Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2020

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday, 23 September 2020

Legislative Council

Wednesday, 23 September 2020

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) took the chair at 1.00 pm, read prayers and acknowledged country. GOVERNOR’S ESTABLISHMENT — 2019–20 ANNUAL REPORT — TABLING Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [1.01 pm]: In accordance with the Financial Management Act 2006, section 65, I advise the house that the tabling of the 2019–20 annual report of the Governor’s Establishment will be delayed and not meet the prescribed time period, as the opinion of the Auditor General will not be ready. I anticipate the annual report will be tabled in Parliament on 8 October 2020, subject to finalisation of the audit opinion. [See paper 4266.] POLICE — ACCOUNTABILITY Petition HON TIM CLIFFORD (East Metropolitan) [1.02 pm]: I present a petition containing 211 signatures, couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia respectfully oppose the current system of accountability for Western Australian Police. It results in unfair and unjust outcomes to communities, citizens and to the Police themselves. In particular, Indigenous West Australians are over-impacted. Senior Officers and Police trying to do the right thing need to know those who do not will face legal consequences, instead of tolerating corruption. That those who do their duty will be rewarded; that their workplace operates at the highest standard. This can never happen while police investigate their own, with the means and power to conceal. We want independent 3rd party investigators from other countries and states, highly educated and trained in ethical principles to assess the truth in every case, on behalf of all W.A. communities and the Police themselves. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray [See paper 4304.] TIER 3 RAIL LINES Petition HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [1.03 pm]: I present a petition containing 1 421 signatures, couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are opposed to important state-owned Tier 3 rail infrastructure being closed by the lessee, thus transferring costs to WA export industry, taxpayers and ratepayers and impacting upon road safety and the environment. We support the re-opening of Tier 3 rail lines and ask that the Legislative Council recommend the State Government: • makes a pre-election commitment to the upgrade and re-opening of Tier 3 rail lines; • ensures transparency in all future contracts relating to rail line access so that less powerful users are not disadvantaged; and • explores options to return the control of Tier 3 lines to the State when the lessee declares them to be uneconomical. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4305.]

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6295

2019–20 ANNUAL REPORTS — TABLING Statement by Leader of the House HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [1.04 pm]: On behalf of the Minister for Environment, I rise to inform the house about the late tabling of some 2019–20 annual reports. A number of agencies will not be in a position to table their annual reports on time consistent with current requirements of the Financial Management Act 2006. Section 64 of the FMA requires ministers to table an agency’s annual report and the Auditor General’s opinion, if applicable, within 90 days after the end of a financial year. When a minister is unable to do so, they are required under section 65 of the FMA to inform Parliament on or before the expiry of the 90 days, which is 28 September this year. The minister is required to inform Parliament of their inability to table the annual report, the reasons for that inability, and the anticipated date of tabling the annual report. Following precedent set in 2017, these accountability requirements can be administratively achieved by way of tabling individual ministerial notifications through one minister—the Treasurer in the Legislative Assembly, and the minister representing the Treasurer in the Legislative Council—on behalf of other ministers. Ministers have notified the Treasurer in writing of the agencies within their portfolios that are unable to table annual reports by 28 September. They have also included information regarding their reasons for that inability and the anticipated date that they will table their departments’ annual reports. Therefore, in accordance with section 65 of the FMA, I now table the notifications provided by affected ministers. [See papers 4306–4312.] Point of Order Hon NICK GOIRAN: Madam President, I just note that the Leader of the House is tabling notifications. The only difficulty I see arising is that it is not clear from the words provided by the Leader of the House how many notifications have been tabled. I have found in the past that sometimes what has been tabled by a minister might not necessarily translate to what is found in the tabled papers when members look for them, so it would be useful to know how many notifications have been tabled. Statement Resumed The PRESIDENT: Leader of the House, I think you have some information to provide to Hon Nick Goiran on his point of order. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you, Madam President, I do. Letters were received from seven ministers covering 15 agencies. CORONAVIRUS — ECONOMIC RECOVERY — PORTS Statement by Minister for Ports HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Ports) [1.07 pm]: Recent port data is showing great news for Western Australia’s economy. Our trade remains as strong as ever, with ports across the state recording positive throughput results through the COVID-19 pandemic. At Fremantle Ports, container numbers for 2019–20 held up remarkably well, despite the impact of COVID-19 on global trading conditions over the second half of the year. Monthly volumes stayed steady at previous levels, with the exception of the month of May, when the volume dropped by about 10 per cent. It bounced right back to normal in June, and the July and August results are 5.5 per cent above those for the same period last year. Imports into WA—household goods, groceries and mining inputs—have been strong in July and August, at 7.7 per cent above the same period in 2019–20, demonstrating the underlying resilience of the Western Australian economy and the value of the hard border policies that have protected this state from the worst economic impacts felt around the world. The Pilbara remains the country’s economic backbone, recording 717 million tonnes of exports last financial year— up three per cent on the previous year. Iron ore exports from the Pilbara generated a staggering estimated $120 billion in earnings, with our ports helping iron miners take advantage of high prices throughout the year. The busiest of the three Pilbara ports remains Port Hedland. In June 2020, a record monthly figure of 52.4 million tonnes was exported. Data for July and August 2020 confirms that iron ore shipments are still tracking at about five per cent above the previous year’s monthly volumes. Exports from the three ports managed by the Southern Ports Authority—Esperance, Albany and Bunbury—reached 29.6 million tonnes, exceeding the previous year’s figure by 14 per cent, driven by increases in mineral sands and alumina exports. Geraldton port had a total throughput of 14.95 million tonnes, down slightly on last year on the back of a small grain harvest; however, the Mid West Ports Authority is seeing a massive surge in mineral sands and iron ore exports, and is tipping 16 million tonnes in exports this financial year, growing to 20 million tonnes the following year. WA’s ports have continued to drive our state’s economy throughout the pandemic, supporting local jobs right across the state, and keeping WA strong. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.

6296 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION Forty-sixth Report — “Correction to Report 45: Agricultural Produce Commission Amendment Bill 2019” — Tabling Hon Dr Sally Talbot presented the forty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Legislation titled “Correction to Report 45: Agricultural Produce Commission Amendment Bill 2019”. [See paper 4313.] HERITAGE AND CULTURE Motion HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [1.13 pm]: I move — That the house — (a) expresses its concern over increasingly radical and divisive attacks upon Western Australia’s heritage and culture, in particular — (i) the City of Perth’s attempted cancellation of the Christmas nativity event; (ii) recent calls to remove statues and monuments; (iii) the vandalisation of statues and monuments; (iv) proposals to rename various locations and structures that bear the names of historical figures; (v) recent and renewed calls to change the date of Australia Day; and (b) rejects policies and proposals that divide Western Australians on the basis of their racial identity or religious beliefs. I have given a few examples in the motion, but I would like to mention a few more in the substantive debate. I think this is an important debate to have because over recent months—it has been a trend over years unfortunately—we have seen an importation of what seems like rather toxic sort of race relations from the United States being applied here in Australia, in Western Australia in particular. It seems rather irrelevant to the unique circumstances of our country and our state. It has seen marches that attract quite a lot of attention and, as I mentioned in the motion, it has seen the vandalisation of statues and monuments. I think it is sad because I think it shows an ignorance of history for a start. It is also driven by what I fear is a Marxist attack on the institutions that uphold our society. I know members will scoff at that, but I will go through this and explain a little bit about critical race theory that underpins a lot of these pushes in policy proposals. Let me give a few examples of what this motion is trying to draw attention to and the concerns expressed in it. For instance, in 2017 there were calls from Karrie-Anne Kearing to change the name of the Peel region because it was supposedly offensive to Indigenous Australians. Thankfully, that call was rejected by the Premier, Mark McGowan, and by the opposition, so I am sure we can expect support from the government on this motion given its own Premier has rejected calls to rename regions. In 2018 the Town of Bassendean attempted to cancel Australia Day and its Australia Day fireworks. Thankfully, that was unsuccessful. Bassendean ratepayers were polled and it was found that 65 per cent of them wanted to celebrate being Australian on 26 January while only 26 per cent wanted a new date. Hon Charles Smith: How much did they pay to do that survey? Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: That is a very good question, honourable member. An attempt was made to rename Stirling Highway. Not too long ago, in August 2019, a so-called anthropologist claimed that Stirling Highway should be renamed and that we should not name our highways after old white guys. Of course, thankfully, this was rejected. This so-called anthropologist compared Governor Stirling, the founder of our state, to Martin Bryant, the lunatic gunman in Tasmania. Then in September 2019, the City of Perth’s cultural development plan saw the scrapping of Christmas celebrations in an attempt to make the Christmas celebrations of the City of Perth more inclusive, which is complete nonsense. As members are aware, almost 60 per cent of Western Australians identify as Christian. Of course Christmas is a Christian celebration and we live in a secular state, so we do not want to put people out. Last time I spoke to any of my Jewish or Muslim friends, they had no problem with Christmas celebrations. They are not offended by it—neither are Christians offended by Eid celebrations or Hanukkah or any other Jewish celebration. In fact, most people seem rather tolerant and are able to get on with their lives without being offended by other religions celebrating their cultural practices. More famously, the woke City of Fremantle cancelled its Australia Day celebrations and its Australia Day fireworks display because it was supposedly culturally insensitive. Not to be outdone by the City of Fremantle, a particular Greens Senator, Mr Jordon Steele-John, called for the destruction of historical statues. I thought it was quite remarkable that someone occupying the office of a Senator would be so ignorant of Western Australia’s history.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6297

He called for the destruction of statues here in Western Australia, saying that they were symbols of white supremacy. He said that the names of these men are literally everywhere so it is time to stop celebrating these men and hold them accountable for the roles they played in WA’s history of First Nation genocide. He misspelt genocide when he wrote that. The very learned Senator, that I am sure he is, knows his history! I am looking forward to any calls to rename Yagan Square. Of course, Yagan was a leader among Aboriginal people who fought against the settlers. He was a very brave warrior, by all accounts, but he killed several settlers before he was killed in turn by a settler. I suppose we should rename Yagan Square considering he was a man who waged war in his time. More recently, in June this year, the statue of Captain James Stirling was vandalised. One scruffy individual painted the statue of Stirling. In recent weeks, somebody put up a new plaque on the statue of Stirling here in the city. That plaque reads something to the effect of, “On 28 October 1834, Captain Stirling led the Pinjarra massacre that killed up to 80 Noongar men, women and children.” The person responsible for putting that over the original plaque said that it was important that we get the full picture of history. I am paraphrasing somewhat, but the idea is that the statue does not tell the full picture; it tells it from one perspective and he is trying to correct the record by giving people the correct historical context of what happened. I would like to do that now because I think he has not given the correct historical context. Unfortunately, he has given us a very simplified and skewed version of it. From my own research, Captain James Stirling was not a perfect man. Who can be? No-one is perfect. We all fall short of the standards we set for ourselves. But he is certainly a great figure in the context of Western Australian history. He was, of course, the administrator of the Swan River settlement from June 1829, when it was established, until 1832. He then left for England for a short time. He was knighted, came back in 1834 and was the administrator again until 1838. All told, he was not only the founder of the Western Australian colony, but also, for almost a decade, the ruler and patriarch of the colony. I will read from Stirling’s biography from the excellent online resource Australian Dictionary of Biography. This excerpt is written by F.K. Crowley. I encourage members to make use of that website. It is incredibly useful when looking at biographies of historical figures. In this biography it states — In his early administration Stirling took a leading part in exploring the coastal districts near the Swan, Murray, Collie, Preston, Blackwood and Vasse Rivers, and the first settlements were sited there in preference to the areas east of the Darling Range. It was some time before his chief aides, Peter Broun, the colonial secretary and keeper of the accounts, and Lieutenant John Roe, R.N., the surveyor-general, were able to set up proper departments in Perth, and most routine decisions were made by the governor. On legal matters he sought the advice of William Mackie, the advocate-general. Stirling personally welcomed the early settlers, made it easy for any of them to obtain an audience with him and acted as a polite rubbing-post for their multitude of petty grievances. He was also attentive to the complaints of the lower orders. I am not sure when the battle of Pinjarra started being referred to as the Pinjarra massacre—I think that is a rather recent renaming—but it is important to understand the context under which that took place. That is not to say that it is in any way not a tragedy; it absolutely is a tragedy. But it is important to understand that at the time of the early settlement of Western Australia by Europeans, Indigenous Australians, the Whadjuk people, who of course had been here for many thousands of years before Europeans ever set foot in this country, occupied the area around the Swan River, and the Pinjarra people were in the south west around Pinjarra. The Whadjuk people and the Pinjarra people had been at war with each other but around the time of the early European settlement, they had just brokered peace. A leader of the Pinjarra people—Calyute—conducted raids against settlers. He raided a flour mill. He killed a soldier and severely wounded another. An expedition led by Governor Stirling, with a posse of policemen and soldiers, went south into the Peel region to try to arrest Calyute and his followers. When Governor Stirling met up with those followers, he sent in a mounted detachment of his posse to try to arrest Calyute. If I am getting my history right, I believe they did not see him there, but they saw somebody else whom they had identified as having carried out raids before. That sighting resulted in a skirmish, several of the mounted detachment were unhorsed and, rather than fleeing and dispersing as had occurred during other conflicts, the Pinjarra people stood and fought quite bravely. They managed to kill one of the constables and severely wounded a captain, but that resulted in a battle with the Pinjarra people using spears and the colonists using muskets, and, of course, the Pinjarra people lost that battle. Anywhere from 11 to up to 80 Pinjarra people were tragically killed. I encourage members to read The Australian Frontier Wars 1788–1838 by John Connor. This was a battle between two groups for their very survival. On one side were the original inhabitants of Australia, the Indigenous Australians, fighting against European encroachment, and on the other were the Europeans, fighting against raids against their flour mills and livestock. European people were settling lands where the Indigenous people traditionally foraged for the yams that made up a large part of their diet. Tragically, in this case, it resulted in a violent conflict. Now, I do not think that is a reason to condemn someone like Governor Stirling. It is absolutely horrible what happened, but should we be tearing down his statue? It is a matter of historical fact that it happened. Was it avoidable? Probably— most likely. But this is a man who was obviously moulded by his time. He had a responsibility to protect the settlers of the colony. Putting up a plaque that merely draws attention to the massacre without any of the context behind it, I think, is an act of historical vandalism in itself.

6298 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

Quite often the people who want to erase history and our heritage are trying to not only correct historical injustice— Lord knows there has been a lot of that—but also reshape our society and tear down those institutions upon which it is based. We see that quite often. We hear people calling for the decolonisation of Australia. Some protesters and activists have said to burn this whole thing down and that there is nothing salvageable from European settlement in Australia. That is absolutely tragic. I think quite a few good things have resulted from European settlement in Australia. Of course there was immense hardship, pain, suffering and injustice, but also we rely upon institutions now such as parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, the presumption of innocence—habeas corpus—and the idea of people having rights. These concepts were imported and we are the beneficiaries. Australia is an incredibly lucky country to have been founded when it was, especially taking into context other colonial experiences. Australia was able to achieve what America could not. Most of Australia’s colonies were founded from 1788 onwards. Western Australia was founded in 1829. This was post the American Revolutionary War, so Australian people had the benefit of that entire experience being in the past and the British government having learnt from that experience. Therefore, when Australians wanted self-governance, we were able to achieve that without a violent revolutionary war. Australia was very much a country founded on liberal ideals that were prominent in the west at that time. Australia was spared a lot of the hardship that other colonies suffered. That is evidenced by the fact that the British government outlawed slavery in 1833 and as a colony we were spared that great injustice. Western Australians and Australians were spared that great injustice of the institution of slavery. Of course, instances of slavery occur in Australian history, but those instances are very much the exception and not the rule. They were illegal acts that should have been stamped out by the government at the time. As further evidence of the liberal foundations of Western Australia and Australia, I will read for members the proclamation written by Governor James Stirling on 18 June 1829. I found it very enlightening. It states — And whereas by the Establishment of His Majesty’s Authority in the Territory aforesaid, the Laws of the United Kingdom as far as they are applicable to the Circumstances of the Case, do therein immediately prevail and become Security for the Rights, Privileges and Immunities of all His Majesty’s Subjects found or residing in such Territory. … I do hereby give Notice that if any Person or Persons shall be convicted of behaving in a fraudilent, cruel or felonious Manner towards the Aboriginees of the Country, such Person or Persons will be liable to be prosecuted and tried for the Offence, as if the same had been committed against any other of His Majesty’s Subjects. That is interesting because, of course, Stirling and those who followed him did not live up to that standard. They failed to live up to and fulfil the standard that they created. Just because people fell short of the standards that they set for themselves does not mean that those standards should be rejected. The institutions that we have inherited are incredibly useful and effective in preventing the arbitrary use of power, preserving people’s rights and liberties, and preserving their life and property. They should be celebrated, not torn down as though they were poison to begin with. Unfortunately, we see that happening. We see things such as critical race theory, which claims that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist, that those who claim they are colourblind only perpetuate racism, and, of course, that race is a social construct created by white people to keep people of colour down. I would like to talk more about that, but I do not think I will have enough time. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Can you tell us about Rolf Harris? How do you think that should be dealt with? The PRESIDENT: Order, minister! Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I am not sure of the role that Rolf Harris had in founding Western Australia or founding the institutions that create our parliamentary democracy. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has limited time. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Peter Collier: Quiet! The PRESIDENT: Order! Member, I will tell people to be quiet. I am just going to interrupt Hon Aaron Stonehouse for a moment to remind members that Hansard reporters are no longer seated on the floor of the chamber. They are seated above us, and I know that they find it extremely difficult to hear what members are saying when even a slight bubble of noise emerges. To make their lives a bit easier so that they can do their job for you and put your words on the public record, please do them the courtesy of listening to members who are on their feet either in silence or quietly.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6299

Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: Thank you, Madam President. Recently, we have seen the popularity of the Black Lives Matter movement, which I find interesting. It is a statement that nobody could possibly disagree with. Of course black lives matter. That can be said unreservedly. Who would not agree with such a statement? The problem, of course, is that the organisation called Black Lives Matter, which is an organisation that organises some rallies, and pushes and advocates for certain policy outcomes, was founded by overt Marxists. They have said that they were trained as Marxists. They apply, again, this critical race theory, which is tied, of course, to the critical theory that comes from the school of Frankfurt. The policy objectives of that organisation are the destruction of the nuclear family and capitalism. It is not just a racial justice movement; it is much more than that. A lot of people who go to rallies do not know that. They go to rallies because they believe in racial justice, and rightly so. However, it is concerning, because a small core of people run these organisations and are agitating and pushing within the halls of academia and in universities. They are true Tankies. They are true believers in the Marxist cause of tearing down society and rebuilding it in their image. I fear that there really are barbarians at the gates. Of course, these barbarians are not made up of Germanic tribes or Picts; these barbarians have trust funds, blue hair and daddy issues. If these people want to disappoint their parents, I would much prefer that they did it in a way that did not affect the rest of us. I am sure that I will hear from the left side of the chamber, but I think that most people in Western Australia are not ashamed of being Western Australian or Australian. They want to celebrate 26 January. They want to celebrate their Foundation Day, whether we call it Western Australia Day or not. They want to celebrate the great things that we have in this state, such as the rule of law, equality before the law, an independent judiciary, and parliamentary democracy. They want to celebrate that people can come into Parliament and berate the Premier and not have to fear being locked up by the police, and that people can make their own wealth and fortune in this country. That is what has brought throngs of migrants and refugees here. People who came from Europe to flee communism came here because of the freedom, and the promise of freedom, that Australia and Western Australia provide. People came here from the former Yugoslavia and from behind the Iron Curtain. Nobody wants to move to a country that is a despotic communist hellhole. Of course, that is not the policy objective of these groups, but it is the unintended consequence of these groups. No-one got shot trying to escape West Germany for East Germany or braved shark-infested waters trying to escape Florida for Cuba. They come to countries like Australia because of the promise of freedom it provides. We should be proud of that. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [1.34 pm]: I want to thank the honourable member for raising some of the issues he raised in his motion, but the government certainly cannot support the motion. We do not accept the assumptions in the language or that our culture and heritage are under attack. It would be far more civilised to have a debate about how we can recognise those elements of our history that we now judge to have been either harsh, cruel or racist, or whatever they were. A far better approach would be to debate how we do that. How do we pay our respect to what happened in the past without pretending that it did not happen or being disrespectful of those people who were living by the values of their time? We recognise that we now hold a different set of values and that perhaps some things that were done in the context of events had negative effects on people at the time and those who followed and were, indeed, harsh and cruel. We need to find a way to have a debate about that without creating some kind of fake cultural war and trying to pretend that the process of having that debate and those things being raised in public forums is somehow an attack on our culture and heritage and is somehow divisive in itself. In fact, there will be different views about how we should do that. That is right and good and how it should be. There will be different points of view about how those things should be recognised. However, if someone starts from the premise, as this motion does, that, for example, a proposal to rename various locations constitutes a radical and divisive attack, they reveal their own motivation and point of view, which is that they are looking to create some kind of division and perpetrate this fake cultural war. Things that are under attack, in the language of the member, are things that we need to talk about and debate in a civilised fashion. This motion should have been recast for us to have a debate about how to balance those things, which is really hard to do. At the time, many people who did things that we now judge to be cruel and harsh did them in the genuine belief that they were doing the right thing. Many did not. Many people knew that what they were doing was cruel and harsh but they did it anyway. However, some people genuinely believed that they were doing the right thing. We need to find a way to have a debate about how we recognise that and not be disrespectful to those people, but acknowledge that there are two stories to be told about events, monuments, or places that we want to name. We have no desire to rush around and remove statues and monuments; that is not our priority or intention. However, there is merit in some of the work being done by people who want to tell another story about those monuments and statues, and want to put a plaque there that explains what happened and the consequences of the actions of the person or event being commemorated in that monument or statue. It is about telling a dual story. We should acknowledge the difficult and contentious parts of our history without pretending that they never happened. I think the Australian War Memorial is a really great example of how to do that. Members should look at the way its creators have tackled some really difficult issues. It is a great way to tell a story. It acknowledges history, the good and the bad of that history, and does it respectfully. It involves the people who felt marginalised and hurt by various actions taken by the Australian military over time and does it in a way that is respectful. It does not obliterate our history or pretend that it never happened, but it does it in a way that is respectful. Last year, the

