Legislative Council

Wednesday, 9 September 2009

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 4.00 pm, and read prayers.

URGENCY MOTIONS — STANDING ORDER 72 Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Further to my statement yesterday regarding urgency motions, I advise the house that in future all urgency motions must be hand-delivered either to me or, if I am unavailable, to the Clerk on the day the urgency motion is to be debated. Faxed or emailed urgency motions will not be accepted unless they are hand-delivered by the member or the member’s staff. I hope that clarifies the matter for members. MANDURAH-ENTRANCE ROAD PROJECT Statement by Minister for Transport HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [4.02 pm]: On Friday, 4 September, works commenced on the $155 million Mandurah-Entrance Road project. This project, which is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, involves the construction of around 6.7 kilometres of four- lane dual carriageway, providing a safe and efficient road link between Mandurah and the Kwinana Freeway extension, which itself will open later this month. At the peak of construction, the project will employ up to 200 people, creating employment opportunities and stimulating commercial activity in the area through the supply of goods and services. Construction of the Mandurah-Entrance Road is being started some 12 months ahead of schedule and will ensure the long-term safety of and access for motorists to and from Mandurah, one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. In addition to bringing the project forward a year, an earlier proposal to complete only a single lane for much of the route has given way to a determination to fully develop the link from the start. Further to providing a full four- lane dual carriageway, the government will build a 170-metre extension to the existing Mandurah rail tunnel and a new 220-metre rail tunnel. The project will also deliver great benefits for motorists with five kilometres being shaved off the distance travelled between Mandurah and the Kwinana Freeway extension, resulting in a five- minute time saving for motorists. It will provide a safe and efficient link for commuters, as well as better access for residential communities located to the east in Stake Hill. The Mandurah-Entrance Road project is scheduled for completion in 2010. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. VERVE ENERGY — OATES REPORT Statement by Minister for Energy HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Energy) [4.04 pm]: The long-term security and reliability of electricity supply is a critical issue for the Liberal-National government. We must get the basics right to ensure the lights stay on before we can move Western Australia’s energy sector forward. One of the first major steps we need to take in this direction is to arrest the slide of Verve Energy’s financial performance. In the three full financial years prior to disaggregation, Western Power Corporation achieved a total-profit-before-tax result of almost $1 billion. In the three years post disaggregation, the four combined electricity entities achieved a forecast profit result of $47 million. This is a deterioration of almost $1 billion in profitability. Last year this left us with the reality that a subsidy of $1.5 billion would be required over three years from 2009-10 to maintain the viability of Verve Energy. The Liberal-National government, on behalf of the taxpayers of Western Australia, cannot continue to subsidise Verve’s losses. Ensuring Verve Energy is a vibrant operator that is in a strong financial position is essential for the long-term economic growth of WA. Although non-cost-reflective tariffs have contributed significantly to Verve’s financial position, the design of the market and current vesting contract arrangements have also had a significant negative impact on Verve’s performance. However, it is not acceptable to simply increase tariffs to resolve Verve’s financial position. The underlying causes of the utility’s financial performance must be addressed. Earlier this year, I appointed Mr Peter Oates to undertake a review of Verve’s financial position and performance, and to present options to address these issues. Today I table a report of Mr Oates’ review, a copy of which is also available on the Office of Energy website. The review identified a number of key factors driving the need for change, including — problems with the wholesale electricity market design that impact reliability, competition, cost efficiency and investment;

6550 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

the existence of excess capacity in the market, which has stranded some of Verve Energy’s most efficient baseload plant; and the complexity of the vesting contract and the impaired capacity of Verve Energy to manage its financial position, given the lack of visibility and control that it has over its revenue under the vesting contract. One of the options presented to address these problems was in relation to the structure of Verve Energy and Synergy, including merging the two entities or retaining the existing structure. After consideration of both Mr Oates’ review and the views expressed by stakeholders in the energy sector, I recently announced that the Liberal-National government would not remerge Verve and Synergy. However, significant changes to the market rules and vesting contract will be required. The report outlines a number of recommendations related to the need to address market design issues, improve reliability arrangements and amend the vesting contract arrangements. Implementing the review’s recommendations will go a long way to improving Verve Energy’s financial position, while also increasing the use of state-owned generation assets and ensuring market arrangements support reliability, competition and cost efficiency. Recommendations of the review will be implemented by Mr Oates, the Office of Energy and the Independent Market Operator. During the implementation phase, there will be significant consultation with industry stakeholders through the market rule amendment process. As the Minister for Energy, I have to ensure that we take corrective measures to deliver secure, efficient and reliable electricity supply. It is essential that we get the fundamentals of the electricity system right so that we can establish the foundations for a cleaner, smarter and more efficient energy system. It is our responsibility as a government to deliver a reliable electricity supply going forward, and to protect the interests of consumers and the future economic development of Western Australia. The Liberal-National government believes that implementing the necessary changes identified by the Oates’ review is a significant element to achieving this important objective. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. [See paper 1118.] METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1160/41 — HELENA VALLEY Statement by Minister for Child Protection HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West — Minister for Child Protection) [4.08 pm]: I present today for tabling “Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1160/41”, which will facilitate the residential development of approximately 29.65 hectares of land in Helena Valley. The MRS amendment is consistent with the approved foothills structure plan, which sets out strategic planning for the broader area, and this amendment is now implementing the recommendations of this plan. The structure plan designates the subject land for future urban purposes and is the final area of land designed for urban use in the eastern portion of Helena Valley. The subject land is relatively unconstrained for the movement of the development front. The proposed amendment consolidates, rather than extends, the existing urban front in this locality. The amendment area is well located in relation to the Midland regional centre, Perth Airport and the Hazelmere and Welshpool industrial areas. Furthermore, this amendment will assist with land and housing availability in the foothills area with approximately 220 lots ranging in size from 270 square metres to 1 000 square metres. An important component of this amendment is that it defines the boundary between the urban zone and the Helena River foreshore. There is currently no foreshore reserve or public access to this section of Helena River. Lots 212, 213 and 214 have unrestricted access to Helena River. The setback to the Helena River foreshore has been carefully determined in consultation with the Shire of Mundaring, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Planning. It is proposed that the foreshore reserve retain significant remnant vegetation and topographical features. It is envisaged that the foreshore reserve will become publicly accessible. The Helena River foreshore is to be reserved as a parks and recreation area in a future metropolitan region scheme amendment. This will provide for a continuous foreshore reserve along Helena River, providing a connection from the Kalamunda National Park to the Swan River. In accordance with the statutory provisions for region scheme amendments, this amendment was advertised for three months between 2008 and 2009. Thirteen submissions were received in total. Two submissions contained comments of support, three submissions contained comments of objection, and eight submissions contained general comments. As a result of submissions and hearings, minor modifications were made to the amendment. The Western Australian Planning Commission considered that readvertising of the amendment was not necessary given the minor nature of the changes. I am pleased to now table the documentation for metropolitan region scheme amendment 1160/41. I commend it to the house.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6551

[See papers 1119, 1120A and 1120B.] Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES — STANDING ORDERS REVIEW Notice of Motion Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House) gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — (1) That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges be required to undertake a comprehensive review of the standing orders of the house with a view to modernising the procedures of the house. (2) The committee is to report to the house not later than 2 March 2010. NOT-FOR-PROFIT SECTOR — GOVERNMENT SUPPORT Amendment to Motion Resumed from 20 August on the following motion moved by Hon Sue Ellery (Leader of the Opposition) — That this house notes the changing demands for assistance on the Western Australian not-for-profit sector and calls on the Barnett government to ensure the sector has appropriate resources and capacity to meet demand. to which the following amendment was moved by Hon Robyn McSweeney (Minister for Child Protection) — To delete all words after “notes the” and insert — impact that the global financial crisis is having upon the community, and notes the government’s continued work towards providing appropriate resources to the not-for-profit sector. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [4.15 pm]: I do not intend to speak for long. I have previously spoken to the substantive motion and made comments on the amendment before us as moved by Hon Robyn McSweeney. The amendment that stands before us intends to change the intent of the substantive motion moved by Hon Sue Ellery. My concern about it aiming to do so is largely based on the fact that the emphasis put forward by the Minister for Child Protection is that the global financial crisis is to blame for the lack of funding to the not-for- profit sector and the increase in demand for services provided by the not-for-profit sector; therefore, the government should be shielded and that is where its responsibility stops. In other words, the government should not do anything over and above what it has already done in dealing with the allocation of funding for the not-for- profit sector. We know there has been a growth in demand. We know that the amount allocated to the not-for- profit sector has not grown. We know that the demand for services provided by the not-for-profit sector far outstrips supply. This is concerning to us. I do not think that the amendment moved by Hon Robyn McSweeney sits particularly well with the substantive motion that was moved by Hon Sue Ellery. The substantive motion really aimed to get to the heart of this issue; that is, we wanted the house to note that there has been an increase in the demand for assistance from the Western Australian not-for-profit sector. The motion also calls on this government to ensure that the sector has appropriate resources and capacity to meet demand. The situation will only get worse before it gets better. We know that many people in the community are doing it tough. We know that 40 000 people have lost their jobs. We know that those people also have other people who depend on them. We know that the government also has problems with growing debt and has some limitations on its capacity to fund, but we believe that the government has got its priorities wrong. We are seeing a government that is absolutely obsessed with things like the splitting up of agencies, the creation of new agencies and so on. It has no problems with advertising and no problems with new signage, new letterheads, new offices and so on. At the same time we have this very real problem in the community of people doing it really tough. There has been little recognition of this fact by this government, as is reflected in the lack of any funding allocation growth for the not-for-profit sector to deal with that increase in demand for services. I do not think there is a person in this place who would argue that the not-for-profit sector does not do a good job. I think it is recognised by all of us in this place that the not-for-profit sector is a very broad church. It offers a range of services to all sorts of people, irrespective of where they come from, irrespective of their religious backgrounds, irrespective of their socioeconomic standing and so on. Not-for-profit organisations really do a

