the delivery of specific projects, improvements in service delivery or reform, and I ask: (a) can the Minister advise how many of the 63 National Partnership agreements are with Western Australia Police; (b) for each of the agreements in (a), can the Minister advise: (i) the name of the agreement; (ii) the expiry date of the agreement; and (iii) the dollar amount of the agreement; and (c) if no to (b)(i) to (b)(iii), why not? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a) Nil. (b) Not applicable. HOON OFFENCES — SEIZED VEHICLES 1335. Hon Ken Travers to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: (1) How many vehicles were seized in the following financial years under the Road Traffic Amendment (Hoons) Act 2009: (a) 2009-10; (b) 2010-11; (c) 2011-12;

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] 4899

(d) 2012-13; and (e) 2013-14? (2) For each year in (1): (a) how many vehicles were impounded and/or confiscated; (b) how many impounded vehicles were uncollected; (c) how many impounded vehicles were sold; and (d) how many impounded vehicles were disposed of (crushed)? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (1) (a)–(e) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Impounded Vehicles (driver’s licence) 8,976 7,775 7,835 8,070 8,219 Impounded Vehicles (driving) 1,914 2,017 2,120 2,096 1,818 TOTAL 10,890 9,792 9,955 10,166 10,037 Note: ‘Impounding offence (driver’s licence)’ is an offence committed against section 49(1)(a) and 49(3)(a), 49(3)(b) or 49(3)(c); or an offence against section 77(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (RTA). ‘Impounding offence (driving)’ an offence against section 60 or 62A of the RTA. ‘Seizure’ a vehicle that is seized as a result or a consequence of a surrender notice. Usually police attend a premise and seize a vehicle that has not been surrendered. A road side impoundment can also be referred to as a roadside seizure. A vehicle can also be seized as a result of a court order or for a court ordered road rage conviction. (2) (a) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

No. 10,890 9,792 9,955 10,166 10,037 Note: Section 78A of the RTA describes an impounding offence. Impoundment is the act of impounding a vehicle for a period of time for certain offences. Access by the responsible person (Owner/Driver) to the vehicle is temporarily denied by the Act, therefore impounded and referred to as an impoundment. A confiscation occurs when a court has ordered a confiscation. (b) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

No. No data 2,317 2,611 2,628 2,518 Note: Bench warrant and encumbered vehicles cannot be disposed of under State and Federal legislation. (c)–(d) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

No. No data 1,917 2,326 2,116 2,261 Notes: 1. These numbers reflect the total number of uncollected vehicles that were disposed of, the vehicles could have been sold at auction or crushed for scrap. 2. The vehicle is seized by police and once an appeal period has lapsed, the vehicle is disposed of. If vehicle has value, it is auctioned. If the vehicle has little value it is scrapped/wrecked. A confiscated vehicle is not ‘crushed’ unless the Police Minister intervenes to send a road safety message to the public. 3. Western Australia Police are unable to provide a breakdown of vehicles uncollected and disposed of for driver’s licence and driving offences as the response would take a significant amount of time and resources to collate and process. It is therefore not possible for Police to obtain this information without significantly compromising other core policing activities.

4900 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014]

POLICE — CYCLISTS — TRAFFIC REGULATIONS 1336. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: In terms of the police enforcement of traffic regulations in Western Australia, as they concern cyclists, I ask: (a) for each of the past three years, how many fines have been issued to cyclists breaching traffic regulations; and (b) for each of the past three years, how many of those fines were for cyclists riding on footpaths? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a) The total number of Traffic Infringement Notices issued to cyclists for breaching the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Regulations 2002 and the Road Traffic Code 2000 are as follows: Year Total 2011 1,702 2012 1,631 2013 1,373 2014 (1/1 to 11/6) 574 (b) The total number of Traffic Infringement Notices issued to cyclists for riding on footpaths are: Year Total 2011 4 2012 15 2013 15 2014 (1/1 to 11/6) 16

______