6300 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

Australian War Memorial unveiled a monument recognising Indigenous soldiers. Brendan Nelson, the then director of the Australian War Memorial—I do not think he is the director anymore—and former federal opposition leader was reported as saying — … the monument represented a “significant step” to recognise Indigenous soldiers. “They denied their Aboriginality, denied their kinship and families to enlist, serve, fight, suffer and die for the young nation that had taken so much from them, often enlisting along … side the sons of those who had perpetrated violence against their own families,” … The article goes on to state — Australian Defence Force chief, General Angus Campbell, described the sculpture as powerful reminder” of Indigenous people and their stories. “They were our unknown sailors, soldiers, aviators,” he said. “It is a history that should be recognised and celebrated.” Uncle David Williams, a Bundjalung man and Vietnam War veteran, said the monument was a fitting tribute. “You don’t have to be Aboriginal but you can come and say thank you,” he said. “How good’s that?” That is the way to get the balance right. That is the way to recognise that things happened, and now, when we look back, we would say that they were not appropriate. It was not appropriate that when Indigenous soldiers came back to Australia, they were denied the same benefits that were granted to white veterans. That was not appropriate, but it happened. We need to recognise it and rectify the fact that it was unacknowledged and unrecognised for so long. That is the way to do this, not create some nonsense that there is some kind of attack on our heritage and culture. We need to acknowledge that some things happened in our history that were not good and did not have positive consequences. We can do that in a sensible and respectful way that recognises our history, but let us not pretend that those people who want to put a plaque alongside a monument are somehow attacking our culture and heritage. They are not; they just want to make sure that the other side of those stories are told. If we look at what the Australian War Memorial has done, we can see a great example. There are a few variations in the theme in the honourable member’s motion. Regarding the nativity, I am sure the City of Perth will figure that out. It will get a new mayor in a matter of weeks and I am sure the matter will be resolved. The commissioner at the time said that the city was looking for more events but on a smaller scale. Nonetheless, I think the issue will be resolved. Regarding Australia Day, again, it is not a priority of this government to change the date, but there needs to be a way to recognise, as a nation, that the arrival of Europeans had an impact on the people who were already living here. How do we acknowledge that in a respectful way? There is nothing wrong with having a debate about that. Coming up with the process to have that debate is not an attack on our culture or heritage. We are not going to support this motion. It is trying to create a fake cultural war. No-one supports violence or vandalism, but there is an entirely civilised way to recognise our history—the good and the bad—without pretending that the process to do so is an attack on our culture and heritage. HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [1.43 pm]: I rise to make a few comments in support of the motion. We can argue about the specific particulars that Hon Aaron Stonehouse has identified as illustrations of what he considers to be increasingly radical and divisive attacks upon our heritage and culture. We can also argue about the merits of whether certain monuments ought to be renamed or removed for good reason, renaming or dual-naming various locations, and the various specifics. However, the member is asking only that we express our concern over “increasingly radical and divisive attacks” on heritage and culture. He uses illustrations, and members might agree with some or all of those particulars, but there is a disturbing theme going through our society at the moment and I will speak more about that in a moment. Otherwise, the honourable member calls upon the house to reject “policies and proposals that divide Western Australians on the basis of their racial identity or religious beliefs”. Who can argue against that? I would have thought that would be patent; is that not what we are here for? I challenge any member to say that there is anything wrong with paragraph (b), which indicates what the member is asking us to reject. I do not see how we can. That is what I am here for and it is one of the reasons that I am proud to be in this country. For all its shortcomings and all the things we can do better or might have done wrong in the past in Australia, or in Western Australia, we have, as western civilisation has generally, an aspiration to improve and be embracing and tolerant and to work to elevate the human condition. Hon Sue Ellery proved part of Hon Aaron Stonehouse’s case. She gave the illustration of the Australian War Memorial. That was not a bunch of people spray-painting the war memorial and tearing down plaques they did not agree with and replacing them with their own ideas of how history ought to be interpreted. That is not the way to do it. No-one gives licence for someone to tear down a public monument on their own initiative or put up their alternative interpretations. There is a way to do that, as Hon Sue Ellery illustrated. We do not see that at the moment.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6301

My parents came to this country after the Second World War as “displaced persons” or refugees, if you like. They came out here as children with what was left of their property in a few suitcases and what was left of their families after the most destructive conflict in human history had gone on for some six years, if we do not count all the years that led up to it. In every month in the final 12 months of that conflict, a million people died. My parents were in refugee camps for several years before they managed to come out here. They wanted to go to America, because it was the land of opportunity. They thought people rode kangaroos down the streets in Australia back in those days. That is how little they knew about this place. It was out the back of beyond. I am delighted that they made it here rather than America, but it was a matter of chance rather than choice. I am proud of what they did. They were looking for a society of tolerance, peace, stability and institutions that came from western civilisation, including, whether or not members are religious, the Judaeo–Christian ethic of individual value. They came here for those institutions and I am proud that they did. I am proud of what they have done here and I am proud of Australia and Western Australia for what it tried to achieve and continues to achieve. It is a tribute to this place that it is always looking at self-improvement, not to be run by a rabble who think that they ought to know better and that their view of history and of our culture and heritage is somehow superior to everyone else’s. To change institutions because of a small group of people without the mandate of the silent majority—the others—is simply an offence to everything our society, our heritage and our culture stands for. There are arguments to be raised, as Hon Sue Ellery mentioned, that people should not be judged by the values of their times. We can look back with regret and remorse over things that have or have not been done in the past, but we should also recognise that it is part of our history and embrace other cultures’ traditions and heritage, not change our own and abandon it out of some oversensitivity because someone might be offended by it. In every society, a group will look for ways of being offended by something to prove their point and will utterly reject the views of any others and the society that allows them to express those views. We are living in a society that, sadly, is being exploited in that regard. People who tear down or stick plaques on monuments they do not like because they think that they have a superior moral right to do so have nothing constructive to offer, other than to destroy and criticise. It is not as though this is not known. Before the Second World War, exactly this sort of thing happened in most of Europe. On the basis of ethnicity or religion, people turned against their neighbours, rejected their values and tried to destroy them and make them homogenous with whomever happened to be in charge at the time. We have seen the tragedy of that in other countries since. To have small groups even tacitly endorsed as being able to do this as a legitimate means of protest or as a legitimate means of changing institutions is simply misguided. We will never learn from history if we just ignore it. We should judge institutions and people not by the character of what happened in the past but by how they perform now. Human history goes back long before the written record. We continue to build on that heritage by understanding what happened in the past, vowing not to do it again and improving ourselves by it. But we are finding that there is an increasing level of intolerance by a small vocal minority who have accreted to themselves an assumed moral superiority and who seek to rewrite history and to criticise and to demand their own way to the exclusion of all others, when there is no respectful debate of the character that Hon Sue Ellery claimed we should be having. The interjection a little earlier by Hon Alannah MacTiernan is an example of that. What the hell has Rolf Harris got do with this! Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Perhaps the member can tell us about that. But what does it have to do with — Hon Alannah MacTiernan: I am just asking the question: should you take down Rolf Harris statues? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Has he got one? Hon Alannah MacTiernan: He has had plenty of plaques and memorials that have been removed. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: The member can talk about that. Madam President? For what it is worth, none of the paragraphs of the motion mention Rolf Harris. I have not heard anyone mention his name. Hon Alannah MacTiernan may be fantasising about something, but it certainly is not the subject of this motion. If she has a problem, perhaps she ought to get some help with it. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The PRESIDENT: Minister, order! Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Statues and monuments that have been established by a community to commemorate the figures in its past need to be removed by that society only if it takes the view that they ought to be. The small minority is not entitled to destroy public property and to demand that we ignore our history and those who have contributed to where we are today. Many of our historical figures, being human, had flaws, but they contributed in other ways and that is what they are being memorialised for—not their faults, although we recognise that they had them. Perhaps only those on the Labor Party side of this chamber are perfect in every way or will rewrite history to make sure that that happens. Every human has flaws, but it is what they managed to achieve that is good for society— the efforts, sacrifices and tribulations that they endured in order to build a society that allows us to enjoy the benefits that we have today—that needs to be commemorated.

6302 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

I am astonished by the attitude of many of these groups. I have no other home than Western Australia. To be called an invader of this country is appalling. I am not sure where these people expect me to go. I am more indigenous than anyone who was born after me, unless I take into account race, which I thought we were not supposed to do. Perhaps there are two rules for that. This is my home and I have dedicated my life to making my way here and also improving it. That is what I have been trying to do. I have not worked to undermine society, but to improve it, both in my work and in the way that I comport myself. I do not disagree that I fall short in many respects, but I try. Hopefully, I try to improve things. I am sure all of us do. But should a statue be created for us and to then be somehow condemned for our flaws on the basis of something that we may have said or done in the past, which in the future is thought to be different and does not meet the values of some distant future that we cannot even contemplate, is a sad thing. It is dangerous that we could be expunged from the history books and from Hansard not because of what we have contributed, but because of some perceived flaw that someone might pick up in the future. That is when we head towards the prescience of authors such as George Orwell in 1984. We are dealing with a time in which people take it upon themselves to attack our institutions and the ways in which we commemorate our achievements. Hon Aaron Stonehouse pointed to the commemoration of Christmas and those sorts of festivals. There are not that many devout Christians, or people who go to church or whatever worship they consider to be important to their faith, in our society nowadays. That is the same with other religious groups. We should respect those views. But to change an element of our culture, like the celebration of Christmas, because a few people think that others might be excluded or feel unsafe in it is an absurdity. I would be happy to celebrate Hanukah or whatever as a sign of respect to others. I do not believe in it, and I certainly do not feel threatened by it. We seem to want to proactively remove these elements that we have grown up with that are a celebration of a good time, of festivities, of fellowship and of love between people, all because a small group thinks that someone might be upset by it and might not like it. That is not what Australian culture is all about. This country has prided itself on being diverse and accepting the views, opinions and cultures of others. But that acceptance of others’ cultures and ideas should not be at the expense of our own. We have in the space of the 200-odd years, since Western Australia was colonised developed our own culture. There are very good bits of it. To sacrifice those things because a few people do not like them and are prepared to be destructive is not the way that our society ought to operate. I think we can do nothing other than accept at least paragraph (b) of Hon Aaron Stonehouse’s motion. I do not see how any sensible, responsible member of Parliament could vote against rejecting policies and proposals that divide Western Australians on the basis of their racial identity or religious beliefs, however we might perceive the examples to support the motion. It may not be the same as Hon Aaron Stonehouse’s, but how could we vote against that? How could we not express concern over increasingly radical and divisive attacks on various things. As has been pointed out, there is always scope for debate and discussion. But to attack institutions and to do so in a radical and divisive way does nothing to promote the causes of harmony and mutual respect in our community or, indeed, advance the causes that are being promoted. Frankly, it is counterproductive. I think that those who undertake that action really do not want harmony. They want to object. They want to make a noise. They want to be divisive and to use that lever against the rest of society because they do not want to be a part of it. They offer nothing in return, other than to attack its fundamentals and to make people feel uncomfortable and threatened, and to exclude them. I think we should support the motion. Members may disagree with the detail of it or with some of the examples that are used, but I support the motion because I know that it is going in the right direction. It is looking towards a society that is inclusive, that is respectful in its debates, that acknowledges its history and the mistakes of the past but that does not destroy its own fabric. That is what has made it a place worth living in up until now. I hope that it has the resilience to endure it. I do not necessarily think it is teetering on the brink now, but unless we make a stand and say that these are the sorts of things that we as a Parliament reject, the slide will begin, if not continue. I urge members to have an open mind about the sentiment behind the policy and the words of the motion and to support it. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [2.00 pm]: I rise to indicate that the Greens will not support this motion, principally because we do not accept the premise upon which the motion has been established. We will not support motions that are pretty much a grab bag of confected outrage from a series of right-wing Facebook memes. I think we can do better than that in this chamber. It is astonishing that this motion calls for an expression of concern about radical and divisive attacks on our heritage and culture, yet no-one here has spoken about the actual destruction of Aboriginal heritage that we saw occur in Juukan Gorge or the erosion of the World Heritage–listed rock art on the Burrup Peninsula for the sake of gas corporate giants or the various ongoing failures of the Aboriginal Heritage Act that mean that real heritage is being destroyed for corporate profit. It is ridiculous that consultation and informed public debate about what the priorities of the city’s small businesses for Christmas have identified, the crimes and atrocities committed by some of the people we honour with monuments and statues and placenames, and all the implications of the current date of Australia Day are seen as somehow being attacks on heritage and culture. This motion suggests either that our culture is not strong enough to withstand a genuine and inclusive debate about our past, our future and what we want Australia to be, or that those who have concerns should simply shut up, sit down and stop talking about ways to make Australia and our society better. I do not agree with either of those premises.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6303

Let us talk about Australia Day. We literally could have any date for Australia Day. It is entirely up to us. We have had different dates for Australia Day since Federation. We could pick any number of meaningful days in our history at any point. Frankly, I would like to have another public holiday during the second half of the year instead of crowding them all into the first six months of the year. I give a shout-out to our union movement that has ensured that we have public holidays in the first place. Australia Day has not always been held on 26 January, or even in January for that matter. Australia Day started as a fundraising effort for the First World War and was originally held in July. Because so much of this debate seems to be about people wanting to ensure that their own heritage is acknowledged, I would like to say that I had two great-grandfathers who fought in the First World War. One fought in Gallipoli and lost an arm. He died when I was six. The other great-grandfather fought at Villers-Bretonneux and lost an eye. He died when I was a baby. Just to be clear, my Australian heritage is well entrenched. This motion talks about how things are divisive, yet it supports keeping Australia Day on 26 January, a date that is just as easily claimed as Invasion Day. That is what First Nation people are telling us. It has been marked as a day of mourning in First Nation communities since as far back as 1938. That is how far back that was recognised as a problematic date. That is part of our history as well. Being told that celebrating Australia Day on 26 January is a problematic date is not new, yet people are insisting that we have to cling to it. They are denying the hurt, the harm and the divisiveness that is at the heart of celebrating that particular date as the date on which we acknowledge that we are one as Australians. It is a choice that we keep making to pretend that there is not a problem. It is far more divisive, I think, to cling to a bad date and pretend that those who have a legitimate complaint about it are acting in bad faith. That is more divisive than to openly discuss how the current date represents many things, some of which, frankly, are very bad things for many Australians. We are talking about a history of land theft, massacres and rapes— atrocity after atrocity. These are a real part of our history. It is really that simple, and it should not be that big a deal to acknowledge the serious issues and to change the date. Hon Colin Tincknell interjected. Hon ALISON XAMON: Shoosh! The member will get his time. I want to talk about the alleged cancellation of the Christmas nativity. The context of this from the City of Perth is that we are talking about holding a mass gathering event in the midst of a pandemic. Although it is less well attended than other events—that is a fact—the risks are still considered to be high, as are the resourcing implications, including for the police, who would need to substantially increase their presence to ensure security and, importantly, maintain social distancing. The police would need between eight and 10 weeks to plan for the event. It is unfortunate that the City of Perth, like every other local council, has to think about which activities it will run in light of the pandemic, because it is so uncertain and we do not know what will happen, particularly around Christmas time. The council has had to think about how it will spend its money and how that will affect the residents and ratepayers of the City of Perth. I thought that the one thing the mover of the motion would have wanted would be for the market to determine what people think is valuable and worthwhile. The City of Perth minutes of 26 May this year show that it undertook broad consultation to identify priority projects to assist with the rebound of the city’s economy. The council felt that it was important to consult on and be responsive to what people said they wanted if the council was to spend public money on a public event. The Christmas nativity simply was not identified by its stakeholders as a priority. That is not because anyone is trying to kill Christmas; it is just that, on the scale of things, it was not considered to be the highest priority. I have looked at what was considered a priority. People supported holding the Christmas concerts because they feel they are very family friendly and they want to see them continue. The Christmas lights trail continues to be very popular, as were markets and school holiday events. There are, of course, a huge number of ways to incorporate the nativity story into other projects that the city is doing and a range of ways to tell the nativity story, and the city has committed to doing that within both the city and its small local communities. I have taken a particularly keen interest in this issue because I am a churchgoing Christian. My congregation is the Uniting Church in the city. For members who do not know, that consists of Trinity Church, Wesley Church and Ross Memorial Church. I am so active in my congregation that I am a member of my church council. Members would think that if anyone would be outraged by what is not happening with Christmas in the city, it would be my congregation and my church council. I can tell members that no such outrage exists. We do not feel like we are being stopped from doing anything that we want to do to celebrate Christmas. In fact, we are looking forward to doing a range of things to celebrate Christmas. I have skin in the game on the issue of celebrating church and Christmas in the city, and I can tell members that it is not an issue. I have read the City of Perth’s report on the social value, risk factors and returns for the various mass gathering events that we usually have through the holiday season, and it is a very thoughtful piece that really looks into how the city can provide cultural and financial value while minimising risk and maintaining flexibility, in line with the state guidelines on events. I am guessing that the mover of the motion either did not read it or does not accept that the city’s first responsibility is to the people and the businesses within it, who are paying their rates. With regard to the survey I discussed earlier, almost all respondents indicated that they wanted the city, as a priority, to do more to provide support and advocacy for people who are experiencing homelessness. That is what the survey indicated, and that is a real thing, as opposed to the idea that the City of Perth is trying to kill Christmas, because it simply is not.

6304 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

I want to say something about my personal heritage as well, because it seems to be pertinent to this debate and what we are trying to talk about here. My personal heritage goes back to the Swan River settlers. I am a direct descendant of Richard Barndon, Frances Friend and Walter and Tabitha Jones; I am a seventh generation Western Australian. In fact, on my father’s side, my ancestry goes back to the Port Phillip settlers and I am pleased to say that I finally found some convict heritage as well. One of my ancestors founded Thomastown in Victoria. I am also a direct descendant of James Brittain, who was my great-great-great-grandfather. He was responsible for building the Barracks Arch, the Cloisters and the church that is my church—the Wesley Church, formerly Methodist, now Uniting Church, in the city. I have a great personal attachment to the history of the European establishment of this state. It is my history and my blood, and it is where I come from. However, I think it is really important that we talk about monuments and memorials to the people who established this state, including those who are my ancestors. I am sorry if people do not like hearing that some of the people we commemorate with statues and other memorials have a problematic history, but the fact is that they do, and I am not sorry enough to not talk about that and to enable other people to talk about it. It is really important that people are able to speak, and I am certainly not sorry enough to suggest that people whose families have been directly affected by some of the more shameful acts in our history should simply sit down and shut up. The suggestion that calls for statues to be removed are divisive is a position that one can hold only if one wants to deny the reality of our history and what it means to lionise these people through public art and monuments, and to not engage with the confronting and difficult parts of their actions and legacies. I do not personally support the vandalising of such statues and monuments, but I at least understand the impulse to do so. The conversations that need to be had are being denied, and this motion is part of that denial. I would like to instead see more public art to contextualise what we have, rather than vandalism. I am reminded, for example, of how the Fearless Girl statue, facing the charging bull statue on Wall Street, impacted on the perception of the bull. Even the artist said that the presence of Fearless Girl turned the bull into a villain, despite the fact that Fearless Girl was effectively an advertising stunt. But that kind of installation costs money; vandalism is a more direct expression of the outrage people feel, especially when even the mere mention of calls for things to be different is met with responses like this motion. I do not support vandalism, but I do understand it. On the issue of place names, there are two issues with naming places after historical colonial figures. One is an issue similar to that which I discussed earlier, about the memorialisation of people with statues. For example, I welcome the recent decision to rename the King Leopold Ranges the Wunaamin Miliwundi Ranges. I hope I pronounced that right; if I struggle to pronounce it correctly, it is a reflection of how much more we need to bring First Nation languages into our everyday life. But it is ridiculous to stand here and suggest that those ranges should continue to be named after someone responsible for the deaths of millions for the sake of shipping commodities. It is ridiculous to say that we should not have a conversation about what it means to name places after people who committed massacres, who stole land, and whose presence introduced untold disease and death. It is ridiculous for this motion to suggest that if we dare to have a conversation about these issues, it is inherently divisive. That is effectively to pretend that the division does not already exist, and that even if it does exist, it does not matter. I cannot figure out how to reconcile that, unless the corollary is that our First Nation people and their history do not matter. I think they do. The other issue is that we often obscure and overwrite the existing First Nation names. If members are concerned about attacks on culture and erasing language and place names, I point out that when we erase First Nation names, it is most certainly an attack on history and culture. I welcome moves to undertake the dual naming of a range of areas in Western Australia. I think that is really positive. I get very excited when the range of history is made available. For example, Exmouth has done a really wonderful job of incorporating its entire history, from First Nation people’s history right through to how the town was established. It has embraced all of that. Increasingly, one can learn about the extensive, comprehensive history of many places. I do not think that is a threat to white history; it is simply value-adding to include the entire history. Sometimes that will mean that some of the history of white settlement will not be positive and might even be ugly; but it is really important, for the sake of history, to be honest and be prepared to put everything out there. I am proud that we have come so far as a society that those who have been without voices for so long are finally able to say, “The status quo excludes and undervalues me; I am a citizen of this country, and I deserve to be treated as such.” Although it is no surprise to me to see a motion like this, which basically cries out to social conservatives and pretends that the Australia of the 1950s was fair and reasonable for anyone other than white, heterosexual, Christian men, it does surprise me to see it coming from a libertarian. Libertarians are supposedly focused on individual freedoms, but this is a straight-up call to the kind of conservatism that limits freedoms only to the chosen few and ignores and denies the experiences of everyone else. Telling people that they cannot have a voice and that they should sit down and shut up when they finally start to express concerns about ongoing decades and centuries of exclusion is the last thing I would have expected of this party. This is not about attacks on heritage; it is about attacks on white, heterosexual, Christian heritage of a very particular flavour. Giving others a voice does not equate to silencing one’s own voice. This white, Christian heritage is my

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6305 heritage, and I do not feel silenced or shamed about where I come from. It is part of who I am and part of my background. As a Christian in this city, I do not feel that I am being shut down by anyone from being able to celebrate Christmas. There was one thing that the mover of the motion said that I completely agree with, and that is that other people are not calling for the erasure of Christmas—particularly the Jewish and Muslim communities. That is true; that is completely the case. The only people making the claim that Christmas is being killed are far-right and QAnon troublemakers who have far too much time on their hands and who spend too much time on their keyboards and not enough time actually out and about, doing good work and trying to actually listen to what people are saying. There is plenty for libertarians to be outraged about, not least the steady decline of our civil liberties, Western Australia’s slide into becoming a police state, and ongoing attacks on our democracy. That could have been a motion; nevertheless, it may be a motion for another time. However, I do not accept the premise of this motion. I do not accept that giving people a voice who have not had a voice for so long is about silencing anybody else. I do not feel that history is being shut down. I feel that people are calling for a broader history and I welcome that as someone who is a descendant of the Swan settlers and I welcome that as a Christian. HON CHARLES SMITH (East Metropolitan) [2.20 pm]: I would like to make a brief contribution to today’s motion. I would like to extend and explore some of the ideas that Hon Aaron Stonehouse was just getting to as his speech came to a close. Since the advent of globalism, cosmopolitanism and the subsequent rise of radical left-wing ideologies, it is no secret that our western traditions have been under attack from those who lament the perceived western imperialism. According to left-wing dogma, minority groups suffer greatly under western traditions as the west seeks to impose its hegemony and strip them of their rights. Western tradition does no such thing. Western culture has welcomed and afforded minorities the right to live in a free and accepting society. Australia is a multicultural country and that is never going to change. The great irony today is, of course, that as the west has become more cosmopolitan, the attack on western traditions has intensified. If cosmopolitanism is about being a citizen of the world and appreciating cultures other than our own, why does this moral view not extend to the appreciation of the western tradition? Western tradition offers locals a sense of belonging through solidarity mechanisms such as holidays, our festivals and memorial services. These events bring people together, providing us with tangible links that enable belonging. Yet, given the freedoms of the west, no-one is forced to attend these events or participate in religious ceremonies. However, that is still not good enough for the leftist factions in a political world, who perceive the success of the west as an opportunity to tear it down. It seems that there is a desire out there to turn the west into some sort of sterile monoculture in which we are all the same but we celebrate our diversity. This offers no sense of belonging or tradition. Rather, it has locals living in fear that their way of life will somehow offend someone and for that they have to atone. This argument is hypocritical. It trips over itself. It ties itself in knots. The great irony is, of course, that under liberal democratic principles, people can live without fear, without being under the direct control of a government, and they can choose their beliefs and choose their way of life. This is why the west is so accepting of minorities, yet society has reached a point at which those liberal democratic principles do not extend to an appreciation of the west itself. In essence, it appears now that people who live under western traditions have become the minority. They have a small nuclear family; they may have a white picket fence outside the front of their property. They may attend a church and practise their religion or even go to the gym. A backlash against liberal institutions has gained momentum globally, and this can be reflected in a recent study I have been looking at. There is an independent watchdog organisation called Freedom House. In 2018, that organisation recorded the twelfth year in a row in which the number of liberal democracies suffering setbacks outnumbered those that had made gains by increasing freedoms and bolstering the rule of law. Who is responsible for this? The liberal academic elite should hang their heads in shame because for years, particularly inside universities, they have spewed anti-west Marxist dogma to impress upon students in the socialist-obsessed university sector. Anti-west sensibilities and the cult of social justice have become fashionable and something to aspire to. Subsequently, this attitude has spread through society like COVID-19, infecting the impressionable minds of the young as they seek to find their place on the pseudo moral high ground that has been constructed for them by the unelected intellectual elite. Hon Aaron Stonehouse interjected. Hon CHARLES SMITH: Quite. Slowly, by stealth, those unelected elite, high on a self-righteous cocktail of critical theory, have begun to impose their will on society, offering no room for freedom or access to their liberal democratic rights. But there is some good news: the revolt has begun. What can we expect when the elite have gone too far in their quest for cultural deprivation? The fracture in the mainstream is caused by the failings of liberalism whereby enough of the population have felt deprived for long enough. Cultural deprivation is aroused by overzealous globalists and out-of-touch elites who went too far. Enough people are now waking up and saying, “No; we have had enough.” Their voices now bubble over within that fracture and if political parties wish to remain relevant, they need to start listening to the will of the people. I will conclude with a short statement: Diving down deep into this issue that the honourable member has raised, the real driver of the current politically correct madness, as I see it, is the rise of post-structuralism in our education. Postmodernity is an ideology that has no truth. It sees the world in discourses of endless and equal value, created