6552 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] wonderful job. We think it is beholden on government that this sector is appropriately resourced. We do not believe that the amendment before us actually sits well with the intent of the original motion. I really do not want to say any more because I know that other speakers will follow. Therefore, I conclude my remarks on the note that I urge the government to actually get its priorities right to ensure that it appropriately resources the not-for- profit sector, and to do the right thing by the people who rely so much on that sector for all their assistance. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [4.21 pm]: I rise, if I may, to do a two-for-the-price-of-one contribution to not only indicate my opposition to the amendment, but also give my right of reply to the substantive motion before us. The prosecution of the case for why the house should accept the amendment moved by the minister has been somewhat flimsy. I have not heard anyone actually put a case about what is offensive in the wording of the substantive motion. What the substantive motion goes to is really given in two parts. The first part of the motion states — That this house notes the changing demands for assistance on the Western Australian not-for-profit sector — Have we heard anything from the minister or indeed the government members who spoke that challenges the notion that there is changing demand on the not-for-profit sector? No. The second part of the motion states — and calls on the Barnett government to ensure the sector has appropriate resources and capacity to meet demand. I will come back in a minute to the government’s response to that part of the motion, but really the only direct response to that was in the comments made by Hon Helen Morton, who said that she could not support that part of the motion—I am paraphrasing her—because it was not practical. Therefore, it is not practical to ensure that the sector has appropriate—I did not put a number next to it; I simply said appropriate—resources to meet demand. That is really the only contribution from the government about what it is that might be offensive in the wording of the motion before the house today. That being the case, I cannot see anything put forward by the government about what is offensive in the wording of my motion. In fact, if we wanted to be incredibly technical about it, I could have accepted the government’s amendment to my motion; we could have found some compromise in a form of words. However, I do not think it is really necessary for us to do that because I think the debate will reflect for the sector, which will look to this debate, exactly where everybody stands on this issue. It is pretty clear really. For the first part of the proposition that I put to the house—that is, that we note the changing demand—what I tried to do for the benefit of the house was refer to a number of reports that document that changing demand as a direct consequence of the global financial crisis and the economic downturn that occurred subsequently. I referred to five reports in my comments, and another report has been published in just the last 10 days or so, which I will also refer the house to. In my comments in support of the proposition that there is changing demand on the not-for-profit sector, I referred to the report titled “managing in a downturn”, which is a comprehensive survey of the impact of the economic downturn on not-for-profit organisations. It is a joint report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Fundraising Institute Australia and The Centre for Social Impact, released in July 2009. I referred also to the report “‘How many wheelchairs can you push at once?’—Productivity in the community service organisation sector in Victoria”, and I think Hon Lynn MacLaren referred to that report as well. It was prepared by the Allen Consulting Group as a report to the Victorian Council of Social Service, published in December 2008. I also referred to the report “The impact of the global financial crisis on social services in Australia”, an issues paper prepared by Access Economics for Anglicare Australia, Catholic Social Services Australia, the Salvation Army and UnitingCare Australia, which was published in November 2008. I also referred to the report “The Impact of Economic Recession on Nonprofit Organisations”, a briefing paper that was prepared by Peter Shergold of the Australian Centre for Social Impact, which was published in June 2009. I also referred to “The Rising Cost of Living in Western Australia”, which was prepared by the Western Australian Council of Social Service. It is a document that has been produced since 2006 and it tracks the changes in typical living expenses against increases in the token family income as a chosen measure of the rising cost of living. Those calculations showed that the token family continues to fall further behind as its living expenses increase by considerably more than its income. That report was published in August 2009. Today I also want to refer to the report titled “Impact of the economic downturn on not-for-profit organisation management”. The final report was published in June 2009 and was prepared by the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs for the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The federal government used the release of this report as a reason for the injection of additional funds it has made in the past 10 days to the not-for-profit sector as a direct consequence of that government’s recognition of the effects that the economic downturn is having on the sector. It is quite a useful document because it summarises all the points that I had drawn out of the other five documents that I referred to when I was putting the case that the house

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6553 ought to note the impact the changing demand for assistance has on the Western Australian not-for-profit sector. The executive summary provides a useful highlight of all the issues that were raised in those other reports that I referred to earlier. It states — The global economic downturn has resulted in a substantial increase in demand for community services contributing to resourcing pressures for the not-for-profit (NFP) sector. At the same time, many not-for-profit organisations face budget constraints from lower returns on investment funds, tightening corporate budgets and less funding from philanthropic trusts and foundations, major donors and community giving. With forecasts of slower growth in Australia over 2009 and 2010, the immediate concern for the sector is the impact on unemployment. As unemployment rises, not-for-profit organisations report an increase in Australians who are under financial stress and seeking support in areas such as emergency relief, employment services, housing assistance, financial counselling and other counselling services. The point that I made in my contribution in support of the motion was that in respect of unemployment, in particular, all the research that has been done around the effect of economic downturns shows that unemployment is the social impact that lingers beyond the point that the economy starts to turn around. There is a lag, if we like, between when the economy starts to turn and when families cease to be affected by unemployment and therefore cease to need the extra services provided by the not-for-profit sector. The Centre for Corporate Public Affairs’ report went on to state — This report examines the impact of the economic downturn on NFP operations in Australia. It captures the current impact on funding, services, management of operations, staff and volunteers, as well as the impact on relationships with major donors, philanthropic trusts and foundations, business partners and government. It also looked at expectation for the year ahead and the uncertainty facing many not-for-profit organisations. What I tried to do in referring to the other five reports, and most recently to that report, was to demonstrate that there is changing demand. I was somewhat surprised at the level of incisive response from the Minister for Child Protection on the proposition of the changing demands on the sector, given what I had laid out across a number of reports from well-respected organisations. What was the minister’s incisive analysis on changing demands on the sector? The minister said — This motion refers to changing demands. There has always been demand. That is the extent of the analysis provided by the minister on the proposition in the first part of my motion that — Hon Robyn McSweeney: Your government was so perfect with the non-government sector! Go back eight years! Hon SUE ELLERY: The motion sets out the proposition that as a direct consequence of the global financial crisis, which was certainly not her government’s fault — Hon Robyn McSweeney: A view that was contradicted by Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich! Hon SUE ELLERY: — but as a direct consequence of something that has happened since the minister came into government, demand has changed. Nothing in the motion attacks the government, and quite deliberately so. Nothing in my contribution to the debate has attacked the government. Indeed, I commended the government on the commitments it has made in the Economic Audit Committee’s discussion paper — Hon Robyn McSweeney: Good. Hon SUE ELLERY: — about ways of improving relationships between government and the non-government sector. I said in my remarks that I looked forward to seeing what those changes might be. However, as the person in the government charged with the responsibility of being, if one likes, the advocate within government on behalf of the sector that she deals with, I would have expected the minister would provide a slightly more sophisticated analysis than, “… demands. There has always been demand.” I quite deliberately provided five reports, and the minister could have taken issue with any of them. She could have said that there is no point in referring to that report because it is about Victoria, or that the circumstances in the Western Australian economy are slightly different because of X or Y. There was none of that. What we got was the minister stating — This motion refers to changing demands. There has always been demand. Hon Robyn McSweeney: That is right.

6554 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Hon SUE ELLERY: I think that is a shameful analysis and a shameful response to the proposition that the house needs to note the changing demands on the not-for-profit sector. The proposition that we should then support an amendment because there is something that is deficient in my motion is somewhat laughable because the minister has not been able to prosecute the case. First, the minister acknowledged the changing demands! Secondly, there are various issues in the reports — Hon Robyn McSweeney: You are very selective in what you are reading, aren’t you? Yes, you are! Hon SUE ELLERY: No, I am not because I searched the minister’s entire speech trying to find where she referred to any analysis of change in demand. There were two sentences — This motion refers to changing demands. There has always been demand. That is the extent of the minister’s analysis! The rest of that speech was about a separate matter that Hon Helen Morton touched on; that is about correspondence sent by me—it had nothing to do with this motion—to community organisations about a budget line item. I will come to that in a minute. The contribution made by Hon Helen Morton on the motion was a bit more sophisticated than the minister’s in that she did go to the proposition that in a time of economic downturn, it is important that government look at ways of ensuring that the organisations that it funds — Hon Robyn McSweeney: And I told you exactly how we are doing that. Hon SUE ELLERY: The minister needs to re-read her speech. Hon Helen Morton’s comments went to the importance, in a time of economic downturn, of government improving efficiencies in its relationship with the not-for-profit sector. The comments that Hon Helen Morton made about why the government would not be supporting my motion was something along the lines that it is just not practical. The next speaker from the government was Hon Wendy Duncan, who listed in her speech a number of financial contributions that had been made to a range of worthy organisations, as did — Hon Robyn McSweeney: Are they the same organisations you wrote to and told they would have their funding cut? Hon SUE ELLERY: That has nothing to do with the motion, but I will come to that part of the minister’s speech in a minute. I look forward to that. Hon Wendy Duncan mentioned funds made available by the government to a range of worthy organisations, and I commend the funds being made available to those organisations. I take no issue with that. However, in that speech Hon Wendy Duncan did not acknowledge the notion in the motion that we need to acknowledge that the demands change as a consequence of the economic downturn. I have heard no argument, except the oblique reference by Hon Helen Morton, that government should not ensure that that sector should have appropriate resources and capacity. Hon Robyn McSweeney: And that is why we put up electricity and — Hon SUE ELLERY: Which were already in place! The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Child Protection wants to make a further contribution to this debate, which I do not think she is able to do actually, but she is certainly not able to contribute by continuous interjection. Hon SUE ELLERY: I thank you very much, Mr President. I appreciate your assistance there, acknowledging, though, that as the sector will be looking at this debate, I encourage the minister—which is very naughty of me, and I should not do it—to make as many contributions as she wants! I disagree with my colleague Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, who said that the minister is uncaring. I do not think that that is the case at all. I think the minister does care about the work she does and the organisations that she works with. I think she is a sympathetic and empathetic person; however, the measure of her success as a minister is the outcomes for the organisations she works with and advocates on behalf of, and how she translates that sympathy and empathy into better outcomes for those organisations and how the budget for the areas in her portfolio result in better outcomes for those organisations as well. On that measure, the minister is somewhat lacking. Hon Robyn McSweeney: Criticising the minister — that is rude! How disgusting! Hon SUE ELLERY: Where is the rebuttal—other than a continuing background noise—about not liking my comment of her sophisticated analysis? Hon Robyn McSweeney: I never said that. Hon SUE ELLERY: I will say it one more time because I really like saying it. In response to my motion about the analysis of changing demands on the sector, according to Minister McSweeney — This motion refers to changing demands. There has always been demand.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6555

In response to five reports that set out how the economic downturn in Australia, and in Western Australia as well, was having a direct impact not just on increased demand for services but also on the capacity of those organisations to generate their own funds because of the impact in the first place on their own investment portfolios and then their ability to attract additional funds from the corporate sector, which is caught up in the economic downturn, what we get is — Hon Robyn McSweeney: Why didn’t you give them more funds? Hon SUE ELLERY: The economic downturn occurred on the minister’s watch. Hon Robyn McSweeney: For eight years — The PRESIDENT: Order! A former President in this place had an old saying that members might not necessarily have liked what another member was saying or necessarily have agreed with what he or she was saying, but members had to listen to what that member was saying. This is an essential part of this chamber. Could we do it without continuous interjections? I think members know what I mean. Hon SUE ELLERY: Thank you very much, Mr President. In respect to the amendment, the question I needed to answer for myself when determining whether or not I would accept the amendment is: has an argument been prosecuted that the original motion is somewhat deficient? The answer to that question is no. I invite members to read the Hansard of the speeches in the debate to date and identify that for themselves, other than those points that I have drawn their attention to so far in that “it is not practical” and “… demands. There has always been demand.” Show me where the minister has prosecuted the case that there is something deficient in the motion that I put before the house. The other area I want to touch on was that the minister and Hon Helen Morton both referred to the notion—I think first raised by the minister—that I had deliberately set out to scare and perhaps mislead. I do not want to put words into the minister’s mouth, but she certainly used the word “scare” community organisations as a consequence of a letter I sent out following a budget decision affecting the Department for Communities. The first point I make is that that actually has nothing to do with the motion before the house, but the minister has placed something on the public record, so I will ensure that I can correct it. I draw the attention of members to the sequence of events that led to that letter and perhaps ask members to contemplate the proposition that sometimes the government can be caught shooting itself in the foot. I begin with page 794 of volume 3 of the 2009-10 Budget Statements. This is the section on the Department for Communities. Under the heading, “3% Efficiency Dividend” there is a line item that reads “Reductions in Non-Government Sector Payments”. The line item sets out reductions of around $300 000 each year to a total of $1.296 million over four years. The first thing we see is a line item in the budget that reads “Reductions in Non-Government Sector Payments”. Interestingly, immediately above that is a line item that reads “Reduction in Administrative Overheads”. The line item reads “Reductions in Non-Government Sector Payments”; it does not read “Reductions as a Consequence of Moving One Set of Programs to Another Department”. I saw that line item and it caused me some concern. In the estimates committee hearings in the other place, questions were asked about that line item. The minister representing the Minister for Child Protection in the other place answered those questions, saying, in part — In relation to the reduction in non-government sector payments under the three per cent efficiency dividend, the Department of Treasury and Finance directed the Department for Communities to enforce a three per cent efficiency dividend, including funding to the non-government sector but excluding grants. The contractual service agreements are in place for all the 205 funded services, the majority of which expire either at the end of September 2009 or September 2010. All these contractual arrangements will be honoured. In April 2009, the Department for Communities commenced a group review of all funded services. The review is focusing on current and future community needs and identifying efficiencies that could be secured in relation to non-government funding. Again, it is not ideal but, to be frank, we have some stringencies in the economic climate in which we find ourselves, and we hope that that has minor or insignificant impacts in the long term. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister for Child Protection, this is the third time I have had to stop proceedings to draw attention to your continuous interjections. They become very tiresome. If other members in this chamber have to abide by those rules, so do you. Hon SUE ELLERY: That was the government’s first response. I was concerned that that first response did not rule out direct cuts to the not-for-profit sector, so I asked two questions of the Minister for Child Protection in this house. I asked the first of those questions on 2 June. In the preamble to the question, I said — I refer to the reduction in expenditure of $1.296 million over four years to the 205 non-government services currently funded by the Department for Communities.

6556 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

I then asked some questions about the timing of the review and engagement with stakeholders, among other things. In her answer, the minister said, in part — The member is assuming that the reduction of $1.296 million over four years will result in a reduction in non-government funding … the review is focusing on current and future community needs and may identify efficiencies that could be secured in relation to non-government funding. … The review will assess each program area to ensure that the future nature and mix of funded services are consistent with current community needs. I asked the minister to provide a table listing the funded organisations, and she did so. I was then concerned that, despite questions being asked in the Legislative Assembly estimates committee, and despite having myself asked two questions in this house trying to identify whether the cuts would apply directly to the funded organisations, I could not get a direct answer. By this point it was June, and I was concerned that those organisations subject to a review beginning in April that they did not know about by June ought to be informed, if not by the government, then by me. So I wrote to those organisations about the reduction in payments to the non-government sector, using the words from the Budget Statements. I attached several things to that letter because I had an inkling that the minister might accuse me of scaremongering. I provided the attachments so that the receivers of the letter could reach their own conclusions about whether I had drawn the right conclusion. I attached the extract from the Budget Statements, showing the line item reading “Reductions in Non-Government Sector Payments”. I attached the extract from Hansard of the minister in the other place, highlighting the paragraph I have already quoted, including the good parts stating that all existing contractual service agreements would be honoured for 2009-10. I attached my question and the minister’s answer, in which it was clear that the minister had not provided a direct answer. The government has had four opportunities to make clear to the agencies listed in the table provided that it did not intend that there would be any direct cuts to non-government organisations. The first opportunity was in the budget itself. It could have used a form of words other than “Reductions in Non-Government Sector Payments”. In the Legislative Assembly estimates committees, the minister was given an opportunity to allay any fears and make it clear to the opposition and the stakeholders that there was absolutely no way there would be cuts to non- government organisations, but that is not what that minister chose to do. I attached his answer to my letter, highlighting the whole paragraph, including the part stating that existing contractual service agreements would be honoured. The Minister for Child Protection had the opportunity, when providing answers to questions I asked in this house, to ensure that her representative in the other place provided a direct answer. The minister and indeed the government had the opportunity when compiling the budget papers to accurately describe that three per cent cut as something other than a reduction in payments to the not-for-profit sector, if that is what it was. Therein lies the lesson in how not to conduct a good publicity exercise in managing a relationship with the not-for-profit sector. Therein lies the lesson about how to shoot oneself in the foot. Hon Robyn McSweeney: I made you look very silly. Hon SUE ELLERY: Seriously, the minister did no such thing; she made herself look very silly, because my letter went out to those 200-odd organisations. I provided them with my conclusion and the material with which they could draw their own conclusions. I mentioned that if they wanted to talk to me about it, I would be happy to meet with them. The minister put me in the position in which I could do that. So, if the minister does not want me to do what she has accused me of doing—scaremongering—I will give the minister a lesson in how she should do that. First, the minister should make sure that the descriptions in the budget do not put her in a position in which people can draw the wrong conclusions about her intentions. Secondly, if the minister wants to ensure that people cannot be scared into thinking that cuts might be made that would affect them, she should have ensured, when she was asked questions in the estimates about that particular budget line item, that she answered those questions directly and said that no cuts would be made that would affect them. Thirdly, the minister should have ensured, when she was asked two questions in her own chamber about what those cuts would mean for the sector, that she also answered those questions directly and said that no cuts would be made to not-for-profit organisations. The minister did not do any of those things at each opportunity that she was given to do those things. Hon Ken Travers: But surely the minister is not going to mislead the house like that? Hon Robyn McSweeney: The contracts have been signed! Hon SUE ELLERY: We now find ourselves in a position where we have been asked to consider an alternate set of words in the motion. However, no-one in the government has been able to make the case that there is something offensive about the words that I have put in the motion. The minister has spent the majority of her time in her speech on this motion talking about material that has been circulated by me about a particular budget line item. That material has nothing to with the issue that is before the house today. It is completely unrelated to