6306 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] and re-created by the power and vice of language. The consequence is that changing language gives us the power to change reality, thus, labelling everything becomes an act of empowerment. This obsession with how everything is represented, versus what actually is, means that traditional power relationships, such as capital versus labour— I remind the government that it seems to have forgotten that one, or does the minister remember those — Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Yes. Hon CHARLES SMITH: — that make up the contest in the centre of politics become lost and politics becomes a fake game, which it is today, of yelling our own discourse louder than anybody else’s. The sadness of it all is that the underlying reality of history rolls on and on, and no issues can ever be resolved in favour of the majority. HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [2.28 pm]: It might surprise the parties opposite that I agree with a few aspects of what they have said. I think that in some quarters, there has been a desire to cut down discourse. I note the current attacks on J.K. Rowling, which I certainly would not support. As always, there are some examples or rightful critique of the way we manage the freedom of expression. We should not be arguing that certain things cannot be discussed, but the parties on the other side have gone much, much further than that and, in my view, are showing a great deal of resentment towards what Hon Alison Xamon characterised as the rightful attempt by many people to ensure that a more profound understanding of the history of this land is grasped, enshrined and recorded. I think it is very, very important that we do that and it is very important that members on the other side put themselves in the shoes of our fellow Western Australians whose ancestors were on the receiving end of some very, very shocking conduct and were on the receiving end of the fact of settlement. As Hon Michael Mischin said, we are all here; we are Australians. We would not suggest that we are not part of this country, but we need to understand that that last couple of hundred years had some pretty extraordinary consequences that have led to intergenerational trauma that is still experienced today. I will talk about one case, which is a complex case. In many ways people would see James Stirling as someone who made a significant contribution to the state. I certainly would not say that someone like James Stirling should be obliterated from history, but I do think that some of the complexities and consequences of the things that were done—not just by him; things done by what we might call the society and establishment of the day—should be properly recorded. But we do not have to go and rewrite history in total. The Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, Hon Sue Ellery, made a good point when she said that we need to find more complex ways of dealing with this and she referenced some of the very excellent materials at the War Memorial. I came across a conundrum in the Italian community in Naples because there is no doubt that Mussolini, the Italian dictator, oversaw and inspired some extraordinary architecture. After the war, in Naples, a decision had to be made on the piazza that Mussolini had created in his characteristic style, and it really was quite an extraordinary piece of architecture. The questions were: What should they do? Should they leave the piazza up as a testament to Mussolini or should they demolish it? They came up with the most extraordinary idea, which was they would name the piazza after the first political prisoner who he shot. The first Italian person who lost their life as a political opponent of Mussolini had their name enshrined on that piazza. I thought that was an incredibly sophisticated response to the problem of how we deal with these characters in history who, shall we say, probably did more harm than good, but, nevertheless, may have, in that process, created something that was quite extraordinary and that became part of the history. There is a similar case in Western Australia. As I said, I am certainly not in favour of the tearing down of statutes and the removal of names when the person involved was very much part of the mainstream of the society of the time, but a number of people have recently brought to my attention the case of the Frank Hann National Park in the Great Western Woodlands. There is no doubt that Frank Hann was an extraordinary individual in many ways, and a most physically hardy person. He came out from England at a young age and settled in Queensland. I think he possibly went broke there, came over to WA and opened up vast tracts of Western Australia from Halls Creek all the way down to Laverton and through to the Great Western Woodlands, so one certainly could not argue that he was not a pretty extraordinary individual. But, at the same time, many of the stories surrounding him in its treatment of Aboriginal people are truly appalling. Frank Hann’s property was Lawn Hill in Queensland. Many diarists at the time remarked on the fact that at Lawn Hill he had 40 pairs of ears of the Waanyi people of that area nailed up as decorations, as trophies. There are many accounts of him going out of his way to collect heads for mates who wanted a trophy Aboriginal head. He even went to the extent of drying the heads out so they could form spittoons for people. In the history of the memories of Aboriginal people, this man was noted for having a really ruthless brutality towards Aboriginal people. He would treat captured Aboriginal women as slaves and chain them to trees until they became totally compliant. There are detailed recollections of rape, child molestation and just a great readiness to treat Aboriginal people as if they were as fair game as kangaroos. This was a man who was operating in the latter half of the nineteenth century and I put it to members that even by the standards of his time, he was considered to have gone beyond the pale in that level of ruthless brutality. Indeed, around 1909, towards the latter part of his life, when he was giving an account in the newspapers of some of his

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6307 affairs, it caused a huge furore of protest. Even by the standards of people in his own era, his conduct and his disregard and his view that Aboriginal people were largely to be tamed as if they were a species of native fauna was considered to be unacceptable. Therefore, the question is—I think people are raising this issue—is this the sort of person after whom we should name a national park? That national park was named in 1970. One would like to think that perhaps by then some of the sensibilities may have been more creative. After the Second World War, the Neapolitans had to find some creative ways of dealing with these sorts of issues and I think we need to do that, too. I just want to reflect on the Australia Day issue because as an Australian, I feel very strongly about it. I do not like celebrating Australia Day on a day that makes a significant number of people deeply unhappy. I want an Australia Day that everyone can enjoy. I do not care whether it is moved by just one day. Even that one day would be a symbolic acknowledgement that the settlement we created in this land was not experienced equally by all of us and that a sacrifice was sustained by the Aboriginal people. I think it would be a mark of decency and respect to move it by a day or two to acknowledge that when we and our ancestors arrived here, it had an impact. Hon Alison Xamon interjected. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: That is right. These things are evolutionary. The sensibilities of societies change, as they should. The national anthem is no longer God Save the Queen; it is now Advance Australia Fair, which says that our home is girt by sea. I would love for us to have another plebiscite on the national anthem. I would like it to be I Am Australian, which says, “We are one, but we are many. And from all the lands on earth we come”. I think that would be a much better song. It would be a lot better than Advance Australia Fair. Of course societies evolve. We need to be mindful of those things and values that were good in the past, but we also have to understand, as we move forward, the consequences of our terra nullius approach to our settlement of this land and that it had an impact. We need to acknowledge that if we are going to move forward as a nation. Personally, I think it should be the subject of a referendum. I do not think it should be decided by politicians. I would like to see, in a few years’ time, a referendum about Australia Day. I think there is a growing sentiment in the community. I am not saying that at this time the majority of people want a change, but I think an increasing number of people do. It is not just a few fringe lefties with hairy armpits from down in Fremantle. I think this has become an issue of considerable significance to a lot of people. I think members would find that there is a great deal of support for that in the western suburbs and north of Fremantle. People want an Australia Day that does not have a negative connotation for our first Australians. We have seen the way in which people embraced Cathy Freeman. That superb story has been celebrated of late and shows that, fundamentally, the Australian community wishes the Aboriginal community well, wants to embrace it and see Aboriginal people go forward. Over time, I think we will see an increasing number of Australians who say that Australia Day should be celebrated on a day that represents them. That would be done quite reasonably and rightfully, and not out of some crazy sense of victimhood. As a community, I think we would get value from accepting that. Making a symbolic change to that date would be an extraordinary step forward. I cannot support the motion. I think both Hon Sue Ellery and Hon Alison Xamon set out a powerful critique of it. I urge members to try to get our society together and not create faux wars. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [2.44 pm]: I thank the honourable member for moving this motion. The debate has been different. I do not agree with all the views that have been presented. I was encouraged by Hon Alannah MacTiernan giving us some constructive ideas and having more of a constructive attitude towards this motion. That is exactly what it is all about. Our culture and history are a part of who we are. This motion does not seek to deny Aboriginal culture or beat up on Aboriginal people. Like everyone else in this house, I think Hon Aaron Stonehouse understands how important they are to us. Every single culture in the world has had massacres, rapes and oppression as part of its history. Right through history, there is not a culture that I know of that has not had that. This motion refers to the vandalisation of statues and monuments. I cannot see any members in here arguing with that. Hon Aaron Stonehouse has brought many positive things to our notice and asked for a debate on them. He has put this in a motion so that people can give their ideas and talk freely. That is part of our culture and part of who we are in this country. People are the sum of their life experiences. Some experiences are good and some are bad, but they all contribute to making us the person we are. Nations are the same. Not all of our history is glorious. A lot of it is shameful and many things were done that were wrong. However, in its entirety, it has shaped us as a nation. We are a complex nation. I prefer to use the phrase multiracial nation rather than multicultural nation because I believe we should celebrate the things we have in common rather than the things that are different. I think too much is made of the things that are different. Of course we are all different! There are no two human beings in this world who have been brought up in the same way and are identical, other than maybe a few twins around the place. However, we spend a lot of time on our differences. I believe that Hon Aaron Stonehouse is saying that we should get rid of the things that divide us and move forward in a positive way. That we are a complex nation is something to be proud of. We have had some good things in our history and some bad things, but that is what we are.

6308 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

Let us look at Aboriginal Australia. I believe we have missed a massive opportunity. It is not just recently that Australians have come to want something good for Aboriginal people. That feeling has been around for a long time. Hon Robin Chapple can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was in 1967 when Australians voted overwhelmingly to give Aboriginal people the vote and include them in one of the most important things in a democracy. The year 1967 is a long time ago; even I was a young man then. Australians have overwhelmingly supported Aboriginal people. Unfortunately, our policies have failed us; that is a fact. Part of the problem is that one group always thinks it knows better than the others. Aboriginal people think they know how to solve their own problems, and whitefellas think they know how to solve those problems. However, like every other complex problem in society, we all need to put our heads together. Aboriginal people make up four per cent of this nation, so it is hard for them to put their voices forward. We are debating how to do that in the future. It will be a tough decision for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is handling it right now. It will be an important move. As a white Australian who came here when I was 18 months old in 1955 as a brand-new Australian, I think I was very lucky. My mum and dad made a very smart decision to leave war-torn Europe and the United Kingdom and come to Australia. I can look at what my family has achieved; six of us came out here—four kids and mum and dad—but including the people whom I love and people whom I know, there are now hundreds of those people. It is amazing what we have been able to achieve. Here we are in this honourable house on the hill, talking about and debating all the important things that have happened in our nation. That comes about because of the freedoms of our nation that have come with our democracy and who we are as a people. It also comes with the history of our nation—some of it good and some of it bad. If we wipe that history, we are denying and hiding the mistakes we have made. We are not going to learn from them or help the younger people of our nation to learn from them if they are wiped. They will never know what was bad and they will make the same mistakes. We need to make sure that our history is always there. It is a bit like the Italians, who have the wonderful Colosseum. They know that Christians being eaten by lions 3 000 years ago was not a good idea but I do not think the Italian government endorses it now. Will the government bring in bulldozers to take down the Colosseum? No, it will not. It is part of who they are. It is the sum of who they are as people and as a nation. They have learnt, over thousands, hundreds, and tens of years that that sort of behaviour is not great for nation-building. This western culture that we belong in has learnt those things, too. We have had slavery and so many things in our culture that have been wrong and we are correcting them as we go. I want to mention a little bit about Christianity. I am a Christian, but people would probably not call me a churchgoing, religious, fervent Christian. In my time, I have learnt that Christian values are good. Not all the values are good, but Christian values preach acceptance and tolerance. They are the two parts of the Christian religion I have clung to as being important to me. Looking at the parliamentary system we have—I am sure Hon Aaron Stonehouse could tell us more about it than I can, because he loves his history in that area—I think of the kings and queens, and we had a dictator for a little while in the British Isles. All of a sudden, Parliaments were formed and a lot of mistakes were made along the way, but we learnt from those mistakes and now we have our wars or disagreements in a house like this. We can say things that others disagree with, but we are not shooting each other or chopping off each other’s heads. All the hard work was done by people all those years ago. We should be proud of some of that history and acknowledge that the rest of it took place, even though it would not be the way we would approach it now, considering the attitudes of people today. I am happy that the Christian values I cling to are things I believe are very good for our society. I celebrate Passover, Hanukkah, Ramadan and Chinese New Year along with the people who invite me to celebrate them. When I go to foreign countries all over the world, I see that they really celebrate Christmas as well. They see it as something very important. It is a part of the world’s history. The date that the whole world operates on is a Christian date. We all—every one of us on this planet—share Christian culture in some way. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: There are some countries that use a different dating system. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL: I know that, but, in the end, when they turn up to the United Nations, they work by the calendar that we work by as well. I am always looking at how to bring us together, not celebrate our differences. Our differences are always there. Like I said before, none of us are the same. When people go to other countries, they celebrate Christmas, so we should never be shy to celebrate Christmas here in any capacity. It is one of the great festivals of our culture. It is celebrated in not just Australia but also the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, some other western nations and other nations all over the world where Christianity is part of the culture. They do not deny all the other parts of their cultures. In western democracies, especially the ones that have a Westminster-style Parliament, celebrating festivals is something they do freely and it is a great part of our history. We should make sure that we keep it alive. Australia would not be the great nation we know without its history. We may not like it, but we cannot change all of it. We cannot change history; it is there. I think the approach taken in the Mussolini example was a great, creative idea. I am not suggesting that it would work in Australia, but the mindset was not just trying to cleanse history. We have already worked out in the past that trying to cleanse history does not work. If we ask the people of Cambodia about Mr Pol Pot, the people of Germany about Mr Hitler, or the people of Afghanistan about the trouble they are going through now with the Taliban, they will say that is what those people tried to do. They tried to cleanse history. Starting at year zero is not going to work.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6309

I look at some of the rubbish on the internet and I really cannot believe just how ignorant people can be. Captain Cook was not a colonialist. He was an explorer. He was not a politician. He mapped one-third of the world; he did not have time for politics. He had botanists and amazing scientists on his ship when he sailed around the world. When he passed this way, he was on a mission to Tahiti to look at part of a celestial science experiment to measure the distance from the earth to the sun. It is ridiculous that people try to tie Captain Cook to colonialism and all that. He was an amazing explorer and should be celebrated for that. People have been talking about changing a beer brand called “Colonial” because of its name. It is just ridiculous stuff. It is really wacko, loopy, left stuff and it should not be happening because it divides us. It does not bring us together and it is using a name as an excuse to pick an argument. As I said, people are the sum total of their life experiences and our nation is the sum total of its history. To deny our history is to deny who we are and it ignores both the good and the bad. We would not be who we are without acknowledging this. Even war is something we can be proud of. In the Second World War, we stood up against an evil Hitler, who was a tyrant. Wars are bad, but tough decisions had to be made. Who would want to wipe Churchill? He was not a perfect man, but he stood up and did the job that was asked of him by his country. Was he perfect? No. People got rid of him when they were in peacetime. They decided to move on so that they could have a better Prime Minister in peace. He did his job and we should not deny that. That is an important part of our nation’s history and the history of similar nations. I turn now to the Aboriginal issue. I see nothing in this motion that denies Aboriginal history. I often think that when we go to school, we find out how important maths, science and English are, but I cannot believe that Indigenous studies is not a compulsory part of education in our primary or high schools. We have an incredible culture amongst us, which is 40 000 or 60 000 years old—we are still finding out how old it is; it goes back a long way—and we should embrace it. Scientists and health practitioners are now finding cures to very complex medical matters due to the Aboriginal knowledge of some plants and other things. We have had some of that knowledge with Chinese medicine. We need to open up our eyes and hearts to Aboriginal people and not always think that we know best and that we have all the answers. Sometimes they can teach us about not only their culture, but also their kinship, the way they operate and the way that they share. It is a marvellous culture. A lot of it cannot work entirely in today’s world because the world has moved on from much of that, but we should embrace Aboriginal culture and look at how we can bring parts of it into our way of life so that we can improve our way of life and make Australia truly something special in the world. I think we are already something special, but we can improve on that. I am open to change. I always have been. I am a monarchist, but I also believe that Australia will probably become a republic one day. Like all other people in this nation, I would accept the will of the people, and we should. We should always look to strive for them and make positive changes. The celebration of Australia Day on 26 January does not worry me, just so long as we really celebrate. Many of my followers would be disappointed if the date changed, but, like I said, I am open to change if it helps all Australia, not just one little group, and is not a way of appeasing one group. Like I said, we must always look at what is best for this nation as a whole. We should be celebrating the things that we have in common. We need to spend more time on that because there is so much to celebrate. HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [3.02 pm]: Interestingly enough, I found a lot of the contributions quite good value. I want to state, firstly, that when it comes to Aboriginal matters, I cannot speak on behalf of Indigenous people, but I can certainly speak in support of them. I am very mindful of the multicultural community that exists in Darwin, which is a really homogenous and brilliant community, and of the community of Broome to a large degree, although there are some issues there. I am also mindful of the comments made by the Leader of the House. How do we respect historic issues? That is really important. To deny historic issues is to deny reality. We are, after all, all Australians. I am mindful of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There could have been absolute slaughter in that country had Nelson Mandela not led the movement for a truth commission, which was not about vindictive reprisals, but about bringing together the community and identifying problems. Some comments were made about Sir James Stirling and his time as Governor. In the past, I did some research and read some of his letters. There was one from the then Governor of the Kimberley who told Governor Stirling about Aboriginal people killing his sheep and wanting a permit to hunt them down. Stirling wrote back and said that he was sure that the Aboriginal people did not actually realise they were stealing someone’s sheep. He said that they probably saw them as food and that the Governor of the Kimberley was on their country and that he should let them take his sheep. I think that is a really interesting insight from Governor Stirling. I am mindful of the battle of the Lockyer family, an Aboriginal family who all went to the Second World War. Some of them did not come back. The Lockyer family fought a long and hard battle to erect a monument at Whim Creek on behalf of Aboriginal people. There was a lot of pushback. I am also mindful that the Shire of Carnarvon refused to fly the Aboriginal flag during NAIDOC Week. There is systemic racism out there. I am sorry if I get a little emotional, but I am also mindful of my foster child Martin, a Mayala boy who was a deaf-mute. He suicided because of racial attacks and vilification of his colour and the fact that he could not hear and could not speak. This is happening in the modern day; anyone who says any different denies reality.

6310 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

I also had other foster children when I was in Yirrkala. We went into the township of Nhulunbuy one day and when the kids went into a shop, they were thrown out. I went in and said, “Can I bring in my kids?” The guy said of course I could. Those three young Aboriginal boys followed me into the shop and the shopkeeper asked, “Are they with you?” and I said, “Yes. They’re my sons.” That racism exists in this day and age. I am also reminded of Canning, who is revered for establishing the Canning Stock Route. But do members know how he did it? He would chain up an Aboriginal man and woman and feed them salt until they led him to water. Then, compassionately, according to the records, he would “dispose” of them because they were on the wrong country and he did not want the other “natives” to kill them. That is some of our history and it has to be recognised. We should not be apportioning blame—I make that very, very clear—but it has to be recognised. I did a lot of research and wrote a lengthy document a few years ago titled “The Flying Foam Massacre”, which I am more than happy to table. In February 1868, there was a serious massacre. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Member, I am required to interrupt you pursuant to temporary orders and extend an invitation to the mover of the motion to give his reply. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Could I seek leave to table this report “The Flying Foam Massacre”? It might be explanatory. Leave granted. [See paper 4314.] HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [3.08 pm] — in reply: It is unfortunate that temporary orders have kicked in because I was listening with great interest to the historical lesson Hon Robin Chapple was giving us. I would like to thank Hon Alison Xamon for a speech that has given me something of substance that I can sink my teeth into and respond to. I think that perhaps I was not clear enough when I first spoke. I see these various, seemingly isolated, instances as an attack on our institutions. The best example of that is the way the debate around Australia Day has been framed, I suspect, not necessarily by Aboriginal people themselves but, rather, by race hustlers, race-baiters and people who want to foment division in our society. Instead of being a celebration of Australia and Australian values, it has been framed as a day of mourning and invasion. I think we can see when the attack on Australia as a country actually begins. As far as I am aware, no massacres or injustices occurred on 26 January 1788. They happened in the following days, perhaps. Hon Colin Tincknell: In the following years. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: In the following years, of course. Many injustices were committed across Australia’s history, but nothing actually took place with the arrival of the First Fleet at Port Jackson in 1788. The date commemorates the beginning of British rule on the Australian continent. Of course, a lot of horrible things happened in the following years, but to lament the beginning of British rule on the Australian continent is to lament the creation of the colonies, which became the states, which eventually federated to become the country that we now know as Australia. To lament that is to lament the creation of Australia entirely and to say that Australia should not exist, which I think would be a great tragedy. It has been pointed out to me that if it were not for British explorers and the British settlers who arrived in Australia, Australia probably would have been settled by the French, the Dutch, or, if not a European colonial power, the Chinese or Japanese. I do not want to engage in a whataboutism-type logical fallacy, but we really are incredibly lucky to have inherited those British institutions that I mentioned earlier such as parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. All those hard-fought liberties came through the Magna Carta, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. We managed to inherit that not through any merit of our own, but merely by being born in, or migrating to, a country that adopted those institutions from Britain. Hon Alison Xamon said that she was not pro-vandalisation but she sympathised with those who are vandals. Hon Alison Xamon: No, I said that I understood. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: The member understood the impulse to vandalise. I say to those who rather than engage in our democratic processes to change placenames or statues and instead take the law into their own hands and destroy property, that I think that is akin to ISIS destroying columns in Palmyra or the Taliban destroying statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. It is that same kind of reckless destruction of history regardless of what the will of the majority of people might happen to be. It is funny to hear the Greens say that because I remember listening to a radio segment on the ABC in June this year with Australian Greens Senator Rachel Siewert who was talking about how we needed to tear down all these terrible statues of people such as John Septimus Roe or Governor Stirling because they are insulting to Aboriginal Western Australians. The next caller on the line after her on ABC radio was an Aboriginal elder. I do not recall her name, I am sorry. She said, “We don’t want to tear down statues. No, we don’t want to rename things. Those are European statues and European names; you can keep those. We’d like to have some things named after our own regions.” Aboriginal people would not use the names of individuals, perhaps, because there are cultural reasons why they do not mention the names or create statues or images of dead people. The Aboriginal elder was completely at odds with the Greens senator who presumed to speak on behalf of Aboriginal Western Australians. I am glad to hear that Hon Robin Chapple does not presume to speak on their behalf. Of course, he likes to raise issues.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6311

Division Question put and a division taken, the Acting President (Hon Adele Farina) casting her vote with the noes, with the following result — Ayes (13)

Hon Jim Chown Hon Rick Mazza Hon Charles Smith Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Peter Collier Hon Michael Mischin Hon Aaron Stonehouse Hon Donna Faragher Hon Robin Scott Hon Dr Steve Thomas Hon Nick Goiran Hon Tjorn Sibma Hon Colin Tincknell

Noes (20)

Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Colin de Grussa Hon Colin Holt Hon Matthew Swinbourn Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Sue Ellery Hon Alannah MacTiernan Hon Dr Sally Talbot Hon Robin Chapple Hon Diane Evers Hon Kyle McGinn Hon Darren West Hon Tim Clifford Hon Adele Farina Hon Martin Pritchard Hon Alison Xamon Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Laurie Graham Hon Samantha Rowe Hon Pierre Yang (Teller)

Pair

Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Stephen Dawson Question thus negatived. COMMITTEE REPORTS — CONSIDERATION Committee The Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair. Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations — Eightieth Report — “2018–19 Budget Cycle — Part 2: Annual Report Hearings” — Motion Resumed from 16 September on the following motion moved by Hon Alanna Clohesy (Parliamentary Secretary) — That the report be noted. Hon PIERRE YANG: I move that the question be put for this report. The CHAIR: We already have a question that the report be noted and we are resuming debate, so that is the question— that the motion be agreed. Hon PIERRE YANG: That is right. I was given advice on the last occasion by the Clerk that I could move a motion to have the question put. The CHAIR: Which standing order are you relying on? Hon PIERRE YANG: I am trying to look for that, Mr Chair. The CHAIR: Okay. Before I receive a motion, there are provisions in our standing orders, in our normal procedures and processes and in the conventions of the chamber that we rely upon to perhaps close debate on certain matters so that we can go to debate on another. I think the one you are referring to is standing order 54, which provides that there is a motion that may be moved in the terms “that the question be now put”. That may be moved by any member who has not spoken in a debate, but not to interrupt a member speaking. We have had a lot of members speaking in this debate, including on several occasions your good self, Hon Pierre Yang. That is the first fatal flaw in what I think you are seeking to do with standing order 54. Members can also acquaint themselves with other provisions of standing order 54—beloved, I am sure, of many branch annual general meetings and footy club committee AGMs— that provide for such a closure motion. It is a motion that is to be put immediately and without debate, and that must be carried by an absolute majority, so there are a couple of principles there that are also contemplated elsewhere in our standing orders—questions that are put without debate, and questions that require an absolute majority. If the vote is carried, obviously the chamber then has a further vote, which is on the question that is before it. Obviously, if the motion is resolved in the negative, debate is resumed. There are some misconceptions about standing order 54, and I think we have just illustrated one. The reason I have taken some little while from the Chair to explain that to members is that I dare say no member has seen standing order 54 invoked. I cannot recall it having been invoked in the near-quarter century that I have been here. In fact, it did not exist in that form for the whole time; there have been others, but do not get me started reminiscing on those! There is a very good reason for not resorting to standing order 54 except in the most extraordinary circumstances. It is not because we are fed up with listening to someone going on; unfortunately, once you are in this place, the sad and brutal reality is that you may not agree with what people have to say and you may not want to hear them say it, but they have to be able to say it. On this occasion, it is perhaps fortuitous that the member is not in a position

6312 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] to move that motion, because it might well be seen by others in the chamber as an unhappy matter arising. There are other ways we can defer consideration of this particular committee report, and that is to let it go to a vote, and deal with it that way. The question is that the report be noted. Hon NICK GOIRAN: This is a report that was tabled on 19 March 2020. Members will know from the Daily Notice Paper that temporary order 4 has not been applied in respect of this report. That means that it has had less than one hour’s worth of debate. I hope no member has confused this report with one that has been spoken about at length; according to the Daily Notice Paper, temporary order 4 has not been applied on any occasion. It will apply in what would have been 28 minutes, but will now be 22 minutes. I can understand why the honourable member might not want us to consider the annual report hearings in the budget cycle, because it has caused quite a bit of embarrassment for the government. I draw to members’ attention a particular episode that arose in respect of the Department of Communities. Members will be aware that the Department of Communities is a massive mega-department that was put together by the McGowan government in an ill-conceived move after the last election that has caused nothing but dysfunction ever since. I draw to members’ attention what the Auditor General had to say in the lead-up to the annual report hearings that took place on 12 November last year. At page 21 of a report titled “Working with Children Checks — Follow-up”, she said — In June 2019, 3,834 of the total 6,266 foster carers had a current child placement. Of those, Communities advised 46, or 1%, did not have a valid WWC Card or an application in progress. Twenty-five of the 46 had failed to renew their WWC Card and the remaining 21 had not lodged an application for a WWC Check. This presents a risk to some of the State’s most vulnerable children. In the lead-up to the annual report hearings, I wanted to refer to these 21 foster carers who had not lodged a working with children check. At the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations hearing on 12 November 2019 I asked — At the moment, is it the case that some foster carers do not have a card? The director general of the Department of Communities responded — There are a small number of foster carers who are not holding a card at the moment, and we are actively managing those, making decisions that are in the best interests of the child. This is on 12 November last year. The director general conceded that there are some foster carers who do not have an active working with children card. Later in that hearing, Hon Sue Ellery, representing the government, had this to say — … I just point out that sometimes the circumstances in which children come into care might mean in the very short term that they are placed with someone who may not yet have a working with children check for reasons that are in the best interests of the child. I responded to the honourable Leader of the House by saying — That is not unreasonable. Can I ask you—I suspect you will have to take it on notice—to identify the longest period of time that a foster carer has had a child in care and has never lodged an application? Members will be aware that after the annual report hearings there is a provision that allows for supplementary information to be provided, and that information was subsequently provided on an unspecified date by the department. The chair of the committee listed my question as C2 — Please identify the longest period of time that a foster carer has had a child in care and not had a Working With Children Check. The answer that came back from the department was, in part — For the 2018–19 Annual Report Hearing period, the longest period of time that a foster carer has had a child in care and not had a Working with Children check was 75 days. The sequence of events is that the Auditor General exposed the fact that 21 foster carers did not have a working with children check. During the annual report hearings, I asked the government whether there were any and the government said there was a small number. Hon Sue Ellery indicated that that could happen in certain circumstances “in the very short term”. I then asked the member to take on notice the question: what is the longest period for that particular annual report hearing period? The answer came back that it was 75 days. The question I have is: Does 75 days meet the test suggested by Hon Sue Ellery of “in the very short term”? Is 75 days an acceptable period for a foster carer to be without a working with children check card in circumstances in which the Auditor General has said that 21 such foster carers were operating in the absence of a working with children check? Subsequent to that, I then put on notice an additional question — (1) I refer to page no. 32 of the Annual Report and page no. 21 of the Western Australian Auditor General’s Report “Working With Children Checks—Follow-up”, and I note that as at June 2019, 160 registered Foster Carers didn’t have a WWCC or an application in process. Even more concerning, 46 of those already had a child placed in their care. Notably, 21 of the those that already had a child in their care had never lodged an application at all. In light of this, I ask:

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6313

I asked a series of questions and the final one I asked was — How long have each of the 21 been registered carers with the department? The answer came back — The table below outlines the date each of the 21 individuals registered interest to become a carer with the Department of Communities and the issue date of their Working with Children Cards. If members take the opportunity to examine the table provided by the government, it will become readily apparent that the information is false, because two of the 21 carers listed in the table specifically have this notation regarding the dates on which the working with children card was issued. It states about carer 16 “Not issued”. It provides a reason — (did not proceed to care for children in care, WWC Card not required) The same notation is made about carer 17 — Not issued (did not proceed to care for children in care, WWC Card not required) My question is: Why has the government provided false information to the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations? If the Auditor General has said that 21 foster carers had a child in their care and had never lodged an application, and I asked the government to provide information about the 21 and the government now says that two of the 21 never had children in their care, something is wrong here. One of the explanations might be that the Department of Communities and the government have given false information to the Auditor General because, of course, the Auditor General relied on the information provided by the Department of Communities. We can see, in respect of this annual report hearing, that one piece of information was provided by the Department of Communities to the Auditor General and a different set of information was provided to the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations. My question is: Which information is correct? Which information is to be believed? Is this some trivial matter or is it something of substance? This is about foster carers without a working with children check looking after children. The Auditor General has highlighted that this is a problem to the tune of 21 foster carers who are looking after children without a working with children check. I asked the government about the information and it provided incorrect information to either the standing committee or the Auditor General. I ask someone in government to provide clarification of this. Hon DARREN WEST: I, too, would like to make a contribution to the eightieth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, “2018–2019 Budget Cycle — Part 2: Annual Report Hearings”. We heard some contributions on this report by members earlier. I can remember in opposition that the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations was, as you may recall, Mr Chair, chaired by Hon Ken Travers, who I can tell you now in his post-parliamentary career comes and does the work of Wander Out Yonder and helps us with our hay crop. Hon Ken Travers was a very — Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Very multiskilled. Hon DARREN WEST: Yes; he is highly multiskilled. He was an outstanding chair of this committee. He was the fine toothcomb holding the Barnett government to account. He could have found plenty in the abysmal financial management we saw under that government. However, these days, with a new government, these reports are much happier affairs and seek to report on the very sound financial management of the McGowan government. I note that it is an unusual committee in that it is a multi-party committee. The chair is WA Labor’s Hon Alanna Clohesy from the government; Hon Diane Evers from the Greens; Hon Aaron Stonehouse, the Liberal Democratic in the room; Hon Tjorn Sibma, deputy chair, the Liberal; and Hon Colin Tincknell from One Nation. It is a very eclectic mix of political organisations and views on this committee. I think it adds to the usefulness of the committee to have such a different and deferent range of views around the table. As has been indicated, this committee conducted hearings with 10 agencies regarding the 2018–19 annual reports in November and December 2019. The theme of the committee that year was the Treasurer’s special purpose accounts, which I must confess was not something I knew a lot about, so I took the time to read this report and learn more about the special purpose accounts the Treasurer has under his remit. The committee also explored the government’s administrative control of the Treasurer’s accounts and concluded that they were comprehensive and fit for purpose. That is a very sound finding by the committee regarding these accounts. The committee was also satisfied with the conduct of hearings. There were 218 questions of 15 agencies, so a very comprehensive review of the annual reports was undertaken by the committee. I congratulate all committee members on such a thorough examination of those reports. I was interested in the terms of reference of the committee. Obviously, the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations was established under item 3 in schedule 1 of the standing orders. The committee consists of five members, whom I have run through. Item 3.3 states — The functions of the Committee are to — (a) consider and report on — (i) the estimates of expenditure laid before the Council each year;

6314 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

(ii) any matter relating to the financial administration of the State; and (iii) any Bill or other matter relating to the foregoing functions referred by the Council; and (b) consult regularly with the Auditor General. This committee carries out these very important functions on behalf of the Legislative Council, the Parliament and, of course, the people of Western Australia. I will move to finding 1 of the committee, which states — The … accountability arrangements of the Treasurer’s Special Purpose Accounts are comprehensive and fit for purpose. Some information regarding those accounts is that the money held in the Treasurer’s special purpose accounts is a substantial amount of money. As at 30 June, 2019 some $15.8 billion was held in those 22 special purpose accounts listed. It makes for very interesting reading when one runs through what these accounts amount to and what they are held for. I was very interested to learn more about how these accounts are used and how much they contain. The agency holding accounts have some $13 billion, which is the lion’s share of that amount of $15.8 billion. The royalties for regions fund is a very interesting thing. Out in the regions, there are still some people who insist that the royalties for regions program has somehow been scaled back or has somehow disappeared altogether, despite the fact that the McGowan government is out there weekly announcing royalties for regions projects and spend. Some great things have come out of that program. We have an excellent minister in Hon Alannah MacTiernan, who oversees the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, which has the remit to administer those funds. There is $1 billion sitting in the royalties for regions account. That flies in the face of some of the talk around the regions that somehow the account has been scaled back. Indeed, it has not been scaled back. There is $1 billion a year being spent in the regions by the McGowan government through the royalties for regions program, which of course is overseen by the Royalties for Regions Act 2009, which was supported by WA Labor. I think the royalties for regions fund is here to stay. It is being used and it has certainly been much more wisely spent under this government than it was under the last government. There is still $1.313 billion in the Western Australian Future Fund. Interestingly, the account for the National Redress Scheme and civil litigation for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse had $151 million sitting in it. That was a very interesting fact for me to learn. It is a very important account for those who have suffered the trauma of child sexual abuse in institutions. I was very proud to be a part of the legislation that allowed for changes and that opened the door for many people to seek restitution for what had happened to them in institutions. The commonwealth payments for specific purposes account had $5 million sitting in it. The Perth Children’s Hospital account had $13 million sitting there as part of the Treasurer’s special purpose accounts. As at 30 June 2019, the new Perth Stadium account had $12 million. The Fiona Stanley Hospital construction account had been exhausted and no funds were sitting in that account as of that date. The Agency 27th pay accounts had $130 million at that time, and the Bankwest pension trust had $3 million sitting in the Treasurer’s special purpose account. The departmental receipts in suspense account had $22 million. Both the independent schools—general building grants and the independent schools— recurrent grants schools’ assistance acts accounts had been exhausted. Those accounts had no money in them at that time, so no doubt it had all been wisely spent. The Jervoise Bay infrastructure development trust account had $11 million. The local authorities trust sharing entitlements account had been exhausted. The mortgage moneys under the Transfer of Land Act 1893—it is a rather old act!—account had $100 000 in it. The account for the non-government schools—other recurrent grants had been exhausted as well. The Perry Lakes maintenance account had $5 million. The public bank account interest earned account had $45 million. The statutory authorities’ investment account had $1 million. Both the tariff equalisation fund and the debt reduction accounts had been exhausted. When we came to government, we had a very difficult job to do to reduce the spiralling level of debt that we inherited from the Barnett Liberal–National government. There is the sum of all the accounts. Under his 22 accounts, the Treasurer has $15.838 billion to manage. Looking back through the years, the total value of those accounts has risen significantly. It was fascinating to read that around $7 billion in 2010 steadily rose each year up to the $15.8 billion in those special purpose accounts at the moment. Among his very many activities and day-to-day works, the Treasurer also has to manage these accounts along with the Department of Treasury. Interestingly, I read in the report that in establishing these accounts, all government revenue is lumped into the consolidated account from which appropriations are then made in contrast. Time is going to beat me, Mr Chair, but there is some interesting reading there for those who may be interested in how these Treasurer’s special purpose accounts are established and administered. This is a very interesting report and I once again reiterate the very good, diligent and hard work of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, under the chair, Hon Alanna Clohesy, who does an outstanding job managing that committee. The review of expenditure is a very important part of government and is something that we take very seriously.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6315

Consideration Postponed Hon NICK GOIRAN: In the absence of the government providing a response to the issue that I raised about 21 foster carers continuing to not have a working with children check, and incorrect information being provided to the standing committee or, alternatively, to the Auditor General, I move — That debate on this committee report be postponed. Question put and passed. Select Committee into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community — Final Report — “Help, Not Handcuffs: Evidence-Based Approaches to Reducing Harm from Illicit Drug Use” — Motion Resumed from 16 September on the following motion moved by Hon Alison Xamon — That the report be noted. Hon ALISON XAMON: Last week, my remarks were interrupted because we ran out of time. I was in the process of reading out a letter from the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies—WANADA— in response to the report. I will continue reading the letter. It states — Ensuring the quality of private alcohol and other drug services (recommendation 45) Insufficient Government investment in alcohol and other drug services has enabled an increase in services that are not government funded and do not have accountability requirements. They often do not deliver evidence-based quality practice (including consumer rights). Western Australia has a long history of establishing the quality of government funded alcohol and other drug services, driven by the sector since 1984. It is WANADA’s understanding that the National Quality Framework, as a COAG initiative, was motivated by the need to ensure service quality, irrespective of whether the service was funded by government or not. The National Quality Framework states “drug and alcohol treatment regulation is primarily the responsibility of state and territory governments”. WANADA believes regulation of alcohol and other drug treatment services that are not funded by government would enhance safety and community confidence in the sector as a whole. Current environment The State Government has demonstrated strong leadership during its term in office. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been decisive, considered and informed by evidence and expert advice. Similarly, in 2017 the State Government demonstrated significant leadership in driving the implementation of therapeutic communities in Wandoo and Casuarina prisons and commissioning the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce—the recommendations of which are largely being implemented. With less than five years until the end of the Mental Health, Alcohol and Other Drug Services Plan 2015–2025, the system’s capacity to meet projected demand for specialist alcohol and other drug services does not look promising. Of particular note, alcohol and other drug harm reduction and personal support services in 2017 represented only 2.5% of the 2025 optimal service levels. The CHAIR: Hon Alison Xamon. Hon ALISON XAMON: It continues — The achievement of optimal service capacity is further hindered by operative funding cuts resulting from inadequate ERO and indexation from the State and Commonwealth funders. Without evidenced reforms, service demands and negative impacts across the health and human service system are only likely to increase. While the service sector predominantly provides a treatment focus, it is strongly supportive of practical and evidenced reform that prevents and reduces population level harms. WANADA acknowledges the complexity of alcohol and other drug issues, especially as they intersect with population health including: ‘closing the gap’ considerations; blood-borne viruses; sexual health and gender equity; alcohol supply restriction initiatives preventing future service demands; general social disadvantage; and the need for community development. The breadth of the complexities associated with alcohol and other drug use provides a challenge to the policy and service sector. WANADA believes the Inquiry Report provides an alternative lens to address such complexities and achieve better outcomes for the Western Australian community. I look forward to discussing WANADA’s position with you and drawing on the combined expertise of the sector to continue to build more effective responses to alcohol and other drug problems. That letter, which I tabled in this place last week, is dated 10 July, but this is the first opportunity that I have had to bring it to the chamber’s attention.

6316 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

The Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies is the peak body for community-managed alcohol and other drug services within this state. It is also in a position to represent the views of those with lived experience, such as families and drug users, as well as service providers. I remind members that the most significant takeaway from its response is that it views the government’s response to the important report, “Help, Not Handcuffs: Evidence-Based Approaches to Reducing Harm from Illicit Drug Use” as being a lost opportunity. I think that is exactly what it has been. I do not know whether I will get another chance to speak on this report again in the closing weeks of the fortieth Parliament. The number of committee reports on the notice paper indicate that that is very unlikely. However, I remind members that when the Legislative Council established the Select Committee into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community, it was done unanimously. There was consensus across all parties to establish that committee. I note the very positive and affirming comments that were made by all members who contributed about the need to look at how we handle the issue of illicit drug use and to find a better way to address it. We recognise that illicit drugs cause harm in our community for people who are caught up in the cycle of drug addiction, and for those families that are affected by a loved one’s drug addiction. The offending behaviours that often arise when people are caught up in the cycle of drug addiction have a huge impact on the community. It is a wicked issue. This committee, effectively, performed the role that was identified in the methamphetamine action plan to look specifically at whether there was a better legal framework to address the issue of illicit drug use. The committee spent 13 months looking at all the evidence across the world and the country. It spoke to all the experts in this field and came up with the recommendations in this report that map out how illicit drug use and the harms arising from that use can be addressed in a better way. What a shame it is that when the government was presented with this cross-party consensus, it could not seize the opportunity to look at serious reform in this space, which had been alluded to in the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce report. The issue is that we will continue with the status quo, continue to watch people’s lives decline and continue to watch harm being perpetrated on the community. Regardless of whether members approve of it, people who engage in recreational drug use are ending up with criminal records, but there is no reason for that to happen. I am speaking specifically about the use of marijuana. The committee found that there is a strong case to be made for removing criminal penalties for the use of marijuana. Members should bear in mind that the harms that arise from marijuana are no greater than those that arise from alcohol. However, alcohol is a legal drug and, in fact, has been found to be the cause of most drug-related harm in our community. Why is it that somebody can enjoy a couple of glasses of chardonnay on a Friday night and that is perfectly legal, but people who use marijuana end up with a criminal record? That does not make sense from a public health perspective. Marijuana is only one of the drugs that we looked at. We looked at all the drugs that can potentially cause harm. One thing we found, particularly with methamphetamine and heroin use, is that the current regime of criminal penalties is not helping stop people from taking those drugs. In fact, it can draw them into a cycle of illicit use that aggravates the problem for them and the community. It often serves to be a very real barrier to people getting help. If someone is caught in a cycle of drug addiction, the one thing that we should want is for them to be able to get help. We found that the current system stands in the way of that and prevents it. I am very sad that the government chose not to show any courage on this issue or to take advantage of the opportunity presented to it. Those who work in the alcohol and other drugs sector also share that concern. This report will have a life beyond the fortieth Parliament and can serve as a reference point as we move forward. Many people will be seeking to draw that out and talk about the need for reform in this space. I know that I am on the right side of history on this one. Ultimately, we will have to take a different approach to dealing with illicit drug use. The question is: how many people need to lose their lives or have their lives unnecessarily ruined before a government decides to show some courage, follows the public health evidence, and looks at serious reform in this space? It is clearly not happening under this government. Let us hope that a future government shows a lot more courage. Hon LAURIE GRAHAM: Congratulations to the members of the Select Committee into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community: Hon Alison Xamon, the chairperson; Hon Samantha Rowe, the deputy chair; Hon Colin de Grussa; Hon Michael Mischin; and Hon Aaron Stonehouse. In my opinion, “Help, Not Handcuffs: Evidence-Based Approaches to Reducing Harm from Illicit Drug Use” is an outstanding report. However, having said that, I do not necessarily agree with the total findings and recommendations in that report. The committee made some 96 findings and 46 recommendations. I believe that the government response to the recommendations was appropriate. I take on board the views expressed by people who would like this problem to have been solved by this time. It has been before the Parliament many times before, and this is probably the most progressive report produced. It would have been great to see the government come up with a solution that was broadly in line with the report, but those things cost dollars and, obviously, need time. My contribution today will mainly focus on recommendation 17, about low-level breaches of the current laws, which is at the end of chapter 6, “Alternative approach—a health-based response”. I support the approach of addressing the drug problem as a health issue because approaches used in the past have failed. It is pleasing to note that in evidence to the committee, the Western Australia Police Force and the health sector were generally supportive of

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6317 that approach. The court solution has not been a way forward in the past and it will not work in the future. The drug problem has gone far beyond that. The Portuguese model is highlighted in the report as the best approach to improve the current situation and has the support of most quarters. Hon Samantha Rowe and Hon Alison Xamon, the chair of the committee, both highlighted in their contributions last week that during the committee hearings the Portuguese model stood out as the best way forward. It is very much supported in the report. We have all had friends and acquaintances who have been affected by drugs. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince any of them that the drug issue is mainly a health issue. Their major concern is to make sure that they do not fall foul of the law. The crayfishing industry is a good example of the problems that happened in the past. That is the problem I have with marijuana. It was the drug of choice in the 1960s and 1970s. With too much idle time at the islands, too many days blown out, plenty of money and plenty of isolation—so there was little risk of being caught—drugs or alcohol were commonly abused at that time. Many people in that industry went on to get over those problems and ended up multimillionaires today with fishing boats et cetera. However, another group of my friends was not so fortunate. Drugs became a way of life and those people are still drug users today. Many of them have passed away prematurely. Drug abuse used to be associated with more affluent groups in the community, but that is no longer the case. Drugs are rife in lower socioeconomic groups and in the Aboriginal community in particular. Around Geraldton, I regularly see people on the streets who are badly affected by drugs. It is very disturbing and, obviously, those people cannot be reasoned with. As I indicated earlier, Hon Alison Xamon had a view that we should perhaps consider making marijuana legal. I have a few friends who are — Hon Alison Xamon: No, I did not say legal. I said decriminalised; there is a difference. Read the report. Hon LAURIE GRAHAM: I apologise if I incorrectly quoted the member. I have two very close friends who are regular marijuana users and they cannot see anything wrong with it. They do not realise that they have a major problem. Obviously, drug dealers and pushers should continue to be dealt with by the full force of the current laws. Hon Alison Xamon: That is what the report says, too. Hon LAURIE GRAHAM: I agree, member, that is what the report says. Recommendation 20 of the report states — In order to adopt a health-based approach to drug use and possession in practice, the Mental Health Commission and Western Australia Police Force work together to investigate, develop and implement either: • Option 1—an expanded Police Drug Diversion Program • Option 2—an administrative decision-making body and associated process for dealing with drug use and possession … I am sure all of us would love to see that happen. From the report, it appears that those organisations would be happy to move in that direction, provided they can come up with a way to administer it that is acceptable to both organisations. Option 1, to expand the drug diversion program, aims to divert people in possession of drugs for personal use away from the courts and into a health intervention. Certainly, when one turns up at a hospital these days, one can see police arriving with people who are clearly affected by drugs and alcohol. They are making every effort to not put those people behind bars, which would have been done in the past. The report summarises, in paragraph 6.90 — … the WA Police Force Drug Diversion Program includes the legislated CIRS and the policy-based ODIRS. That is, the cannabis intervention requirement scheme and the other drug intervention requirement scheme — Under the CIRS, first-time offenders in possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis may avoid prosecution by attending an education session within 28 days. If those rules had been in place many years ago, it could have meant a more positive outcome for some people who have ended up as drug users today. They are now bound within the system because they have been regular drug users for many years and cannot get beyond that. This section of the report is very important. I will move on to the section that deals with the Portuguese model, which I said is a major contribution to the report. It is the best-known health approach and it has been implemented since 2000, so surely the people who are looking at the policy that should be implemented now can look at this model. As mentioned, the committee spent some time on it and came up with it as being by far the best solution. The report states — … The model attracted attention by: • decriminalising the possession of drugs for personal use • establishing dissuasion commissions • shifting responsibility for drug issues from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health.