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6557 that issue. I think I have demonstrated clearly that the reason I was able to send that letter and communicate with those organisations is that the government had left itself open to criticism, because the line item in the budget that is described as “Reductions in Non-Government Sector Payments” is, indeed, just that. However, that issue—which took much longer than I had hoped it would because of the interplay—is not the real issue. The real issue is that the government has failed to demonstrate that it recognises that the global financial crisis and the economic downturn has had a significant effect on not-for-profit organisations in Western Australia. The government has failed to recognise the changing demands for assistance on the non-for-profit sector. It is not willing to commit to words that are as broad “to ensure the sector has appropriate resources and capacity to meet demand”. In that sense, I disagree with my colleague Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich. I do not think the issue before us is that we have an uncaring and unsympathetic minister. We clearly have a minister who cannot meet the intellectual challenge of even responding to the notions in the four reports that I have referred to, and who is not able to be an advocate within her own government of the sector that she represents. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon SUE ELLERY: If anyone is going to look silly or stupid in this exercise, minister — Hon Robyn McSweeney: The contracts have been signed! Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes. That is what the minister said she would do, and that is what I put in the material that I sent to the organisations. So, I do not take that away from the minister. The minister in the other place has said that, and the minister has said that in her answer; and I sent that out in my letter. So, I was not deceiving anybody. I said, “Here’s the information that the government has provided, but I still can’t get a direct answer. This is the conclusion that I’ve drawn. What do you folks think about it?” I was able to do that because of the minister’s ineptitude in dealing with this situation. The minister has created this situation herself, and now she is trying to say that I am the one who looks silly. The minister needs to take a big deep breath and think about a different way of doing things in the future, because the sector is judging the minister, and it is not judging her well. Amendment put and passed. Question (motion, as amended) put and passed.

CHILD DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEE — IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Motion HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [4.54 pm]: I move — That this house notes the recommendations of the “Group Analysis of Aboriginal Child Death Review Cases in which Chronic Neglect is Present” report of the Child Death Review Committee and calls on the Minister for Child Protection to provide quarterly reports to the house on the implementation of those recommendations. I will begin by describing to the house the two elements of this motion. I will talk first about the Child Death Review Committee. I will then talk about the work that has been undertaken by that committee on the group analysis report on the circumstances surrounding the death of a number of children. Some members will recall that the Child Death Review Committee was established midway through the term of the Carpenter Labor government as part of the follow-up to the “Inquiry into Responses by Government Agencies to Complaints of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Aboriginal Communities”, known as the Gordon inquiry. That inquiry released a report in July 2002. Members will recall that the Gordon inquiry was set up as a direct consequence of endemic levels of family violence and child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities, but in particular the death of Susan Taylor in metropolitan Perth. The government established the Child Death Review Committee to provide a quality assurance mechanism when examining cases in which a child known to the then Department of Community Development had died. That examination was to take place regardless of the circumstances of the death. It was to take place regardless of whether the death was as a result of a car accident that had nothing to do with the level of care for the child, regardless of whether the death was as a result of an illness that had nothing to do with the level of care of the child, and regardless of whether the death was related in some way to the connection between the child and the department or in some way to the care that was provided to the child by the department. The committee began its work in early January 2003. One of the functions of the committee was to assist the director general of the then Department of Community Development to ensure the provision of quality care to vulnerable children and their families. I stress that the examination of deaths was not related just to children in the direct care of the department. It was related to all children where there was a connection between the department and the family—that is, where the family was known to the departments—regardless of whether the child was still living with the family.

6558 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Another function of the committee was to ensure accountability in the operations of the department through an extra level of quality assurance in respect of those families. The committee was required to provide an annual report to Parliament. The committee also had the function of carrying out, at the request of the minister or the director general, a review of the operation of relevant policies, procedures and organisational systems across the department in circumstances in which a child had died. Upon completion of that review, the committee was required to prepare a written report setting out any advice or comments on the operation of those policies, procedures and systems, and any recommendations about how any of those policies, procedures and systems could be changed. The committee also had the function—this is particularly relevant to this motion—of identifying particular classes of child deaths or related issues that might benefit from further investigation. That is what led the Child Death Review Committee to make the decision that it would do a group analysis of Aboriginal child death review cases to identify if there were any common characteristics in those deaths. The committee was tasked with the function of research, if it was required, or to perform any other function as directed by the minister. The cases that the Child Death Review Committee looked at related to whether a child who had died or any person in the child’s family had been the subject of a child maltreatment allegation or a child concern report recorded by the department in the two years prior to the child’s death. They also related to whether the family had had a number of contacts with the department in the two years prior to the child’s death, and whether patterns of particular circumstances had emerged that needed to be recorded. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 6565.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE SENIORS CARD — INTERSTATE TRAVEL 837. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Seniors and Volunteering: What has the government done to notify WA Seniors Card holders and stakeholder groups about their eligibility for the national seniors transport concession scheme, which allows Western Australian seniors to use their WA Seniors Card when travelling interstate? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. This question really should have gone to Hon Simon O’Brien because his department is responsible. It came to me, so I am happy to answer it. It was addressed to the Minister for Seniors and Volunteering. The original commonwealth government program to encourage states to acknowledge interstate seniors cards and allow interstate seniors to buy concession fares had a targeted start date of 1 January 2009. In most states— with the exception of the public transport systems in Western Australia and Queensland—interstate seniors, including Western Australian seniors, have been able since 1 January to use seniors’ cards to buy concession fares. This was announced through a media release from the federal Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin. Since 1 July 2009, all aspects of the Western Australian and Queensland public transport systems have also been included. Therefore, interstate seniors can now access concession fares on Western Australian public transport. This additional development was announced through a joint media release by the federal minister and the Western Australian Minister for Transport, Hon Simon O’Brien. This joint media release was widely reported in the electronic and print media; every substantial print publication in Western Australia published the story. It was therefore not necessary to have a paid press advertising campaign. The Public Transport Authority has printed promotional posters, which were distributed and displayed across the public transport system. The Transperth website displays this advice for visiting seniors and also indicates our seniors’ concession fare entitlements in other states. The department, through the Office of Seniors Interests, also advised of the new entitlements on its website through its seniors volunteer presentation and information program, and through the ministerial advisory council, which has representatives from the peak bodies related to ageing. SENIORS CARD — SECURITY REBATE 838. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Community Services: I refer to the minister’s media release of 6 July 2009, announcing the security rebate for WA Seniors Card holders. (1) Have Seniors Card holders received written notification from the Department for Communities or any other source regarding the new security rebate; and, if not, why not? (2) Have seniors’ organisations been notified about the rebate? (3) If yes to (2), when were they notified, and by what method?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6559