6318 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

The committee decided to inquire into the Portuguese model as it demonstrates relatively low rates of drug-related harm. I was glad to see, at the end of the day, that the committee’s recommendations were mainly from the Portuguese model. I commend the report to the chamber. I believe it is a very good report. Hopefully, in time, this issue can be solved. Hon ALISON XAMON: I want to make some comments about the issue of marijuana because I think it is very easy to misunderstand the committee’s recommendations around it. It is important to be very clear. It became abundantly clear to the committee that there is a profound misunderstanding about the models of legalisation and decriminalisation. Legalisation often includes the regulation of substances, similar to what we have for alcohol and tobacco. Decriminalisation is not that. Decriminalisation simply means that if people are using a substance, they are not going to be found criminally liable for using it. I want to remind members that the report was unequivocal in recommending that currently illegal drugs need to remain illegal substances and there was no suggestion that penalties should change for people who are trafficking or manufacturing illicit drugs. The suggestion was that illegal substances should remain illegal and that illegal, black market industries should still be illegal. However, there had to be a recognition that many Australians partake of marijuana in particular. The question that arises from that is whether those people should end up with a criminal record for taking marijuana. A number of findings in the report pertain to the use of marijuana. The CHAIR: Order, members! Can we have a little less side discussion going on in the chamber? I am listening to Hon Alison Xamon. Hon ALISON XAMON: Thank you, Mr Chair. Findings 50 to 58 pertain to the use of marijuana. We found that community attitudes to marijuana had changed quite significantly. We recognised that cannabis may impair the ability to operate machinery or a motor vehicle and may result in adverse long-term health effects, as alcohol can. We also recognised that the potency of marijuana has increased considerably. Although our baby boomer parents—not my parents, because my father was a minister!— may have partaken of a puff of a little bit of leaf in the 1960s, we recognise that the potency of marijuana has increased quite significantly, often as a result of being professionally grown for the black market. As a result, regular cannabis use may increase the likelihood of psychotic symptoms or worsen symptoms in people who are predisposed to or are experiencing psychotic mental illnesses. We recognise that using marijuana is not without risk, just as alcohol is not without risk. I understand that that will raise the ire of a number of people who lobbied us and told us that marijuana is completely harmless. In fact, I was told that marijuana is able to cure a whole range of things. I am sorry, but that was not where the evidence led us. However, we heard evidence that marijuana serves as self-medicated pain management for a number of people and some people have found that the use of marijuana has been quite beneficial. Of course, that is an argument to make sure that it is easier to get prescription marijuana. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that it serves an important health function, more than recreationally, for some people. The committee looked at jurisdictions that had gone down the legalisation path, because that is often promoted, and found that increased harm followed, such as increases in traffic deaths and cannabis-related emergency department visits. The committee also found that it did not entirely stop black market activity. However, ultimately, the committee found that insufficient and often conflicting evidence was not available from other countries to support the idea of a commercial model of cannabis legalisation. I want to be really clear: that does not mean that the evidence said that we should not do it; I am saying that the committee could not find clear and conclusive evidence that this would be a logical path to pursue. The committee also looked at what has happened in Australia and found that South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have a model of cannabis decriminalisation very similar to what we used to have in Western Australia, which was introduced by Hon Jim McGinty when he was Attorney General. Western Australia has moved away from decriminalisation. Western Australia had a scheme and that was changed. All this came out in recommendation 21, which states — A health-based response to the use and possession of drugs makes provision for the cultivation of cannabis for personal use. I want to be clear that it does not say anything about legalisation. In fact, members need to read the findings, because the findings make it clear that the committee could not find definitive evidence that the legalisation model was either a good or a particularly bad thing. But the committee did find that a model similar to what had been in place in Western Australia, which had the desired effect of ensuring that people who smoked marijuana and grew it for either recreational purposes, which people do, or their own medical reasons did not end up in the criminal justice system. The committee’s recommendation was that we treat it as a health-based issue. If members still think that marijuana is, effectively, a dangerous drug, we can have all sorts of public health campaigns and initiatives to draw people’s attention to concerns around it, in the same way that we do now for alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are legal drugs. That will not prevent us from engaging in early intervention and prevention programs if we still think that people taking marijuana is not a desirable social outcome, but it will acknowledge that it is pointless to just give people a criminal record for taking that drug. It also must be noted that the committee found that quite a number of people are able to partake of marijuana on a casual or even on a regular basis without

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6319 any ill effects. It is not the case that it will always result in harm for people. It is important to be very careful about the language that we use, because when people talk about legalisation in the same breath as decriminalisation, they show that they really do not understand the way that the system works. Portugal has not legalised any drugs. Portugal still works within what is effectively a decriminalisation model, but it has an administrative penalty rather than a criminal penalty. That is the model that Portugal has adopted. That sends the social message to people that this is still not necessarily something that the community agrees with, but it ensures that people do not end up with a criminal record around their neck. This has already happened in other states and we had it in Western Australia before under an ALP government. It would have been so easy for the government to have said, “Yes. Let’s use this recommendation and reintroduce what we as a Labor Party introduced all those years ago, recognising that the ALP platform supports it.” It could have proceeded to do that. I know after talking to people in this chamber that, frankly, we had the numbers to pass such a regime, so I do not want to hear the argument that it never would get past the Council, because it would. The government chose to not avail itself of that. Instead, people will be caught up in the criminal justice system for partaking of a drug that in many instances does not harm them or other people. I am not suggesting that harm is never there, but alcohol causes harm and we have that within a legal framework. That is the thing. Let us not criminalise people for these sorts of behaviours. The CHAIR: Noting the time, I will leave the chair until the ringing of the bells. Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 6328.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE CORONAVIRUS — INTERSTATE BORDER RESTRICTIONS 995. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer the Premier to the Leader of the House’s response to question without notice 975 asked on Tuesday, 22 September 2020 and her reference to 301 pages of tabled health advice. (1) Can the Premier indicate where, in any of the documents tabled, the Chief Health Officer recommends that Western Australian borders remain closed to other jurisdictions until they have no COVID-19 cases for 28 days? (2) If that advice is not contained within these tabled papers, has the Premier received any further advice from the Chief Health Officer that recommends that Western Australian borders remain closed to other jurisdictions until they have no COVID-19 cases for 28 days? (3) If no to (2), what is the justification for the Premier’s statement that Western Australian borders will remain closed to other jurisdictions until they have no COVID-19 cases for 28 days? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) Question without notice 975 referred to “no new COVID-19 cases”. This question refers to “no COVID-19 cases”. The Premier has never stated that either of these parameters are a requirement of the Western Australian hard borders being opened. As stated previously, the WA hard borders will be removed only on the advice of our Chief Health Officer. EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS — SELF-HARM 996. Hon PETER COLLIER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health: Thank you, Madam President. I was caught out there. (1) From 1 July 2020, how many attendances have there been each week by children or adolescents at emergency departments who seek mental health support services for attempted self-harm? (2) With regard to (1), what was the breakdown by hospital ED and the average age for the attendances? (3) With regard to (1), how many of these attendances were admitted for treatment and what was the average length of stay? (4) With regard to (1), how many of the attendances were repeat presentations? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. It is not possible to provide the requested information in the time required. I therefore ask the honourable member to place this question on notice.

6320 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

HOTELS WITH HEART PROGRAM 997. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Community Services: I ask this question without notice on behalf of Hon Michael Mischin, who is away on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the McGowan government’s Hotels with Heart program, announced by the minister on 31 March 2020. (1) What other programs were operating during the past six months by which the government provided accommodation for homeless people at hotels, motels and hostels, and what were they and how many people were accommodated? (2) Has the minister received an evaluation report or reports? (3) If yes to (2), can the minister table a copy of that report or reports; and, if she refuses to do so, explain why? (4) How much did these programs cost and was this money drawn from the department’s budget or was it an allocation of additional funding? (5) Please provide a breakdown of the cost of the program, including the — (a) cost of accommodation and how much was paid to each hotel; and (b) cost of any additional cleaning and repairs to premises or compensation to hoteliers for damage? (6) How many reports were made by hoteliers or their staff to the department or police complaining of unlawful or antisocial behaviour, and identify the nature of the complaints and the action taken? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This information is not available in the time provided. I will endeavour to provide a response to the question by 24 September 2020. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT — LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS 998. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Planning: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Tjorn Sibma, who is away on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to round 2 of legislative amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2005. (1) What is the content or proposed content of these legislative amendments? (2) Has the amendment bill received permission to draft and/or print; and, if so, when were these permissions provided? (3) Has drafting of the new bill commenced? (4) When will the bill be introduced? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Planning, I provide the following response. (1) The intent of the proposed round 2 amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2005 is to implement the planning reform initiatives from the government’s action plan for planning reform that were not addressed by the Planning and Development Amendment Act 2020. (2)–(4) The government will not be introducing new legislation prior to the end of this year. HOSPITALS — OVER-CENSUS BEDS 999. Hon PETER COLLIER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Jim Chown, who is away on urgent parliamentary business. For the months of May, June and August 2020, can the minister provide a breakdown of how many patients were placed in over-census beds at — (a) Fiona Stanley Hospital; (b) Royal Perth Hospital; and (c) Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I have been advised that further time is required to answer this question. The information will be provided to the honourable member by 24 September 2020.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6321

WORK AND WANDER OUT YONDER CAMPAIGN 1000. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Dr Steve Thomas, who is away on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the shortage of farm workers to harvest this year’s crops and the government’s Work and Wander Out Yonder campaign. (1) What was the value of the budget set for the original Wander Out Yonder campaign announced on 1 June 2020? (2) How much additional funding was provided when the Wander Out Yonder campaign was converted into the Work and Wander Out Yonder campaign? (3) Who in government approved the content of the Work and Wander Out Yonder television advertisement? (4) How much has been spent on the advertising and marketing campaign so far? (5) At what numerical value for each of the following will the campaign be considered successful — (a) the number of successful placements of farm workers; (b) the average length of time those workers are employed; and (c) the date by which those placements are achieved? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) This question should be referred to the Minister for Tourism. (2) The Work and Wander Out Yonder campaign is a separate three-phase campaign that builds on the great success of our Wander Out Yonder campaign. The total campaign budget for Work and Wonder Out Yonder is $1.66 million. (3) The campaign design was led by the government’s COVID-19 communications team in partnership with the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development and Tourism Western Australia. (4) As at 23 September 2020, $539 000 has been committed, with $110 320 actually spent on the campaign. (5) The campaign and our accommodation and travel incentives are designed to attract as many workers as possible to the regions to help with peak seasonal demand over the coming months. Since the launch, 29 000 people—unique visitors—have visited the Work and Wander Out Yonder campaign page. More than 6 000 people have clicked through to further information, with 84 per cent clicking straight through to our partner recruitment websites. The campaign’s primary purpose is to raise awareness of the opportunities for people to work in regional WA. We urge growers to get behind the campaign and embrace those Western Australians who have put themselves forward to help out. CORONAVIRUS — COVID-19 FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TASKFORCE 1001. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence: My question without notice is asked on behalf of Hon Colin Holt, who is away on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the Department of Communities’ “COVID-19 Family and Domestic Violence Communique” summary update of 24 June 2020. (1) Please provide a breakdown of any organisations that received part of the $3.1 million of allocated funding, including how much each organisation received. (2) Do each of these organisations have to justify how they spend the funding; and, if yes, please provide details and time lines for reporting? (3) When will the next communiqué be issued so that the community sector knows what actions the government has taken to date? (4) What changes have been made in response to incidents of family and domestic violence, service delivery and victim support since the inception of the task force in April? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I table the attached report. Organisations may be listed multiple times if they have multiple grant agreements. [See paper 4315.]

6322 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

(2) Yes. To meet the reporting and acquittal time frames of Western Australia’s national partnership agreement with the commonwealth, organisations are required to report on the achievements and key activities undertaken against the objectives and outcomes identified in their grant agreements. (3) The Department of Communities will continue to provide targeted communications to relevant organisations. (4) The following responses to family and domestic violence have been implemented since the inception of the task force: a successful communications strategy, developed in collaboration with the family and domestic violence sector and high-profile Western Australians to advocate that violence is never okay and let people know help is available; a $28 million investment through the WA recovery plan comprising $8.6 million to employ mobile outreach workers statewide to provide support for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence, $6.7 million for Family Violence Response Teams that support victims following a police call-out and $123 000 for a program to support women who are residing at family and domestic violence refuges to gain employment skills, access career training or retraining and attend a range of workshops and short courses to support employment pathways; and the allocation of commonwealth funding under the National Partnership Agreement on COVID-19 Domestic and Family Violence Responses to bolster frontline family and domestic violence services during the COVID-19 pandemic and the recovery period. CORONAVIRUS — ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN — DALYELLUP MULTIPURPOSE COMMUNITY AND YOUTH CENTRE 1002. Hon JACQUI BOYDELL to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Local Government: This question is asked on behalf of Hon Colin Holt. I refer to the announcement of $8 million in state government funding for the Dalyellup multipurpose community and youth centre as part of the south west recovery plan. (1) How was the project identified as a priority for the recovery funding? (2) What consultation occurred with the Shire of Capel to identify the project? (3) Has the financial assistance agreement with the Shire of Capel been agreed to? (4) Which organisation will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the facility? (5) Will the state government contribute to the ongoing maintenance of the facility? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The McGowan government identified important community projects that could provide an economic stimulus to the construction industry, create jobs and assist in the COVID-19 economic recovery. (2) The project was identified by the Shire of Capel in its “Community Facilities and Services Plan 2013”. (3) The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries is negotiating the financial assistance agreement with the Shire of Capel. (4) The Shire of Capel will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the facility. (5) No. EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY — LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT SCHEME 1003. Hon RICK MAZZA to the minister representing the Minister for Emergency Services: I refer to the answer given to my question without notice 997, asked on 17 September 2019, that stated that a local government grant scheme working group had been established by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services with the main function of making the LGGS process more democratic, focusing on LGGS transparency and review of the grants manual that local governments use to seek funding for their emergency services needs. (1) When did the working group last meet? (2) Were any changes made to the LGGS grants manual after that last meeting? (3) If yes to (2), were all members of the working group consulted about those changes before the manual was published and distributed to local governments? (4) If no to (3), on what date did DFES tell all members of the working group that the grants manual had been edited and published? (5) Did any member of the LGGS working group raise concerns with DFES about not being consulted on the changes made to the grants manual; and, if so, how did DFES respond?

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6323

(6) If yes to (5), were local governments told that the changes made to the 2020–21 LGGS grants manual were not considered or endorsed by the LGGS working group? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: On behalf of the Minister for Environment, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The working group last met on 4 October 2019. (2) Yes. (3)–(6) The process to update the local government grant scheme manual is an annual occurrence in preparation for the upcoming LGGS grants funding round, which commences in January each year. The manual’s purpose is to inform local governments of the governance arrangements of the LGGS. The Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner conducts extensive consultation with volunteer associations, which is not a statutory requirement. The Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner is not required to seek the endorsement of the working group members, as he is the authorised approving officer. All the appropriate procedures were followed throughout the process of updating the LGGS manual. PUBLIC HOUSING WAITING LISTS 1004. Hon ALISON XAMON to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: I refer to the article “Life inside tent city” in The Sunday Times of 20 September and the concerns raised regarding public housing waitlist processes. (1) Does the minister intend to address concerns that people get sent to the back of the waitlist queue if they do not accept an offer within three days, even if they did not receive the offer because they are homeless? (2) If yes — (a) how will these concerns be addressed; and (b) when will this work take place? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: On behalf of the Minister for Environment, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Department of Communities is committed to assisting homeless people. Homeless people have complex issues and the Department of Communities works to ensure people have access to appropriate services. (1) When clients on the public housing waiting list are made an offer of accommodation, the Department of Communities will make every effort to contact the client by telephone advising them of the offer and process and that they have between three and five days to either accept or decline the offer. A formal letter is sent as a follow-up. Extensions to this time frame may be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the client cannot be contacted by phone, an offer letter and brochure is sent to the current address provided. Although clients are responsible for keeping the Department of Communities updated with current contact details, this can be difficult for clients who are transient and often move from place to place. If no response is received within the time frame from the client, before the offer can be withdrawn, the Department of Communities makes three alternative contact attempts. This can be done through contacting the next of kin and known family or friends, local community agencies and/or advocates, or by using other resources such as the White Pages or internet search engines. All three attempts can be made in a single day or spread over no more than a one-week period. If there is no response within the required time frame, the offer is withdrawn and their housing application is withdrawn from the waiting list. When an application is withdrawn, the client will always have the option to appeal the decision. If the client contacts the Department of Communities within 12 months of the application being withdrawn due to no contact, their application may be reinstated with the original listing date. (2) Not applicable. WARREN DONNELLY WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1005. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the minister representing the Minister for Water: My question is in regard to the Warren Donnelly Water Advisory Committee. (1) I refer to the minister’s answer to question on notice 6268 in the other place that candidates for positions on this committee would be “considered against the selection criteria of the Committee Terms of Reference”. Why then did the minister allow three members who had already served the recommended maximum three-year terms to be selected for a further term? (2) Has Shire of Manjimup president, Paul Omodei, been appointed to the committee? (3) Why has the minister not announced the make-up of the new committee?

6324 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Water. (1) All members are eligible for reappointment. Although the terms of reference indicate that the members should serve no more than three consecutive terms, that is not mandatory. Although the committee is being renewed with four new members, it is beneficial to ensure that the committee membership strikes the right balance between building new membership and retaining experience and knowledge. I have also taken the opportunity to ensure that the membership reflects the diversity of the community and contributes to the state government’s target of 50 per cent representation of women on government boards and committees. This is the first time in the committee’s more than 50-year history that that has been achieved. (2) The Shire of Manjimup representative appointed to the committee is Mr Kim Skoss. (3) The new committee members are listed in the tabled document and are published on the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation website. I table the attached document. [See paper 4316.] PREMIER — CLIVE PALMER — DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS 1006. Hon AARON STONEHOUSE to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to Premier to the front page of today’s The West Australian with its headline “Anything Clive can do Mark can do better” and the announcement that he has launched a countersuit against Mr Palmer for defamation in the Federal Court. (1) Which law firm has the Premier engaged to pursue this claim? (2) What is the cost of any legal advice he has received to date, and at what hourly rate will his lawyers be engaged, going forward? (3) What other costs, if any, have been incurred by the taxpayers to date in pursuit of this claim? (4) If the Premier is awarded damages, will he reimburse the taxpayer after the fact? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)–(4) The Premier is being represented in his defamation defence by solicitor Carmel Galati. It is not correct to say that the Premier has launched any action against Clive Palmer. The Premier has lodged a statement of cross-claim as part of his defence against the defamation action brought against him in his capacity as the Premier of Western Australia by Mr Palmer. The statement of cross-claim is just one part of the advice provided by Ms Galati and, as such, it is not possible to quantify the cost of preparing the statement of cross-claim as a proportion of the overall representation. Any damages secured as a result of the statement of cross-claim will be used to offset the costs of defending Mr Palmer’s action, and any other proceeds will be given to the state. JUUKAN GORGE CAVES — ABORIGINAL CULTURAL MATERIAL COMMITTEE 1007. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to the ABC article “Juukan Gorge inquiry hears of doubts over WA Government’s approval of Rio Tinto application”, dated 21 September 2020, and specifically those parts of the article relating to the Yinhawangka group. (1) Is the minister aware that Rio Tinto plans to destroy 124 of 327 heritage sites with its western range expansion project in the Hamersley Range? (2) When was the section 18 approval granted for this expansion? (3) Will the minister please table the minutes of the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee meeting associated with the section 18 decision by the ACMC? (4) Is the minister aware of Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation relying on “Rio’s goodwill” in relation to protecting these sites? (5) Will the minister take personal responsibility for any cultural or heritage destruction at the site, considering permission has been granted? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I answer on behalf of the Minister for Environment. (1)–(5) The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has informed me that the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage is not able to identify the exact section 18 notice based on the details given in the question, and has requested clarification so that a response can be provided.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6325

KALGOORLIE QUARANTINE AND DECONTAMINATION FACILITY 1008. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to a recent interview by the minister with the ABC Goldfields–Esperance, Mid West and Wheatbelt Rural Report regarding the Kalgoorlie inspection and decontamination facility, and her comment that accommodation was being provided at the facility to truck drivers without the knowledge of management at the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. (1) It is understood that accommodation has been available at the facility for a number of years, so why was it that DPIRD management had no knowledge of this practice? (2) When did the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development first become aware that accommodation for truck drivers was being provided at the facility? (3) During 2018, 2019 and 2020, was the facility attended by DPIRD personnel with management responsibility for the facility, other than the officer responsible for its daily operation? (4) If yes to (2), for each year, approximately how many times did this occur? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(4) By way of background, as I understand it, over the last year about 150 shipments of animals were moved through the quarantine facility. Obviously, not all of those would have involved overnight stays, so it is important to understand that there would not have been people staying at the facility every day. As we have said time and again, the provision of accommodation at the Kalgoorlie inspection and decontamination facility became known to current management after staff attended the site following the death of the senior quarantine inspector for livestock based at Kalgoorlie. Although details of the number of visits and the buildings visited on the site cannot be determined in this time frame, it is likely that senior staff had visited the Kalgoorlie inspection and decontamination facility in the periods referenced in the question, but we do not know whether there was evidence that accommodation was being provided on those days— accommodation being mattresses that were provided for passing truckies. The decision to end the provision of accommodation facilities was based on identified risks, including those related to the transmission of COVID-19, which may not have been considered on other visits to the site. CHILD PROTECTION — CASEWORKERS — WORKLOAD 1009. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the minister’s response on 10 September 2020 to question without notice 644, asked in the other place, in which she stated, “Since we have been in office, between June 2017 and June 2020, the child protection workforce has increased by over 18 per cent. That is the equivalent of over 158 FTEs”, and the inconsistency of this response with the statement by the departmental social worker at the child protection vigil at Parliament the night before, who said that critical safety issues in child protection cases are being missed because caseworkers are overloaded. (1) Of the 158 FTEs, how many are frontline child protection caseworkers? (2) Will the minister table the standard monthly workload management reports that are generated to track child protection casework levels, from October 2019 to the most recently available? (3) Is the minister satisfied with the current child protection staffing levels and caseloads? (4) How many additional new caseworkers does the government intend to employ in the next 12 months? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) All 158 additional FTEs are frontline child protection workers and senior child protection workers who manage a caseload. This figure does not include a range of other frontline child protection and supporting roles, which do not carry a caseload, but who work alongside these staff. (2) Yes. I table the attached report. [See paper 4317.] (3) Yes. The management of child protection caseloads within the Department of Communities is in accordance with the 2007 Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission order. (4) Funding for new caseworkers is based on a cost-and-demand model. In collaboration with Treasury, the Department of Communities has refreshed the cost-and-demand model, which distributes child protection funding in response to geographical need. This work has modernised the process that determines demand costs to ensure that the resourcing required to deliver services in 2020 and beyond is being met. For the