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The cost of mailing notifications to all Seniors Card holders would be exorbitant and would channel funds away from money allocated for the rebates. Promotion is through the WA Seniors Card website and through the volunteer speakers program coordinated by the department. Claim forms are available at all Australia Post outlets. (2) A targeted promotion of the scheme to seniors’ organisations will commence to coincide with Seniors Week, which runs from 25 October to 1 November 2009. (3) During Seniors Week, a letter campaign to all key seniors’ organisations will commence, as well as promotion of the scheme at all Department for Communities outreach events. Once again, the ministerial council has links with most of the aged care organisations and it will also promote the rebate. SOUTH WEST INTERCONNECTED GRID — NETWORK TARIFFS 839. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Energy: I refer to the Economic Regulation Authority’s draft decision on Western Power’s proposed access arrangement revisions for the south west interconnected grid. (1) Will Synergy absorb the proposed increases in Western Power’s network charges, or will the increases be passed on to residential customers in accordance with the government’s policy to implement cost reflective tariffs? (2) When can business and residential customers expect to face these higher electricity charges? (3) By what percentage will residential electricity bills rise? (4) In dollar terms, by how much will an average residential electricity bill rise? (5) Do budget price path assumptions fully account for the impact of the ERA decision on residential electricity tariffs? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No decisions will be made by government on electricity tariffs until it can consider the outcomes of the Economic Regulation Authority’s final determination on Western Power’s electricity network tariffs. The ERA’s final decision is not expected until late in the year and may well result in network tariffs that are quite different from those indicated in the draft decision. (2) Timing on any electricity retail tariff increases will be determined at the time of considering the final network tariff determination. (3)-(4) Please refer to (1). (5) Whether budget price path assumptions fully account for the impact of the network tariff assumptions will only be known after the ERA’s final decision is made and the government has decided how retail tariffs may reflect increased network tariffs. PLASTIC SHOPPING BAG BAN — LEGISLATION 840. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Environment: Will the minister legislate to ban plastic shopping bags; and, if so, when; and, if not, why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for her question. At this stage I am not planning to do that; however, this matter has been a source of discussion at many ministerial council meetings, as I am sure the member would know in her experience as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for the Environment. It is a matter that has been raised over a long period. Hon Simon O’Brien: That was when she was supporting lead going out through Fremantle! Hon DONNA FARAGHER: That is quite correct, Hon Simon O’Brien! Hon Ken Travers: Do you take your own shopping bags to the shopping centre? Hon Simon O’Brien: Yes, I do, actually. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have pink, green and purple ones that I take shopping!

6560 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Hon Ken Travers: Does that depend on what mood you’re in? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Perhaps; I like the pink ones! The issue of plastic bags is serious. The ministerial council has looked at the use of biodegradable bags, but this is also about changing consumer behaviour and encouraging the use of alternative bags. Hon Sally Talbot: When are you going to make a decision? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Did the previous government make a decision? It did not. Hon Sally Talbot: How long have you been minister? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: How long was the member in government? Eight years. Did the previous government ban them? No, it did not. Hon Sally Talbot: You’re still just talking about it. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The previous government talked about it for eight years and did nothing. The fact is that a ministerial council will be held in Perth in November. This, along with a number of other waste-related matters, will be dealt with at that time.

SOUTH WEST CATCHMENT GROUPS — FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING 841. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food: Neither the federal government’s Caring for Our Country program nor the Western Australian government’s natural resource management plan’s core funding to the regions provide assistance to catchment groups, such as sub-regional groups in the south west. Most importantly, there is no funding for their core operating costs. As a consequence, the natural resource management work overseen by these groups is unlikely to continue. (1) Does the minister acknowledge that the work of these catchment groups benefits WA communities? (2) Does the minister acknowledge that large and important aspects of this work will no longer be funded by either commonwealth government or state government programs? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that he has a responsibility to assist communities to address environmental problems? (4) What support is the minister providing to sub-regional and other catchment groups for their core operating costs and project funding? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for the question. The minister has responded as follows — (1) Yes. Catchment groups are one of many types of volunteer groups all of whom do tremendous work around Western Australia. These groups vary in size, operate at different scales and address the range of natural resource management issues individually or collectively. (2) The minister is not in a position to comment on commonwealth programs. However, he is aware that the commonwealth has provided over $24 million to regional groups for NRM activities in their respective regions. The activities to be funded by the state NRM program are still being determined. However, projects currently being planned are expected to engage the wider NRM community in their implementation. The state government has adopted a strategic approach to funding natural resource management activities which will result in state NRM program funding being allocated only to activities that address identified priorities. (3) Yes. Government, community and industry all need to work together effectively to achieve NRM outcomes. (4) Regional groups have been provided with funding from the state NRM program for core operating costs on the expectation that they will coordinate with other subregional catchment groups within their respective regions.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PATRONAGE — CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DESTINATION 842. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport: (1) Has there been an increase in public transport usage travelling into the Perth central business district since 1 July 2009? (2) If yes, what has been the increase in patronage in both number of people and overall percentage?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6561

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I am not sure that he has actually asked what he thinks he was asking, but I am more than happy to provide the answer. (1) From 1 July there was a decrease in the number of passengers travelling to the CBD for two weeks, due primarily to university and school holidays and a worsening of weather conditions. For the following three weeks patronage figures increased. (2) I have some detailed daily figures in tabular form, which I table for the member’s information. [See paper 1121.]

DEPARTMENT OF TRAINING AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT — MARKETING CAMPAIGN 843. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Training: I refer to the minister’s comments on radio 6PR on 1 September 2009 that the establishment of the new Department of Training and Workforce Development will include a comprehensive marketing campaign. Hon Peter Collier: Was notice given of this question? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No, it is a question without notice. I ask — (1) What is the estimated cost of this marketing campaign and has funding been allocated to it? (2) Will the contract for this marketing campaign be put out to tender; and, if not, which agency will manage the campaign? (3) Will training or services be cut to fund this comprehensive marketing campaign; and, if so, from which areas will they be cut? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(3) It is in the budget, it is part of the stimulus package, it is $4 million and that campaign for training has commenced. I actually launched it at the training awards on Friday evening. The television and radio advertisements commence, I think, on 20 September. I can say that what we are doing with this advertising campaign—I wear it with a badge of pride—is elevating the status of training throughout Western Australia. I make no apologies for that whatsoever. We are at a point when literally thousands of people have been made redundant and we have been very proactive in the training sector. Our TAFE colleges have gone right out there with the TAFE response units. They have accessed each of those industry areas; they have engaged with those people who have been made redundant; they have provided opportunities for them; and what we need to do, of course, is to advertise what we have on offer. As well as that, we must ensure that, with the raising of status as a result of the creation of the new Department of Training and Workforce Development, we show exactly what a career through training is. It is a treasured possession. It is something that we should be proud of. We can therefore say to those people who are leaving school and adults who are coming back into the workforce that we can provide an avenue for them for a career pathway that will take them right through life, and that is in training. Therefore, those who take a career pathway through training do not feel in any way subservient to those who perhaps take a career pathway through university or an academic pathway. In order to do that—I make absolutely no apology for it— we need to show training for what it is. As I said — Hon Ken Travers: I’m glad you finally woke up to that. Hon PETER COLLIER: To what? Hon Ken Travers: The fact that trades are as important as university and other forms of education. Hon PETER COLLIER: With all due respect, once again we had eight years with the former government while there was a massive skills shortage. What we are doing is elevating it to the status that it so richly deserves. I make no apologies for the advertising campaign. We want it to go into schools and right through the community at large to show the community that a career through training is something that should be treated with equal status as a career through a university.

6562 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

PORT HEDLAND COAL-FIRED POWER STATION 844. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister for Environment: (1) Is the minister aware of any proposal by Griffin Energy or another company to establish a coal-fired power station in Port Hedland? (2) If yes to (1), when did the minister become aware of the proposal and what does the proposal entail? (3) Does the minister consider that gas-fired or renewable energy generation would be a far more appropriate source of energy for the region, given the existence of widespread gas resources and infrastructure, including the gas pipeline in the region? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the Minister for Energy. CARNARVON REGIONAL HOSPITAL 845. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM to the minister representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the staffing levels at Carnarvon Regional Hospital. (1) How many full-time equivalent staff were employed at Carnarvon hospital as at 9 September 2008, and what positions do they cover? (2) How many FTEs are employed at Carnarvon hospital as at 9 September 2009, and what positions do they cover? (3) What positions are currently vacant at the hospital? (4) Have these positions been advertised; and, if so, when were they advertised? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) The following is a breakdown of FTEs employed at Carnarvon Regional Hospital as at 9 September 2008. The total figure is 112.8 FTEs. The breakdown of occupational categories is as follows: nursing, 46.5; administrative and clerical, 20.3; medical support services, 2.3; hotel services, 28.3; site services, 5.3; medical salaries, 6.9; and nursing agency, 3.2. (2) The following is a breakdown of FTEs employed at Carnarvon Regional Hospital as at 9 September 2009. The total figure is 117.1 FTEs. The breakdown of occupational categories is as follows: nursing, 49.2; administrative and clerical, 19.3; medical support services, four; hotel services, 28.6; site services, seven; medical salaries, nine; and nursing agency, zero. (3) The following positions are currently vacant at Carnarvon hospital: one registered nurse, one registered midwife and one assistant in nursing. (4) These positions have been approved for advertising and will be advertised within the next two weeks. FREMANTLE PORTS DREDGING — SILT PLUMES 846. Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Fisheries: I refer the minister to yesterday’s story in The West Australian titled “Silt plume threat to beaches over summer”. (1) What advice has the minister received from the Department of Fisheries in relation to the project? (2) Did the department provide any advice to the Environmental Protection Authority in regard to this project? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister table this advice? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) I have not received advice from the Department of Fisheries in relation to the silt plumes likely to be generated as a result of Fremantle Ports’ inner harbour deepening works and associated land reclamation adjacent to Rous Head. (2) In March 2009 the Department of Fisheries provided a written submission to the WA Environmental Protection Authority on the proposed Fremantle Ports’ inner deepening project as part of the formal assessment process under part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. (3) I table the Department of Fisheries’ advice to the EPA in relation to the Fremantle Ports’ inner deepening project. [The paper was tabled for the information of members.]