6326 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

period 2019–20, the Department of Communities has allocated funding for an additional 41.6 FTE caseworkers and senior caseworkers. Further allocations will be undertaken as required and subject to the demand-based funding. It is not possible at this time to provide an exact figure for the increase over the next 12 months. COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE — APPOINTMENT 1010. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Leader of the House representing the Attorney General: I refer to the answer given to question without notice 919, asked on 15 September 2020, regarding the status of the appointment of the next Commissioner for Children and Young People. (1) Has the government advertised for expressions of interest, as outlined in section 7(2)(a) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006; and, if so, when; and, if not, why not? (2) If the government has advertised for expressions of interest, will the Attorney General please table copies of those advertisements? (3) To the Attorney General’s understanding, has there been consultation with the leaders of the Liberal Party, the Nationals WA, the Greens and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation with regard to the appointment; and, if so, when; and, if not, why not? (4) Have children and young people been involved in the selection process, as outlined in section 7(3) of the act; and, if so, when, and by what means; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(4) I can now advise that Mr Colin Pettit has been appointed to act in the office of Commissioner for Children and Young People, pursuant to section 14 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006, for a 12-month term commencing 16 November 2020 and concluding 15 November 2021. A process to appoint the Commissioner for Children and Young People under section 7 of the act will commence in due course. TYPHONIUM SP. KUNUNURRA — DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS 1011. Hon KEN BASTON to the Minister for Environment: (1) Is the minister aware of any development approvals in the Kununurra region that have been impacted by, or assessed for, the presence of Typhonium sp. Kununurra? (2) If yes, will the minister please table a list of these developments and/or projects? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: On behalf of the Minister for Environment, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Due to the level of detail required, it is not possible to provide an answer in the time available and I ask that the honourable member put this question on notice. COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRES 1012. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to community resource centre funding. (1) Will the minister commit to not reducing CRC funding in the forward estimates? (2) Does the minister intend to reduce the number of CRCs or their opening hours? (3) If yes to (2), has there been any consultation with the affected CRCs? (4) If no to (2), when will they be consulted? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I understand the mischief that he is responding to. The member, of course, will be very pleased to know that we will be holding a CRC forum in Northam tomorrow and all the CRCs have been invited to attend, to be inspired and to plan for the future. In one of the notes that went around, a comment was made that there needed to be a period of consolidation. Some people—a particular entity—have taken this to mean something other than the natural meaning of the words; that is, we were extending the contracts of the CRCs because we wanted to give them a period of stability. The following are the specific answers to the questions. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3)–(4) Not applicable.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6327

DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES — TRAINING 1013. Hon DIANE EVERS to the minister representing the Minister for Emergency Services: (1) Does the Department of Fire and Emergency Services allocate a budget for the training and professional development of paid staff and volunteers? (2) If yes to (1), how much is available per staff member and per volunteer and in total for each category or service such as volunteer brigades et cetera? (3) How much was paid for training each category or service for each of the financial years ending 30 June 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020? (4) Were the amounts in (3) paid from the emergency services levy fund? (5) What is the process for paid staff and volunteers to access training and professional development funds? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: On behalf of the Minister for Environment, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services has advised that the level of detail required to answer this question is very extensive and would constrain the department’s resources. All information related to ESL expenditure is contained in the annual reports of the department. HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES — MT WALTON AND FORRESTDALE 1014. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the Minister for Environment: I refer to ministerial statement 562, specifically commitment 7, which has the effect of preventing the intractable waste facility at Mt Walton from being used to process waste from areas outside our state. (1) Is there a way in which the ministerial statement can be amended to allow for waste outside WA to be processed? (2) If yes to (1), what is the process? (3) Is the government open to considering submissions for why the Mt Walton facility should allow waste from interstate to be processed? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: On behalf of the Minister for Environment, I thank the honourable member for some notice of question. (1) Yes. (2) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation has advised that a change of this nature is likely to constitute a revised proposal and require a valid referral under section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. (3) The state government has no plans to make any changes to ministerial statement 562. WEST TO EAST GAS PIPELINE 1015. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the minister representing the Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade: I note Woodside CEO Peter Coleman’s comments during the Business News Success and Leadership breakfast yesterday advocating for the west to east gas pipeline. I also note the WA government’s domestic gas reservation policy in which the Premier declared that the WA government would not support such a pipeline except in exceptional circumstances. (1) What does the Premier envisage such an exceptional circumstance to be? (2) What steps is the WA Labor government taking to ensure that these exceptional circumstances do not occur? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I have been provided with the following answer. (1)–(2) The government’s position is that domestic gas allocations or obligations are not available for the eastern states. QUESTION ON NOTICE 3139 Paper Tabled A paper relating to an answer to question on notice 3139 was tabled by Hon Sue Ellery (Leader of the House). PUBLIC HOUSING — KARAWARA Question on Notice 3142 — Answer Advice HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.05 pm]: On behalf of the Minister for Environment, pursuant to standing order 108(2), I wish to inform the house that the answer to question on notice 3142 asked by Hon Peter Collier on 19 August to the Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Housing will be provided on 13 October 2020.

6328 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

MEDICAL RESOURCES — SHARK BAY Question without Notice 903 — Answer Advice HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.05 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to Hon Ken Baston’s question without notice 903, which was asked on 10 September 2020 and I seek leave to have the answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated —

(1) The Remote Area Nursing Post (RANP) in Shark Bay (Denham) is delivered by Silver Chain Group Limited under contract and also hosts a visiting General Practitioner (GP) service twice a week, provided by the WA Country Health Service (WACHS). The Shark Bay RANP is usually staffed by two nurses, supported by an additional nurse during a six-week period annually during the peak tourism season. The Shark Bay RANP is supported with access to the Emergency Telehealth Service (ETS) and Mental Health Emergency Telehealth Service (MHETS). (2) Yes, a review is currently underway of all 12 remote area nursing posts managed by Silver Chain including Shark Bay (Denham).

COMMITTEE REPORTS — CONSIDERATION Committee The Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair. Select Committee into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community — Final Report — “Help, Not Handcuffs: Evidence-Based Approaches to Reducing Harm from Illicit Drug Use” — Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The CHAIR: We have a few moments left for consideration of committee reports. We were considering the Select Committee into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community final report and that the report be noted. Hon MARTIN PRITCHARD: I understand that I have a very brief time. I want to commend the committee; I think it has done a very good job on a very difficult subject. I want to give a couple of personal views about it. One of the purposes of decriminalisation is to, of course, reduce the interaction between drug addicts and police, and lock-ups and such. One of the consequences of that is that people will still be free to continue using drugs. I have had some personal interaction with people in the family on methamphetamine. One of the consequences of not locking them up—to highlight that this is a very difficult subject—is that people will be free to continue using if they so choose, unless they accept some diversion therapy. They will be able to continue terrorising their family. When the family probably does not prosecute, they will continue to steal from their family. It just goes to highlight the fact that when a person chooses to use drugs, they make a choice for not just themselves but all the people around them as well as society, particularly the people around them and their family. I do not know what the answer is. As I said, I believe the committee has made a very valuable contribution, and that needs to be looked at. All the decisions people make in this place will have consequences and not all of them will be beneficial. The CHAIR: Before I put the question, the time for consideration of that committee report is finished, so it will now go to the bottom of our notice paper. I noticed that members wish to continue to address that committee report. Consideration of report postponed, pursuant to standing orders. Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station — Final Report — “Inquiry into Mining on Pinjin Station” Resumed from 14 May. Motion Hon KYLE McGINN: I rise very briefly in the time that I have to talk on the final report of the Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station. The CHAIR: To facilitate that, perhaps the member could move that the report be noted. Hon KYLE McGINN: I move — That the report be noted. The CHAIR: On that question, I now give Hon Kyle McGinn the call.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6329

Hon KYLE McGINN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Hon Alison Xamon, I should have listened! I will take that one on the chin. Thank you very much. I have only a very brief amount of time, but I would firstly like to say that the inquiry was an experience and it was something that I do not think I will forget for a long time. The committee was chaired by Hon Robin Scott. The other members on the committee were Hon Michael Mischin, Hon Robin Chapple, Hon Jacqui Boydell and me. The committee had quite a big terms of reference and there was a lot of public discussion about this before we entered it. I look forward to talking more about it on the next occasion. Consideration of report adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders. PAPER TABLED A paper was tabled by the President. WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2019 Committee Resumed from 22 September. The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Martin Aldridge) in the chair; Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development) in charge of the bill. Clause 34: Volunteers and unincorporated associations — Progress was reported after the clause had been partly considered. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I draw members’ attention to supplementary notice paper 105, issue 8. Hon NICK GOIRAN: Yesterday evening, we were considering clause 34 and my question to the minister was about the deviations from the model law. The minister was seeking advice before we were interrupted. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: As per the documents, there are two changes. One change is to the heading to more accurately reflect the content and the second is the removal of references to civil penalties because those provisions are in our Industrial Relations Act rather being included in our Work Health and Safety Act. Hon RICK MAZZA: How will this affect volunteer organisations like the State Emergency Service or the bush fire brigades? In many circumstances, local governments are in control of those volunteer groups. Under this clause of the bill, will local government be responsible for the health and safety of those volunteer brigades? Has the government considered that some local governments may abrogate that responsibility and say that they do not want to have control of the bush fire brigade any longer because of the duty-of-care responsibilities and then move that to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: This clause does not refer to local government. Obviously, local governments are incorporated entities, so they would fall under the definition of a person conducting a business or undertaking and when there is only volunteer labour, this, as I understand it, does not apply. But when there is both volunteer labour and paid employees, or people who are classified as employees, the volunteers who are working in the same place are also covered. Hon RICK MAZZA: I want to be clear on this. Obviously, volunteering as a bush fire fighter or as a State Emergency Service volunteer will put a person, on occasion, into very dangerous situations in which no-one has any idea what the consequences may entail. It is impossible to perceive what may happen. Is the minister saying that the local government authority is a person conducting a business or undertaking and would therefore be responsible should a volunteer be injured or die as a result of the service that they are providing? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: A local government is an incorporated entity and the definition of a PCBU says that when an entity has employed staff and volunteers working side by side, the volunteers will be covered, but if it is purely a volunteer arrangement, it does not invoke the liability. That is my understanding. I have answered that question as far as I can. Hon RICK MAZZA: I have a question about this. There seems to be a little confusion here. Where my concern lies with this is that the local government authority, which the minister has pointed out is a PCBU, has control of the volunteer bush fire brigades. However, much of the training and many procedures are undertaken by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services. If a volunteer firefighter was hurt while volunteering, or, if the worst happened and they were killed while volunteering, how would this legislation apply? Would the local government be responsible if it were found to have breached its duty of care, or would it be the Department of Fire and Emergency Services if its procedures and training were found to have been deficient? How would this play out in that scenario? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Sometimes there will be multiple responsibilities. As members will have seen in various notorious cases of late in which charges have been laid, different people may share the liability. It may well be that if the Department of Fire and Emergency Services had control of the site and did not discharge its

6330 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] obligation to a duty of care, it could be liable. However, there could be several layers of responsibility. As I understand it, liability will not extend to the volunteer association. In the bill, the definition of a PCBU excludes a volunteer association. The definition of “volunteer association” is — … a group of volunteers working together for 1 or more community purposes where none of the volunteers, whether alone or jointly with any other volunteers, employs any person to carry out work for the volunteer association. I understand that this will not change the current law; it will clarify it. Clause put and passed. Postponed clause 4: Definitions — The clause was postponed on 17 September after it had been partly considered. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I understand the committee decided earlier to now return to clause 4, which had been postponed until after clause 34. We now return to clause 4. The question is that clause 4 stand as printed, and I draw members’ attention to the supplementary notice paper. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I just want to check whether the amendments on the supplementary notice paper have been moved. I do not think they have been. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Minister, my advice is that the amendments to clause 4 listed on the supplementary notice paper have not been moved. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I have been advised that it is not appropriate to move amendment 46/4 because, effectively, the amendments that were made to clause 31 render that amendment unnecessary. I proceed to move — Page 7, lines 11 and 12 — To delete the lines and substitute — industrial manslaughter — see section 30A; We have a slight problem here, now that I think about it, because we have not dealt with clause 30A yet. The DEPUTY CHAIR: The minister has indicated that it is not her intention to move amendment 46/4, but she has moved amendment 47/4. Minister, the advice I have received is that not only amendment 46/4, which you have just moved, but also the amendment of Hon Alison Xamon at 38/4 depend on decisions of the committee at a later stage of consideration of the bill. Is it your intention to further postpone consideration of clause 4 until after new clause 230A? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Could my amendment not be considered after postponed clause 30A? The DEPUTY CHAIR: If you proceed with the amendment that you have moved and a future decision of the chamber is inconsistent with that amendment, you will have to recommit the bill to amend clause 4 again; or you could seek leave to withdraw your amendment and postpone clause 4 to a later stage. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Yes. I will withdraw that amendment and seek to recommit that at a later stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Now, minister, you will need to move a postponement motion. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: This is slightly complex because the amendment I seek to move requires only the resolution of postponed clause 30A. My intention would be to postpone this clause until after consideration of postponed clause 30A. The DEPUTY CHAIR: The minister moved that clause 4 be postponed and considered after clause 30A. Is that correct, minister? Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Yes. Hon ALISON XAMON: Hon Nick Goiran tried to resolve this issue much earlier on in the piece by drawing attention to the fact that a series of amendments to clause 4 have been proposed. In order to avoid having to continually come back to clause 4 and postpone it, I thought the eminently reasonable suggestion was to postpone it until much later in the debate, so we would know exactly which amendments are going to fall away and which ones will need to be considered consequentially as a result of other amendments. I suggest that we look at postponing all of clause 4 until after consideration of new clause 230A. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I accept that. I am happy to amend my motion, so clause 4 can be considered after new clause 230A. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Members, the minister seeks leave to amend her motion so that it shall read that clause 4 be postponed until after the consideration of clause 230A. Leave granted.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6331

Further consideration of the clause postponed until after consideration of new clause 230A, on motion by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development). The DEPUTY CHAIR: That now takes us to amendment 51/P2D5H standing in the name of the Minister for Regional Development. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I move — Page 35, line 1 — To delete the line and substitute — Subdivision 2 — Industrial manslaughter and other offences I believe this just changes the heading. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I do not think that this amendment is appropriate. If members have a look at the subdivision at the moment, it is entitled “Subdivision 2 — Industrial manslaughter”. As the subdivision currently reads, it includes postponed clause 30A, which is nearing completion and we will hopefully get to it very shortly. We no longer have clause 30B because the Committee of the Whole House decided to delete it. At the moment, if the bill were to pass without any further amendments, and we assume that clause 30A will pass, we would have “Subdivision 2 — Industrial manslaughter” with one clause under it, clause 30A, which is entitled “Industrial manslaughter”. We would then go to subdivision 3, which lists other offences and penalties. That seems to me to be entirely appropriate. I do not think that what is being proposed is either appropriate or necessary. Minister, my respectful submission is that it might be better if this amendment was withdrawn and we move on to the substantive matter of postponed clause 30A. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Let’s just put the motion. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: The minister is saying we should put the vote, but perhaps she could explain what other offences are going to be under subdivision 2 now that we have dubbed all the substantive offences in clause 30A as industrial manslaughter? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We will concede the point. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Postponed clause 30A: Industrial manslaughter — crime — The clause, as amended, was postponed on 22 September. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I move — Page 35, line 19 — To delete “an offence under section 30B(1).” and substitute — a Category 1 offence, a Category 2 offence or a Category 3 offence. Briefly, by way of explanation to members, this is a consequential amendment upon the Committee of the Whole House’s decision to remove clause 30B. Members will see that that is precisely what is to be deleted. In substitution, it is intended that the other category 1 offences be allowed. This was recommended to me by parliamentary counsel. Members will also note there is an amendment on the supplementary notice paper in the minister’s name at 54/30A. The only difference between these two amendments is that mine refers to a “Category 1 offence” and the minister’s amendment refers to a “Category 1 crime”. That amendment will now fall away because what was intended to be new clause 31 was not proceeded with. For those reasons, I recommend the passage of this amendment. Amendment put and passed. Hon NICK GOIRAN: On the assumption that there will be no movement of amendment 54/30A for the reasons I just mentioned, I will move the amendment standing in my name. To save time, I indicate that the same reasons apply. I move — Page 36, line 12 — To delete “an offence under section 30B(3).” and substitute — a Category 1 offence, a Category 2 offence or a Category 3 offence. Amendment put and passed. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I do not propose move any further amendments to this clause. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Minister, we touched on this during debate on clause 1 and we have come back to it on a couple of occasions since. I want to explore it further, as I think it is important that the information provided to this chamber in support of this legislation be accurate and complete. On 16 September when the minister commenced her second reading reply, she said, and I quote from the uncorrected Hansard, but I have no doubt if there is an error it can be drawn to my attention — I think there has also been majority support for the introduction of industrial manslaughter provisions. I am conscious that this is a big step, but I think it is a very important step. The minister then referred to a document entitled “Families Left Behind: Taking Action for Workplace Safety Reform” and hoped that all members would get a copy of it. Those members who have read it will know that it is

6332 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] very moving. It contains the accounts of bereaved families of victims and their feelings about the loss of someone about whom they cared. In each of the examples that are cited—it is tabled paper 4235—there is a heading to the effect of “Why industrial manslaughter is important”. I presume that is the reason the minister cited the facts of the Paspaley Pearls case; is that right? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: My second reading reply dealt with the bill as a whole. I reflected on the fact that we are very conscious that many families, including the family of Wesley Ballantine, are deeply aggrieved by the penalties that people who have been found to have failed their duty of care have received. I cited the case of Regan Ballantine’s son. In fact, in all those cases in that document, people had died in circumstances in which it was acknowledged that there had been a failure of a duty of care. I talked about all the provisions of the bill, but in particular those between clauses 30A and 31, which are doing a number of things, including very significantly increasing the monetary penalties and also the terms of imprisonment consequential upon various offences. There will be a very significant increase in the terms of imprisonment under the provisions of clause 30A, in which a failure of a duty of care is accompanied by death and gross negligence, and the provisions of clause 31, in which there is a failure of a duty of care and a death or serious injury. We think that is appropriate and we believe that that is going to have an impact on the work health and safety culture. We have made this point over and again. It is now possible that under clause 30A, instead of the penalty for a major offence by an individual being five years’ imprisonment and a fine of $550 000, the maximum penalties will be a term of imprisonment of 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5 million. The penalties for offences by bodies corporate and officers, of course, will also increase significantly. The member made the point over and again that the cases that I cited had not been prosecuted in circumstances in which there had been gross negligence. I completely understand that. I agree with that. We acknowledge that there will not be many cases in which we are going to be able to prosecute industrial manslaughter per se, because establishing that bar is very significant. I think that words matter. From time to time the member has said that these are just words, but I think that the words matter here. A deeply important message is being sent by labelling these circumstances when there has been “gross negligence”—I am using the language of the old act—and a death as industrial manslaughter. I think that sends a message about the gravity of the offence. We have repeated over and again that parents, family members and partners are concerned that somehow or other the lives of their loved ones are being treated as though they were meaningless. Hon Michael Mischin: Why do you say that? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I say that because it has been difficult to get a penalty that is considered to be commensurate with the loss and travesty. Family after family is telling us that. Their struggle for justice has created an environment in which they felt that their child’s or their partner’s life has been absolutely undervalued—that it was considered to be something trivial. We say that there is a symbolic aspect to using the words “industrial manslaughter”. That symbolism is important. It says that this is something that takes away a person’s life. It references a concept that is in the Criminal Code. It is well entrenched and well understood in the community that this is about taking someone’s life unlawfully. It seeks to, in a sense, make less bland the consequence of what happens when there has been a failure of a duty of care in a circumstance of gross negligence. This must be called out for what it is—that is, industrial manslaughter. As I said, our aim in all this is to create a greater sense of urgency and need for care amongst employers to really engage and understand that they have to give more primacy to and detailed engagement on the whole question of ensuring as far as is reasonably practicable a safe working environment for the people who work for them. I am not sure where this is going. We, and I am sure the families, many whom are listening in, are highly perplexed by this because we know that in the other place, the shadow minister and spokesman for the Liberal Party, Mr Peter Katsambanis, indicated that he has no difficulty with clause 30A and that he strongly supports it. Person after person in the other place had no objection to this clause. I am not sure what we are doing here or where we are going, Hon Michael Mischin. But we are proud to stand behind the fact that we are enhancing the penalties. There are greater penalties now, a consequence upon this offence, and we have renamed it so that we can give further strength to calling the consequences of this behaviour for what they really are. That type of failure of a duty of care and the circumstances of gross negligence that leads to a death of a person must be called out for what it is—that is, industrial manslaughter. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Thank you, minister, for that speech. What I got from that is that the minister does not quite know what we are doing here. I did not raise the Paspaley Pearls case as an example of anything; the minister did at the beginning of her second reading reply to urge us to support the provisions and to somehow justify what the government is doing. The minister has just told us is that it is the same offence that was previously there, but that the government has symbolically renamed it as industrial manslaughter—that is all. The other thing that the minister has done is to increase the penalty for that offence from five years to 20 years’ imprisonment, and that will change workplace culture. What was Paspaley Pearls charged with? Was it charged with a section 19A(1) offence, which was gross negligence? Would it have been subject to that penalty of five years’ imprisonment; and, if not, why not? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I have explained this to the member over and over again and this will be the last time. When I mentioned that example and others, it was in reference to the package of legislation. I sought to

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6333 illustrate why it was important that we did more, and that these were examples in which people had died and the penalties that had accrued were seen to be woefully inadequate. All the examples that I quoted would be captured more under clause 31, in which we have also increased the penalties. As I said before, when I used those examples I was addressing the entire bill, not a single clause. The member has been flogging this horse for a long time. He is trying to say that I raised those as examples and if we introduce industrial manslaughter, these people would get a higher penalty. That is not what I said, and I have explained this to the member five or six times. We believe that this suite of measures, including the industrial manslaughter measures and the increased penalties under section 31, will create an improved step change in the attention given to occupational health and safety, just as the introduction of this style of legislation in the first instance in the 1980s created a step change in the way in which industry focused on these issues. Member, I am not saying in that particular case there would have been an industrial manslaughter conviction. Quite clearly there would not have been. But I am saying that by putting in this suite of measures, which includes greater personal liability, we believe it will engage with and improve the focus of managers and directors on these occupational health and safety issues and will lead to far fewer situations in which young men are killed and a failed duty of care has been acknowledged. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Plainly we are not going to get much further with that, but the minister thought fit to state in this chamber — I think there is very strong support for the principle of harmonisation of our work health and safety laws, and I think there has also been majority support for the introduction of industrial manslaughter provisions. I am conscious that this is a big step, but I think it is a very important step. Today, I have received a copy of this document, “Families Left Behind: Taking Action for Workplace Safety Reform”. As I mentioned, the theme in that is industrial manslaughter and why it is important to create such an offence. It also complains about the penalties being handed down in those individual cases, some of them dating back to 2006. The minister continues — The document sets out the situations of a range of overwhelmingly young Western Australians who have died in the workplace, and the consequences for their employers have seemed very, very minor compared with the extraordinary loss that has been suffered by the families and friends of the person who lost their life. I will reflect on the case of Jarrod Hampton, a 22-year-old who was working as a drift diver for Paspaley Pearls back in April 2012. When he surfaced midway through a dive and alerted the boat that he was in distress, — I digress for a moment to say that they are not the facts that appeared on the WorkSafe website that goes through the facts of that particular incident. He came to the surface. One person thought that he heard a shout, but no-one noticed much. The diver disappeared below the surface. They thought he was continuing the dive. However, I think it was the skipper of the boat who, when he was told that, said “We’d better go and have a look.” The minister continues — it took the crew approximately 20 minutes to retrieve him from the water. They are not the facts of the case on the website. In fact, the estimate given by the witnesses was that it was five to 10 minutes. She continues — The company had no rescue procedure, — I think the report states “written rescue emergency procedure” — although it was a requirement of its own code of practice. The company’s attempts to save Jarrod were chaotic, disorganised and ultimately fatal. The suggestion being that that is what caused his death, but that is not what the company was charged with—quite the contrary. No allegation was made that the company failed to take all reasonable steps, which would have been in breach of section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which states — An employer shall, so far as is practicable, provide and maintain a working environment in which the employees of the employer … are not exposed to hazards … It then particularises certain things. The company was not charged with having caused the death, so there was a limit on the penalty that could be imposed. It is wrong for the minister to suggest that the company was somehow charged with that or that there was an evidential causation. Tragic though it was, that is not what WorkSafe charged, so it would never have come to industrial manslaughter if that is the case. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: As the minister is now explaining to get around the fact — Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected.

6334 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

The CHAIR: Order! When I am speaking, no other member will speak. I am interrupting debate to remind you at this late stage on a Wednesday that Hon Michael Mischin has the call and he is addressing the Chair. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The findings of the report on the website do not state “chaotic, disorganised and ultimately fatal”. It does not say anything about a connection between the failing of the company on this occasion and that it in any way caused this unfortunate tragedy and the death. In fact, he was unconscious when he was pulled from the water. The minister continues — Paspaley Pearls was charged with not providing a safe place for work. That is not quite what the duty is, but we will leave that lie. The minister continues — Some 13 months after these charges were laid, the company pleaded guilty. I take it there is nothing in the procedures that are set out in this legislation that will in any way expedite the time from a charge to a resolution of a case. That is not being dealt with. The ordinary court processes will apply, will they not? It would be even more difficult, if charged on indictment before the District Court where it could take several years for a prosecution to find its way to a conclusion rather than before a Magistrates Court, but that is what the government is telling the families referred to and future families: “If you want industrial manslaughter, it’s not going to be before a magistrate; it’s going to the District Court and there’ll be a jury empanelled and all the usual processes that might take years to get to a trial or a plea of guilty.” Be that as it may. The minister’s second reading reply continues — This case resulted in the death of a young man in a situation in which there was no rescue procedure. It did not result in his death. That is not what the company was charged with. If it did, surely it would have been charged under section 19A(1) or 19A(2), not 19A(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and that means the company would not be charged under any different offence in this particular case. Although, possibly it could be charged under clause 31(3) of the Work Health and Safety Bill, but we do not know because the minister will not clarify that. The minister’s second reading reply continues — The company was fined $60 000. The maximum fine was $200 000, but the Broome magistrate reduced the fine payable by 70 per cent on the basis that the company was a good corporate citizen and made an early guilty plea. Where did the minister get that information from? There is nothing on the report on the WorkSafe site to say that the fine was reduced on the basis of the company being a good corporate citizen. What is the source of that information that the minister presented to Parliament to say that it was an appallingly low penalty, when the company was not responsible for or connected with the death itself but had a breach of a duty, although the minister will not tell us precisely what particulars there were for the unsafe workplace? I presume, from reading the report, that it was because the company did not have a written emergency procedure. The minister’s second reading reply continues — Those who have been left behind, his parents … The minister goes through that; I do not want to diminish the tragedy of what happened. The minister then said that the family — feel that this is not a result that reflects the travesty — They are the minister’s words, by the look of it — in the way that Jarrod was treated and the consequences for the family. Yet it appears that there is no evidence to support a connection between the failing and the fact that he died. The minister goes on — I think it is always important to frame what we are dealing with here and question whether we have adequate responses in place. The minister is saying that this is an adequate response: to redub an existing offence by increasing the penalty to 20 years, knowing full well that it would not have made the slightest difference in this case. The minister says that the penalty was too low—$60 000 out of a maximum of $200 000. Did the government appeal the penalty? Did WorkSafe appeal the penalty? If not, why not? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: That case is not relevant to the clause that we are considering. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: That is a good one. Whenever I raised the subject, the minister said that this matter would have to wait until the industrial manslaughter clause, and now that we have got to it, she is saying that it is not relevant. Of course it is not relevant. It is not relevant because the minister has thrown it in there as being a justification and relevance for the industrial manslaughter provision, but now that it is being tested in the cold light of day against the facts, it is another one of those inappropriate examples. Several members interjected.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6335

The CHAIR: Order! One at a time. Everyone who wants the call will get it. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: For accuracy and for the record, for anyone who is interested in these things, the minister might learn something if she bothers to read the facts, I seek leave to table the extract from the prosecution summaries on the WorkSafe website: summaries of successful prosecutions, prosecution details for Paspaley Pearling Company Pty Ltd case, and the charges that were laid. It says that it was section 19(1); it was a breach of duty. It does not provide the particulars of how the duty was breached, but 19A(3) was the relevant offence. Leave granted. [See paper 4320.] Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Another tragic case that the minister cited was that of Jayden Zappelli. Once again, that was not an accurate reflection of the facts on the WorkSafe website. I will not go into the detail of it, suffice to say that it is not quite right to say that he was doing work experience to secure an apprenticeship. He was a trades assistant. I would have thought that his job in assisting an electrician would be more than just digging trenches and passing tools, but would involve participating in the work. The failing in that case was the failure to isolate a circuit. It was entirely due to the mismanagement of the electrician concerned, who did some checks but failed to ensure that one of the circuits was isolated. In the course of that, while Jayden was pulling up a cable into a roof space, some of the tape that was supposed to isolate that cable got stripped off and came into contact with a copper pipe. The company, JCW Electrical Pty Ltd, was prosecuted and fined, but, again, under section 19A(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The reason that it was prosecuted was not for causing the death of that young man, but because it had not instructed and implemented a formal safety system in a variety of respects. But the main culprit was a fellow worker who had used a piece of equipment that was not issued to him by his employer and who did not follow usual practice by using a multimeter rather than a volt stick, in one case, and took a shortcut assuming that a circuit was isolated without using appropriate means to confirm it. Part of the difficulty—the minister might reflect on this—is that the then standards did not require the total isolation of every circuit in the house, but only those that were being worked on. The electrician made the mistake of assuming that he had done so without doing the proper checks to ensure it. Nevertheless, suggesting that the employer’s fine is paltry and low suggests that the employer has a causal link with that particular tragedy—that death—but that is not the case. The person who may have caused it—even he was not charged with causing the death—was one Mr Mortley, who was charged for a breach of duty as an employee, as a fellow worker. He was charged under section 20A(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. That is a charge that a person commits an offence — If — (a) an employee — (i) contravenes section 20(1) or (3); and (ii) by the contravention causes the death of, or serious harm to, a person; Again, that was not gross negligence, which the minister has now redubbed as industrial manslaughter, but that was a serious offence because there was a cause—the cause was his negligence. The employer was not charged with causing death, and the employee, Mr Mortley, quite apart from being fined, had to have his competency retested before he was allowed to continue his work as an electrician. It is all very well for the minister to go on about how appallingly low the penalty was for the employer without actually identifying what the breach of duty was that the employer was charged with and without connecting it to the death in any way, which certainly WorkSafe was not able to do; otherwise the company would have been charged accordingly. Once again, the minister is misrepresenting things in order to achieve a political end. It is a disgrace. For the reference of the chamber, and for those who want to know what the facts of that case were, I seek leave to table the prosecution details for JCW Electrical Pty Ltd from the summary of prosecution from the website, and that for Dale Francis Mortley, who was charged with two offences—in the first instance, of being an employee who failed to take reasonable care to ensure his own safety and health at work; and in the second case, of being an employee who failed to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the safety and health of his colleague through act or omission at work, and thereby causing the death of his colleague. It is all very well to rail about sending messages out to employers, but it is not going to make the slightest bit of difference if their conduct will not be culpable under the provisions that the minister asserts will fix the problem. I seek leave to table those two cases. The CHAIR: Member, are they public documents? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: They are public documents. The CHAIR: It is a matter for the chamber, but I am not sure that it is always necessary to table large numbers of papers; it is a logistical question that has been raised by presiding officers from time to time. That is why I asked the question, but if the member wishes to proceed to seek leave of the chamber. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I suppose for completeness I should, having done the other one, but they can be found online. Perhaps I can substitute the one I handed up on Paspaley Pearling Company, which has notes on it.

6336 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

This one is a clean copy. It does not matter if it is not going to be accepted and tabled, but they can be found on the WorkSafe website; it was then the Department of Commerce, but it can still be found under the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, or whatever iteration it is this week. Those three cases are not appropriate as a justification for the points that the minister and government seek to make. I suggest that it is intended to pretend to these families that calling something industrial manslaughter, which is no different to what was there before, will meet their very real emotional need to think that justice will be done in the future, but without regard to the detail; and, as they say, the devil is in the detail. The minister will not want to engage in any further debate on the subject because she knows she is wrong and she has tried to misuse these cases on an emotive level without any practical consequences except sending messages and the like. Despite her comment, “Yes, we believe there will be very few prosecutions under proposed section 30A”, I would venture to suggest that in five years’ time, after this bill has received royal assent, there will not have been any. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: This is very much a case of “They Were All Out of Step But Jim”. No wonder the member has been demoted to number six on the ticket. I refer the member to the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to the second reading debate on this very bill. The Leader of the Opposition is obviously a person who is a little more in contact with the electorate and with the people of Western Australia than Hon Michael Mischin is. The Leader of the Opposition went into some detail on precisely those cases. She spoke very powerfully about her conversation with Regan Ballantine, and how appalled she was that that situation could have been allowed to occur. She said in the other place, on 18 February — The courts are very clear in saying that that is not how they impose the penalty—it is not based on the value of a human life—but when someone has lost a loved one in those circumstances, that is how it feels … She then went on to talk about a second case. She did not actually name the case, but as far as I can tell, she did not name it out of respect because she had not obtained the permission of the parents involved, but I am almost 100 per cent certain that it is the case of Jayden Zappelli, because it is exactly the same circumstances. She goes on to talk about the findings that were made against the company and the statements of the magistrate. The magistrate said that the company — … failed to provide a work environment where employees were safe by not ensuring employees turned off the mains power before entering a roof space. The magistrate went on to say that although the company — … was not intentionally risky but complacent to follow an industry standard practice which has been identified as not-sufficient.” The WorkSafe WA Commissioner at the time said — … the case was a stark reminder of the dangers of working with electricity. The Leader of the Opposition also reflected that the circumstances of the case were astonishing, given that the penalty was only $38 000, when the maximum was $200 000. The Leader of the Opposition thought that these cases, and the concerns of the families involved—the same families that I talked about—were important and relevant to the package of legislation that we have before us. We could go on and on; I do not know what the purpose is. I do not know whether the member is trying to prevent this legislation getting through, but we have here the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister supporting this legislation. We thought the member was supporting it, but we are going to go on and on and on. The member’s real problem is that he was Attorney General for a number of years and was unable to make progress on these matters. Several members interjected. The CHAIR: Order! Hon Alison Xamon. Hon ALISON XAMON: Obviously, I have only a couple of minutes before we report progress. I want to apologise to the families who will find this debate very distressing at the moment; I am aware that there are families watching us in this chamber, and I would really like people to be mindful of that. I do not know whether any of the cases cited would have resulted in industrial manslaughter legislation being enacted. I have always maintained that one of the reasons we need industrial manslaughter legislation is that it changes the way that even investigators approach worksites. We know that there is a recurrent problem of police, in particular, turning up to worksites and simply walking away once they see that it is a workplace death. They are looking for overt and obvious signs of criminality—whether someone has been murdered at a site. If they deem that that has not happened, they walk away. That has often meant a scarcity of evidence being picked up at the point of someone dying in the workplace that would have facilitated the capacity for a prosecution to proceed. It is really important to note that just because a prosecution has not been pursued, it does not mean that criminality has not occurred at some point; it simply means the evidence was not adequately compiled for whatever reason and hence a case could not be made. It behoves all of us to remember that just because a lesser charge is pursued, it does not mean that a greater offence was not committed. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6337

NATIONAL POLICE REMEMBRANCE DAY Statement HON MARTIN ALDRIDGE (Agricultural) [6.20 pm]: I rise this evening to bring to the house’s attention that next week, while the Legislative Council is in recess, we will recognise National Police Remembrance Day. On 29 September, each state and territory across Australasia and parts of the Pacific region will recognise those officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Currently, 6 500 officers are serving in the WA Police Force. Approximately 1 500 are serving in our regions. I often remark in debates in this place that those officers in our regional and remote areas are often the only semblance of government in many of our communities. Their service is widely respected amongst my constituents, and I personally wanted to pay tribute to them and the often challenging, difficult and complex circumstances they face often with little support. Police Remembrance Day recognises police officers who have given their life in the line of duty. In Western Australia, that, sadly, accounts for 85 officers dating back to 1834. In the last two decades, the lives of the nine officers lost in the line of duty have all been due to accidents. This includes the loss of four officers in a crash of a police aircraft near Newman on Australia Day in 2001. I now want to quote from the WA Police Force website, which states — On this day we also remember the feast of St Michael, Patron Saint of Battle, Security forces and Paratroops and we look to him to protect and keep safe our members as they continue to service the community 365 days of the year. All officers and their families know that policing can sometimes be a dangerous job but when a life is taken, the “police family” pulls together to support and care for one another. When tragedy strikes, WA Police Legacy is there to offer more immediate and direct assistance to the spouses and their loved ones. For all ceremonies a blue and white chequered ribbon is worn to remember those fallen members and to take strength in the knowledge that their memory lives on in our hearts. I am wearing that blue and white chequered ribbon in the Legislative Council this evening. On Friday, I will be joining District Superintendent Tony Colfer and wheatbelt police at a memorial service in Northam, where I will lay a wreath. As I have done in previous years, it is an important opportunity to reflect on and pay tribute to those officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their service and the community. For me, it is also an annual reminder as a legislator to ensure that we continue to remain focused on protecting those who protect us. I encourage members of this place, as well as members of the public, to attend local services and stand alongside officers and other members of the community in paying tribute. Lest we forget. DEMENTIA ACTION WEEK Statement HON TIM CLIFFORD (East Metropolitan) [6.24 pm]: I rise tonight to speak because it was World Alzheimer’s Day on Monday and this week is Dementia Action Week—from 21 to 27 September, which is Sunday. I thought I might raise this because it is personal for me. Allow me to compose myself if I lose my words. Currently in Australia 459 000 people live with dementia. Without a major medical breakthrough, 1 076 000 people will be suffering from dementia by 2058. Those suffering early onset dementia, under the age of 65 number 27 800, and will number 41 250 by 2058. I thought I would raise this because it is personal for me. My father suffers from dementia. I was not aware for quite some time that my father was suffering from dementia, but in hindsight, given some of the things he was suffering from, I should have picked up on the signs. They are easy to overlook because we live with these people every day. My father, being a stubborn old Irishman, found every trick in his book to ensure that it was hidden and that we did not worry about him because he cared about not being a trouble to or a burden on anyone. The other issue is that there is a real stigma around dementia and it is something we need to talk about a lot more. By sharing his story through my position, it can help other people to come forward and break through the barriers around the stigma. Before it affected me personally, I thought it was something people got when they were old—our grandfather or grandmother slowly lose their memory—and that these things happen with age. However, through a long process last year, which, to be honest, was a real nightmare for my family, I found that it is something that affects people from all walks of life. It does not affect just the person directly but also the people around them. In May last year, while I was in a briefing, my sister contacted me to say that my father had stopped answering the phone. It was very difficult. It happened a couple of times. A couple of times he missed the train. On one occasion, when I rushed down to the house, I had to break into the house because I thought: maybe he had had a heart attack. Luckily he had not. When he got off the train, he said, “What are you worried about? I just got off at the wrong stop.” These are the sorts of things that were happening. However, last May he stopped answering the phone and his condition declined rapidly. He now suffers from vascular dementia, which is brought on by vascular issues, usually through stroke and hypertension—high blood pressure. When someone initially suffers this, they usually miss things such as taking medication—their blood pressure tablets. As a result, their issues cascade to the point at which they need help.

6338 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

When I went to the house, dad was clearly not with it. He was out of it, so emergency bells rang for us and we had to get him into care. We had to navigate a system that is not built to help people in a short amount of time. My sister and I—my sister is a single parent—managed to get him into a hospital. It took a matter of weeks to get a diagnosis, and without a diagnosis they cannot be placed in a transitional care facility. To be placed in a transitional care facility, they go through a stepped out process and it takes quite some time to get them into the right care that they need. Through this process, I found that I am a person in a privileged position and I am a person who can access the people who know what to do. But there are thousands of people across this country, in our community, who do not have a person they can get to on the phone and they do not have people who work in the public health system that they can lean on to give them advice. They find themselves stranded because they are navigating a system that in some ways is not resourced enough and in some ways is not as friendly as it should be towards those families because of the stigma I talked about. Because it is something that affects so many people, it is almost as though it is an issue in plain sight that is very difficult to deal with. One of the reasons it is very difficult to deal with is we do not yet have a cure and we are very far off having a cure. We eventually got my father into a transitional care facility. It took us weeks to find him a place to stay but he is currently in care. He requires long-term care because he did a runner from the hospital, which was an adventure, because he was confused. He needs full-time, 24-hour care. This happened very rapidly, within a matter of months, and the strain that it put on my family was immense. It still is immense. It is something that we have to deal with every week. Dementia is something that I think is important and we need to talk more about because it affects so many people in our community. In our positions, we need to make sure that the stigma of dementia is broken because it will hit more people in our community and, judging by these numbers, it will double within the next 30 to 40 years and that is something that will be devastating for our community. We need to do more about it. Thank you for giving me the time tonight. We really need to reach out to the people who need care immediately because right now there is a family like mine, who went through a panic and had to navigate a system that is not built to be user-friendly and that is happening to hundreds of people out in the community right now. The people around the person who has dementia are impacted as well and we need to make sure that those people are looked after. OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY — WORKERS’ RIGHTS Statement HON KYLE McGINN (Mining and Pastoral) [6.31 pm]: First, Hon Tim Clifford, thank you very much for sharing that story. That was very powerful and I know that was hard for you to say. You spoke very well. Since my member’s statement last week regarding Inpex and some of the issues that have happened in the offshore oil and gas industry lately with workers’ rights, my office has been inundated with workers and their partners writing to me, bringing up more very disturbing processes in the industrial relations system in our offshore industry. I do not want Inpex to feel lonely, so I am about to line up some other corporates that are doing just as bad as Inpex. Today’s shonky manning companies will be Sodexo and Westug. Sodexo is working on three offshore facilities at the moment: Shell’s Prelude platform, Jadestone’s Stag platform and the Noble Tom Prosser rig. Sodexo is an onshore and offshore manning company for catering. It has only recently gone into the offshore industry over the last few years and, needless to say, it has tried to bring its draconian industrial relations’ attitude into the offshore industry. It will not be tolerated. Sodexo currently operates on an enterprise bargaining agreement that expired in 2013 and is, again, one of the lowest-paid agreements for catering in the offshore industry. Keep in mind that these companies work on multimillion-dollar projects. Over the last three years, Sodexo has attempted to push through substandard agreements that have not been appropriately negotiated with its employees and only because of the Offshore Alliance and the Electrical Trades Union have we seen those agreements stopped from being put through the Fair Work Commission. Without the unions to represent those workers, the agreements would have got through and the workers would have been on worse pay and under worse conditions than they are on now, which are still substandard. After negotiating with the union for a proper agreement—the standard agreement that should be in the offshore industry—Sodexo decided to renege on the agreement after it was just about to go to a vote and said that instead of that agreement, it would reduce it by $17 000 a year for every offshore worker. These are workers who have been ripped off since 2013. Workers go through an industrial relations process where they do the notice of employee representational rights and have representation from the union—it is a massive process. Employees are involved with their union in putting forward their claims. The claims then go to the employer. The employer then negotiates with the union, and we move through that process to get to an outcome that is good for both parties. But the type of behaviour that is unacceptable is when the employer then turns around and just says, “No, it’s off the table. We’re going to reduce it by $17 000 and you’re either going to sign it or you’re not.” That type of behaviour is unacceptable. What is more unacceptable is that Sodexo has alleged that Shell is responsible for the reduction of the $17 000 in this enterprise agreement. If this is correct, the principal client has unlawfully and disgracefully directed Sodexo to reduce its rate within the enterprise agreement. Shell is breaching workplace rights and interfering in a contractors’ enterprise agreement process. It would be coercion and a very poor reflection on Shell if what Sodexo is saying is correct. To come in and just veto

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6339 an agreement and say that it will not pay that rate of pay when it is already subcontracting out the work is disgraceful. If Shell wants to be involved in negotiations, how about it directly employs workers and provides some more guaranteed work rather than having casual workers from manning companies, which are, at the end of the day, puppets for the main client. That is what this situation seems like. I really hope that Shell has not interfered in this situation and has gone out and done what has been alleged. I call upon Shell and Sodexo to sort out this mess because the facility that they are working on is the biggest facility in the offshore industry—the biggest facility there is. It is a $20 billion asset, yet Sodexo cannot pay its caterers the standard rate in the offshore. It is absolutely disgraceful. It does not stop there with Sodexo. Sodexo is also employed to supply catering for Rio Tinto. I know for a fact that Sodexo had recently been negotiating an agreement and it was also in on an agreement that was below the boot test, which means people were being paid below minimum wage. But the agreement said that because Sodexo was providing workers with accommodation and food, it was okay for them to be paid under the minimum rate. In my career, I have never heard an employer say, “Because we feed you and because we’ve got a bed for you when you’re out in the middle of the desert doing this FIFO work for us, that means we can pay you less than the award rate.” That is absolutely disgraceful. Throughout this negotiation there were allegations that Sodexo stood over workers, got rid of casual workers and got rid of workers who stood up against it through the enterprise bargaining agreement campaign. When the employees did not agree to the agreement, Sodexo put it out to a vote anyway. Workers were sacked—but when I say sacked, let us be honest, they were not directly employed. They work for Sodexo but Sodexo can say that there is no longer any work on the Rio Tinto site and because the worker is not actually sacked, they do not have the right to raise an unfair dismissal. They just sit on the beach with no work and Sodexo no longer puts them out on the job. It is disgusting. In my view, Sodexo should be a socially responsible company, particularly up in the Pilbara where Rio Tinto is everywhere, and it should absolutely be ensuring that it has a good standard of pay and conditions up there on that site because, as I said last week, that reflects safety standards. When workers have a good, secure contract, they are much more likely to have a safer workplace. I think it is disgusting that Rio Tinto would allow that to happen and I would be very interested to know whether it will step in to ensure that its workers get paid appropriately. But it does not stop there. Rio Tinto also has a subcontractor called Westug. Westug run tug operations for Rio Tinto up in Dampier. What Westug has been doing in this workplace is nothing short of a disgrace. Westug has been pushing what is called a partnership in which the workers go into a partnership with the skipper, the deckhand and the engineer and run their own little business, which does not sit within an enterprise agreement. There are many reasons Westug would want this. One reason is so that it does not have to deal with unions. It is absolutely disgusting. For many years now, the Maritime Union of Australia has been pushing the point up there. Recently, some workers saw a post on social media and liked it. It was a simple click of the like button. Other workers did it too. What did Westug do? It sacked those three workers. I instantly thought that that was a bit bizarre and extreme. I contacted Westug and spoke to Luke Westlake about why that happened. To start with, I barely got an answer. The company said it was comfortable with what it had done and it was okay. I said that the workers had liked a Facebook post so I could not understand it. I asked whether they had received other written warnings or first and finals? He said they had not. I wondered what was going on. When I finally got past the sausage maker and got up the chain, the company said that it was not going to change its mind and that it was going to go with this decision. Those guys had been on the enterprise agreement so, out of curiosity, I asked whether the three guys who would be hired would be put on the enterprise agreement. The company said they would be on partnerships. There is a clear line! The company said to me that it was going to put people on partnerships to replace those on the enterprise agreement. Come on; let us be honest: they liked a Facebook post! I asked Rio Tinto whether it endorsed that type of behaviour. It said that it stood back from it and that it was Westug’s decision, not theirs. Rio is the client and is paying for Westug to be on the job. By standing by and letting that happen, it is saying that it is okay to sack someone for liking a Facebook post. That is absolutely shameful. I asked the boss, “What’s the go with these partnerships?” He said, “Our view is that we’re going to put everyone on partnerships. When people disappear, their replacements will go on partnerships.” I asked Rio if that was its business model. It said that it did not get involved in that. It gives companies million-dollar contracts and lets them do what they want. It is absolutely disgusting. Rio Tinto is a big multinational. It should be able to ensure that its subcontractors and suppliers are on the same conditions as workers at Rio Tinto. When I asked Rio whether it had sacked anyone for liking a Facebook post, it said no. If people work for Rio Tinto, it is okay, but if they work for a subcontractor, they will lose their rights to negotiate an enterprise agreement. The subcontractor can screw it down into a partnership operation, and they will lose their rights to work on the ship. I can only imagine what conditions would be like without the MUA in there fighting. I call on Rio to pull in the heads of Westug and fix this up. PLANNING SCHEMES — PERTH SUBURBS Statement HON TJORN SIBMA (North Metropolitan) [6.42 pm]: I rise tonight to talk about the consequences of ideologically driven planning schemes in the suburbs of Perth. On the weekend, I had the privilege of attending