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6563

FREMANTLE PORT — LEAD TESTING 847. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the Minister for Transport: (1) Magellan Metals’ baseline lead testing revealed three high lead readings at the port of Fremantle; namely, 650, 1 100 and 840 milligrams per kilogram of lead at three separate locations at the port. (a) Can the minister please explain the source of this lead contamination? (b) Is the port of Fremantle planning to conduct further lead testing? (c) Can the minister please explain how the port intends to clean up this lead contamination? (2) What level of lead dust would have to escape from a container before it was picked up by air monitors at the port? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of her question. I provide the following answer. (1) (a) In relation to trying to explain the source of this lead contamination, as the member calls it, the results reflect background levels of lead in the atmosphere. The above results are from the static dust sampling testing that is undertaken by Magellan prior to any Magellan lead being exported. The results provide an assessment of the lead concentration in the dust collected over the sampling period. It reflects a concentration, not a mass. (b) In relation to further lead testing, ongoing monitoring at these locations indicates that the results quoted are anomalous for these sites. (c) There is no requirement for any clean-up. (2) Once exports commence, any exceedence of the baseline established before commencement will trigger a further investigation by Magellan, including further sampling to identify the source lead. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — FIREFIGHTERS’ WAGE CLAIM 848. Hon ADELE FARINA to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the minister’s media statement of 5 August about sending Department of Environment and Conservation officers to British Columbia to assist in fire-fighting efforts; in particular the minister’s comments that the officers were sent because of their high standards of forest fire expertise. I also refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 732. (1) Given the recognition that these officers possess world-standard skills that are sufficient enough to send them overseas, why is it that they are not being properly remunerated by being paid a wage comparable to what a Fire and Emergency Services Authority firefighter receives? (2) Why is it that despite the disparity in skills that the minister alluded to, no FESA officers were sent by the state government to Canada? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I will have to take part of that question on notice. I answered a similar question from Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm in relation to this. I will take that on notice. I am happy to get back to the member tomorrow in relation to that. With respect to the reason why FESA did not go to British Columbia, I cannot answer that question for the member. The request came to my department. They were able to assist, which I think very much signifies the very good role my department plays with respect to prescribed burning and fire management. With respect to why FESA officers did not go, the member would have to ask that question of the Minister for Emergency Services. With respect to the other matters, I will get back to the member tomorrow. BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC PLACES — EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT AMENDMENT 849. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Women’s Interests: (1) Does the minister support changes to the Equal Opportunity Act to outlaw discrimination against mothers who breastfeed in public places? (2) Did the minister ensure the views of women members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party were taken into account in forming her view? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for her question. I support anyone breastfeeding their baby in public—anywhere. If a baby wants a feed and the mother’s breasts are there, then, wherever they are, the baby comes first. I have no problem with that.

6564 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Hon Sue Ellery: Does the minister support changes to the legislation to ensure there can be no discrimination? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I think it is very sad that we have to have changes to legislation for something that is so perfectly natural. I really do believe that it is a very sad day when it comes to legislating on this. Most women that I know are very discrete; but, if they were not, so what! If the baby wants a feed, then wherever that is, the baby should be fed. That is my view. SWAN VALLEY PLANNING COMMITTEE 850. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the Swan Valley Planning Committee created by section 11 of the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995. (1) What is the current status of the committee? (2) What is the current membership of the committee; and could the minister please table a list of members? (3) Could the minister please advise when the Swan Valley Planning Committee last met? (4) Are there any plans to abolish this committee as part of the Treasurer’s current round of committee and board rationalisations? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) The committee is currently active. (2) The current membership is as follows: Mr Tony Cobanov; Mayor Charlie Zannino; Councillor Elizabeth Taylor; Mr Brian Hunt; Mr Jim Lovreta; Mr Daniel Pinelli; Ms Laura Carija; Mr Keith Vuleta; and Ms Dale Tilbrook. Three positions are vacant—one was occupied by Robyn McTaggart. The committee membership continues past expiry date until new appointments are made. (3) The committee last met on 24 August 2009. (4) No. PASTORAL LEASE PUBLIC ACCESS ROADS — WHIM CREEK ROAD 851. Hon HELEN BULLOCK to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands: I refer to question without notice 738 about road closures on pastoral leases. (1) Can the minister now advise what action was taken by any government department or agency to close sections of the old Whim Creek Road? (2) Which sections of the road were closed; when were they closed; and why? (3) Will the minister consider reopening those sections of the old Whim Creek Road? (4) If not, why not? (5) Will the minister create a public access route under the provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997 to secure a guaranteed public access route for local residents? (6) If not, why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for her question. On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands, I provide the following response — (1)-(2) In 1988 the then Shire of Port Hedland requested closure of a small portion of the road shown blue on the attached plans, which I will table. In requesting closure of the portion of road by the then Department of Land Administration, the Shire of Port Hedland confirmed it had complied with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1960, which included a requirement for public advertising. There were no objections received to the closure. I also table copies of the relevant correspondence for the member’s information. In 2007 the Town of Port Hedland made a further request to close another portion of the road, which is shown in purple on the attached plans, following compliance with the requirements of the Land Administration Act 1997, including public advertising. Again, there were no objections received to the proposed closure. This request was made to the former Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The portion of road covered by the second request has not been closed as this will not be processed until further detailed planning associated with the Boodarie industrial estate has been finalised.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6565

(3)-(6) The Department of Regional Development and Lands will work with the Town of Port Hedland and all stakeholders to try to negotiate an access arrangement that will suit all stakeholders’ interests. The minister will consider all options once the outcomes of these negotiations have been completed. [See paper 1122.]

PLUTO PROJECT ACCIDENT — WORKSAFE INVESTIGATION 852. Hon JOCK FERGUSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Commerce: I refer to an accident today involving a maritime worker working on the Pluto project. (1) Can the minister explain whether WorkSafe WA is responsible for investigating the accident? (2) If not, why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes, WorkSafe is investigating this accident. (2) Not applicable.

ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS — MUSTER 853. Hon ED DERMER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Corrective Services: (1) What is the current adult prisoner population as at 9 September 2009? (2) What number, expressed both as a raw figure and percentage, of adult offenders entering prison between 1 November 2008 and 9 September 2009 are Indigenous? (3) What is the current juvenile detention centre detainee population as at 9 September 2009? (4) What number, expressed both as a raw figure and percentage, of juvenile offenders entering detention between 1 November 2008 and 9 September 2009 are Indigenous? (5) What number, expressed both as a raw figure and percentage, of juvenile offenders entering detention between 1 November 2008 and 9 September 2009 are on remand? (6) What number, expressed both as a raw figure and percentage, of juvenile offenders entering juvenile remand between 1 November 2008 and 9 September 2009 did not subsequently go on to receive a custodial sentence, excluding those who are still awaiting sentencing? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises the following — (1) It was 4 638 as at 11.59 pm on 8 September 2009. (2) There were 2 790 adult Indigenous offenders; 43 per cent. (3) It was 145 as at 11.59 pm on 8 September 2009. (4) There were 1 012 juvenile Indigenous offenders; 62 per cent. (5)-(6) Due to the complexity of the question, the minister has asked that these parts of the question be put on notice.

CHILD DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEE — IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [5.33 pm]: Prior to breaking for question time, I was outlining for the house the eligibility of referral, if we like, for cases to go before the Child Death Review Committee. I indicated that the child who had died had to have had contact with family members in the two years immediately prior to the death; or the family had to have had a number of contacts with the department in the two years before the death and a pattern had emerged that warranted further investigation; or the child was directly in the care of the department; or a request for the department to find an out-of-home care placement for the child had been made in the previous two years.

6566 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Work was commissioned by the committee to look at, in particular, the Victorian analysis of the impact of chronic neglect on child development and best practice approaches to chronic neglect to include a greater focus on Indigenous children and families; to identify and document themes and issues arising from the sample group of children, including the issue of intergenerational abuse; to examine the effectiveness of the responses by the department to chronic neglect in the sample children and their families; and to examine to the extent possible the effectiveness of other services in responding to chronic neglect in the children and their families. That term of reference is important to note because the report included acknowledgement of system-wide contact between the children and their families, not just the services provided by one department. Certainly, the department has done some work with other agencies, recognising that we cannot expect one agency in government to accept full, total and final responsibility for the care of children who are at risk or who have been abused, when in fact there is a range of other government agencies that have a daily impact on the family and, therefore, the circumstances of that child. For example, one notion that I found frustrating when in government was that one arm of government, such as the Department of Housing, could take action and evict a family for unpaid rent or circumstances like that, resulting in a family becoming homeless, and another arm of government, the Department for Child Protection, then had to pick up and respond to the question of homelessness. It seemed to me that if we could not get the two departments talking to each other, we were in a pretty sad state of affairs. Therefore, I was pleased that one of the terms of reference was to look at the responses of other agencies, which was, I think, in part recognition that was long overdue; that we cannot simply hold one agency in government responsible for the care of children at risk and their families. The final term of reference was to identify any specific procedures or opportunities to improve the service responses to those children at risk. Some of the key information noted in the report for the group analysis included that the majority of the children who died were aged one year or younger, which indicated to the review committee greater vulnerability the younger the child was. There were slightly fewer girls than boys; 45 per cent of the sample group were girls and 55 per cent were boys. At the time of the deaths of the children, half of the group were living with both parents; almost one-third were with their mothers, and the remainder were with one of their biological parents or with a step-parent or with extended family. An interesting characteristic, which I think is reflected in the work done by Fiona Stanley and the Child Health Institute, is that Aboriginal children reside with two parents more than non-Aboriginal children. I think that is an interesting statistic. I think it is easy to form a stereotype and that people have a view that Indigenous children live in single-parent families. In fact, a higher proportion of Indigenous children live in two-parent families than non-Indigenous children. However, they sometimes live in large families. Two-thirds of the group had more than three siblings and three of the children included in the group had siblings who had died. Half the children in the sample group were from remote communities; more than one-third were from rural regions, with the remainder from the metropolitan area. Some of the other characteristics in the group analysis were that three of the children had some form of disability; three of the children were premature births; chronic illness and complex health needs accounted for another two cases; and previous hospital admissions recorded for five children. It is important to note that in this group analysis the identified cause of death was not available for all cases. That is because the sample group of children had died for a variety of reasons. These are not children who died as an easily identifiable consequence of their family or their carers, but children who died for a range of reasons. In some cases, the cause of death was not identifiable. However, the circumstances surrounding their deaths included co-sleeping—nearly half; 45 per cent—drowning, car accidents, murder and other factors. All of the families had a long history with the department and, according to the annual report, the average length of contact was ten and a half years. It was also the case in a number of the families that the parents of the children who died had their own history of contact with the department as well. It is regularly the case that there is a cycle of this kind of social outcome. We learn how to parent from the way we were parented, and often the children who died were in families that had consistent contact with the department in the two years before their death. These were parents who themselves had had consistent contact with the department. Each of the children who died was, at the time of death, living in a family in which there was a number of interrelated risk factors. That is important to recognise as well, because sometimes we want to find an easy solution and to be able to point at something that is black and white and absolutely clear. However, the report noted that there were complex and interrelated risk factors at play in these cases. There was only one case—which is interesting as well and goes to the stereotype I think—in which alcohol and other drug dependence and/or family violence was not a significant factor in the family’s circumstances leading to chronic neglect. People who think some distinction can be drawn between the effect of drugs and alcohol and who say that drugs have a worse impact than alcohol on families underestimate the extent to which alcohol plays a significant role in what effectively become dysfunctional households. Other risk factors that were identified were homelessness, mental health issues and financial hardship. None of those things would be new. There is no shock-horror factor in that information, but it does go to part of the proposition I want to put in this motion, which is that we need a broader response. We need to recognise that

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6567 across the chamber. We cannot put the responsibility just on one component of government. We cannot put the responsibility just on government to solve these problems. We need a much broader response. We need to recognise that it is not one silver bullet for this issue. I know that the department has acted on the recommendations already, but the ongoing implementation and rollout of those recommendations must be measured, and the impact and effect of the rollout of those recommendations is something that this house should be thinking about. We should ask the minister to ensure that we are provided with regular reports on those, not for the purpose of being critical, because I know that the department has done much of the work in implementing the recommendations already, but we should be able to see how that is rolling out in six months’ time, 12 months’ time, 18 months’ time or two years’ time so that we can together find a way of supporting government as it tries to tackle these issues. Successive governments from both sides have genuinely tried a range of different strategies to address these issues, and have not been successful. We have a real opportunity to request regular updates on how these recommendations have been rolled out, not for the purpose of securing political points, but for genuinely measuring what results are being delivered. For example, successive governments have worked to try to tackle these issues, and I asked a member of my staff to provide some research going back over the Court government and Labor governments as well, because we have all tried to genuinely address these issues. I might refrain from making any further comment and continue the debate when the matter is next before the house. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL 2008 Report Report of committee adopted. REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT (TAXATION) BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 17 June. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [5.47 pm]: I note that the parliamentary secretary is away on urgent parliamentary business. I do not think she needs to note anything, but her presence would be a courtesy. The opposition will be supporting the Revenue Laws Amendment (Taxation) Bill 2009, which seeks to do two things: firstly, to place a cap on the amount of growth in individual land values for the purpose of determining land tax assessment; and, secondly, to reintroduce the concession for land developers to be able to calculate lots on an en globo basis rather than on a subdivided basis after they have received their approvals from the Western Australian Planning Commission. Members in this house will be well aware of the many instances that have occurred over the years in which people have complained about massive growth in their land tax assessments. Although I think this is a good measure, I am not sure that it will ultimately resolve that problem, because 50 per cent is still a significant increase. If that 50 per cent increase in the value of land also triggers a person jumping up into a higher land tax bracket, it may result in that person paying more than a 50 per cent increase. I understand that last year there was a massive increase in land tax assessments on commercial properties, and when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Tourism, a number of properties on the south-west coastal strip between Dunsborough and Busselton experienced a period of rapid growth, and complaints were received from some of the owners down there. At the time, it was interesting talking to them. They were faced with the situation that they had based their revenue collection and room rates on the expected land tax, and when there was a massive jump in land tax, they had to recoup that in the following year’s income. They had to find the money, pay the land tax and then recoup it from the people who stayed in their property the following year, whereas they had worked on collecting it in the year that had just gone in anticipation of what they had expected would be the land tax bill. This measure will assist in that situation to some degree. I suspect that we will find that in most cases it will be a quick process of appreciation of the property. Although there will be a 50 per cent cap this year, within one year it will be back up to the land tax assessable value. During the briefing, the Treasury officers agreed that it was unlikely that people would go more than two years without that long-term sustained growth in land tax values. The other thing I found interesting was that it gave me cause to refocus on the revenue. Although there will be a slight drop in land tax revenue for this financial year, it is only slightly down on what was estimated for 2008-09. The estimate was $563 million for 2008-09 and $547 million for 2009-10. It drops a bit further in 2010-11, but starts to grow again over 2011-12 and 2012-13. That refers only to land tax, but despite changes for all the taxes on property, including the abolition of stamp duty on mortgages, there is still expected to be eight per cent growth this year in total property taxes, 6.9 per cent next year, 8.6 the year after, and 8.3 per cent the following year. This reminded me of the arguments we are hearing at the moment that all the problems of the state government result from a reduction in income, when most of its problems are created by the lack of its ability to

6568 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] control growth in expenditure and, more importantly, to target that growth in expenditure to capital works and the like that will provide for the long-term future of the state. The second measure relates to the ability to consider the global value of land holdings rather than the full subdivided value of lots. The major developers of land made sure that they did not get subdivision approvals through just before the end of the financial year. They waited, and there was a bit of a rush just afterwards, so that they could get them through and hopefully have most of them sold off before the end of the following financial year. I suspect that this will be of some benefit to those small landowners who subdivide the back of their properties around Perth. Metropolitan infill is something that we should be encouraging, but it needs to be controlled and managed in a proper way. It is estimated that 2 600 people will benefit from this measure this year. They are mainly commercial property owners, and that is a flow-on from previous years when there was very positive growth in property prices. It has some revenue implications for the state government, but they are not significant. The opposition will support this legislation. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [5.55 pm]: The Greens (WA) are happy to support the Revenue Laws Amendment (Taxation) Bill 2009, although we have some questions about its purpose. As I understand it, the first purpose of the bill is to give the government power to cap the annual growth in the land values used as a basis for assessing land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax. It is intended that regulations be introduced to set a cap of 50 per cent for 2009-10. According to the second reading speech, it is intended that this measure will address an apparent problem with the volatility and unpredictability of growth in tax bills. The second purpose of the bill is to reintroduce the so-called en globo concession for land developers. Developers will be given up to one year after subdivision in which they can pay land tax and metropolitan region improvement tax, based on a land value that pretends that the subdivision has not yet happened, which is an interesting way of dealing with this. This is said to be designed to address the current phenomenon in which the timing of land tax results in a relative flood of sales of subdivision lots in May of each year to reduce taxable land held at 30 June, and a deferral of applications for subdivision until after 1 July for the same reason. This amendment seeks to overcome that congestion. I was provided with a graph in the briefing that I had that appears to show that this has happened since the concession was removed from the books. One of the concerns that the Greens have is that even if we support the notion of a cap, the bill creates a head power to introduce a system that could be abused. For example, what is to stop the government of the day from introducing regulations setting the cap amount of, say, 10 per cent or five per cent for 2009-10? We note that the intention is to introduce a cap of 50 per cent, but from the point of view of Parliament that is no more than an intention; it is not enshrined in the bill itself. Perhaps being a bit more politically cynical, what is to stop a cap being introduced only for a certain type of landholder or for landholders in certain areas of the state? Hon Norman Moore: You shouldn’t be so cynical. It doesn’t become you. Hon GIZ WATSON: I should not be so cynical; I know. We are just viewing this piece of legislation with a sharp eye, and pointing out that that is something that could happen under this bill. We do not support the idea behind the proposed cap. The notion of capping the value that forms the basis of this tax amounts to offering concessions to people who have benefited from significant capital gains. We acknowledge the potential for those people to be asset rich but cash poor, but this is not the same issue as the previous government’s proposed luxury land tax. People who live in expensive homes but have very little income to pay taxes are not subject to land tax or the metropolitan region improvement tax anyway. From the briefing that I received on this topic, and answers to subsequent questions, we understand that the land tax and MRIT reductions may result in a reduction in rent on these properties, and that will generally be the case for commercial leases, depending on the lease agreements, but they generally will not be passed on in the case of residential tenancies. That will offer a windfall gain for landholders who have benefited from an abnormally large capital appreciation. In a time of declining government revenue generally and across-the-board cuts to essential services, we would ask how this is fair and appropriate. Turning to the en globo matter that this bill also addresses, although the Treasurer’s pre-budget media release of 17 April claims that reintroducing the en globo concession would provide benefits for both developers and homebuyers, it is not at all clear to me how homebuyers would benefit. Surely the biggest single factor driving the supply of newly subdivided blocks is the strength of the property market. At the moment the biggest factor driving the supply is the federal boost to first homeowner grants that has been provided. That is actually a much more significant factor in this market. Even if we were to accept that there would be a more consistent supply of land as compared with the situation with subdivided lots without the en globo concession, that seems to marginally affect housing affordability only for a small part of the year at the most. The interest we have in affordability more generally means that we are more concerned about whether the tax savings will result in cheaper lots for first homebuyers in particular. At this stage, we have not been presented with convincing evidence that tax savings will be consistently passed on in this way. With land prices moving as they are