6340 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] a community meeting in Trailwood Drive, Woodvale with about 40 people from the community and Scott Edwardes, the Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Kingsley. I was directed to a development on that street that was shocking in its scale and composition. Something like the development being built at 80 and 82 Trailwood Drive, Woodvale should not be permitted in the suburbs of Western Australia. I say that because there has to be a balance that is sensible, sensitive and gains community consensus for where residential infill should be driven across the metropolitan area. It can be done in a way that achieves strategic outcomes for the betterment of communities throughout Perth, is profitable, provides developers with a sense of security and certainty, and balances everybody’s expectations throughout the process. Throughout Western Australia, a degree of community dissatisfaction with the prevailing culture in the Western Australian urban planning framework is emerging. It is more than mere nimbyism. People have legitimate complaints and concerns about the manner in which the fabric of their communities is being changed at the stroke of a pen. There are, I suppose, a number of guilty parties responsible for these kinds of aberrations. I believe that the community is sick of fixing the blame on local government, state government, or particular professions, and would prefer to fix the problem. I have previously spoken in this place about the enthusiastic but dreadful outcomes that the City of Joondalup has pursued to achieve largely arbitrary infill targets through its housing opportunity areas policy. The outcomes have been appalling because they were driven by ideology and conducted in only two dimensions. There has been a desktop task. Effectively, someone got out a compass and drew a 400-metre radius around the nearest train station and determined, ipso facto, that that is where the city would whack infill. In real life, there are complications such as streetscape; sterilised land; arterial road corridors such as Mitchell Freeway, which undercut the concept of walkability; and the topography of an area. Thinking in two dimensions is not always applicable to the third dimension. There are complications around the contours of street design; infill is not appropriate for cul-de-sacs. However, this is what people in the City of Joondalup have been dealing with for the better part of the last three or so years. To its credit, the City of Joondalup has woken up to the disaster and has attempted to modify its existing local planning scheme. These modifications are not perfect, but they do a lot to temper the excesses and aberrations. They do so in a way that has found some measure of support across the community, whether they are people who live in Warwick, Kingsley or Woodvale. At the meeting on Saturday, community members prevailed on me to do everything in my power to seek clarity about how the Western Australian Planning Commission might deal with the City of Joondalup’s amendment and when it might deal with it. The City of Joondalup made amendment 5 to its local planning scheme 3 in late March this year. I acknowledge the obvious difficulties created by the impact of COVID and the like. Nevertheless, that amendment at least established modifications to the housing opportunity area policy in a way that made trees on blocks mandatory, mandated minimum landscaping requirements, articulated minimum visitor parking, established better setbacks and put in maximum storey heights. This generally fitted with the needs of the community. Those people are not nimbys. They are sensible and understand the need for development, but it needs to be done in a sensitive and orderly way. That amendment was forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission on 3 April this year. I can be specific about that date because I asked a question through the Minister for Environment representing the Minister for Planning in this place about its progress. There is absolutely no certainty about when the Western Australian Planning Commission or one of its subsidiary committees—most likely, the statutory planning committee—might form a view on this or get an opportunity to deal with it. I find that unfortunate. I think the commission is in a position to give that community a better sense of when it might endorse that amendment, if, indeed, that is its intention. The line I got back was that it would deal with it sometime in the last quarter of this year, which, quite frankly, I think was a pretty dismal official response, particularly as the community had been given some indication that that scheme would be approved or at least dealt with in September. That opportunity, obviously, is passing it by. This is indicative of what I mentioned earlier—a cultural problem within the planning framework. Before the winter recess, we dealt with amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2005 that were effectively framed as an economic response to COVID-19. Throughout the course of the briefings on that bill, the department gave certain undertakings that a second tranche of legislation would focus on improving the community consultation and engagement processes in planning decisions. Furthermore, we were given not so much as an assurance, but every indication that the government would be in a position to introduce that second tranche of legislative changes by the end of this year. I asked today through the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Peter Collier—in these bizarre COVID circumstances— and was referred through three ministers but I got back an answer. I asked very clearly: What is the content or proposed content? Has permission to draft been received? When might the bill be brought forward? I was referred to the reform plan, without any reference to the content, and told that the government will not be introducing new legislation prior to the end of this year. That might surprise everybody here, considering the management effectiveness of government legislation that we have experienced in the last few weeks. I did not expect that any new legislation would be introduced this year. Nevertheless, the minister cannot give any guarantee that she is dealing with community engagement improvements or consultation improvements in any meaningful sense. Unfortunately, she is confirming a bias that many in the community hold that the planning system and the planning minister serve only the big end of town and completely disregard the community.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6341

DOGS IN POLITICS DAY Statement HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [6.51 pm]: Very briefly, today is national Dogs in Politics Day, so I want to make a very short statement. This tradition goes back to the 1950s. Today is a special day for all our hounds. As a regional member, it is great for me to get home at the end of each long week, whether it has been a good week or a not-so-good week, and have Buddy West and Jess West come bounding out to welcome me. I give them a pat and am happy to be around the dogs. All members and staff—everyone involved in the political process—should go home and give their dogs a pat tonight because today is national Dogs in Politics Day. The PRESIDENT: Members, I have two messages, so you will not be going home to the dogs too soon! ANIMAL WELFARE AND TRESPASS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2020 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Agriculture and Food), read a first time. Second Reading HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [6.52 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. This government is committed to the Animal Welfare and Trespass Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. The bill will amend three primary acts: the Western Australian Criminal Code, the WA Restraining Orders Act 1997 and the WA Animal Welfare Act 2002. This bill has been prepared in response to a number of incidents occurring nationally and across our state when people have trespassed on land used for commercial animal food production, and interfered with those businesses, purportedly to draw attention to inhumane animal husbandry practices, of which they disapprove. The unlawful behaviour of these people is not acceptable to the WA community. There is a clear need to protect our agricultural sector, and in particular, regional farming families from the adverse economic, biosecurity and personal effects of this type of trespass. What is also evident is that the WA community cares very strongly about animal welfare. There is a clear need to maintain community confidence in the animal welfare practices employed by our agricultural sector. High consumer confidence in animal welfare has the added benefit of securing the long-term viability of commercial animal food production. The bill responds to these complex issues by bringing together a number of law reform measures in a single package. I will address each of these in turn, starting with the reforms set out in parts 3 and 4 of the bill. The amendments to the Criminal Code and the Restraining Orders Act are aimed at deterring trespass on land used for animal-source food production. The bill increases the applicable criminal penalties and improves accessibility to misconduct restraining orders in specific circumstances. The current maximum penalty for trespass under section 70A of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of $12 000. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to provide for circumstances of aggravation when in the course of or as a result of the trespass on an animal-source food production place, an offender interferes with, or intends to interfere with, animal-source food production; or assaults, intimidates or harasses, or intends to assault, intimidate or harass, a person in the context of their engagement in animal-source food production or a family member of the person. That the trespass occurred on an animal-source food production place is a key element of the aggravated offence. This is defined to mean an abattoir, a knackery or an animal-source food production facility, and is intended to capture traditional family animal farms, piggeries, poultry barns, feedlots, abattoirs and knackeries. Finally, the offence must be committed in circumstances of aggravation. The first circumstance of aggravation is that the person has interfered with animal-source food production. This includes negatively impacting biosecurity, damaging or stealing property, or releasing or causing animals to escape. The second circumstance of aggravation is that the trespasser intimidates, harasses or assaults a person engaged in animal-source food production or a family member of such a person. The reference to “family members” recognises the reality that farms are often family homes as well as commercial operations. This circumstance of aggravation applies only when the intimidation, harassment or assault occurs in the context of the person’s engagement in animal-source food production. This is designed to exclude disputes of a purely personal nature. This offence has been narrowly framed with the deliberate intent of minimising the risk of unintended impacts. The amendments introduced by this bill are not aimed at stifling protest; instead, they are intended to deter or prevent trespass that has an adverse effect on relevant commercial operations or that unreasonably targets persons engaged in such operations. It is also important to note that the new offence contained in this bill does not propose to expand the circumstances in which a person commits the offence of trespass. When a person has a lawful right to access land or to enter property, the offence of trespass is not committed and the proposed circumstances of aggravation do

6342 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] not apply. This principle applies in the industrial context; for example, a person exercising the right of entry under division 2G of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Act 1997 or parts 3 and 4 of the commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 does not commit trespass and will therefore not be affected by the new measures. The government has been very considered in the drafting of this new offence to ensure that it is appropriately directed. The proposed maximum penalty for the new offence of aggravated trespass is two years’ imprisonment and a fine of $24 000. This is double the usual maximum penalty for trespass. If a court does not impose a term of imprisonment, it must impose a minimum penalty of a community service order and a fine of at least $2 400, unless exceptional circumstances exist. A community order made pursuant to the minimum penalty must contain a direction prohibiting the offender from attending specified places—for example, animal farms—and require that the offender undertake unpaid community service. A person who commits another offence while subject to a community order and who breaches a condition of the community order may be resentenced for the original offence. This will allow penalties to be escalated for repeat offending to the maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a $24 000 fine. In addition to the harsher penalties available under the proposed new Criminal Code offence, part 4 of the bill amends the Restraining Orders Act to make it easier for a person who has been, or may in the future be, affected by aggravated trespass to obtain the protection of a misconduct restraining order. I now turn to the amendments to the Animal Welfare Act contained in part 2 of the bill. The Animal Welfare Act creates powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of investigating animal cruelty. At present, these powers do not allow for the implementation of a monitoring program and permit only general inspectors to enter a place either by consent or when the inspector reasonably suspects that an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed. These powers are inadequate to meet the community’s expectations; namely, that the appropriate authorities have and exercise the necessary powers to monitor for compliance with welfare standards in animal-source food production. The powers-of-entry provisions in this bill are limited to designated inspectors employed by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development and may be exercised only when monitoring activities in abattoirs, knackeries and intensive production places. An “intensive production place” is defined to mean a non-residential place where intensive production is carried out. This definition will ensure that the powers of a designated inspector do not extend to a residence. Limiting the powers of entry in reference to intensive production places, abattoirs and knackeries will also help ensure that inspectors are targeted towards higher risk production methods. This specifically excludes extensive farming operations for which grazing is a key component of the animal food production system. The proposed amendments will provide a level of assurance to concerned members of the public that animal welfare standards in these types of establishments can be properly monitored by the appropriate authorities. Taken together, these reforms address the difficult question of how best to encourage transparency in and extend protections to commercial animal farming operations. The vast majority of Western Australians do not want to see animals mistreated. However, we equally do not support the activities of those who trespass on agricultural land, causing distress to the animals, farmers and their families, as well as negatively impacting on biosecurity. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party; nor does this bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. I commend the bill to the house and I table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 4321.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS REPEAL BILL 2019 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development), read a first time. Second Reading HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [7.03 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce the Sunday Entertainments Repeal Bill 2019. The bill will repeal the Sunday Entertainments Act 1979 of Western Australia, which restricts the keeping, opening or use of premises for paid public entertainment or amusement on Sundays, Christmas Day or Good Friday unless the minister has issued a permit or granted a general exemption to allow a place to open on those days. Since 1979, ministers of successive governments have granted permanent exemptions for paid entertainment on Sundays and short-term exemptions on Christmas Day and Good Friday, and published exclusion notices in the Government Gazette to allow cinemas, sporting events, live music performances, carnivals, festivals and the like to operate. Requests for exemptions or permits are not contested

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6343 and are granted as a matter of routine. In recent years, most applications for short-term exemptions are to allow cinemas, ice rinks, snooker centres, Easter carnivals and sporting events, which provide for paid entertainment, to operate on Good Friday. In 2019, an AFL match, featuring the West Coast Eagles, was held on Good Friday, with over 40 000 spectators in attendance. The process of having to apply for an exemption places an unnecessary administrative burden on business and government resources. Additional financial costs arise because there is a requirement to publish permits and exemption notices in the Government Gazette. Through Streamline WA, the McGowan government has made a commitment to improve the quality of regulation and remove regulation that is no longer relevant. The Sunday Entertainments Act is out of step with contemporary community practices and attitudes towards holding paid entertainment, sports events and amusements on these days. In summary, the act is no longer relevant and should be repealed. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party; nor does this bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. I commend the bill to the house and I table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 4322.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. House adjourned at 7.06 pm ______

6344 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

REGIONAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM — FUNDING 3101. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the media statement 22 June 2020 ‘WA’s biggest-ever regional road safety initiative’, and I ask: (a) will the Minister please provide a funding breakdown for each of the projects listed in the media statement; (b) which of the listed projects will take place in 2020–21; (c) is the States $20 million contribution all from the Road Trauma Trust Account; (d) if no to (c), please advise other source of funding; (e) which of the projects listed are shovel ready; and (f) how many of the listed projects will be awarded to local contractors? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) The allocation for each project is as follows:

Road Allocation Albany–Lake Grace Highway $5M (approx. 50 km) Albany Highway $4.6M (approx. 50 km near Kojonup & between Mount Barker & Albany) South Coast Highway $0.48M (approx. 5 km between Albany & King River) South Western Highway $0.60M (approx. 20 km in length, west of Albany) Albany Highway $1.4M (approx. 15 km length immediately south of the dual carriageway near Bedfordale) Great Eastern Highway $4.2M (approx. 35 km section east of Ghooli) Brookton Highway $7.8M (approx. 90 km section west of Brookton) Goomalling–Merredin Road $4.3M (approx. 40 km section) Great Eastern Highway $5.9M (approx. 90 km section between Kellerberrin and Walgoolan) Northam–Cranbrook Road $4.3M (section of approx. 30 km) Northam–Toodyay Road $1.1M (section of approx. 20 km) York–Merredin Road $2.8M (section of approx. 45 km) Boyanup–Picton Road $0.60M (section of approx. 10 km) Collie Mumballup Road $0.39M (section of approx. 6 km) Coalfields Highway $0.46M (section of approx. 10 km between Roelands and Worsley) South Western Highway $4.67M (various sections totalling approx. 90 km) Eyre Highway $1.2M (installation of approx. 240 km of audible edge lines east of Norseman)

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6345

Great Northern Highway $11.9M (sections totalling approx. 100 km) Brand Highway $3.2M (30 km section between Cooljarloo and Badgingarra) Indian Ocean Drive $2.5M (section totalling approx. 30 km) Burkett Road $4.7M (approx. 75 km between North West Coastal Highway & Minilya–Exmouth Road) Great Northern Highway $8M (sections totalling around 75 km) Great Northern Highway $8.6M (section of approx. 70 km west of Newman) Point Sampson Road $1.7M (section of approx. 15 km between Point Sampson and North West Coastal Highway) Northam–Cranbrook Road $2.75M (section of approx. 20 km between Broomehill–Jerramungup Road and Tambellup) Albany Highway $8.5M (approx. 100 km section north of Williams) Sues Road $3.6M (sections totally approx. 50 km) Muir Highway $0.75M (10 km section west of Albany Highway) Broc kman Highway $1.84M (sections totally approx. 25 km) Vasse Road $3.1M (various sections totalling approx. 50 km) (b) It is planned to commence all of the projects during 2020/21. (c) Yes. (d) Not applicable. (e) All of the projects are shovel ready. (f) All of the projects will be delivered by Western Australia based contractors. POLICE — BREATH AND DRUG-TESTING VEHICLES 3129. Hon Martin Aldridge to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the Minister’s media statement of 12 July 2020 entitled ‘New mini booze buses to hit the streets’, and I ask: (a) what was the estimated cost of replacing the full size ‘Breath and Drug Bus 2’; (b) how many full size breath and drug buses are in service; (c) how many smaller breath and drug vans are in service; (d) when are the remaining buses or vans due for replacement; and (e) on how many occasions have the buses or vans been deployed into regional Western Australia? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: The Western Australian Police Force advise: (a) The cost of replacing the full size ‘Breath and Drug Bus 2’ with two smaller Breath and Drug Vans was $0.65 million (excluding GST). The estimated cost for replacing ‘Breath and Drug Bus 2’ with another full size bus is $1.3 million. (b) 3 (c) 2 (d) Bus 1 (full size): 2020–21 Bus 2 (small van): Subject to small vehicle replacement of 120 000 kilometres

6346 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

Bus 3 (full size): 2022–23 Bus 4 (full size): 2022–23 (estimate) Bus 5 (small van): Subject to small vehicle replacement of 120 000 kilometres. (e) FY 2019–20: 20 regional deployments. COMMUNITY SERVICES — CENTRAL INTAKE TEAM — DUTY CALLS 3132. Hon Alison Xamon to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Community Services: How many duty calls did the Department of Communities Central Intake Team receive in: (a) May 2020; (b) June 2020; and (c) July 2020? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) 2,971 (b) 2,630 (c) 2,354 MENTAL HEALTH — EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS 3133. Hon Alison Xamon to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health: How many mental health emergency department presentations were there in: (a) May 2020; (b) June 2020; and (c) July 2020? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: I am advised: (a) 4,966 (b) 5,073 (c) 5,345 POLICE — MENTAL HEALTH CO-RESPONSE SERVICE 3134. Hon Alison Xamon to the minister representing the Minister for Police: How many mental health co-response service contacts were there in: (a) May 2020; (b) June 2020; and (c) July 2020? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: The Western Australian Police Force advise: In April 2019, the Mental Health Co-Response expanded to four mobile teams operating across the metropolitan area. (a) May 2020, 1935 (b) June 2020, 1878 (c) July 2020, 2123 LEGAL AFFAIRS — OBSOLETE LEGISLATION 3139. Hon Nick Goiran to the Leader of the House representing the Attorney General: I refer to the Attorney General’s advice in 2018 to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, that the Department of Justice had resumed carriage of the repeal of obsolete legislation, which had previously been overseen by the Department of Finance and I ask, which of the statutes identified in Appendix 7 of the Committee’s Interim Report 79 fall into each the categories identified in Table 1 on page 10 of Report 124? Hon Sue Ellery replied: I direct the Member to please see the tabled paper. [See tabled paper no 4318.]

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020] 6347

COMMUNITY SERVICES — HOMESTEAD FOR YOUTH 3140. Hon Nick Goiran to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection; Women’s Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services: I refer to an article entitled “Days to save refuge – Plea to save farm” in The Coastal Times on 8 July 2020, and I ask: (a) does the Department of Communities currently fund Homestead for Youth; (b) has the Department previously funded Homestead for Youth; and (c) has the Department referred young people/families to Homestead for Youth for services or accommodation: (i) if no to (c), why not? Hon Sue Ellery replied: (a) No. (b) No. (c) Yes. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT — BILATERAL APPROVAL AGREEMENT 3141. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the establishment of a bilateral approval agreement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the interim report of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 review and noting the Minister’s answer to question without notice 791, asked in the Legislative Council on 18 August 2020, and I ask: (a) can the Minister please provide the dates of any discussions with Federal Minister Ley about establishing a bilateral approval agreement between Western Australia and New South Wales; (b) when did the Western Australian Government start seeking advice from its departments about the drafting of such an agreement: (i) will the Minister please table a list of the departments referred to at (b), including the date at which a given department was first contacted; (c) is the Minister aware that the Premier of Western Australia wrote to the Prime Minister, in November 2019, asking for a bilateral approval agreement: (i) when was the Minister made aware of this letter; and (ii) what were the outcomes of this correspondence as they relate to the establishment of a bilateral approval agreement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and (d) did the Minister undertake any correspondence on the subject, at either federal or state level, before 10 August 2020: (i) if yes to (d), will the Minister please provide a list of correspondents and accompanying date(s)? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) I have not raised the establishment of bilateral approval agreement between Western Australia and New South Wales with anyone. The establishment of an approvals bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia has been raised on a number of occasions. The McGowan Government is a strong advocate for the establishment of a bilateral approval agreement with the Commonwealth. The State Government has been undertaking assessments on behalf of the Commonwealth through a bilateral assessment agreement since 2014. An approval agreement will result in an average six-month reduction in decision-making timeframes and given that we have some of the best environmental assessment practices in the country, it makes sense that the State Government is able to assess and approve projects. (b) My office first sought advice from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation in September 2019. I note that in 2014 the Commonwealth and previous State Government sought to establish bilateral approval agreement with a draft being released for public consultation. (c) Yes. (i) I was aware of the letter around the time that it was sent. (ii) The key outcome of the correspondence is that the Commonwealth and Western Australian Government are currently working on a draft bilateral approval agreement for public consultation.

6348 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 September 2020]

(d) Yes. (i) I undertook formal correspondence on this matter on: 11 March 2020 – correspondence was received from Hon Sussan Ley MP, Minister for the Environment, and Hon Ben Morton MP, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 30 April 2020 – I wrote to Federal Minister for the Environment, Hon Sussan Ley MP and the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Hon Ben Morton MP. 26 May 2020 – correspondence was received from Hon Sussan Ley MP, Minister for the Environment. 31 July 2020 – two pieces of correspondence were received from Hon Sussan Ley MP, Minister for the Environment. McGOWAN GOVERNMENT — FRASER INSTITUTE 3143. Hon Robin Chapple to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the Premier’s media statement on 10 August 2020, titled “Agreement to streamline environmental approvals given green light”, noting the specific reference to an award from the Fraser Institute regarding mining exploration, and to environmental approvals generally, and I ask: (a) given the Fraser Institute advocates for reducing gun control measures, what is the Government’s position on reducing gun control; (b) given the Fraser Institute advocates and establishes pro-tobacco studies, what is the Government’s view on tobacco: (i) will this award from the Fraser Institute impact on the Government’s position to tobacco products; (c) given the Fraser Institute’s denial of climate change, what are the views of this Government on climate change deniers; (d) does the Premier agree with Professor Graeme Samuel’s review of the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, where he cited a need for the “fundamental reform of national environmental law”: (i) if yes to (d), why did this Government accept the award from the Fraser Institute, believing that its own environmental laws needed review; and (ii) if no to (d), why not; and (e) has this Government been in correspondence with the Fraser Institute: (i) regarding this award; (ii) regarding any other matter not relating to the award: (A) if yes to (e)(ii), what was this correspondence regarding; and (iii) will the Minister please table any items relevant to (e)(i)–(ii)? Hon Sue Ellery replied: The Fraser Institute ranked Western Australia as the top resource investment jurisdiction in their annual rankings. I am unaware of any award being given to Western Australia by the Fraser Institute. (a)–(e) Not applicable. ______