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6569 currently, these measures could end up providing only theoretical tax relief. Presumably, subdivided land still benefits from the cap, even in a depressed market. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Hon GIZ WATSON: I was talking about some of the issues that perhaps ameliorate concerns about these revenue laws amendments. The next thing to note is that the cap affects just the value of the land for the purpose of assessing land tax, and the metropolitan region improvement tax; not the tax per se. Land tax may still increase by more than 50 per cent in a year because of the impact of the progressive land tax scales. I also note that if a developer is able to access the en globo concession, he does not also need a cap for that land tax or MRIT in that year. The value of the subdivided lots will be based on the value of the unsubdivided lots for the previous tax year. This is teased out in the first of the examples that appear as part of the discussion in clause 12 of the bill. It also is elaborated in the explanatory memorandum. We also note that there are a number of hurdles to obtaining the en globo concession in clause 10 of the bill. I will make some general comments with regards to this area of land tax while we have this opportunity with the amendment before us. The starting point for land tax is that it is paid on the aggregated unimproved value of taxable land. However, there are many exemptions and concessions regarding this idea. For example, land tax is not charged on the principal place of residence. That suggests this is effectively a tax on income-producing properties, with tax percentage rates increasing as the value of the underlying property increases. We have no problem with that idea, but we do have a problem with the fact that not all income-producing properties are in the tax net. The Greens (WA) continue to oppose the idea that investment houses, for example, are charged land tax while mining and agricultural lands are exempt from that tax. It is inequitable and anachronistic to give special concession to particular land users without a compelling public interest driver in that decision. We note, however, that there are exemptions for lands owned by charitable institutions, public hospitals and universities, provided the land in question has not been leased out to business tenants. We have no problem with those sorts of exemptions. We congratulate the then Gallop government for changing laws, such that from 1 July 2004 land held under an approved conservation covenant is exempt from land tax. We also note that the Carpenter government legislated effectively on 1 July 2006 for land tax exemptions for parents, grandparents or siblings who were providing independent accommodation for relatives with disabilities. We support those approaches to this tax regime. On the conservation covenant issue, we now have a situation where land that is to be protected for conservation purposes is tax exempt. That is a good thing, but we also need to look more closely at that. Exemption is only for approved conservation covenants. We would suggest that this needs to be broadened out. There are still people who wish to have conservation covenants over their land who are not accessing that system. To go further and suggest that the privately owned native vegetation should not be subject to land tax at all, unless it is being used for income-generating purposes, is an argument that even hard-headed economic advocates should support. Why should something be taxed if it is not being used to generate income? If what we are seeking to tax is property ownership, surely it is the role of the federal government, through its capital gains system, to do that. The first thing to note about the metropolitan region improvement tax is that it is effectively a tax on income- producing properties. It is subject to the same exemptions and concessions as land tax, although it is applied at one rate above a single land value threshold. The MRIT is levied upon the unimproved value of land that is both liable for land tax and located within the boundaries of the metropolitan region. The MRIT is hypothecated to a trust fund for expenditure by the Western Australian Planning Commission on road reserves, parks and recreation areas. I note the contribution to the cognate debate on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill 2008 and the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 by my former colleague Hon Paul Llewellyn on 19 June 2008. He observed that reductions in the MRIT—the same point can be made in relation to land tax—have very little impact on the affordability of housing. It reduces our capacity to manage bushland areas because it reduces the pool of money that is available for that management. Members would be aware that it is the MRIT that provides a pool of money to purchase and manage Bush Forever sites. I understand it is a laudable scheme to protect remnant vegetation in the metropolitan area that has been supported by successive governments. It was actually the Court government that set up that scheme. When we have reductions in the MRIT, there are also reductions in the capacity to purchase and manage urban bushland. I agree with Hon Paul Llewellyn that such reductions let the state government off the hook in this area and put more pressure on already stretched local governments. If that money is not coming from the MRIT, often it is local governments that are picking up the tab for management of urban bushland. Those are my comments on this bill. The Greens (WA) will not oppose it, but we do question who will benefit under these amendments and whether it is doing anything other than assisting those people who are already well off and doing quite nicely, thank you very much, in terms of land sales in Western Australia.

6570 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

HON HELEN BULLOCK (Mining and Pastoral) [7.38 pm]: I support the Revenue Laws Amendment (Taxation) Bill 2009. This bill seeks to amend the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 to provide for a couple of measures that are laid out in the 2009-10 budget. The first measure is to introduce a system of capping on the taxable value of land tax. By doing so it will deliver tax relief of $6.9 million in 2009-10, nothing in 2010-11 and $2.3 million in both 2011-12 and 2012-13. This measure will benefit 2 600 fortunate property investors. It will give them great tax relief from the extraordinary increase in the values of their property. The second measure is the reintroduction of a concession for land developers to ease the property market to solve the bottleneck problem. It is commonsense that if we give money away, that money must come from somewhere. Where has it come from? Has the funding for this tax relief come from the payment that has been cut down for the victims of abuse who were in state care? Has the funding for this tax relief come from government cost-cutting to health services? Has the funding for this tax relief come from the savings made by having the Western Australian museums in Geraldton, Kalgoorlie-Boulder and Albany close their doors one day a week? Has the funding for this tax relief come from the abolition of the state funeral support system? Has the funding for this tax relief come from the fishing tax, which was introduced in the name of protecting endangered species? Is it because of this tax relief that we cannot appropriate more funding for non-profit organisations? Those are my questions. As Hon Giz Watson mentioned, I think this bill will benefit those who are already quite well off. Part of the government’s election campaign promised tax reform in order to deliver $250 million of tax cuts. As we all know, at the state level we have only limited taxation sources of revenue—that is, firstly, payroll tax, which is a large proportion of the taxation source of revenue; secondly, stamp duty; and thirdly, land tax. Land tax actually occupies only a very small proportion of the taxation source of revenue. If the government is really serious about delivering $250 million of tax reform, it would pick the big taxation source of payroll tax, which is long overdue for reform, or even stamp duty to help first home owners buy their property, like the federal government did with its stimulus package. As I said, I support this bill that gives a modest $6.9 million tax relief, but I am looking forward to seeing some more serious tax reforms in the areas of payroll tax and stamp duty, which the government promised to do. Debate adjourned until a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House). [Continued on page 6576.] CO-OPERATIVES BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 13 May 2009. HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [7.46 pm]: I am very pleased to be the lead speaker for the opposition on this important bill. As members would know, it has been around for a considerable amount of time. I am glad that it has come on for debate tonight. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that the annual general meeting of Co-operatives WA will be held tomorrow, 10 September. I know that there was a lot of enthusiasm amongst the cooperative movement to perhaps be able to report some progress on the bill, if not the complete adoption of the bill by this place, by that stage. Having talked to some of my colleagues on this side of the house, I am optimistic that we can move through this bill fairly swiftly. Hon Ken Travers: Cooperatively. Hon SALLY TALBOT: And highly cooperatively, as my colleague Hon Ken Travers said. I know that a couple of opposition members want to make a contribution so I will keep my comments reasonably brief. It appears that Western Australia is the last state to reform. This is well and truly a timely piece of legislation for us to be considering. As we heard in the second reading speech, which was given at the time by the now President when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Commerce, we are looking at a modern act that will replace the two current acts with something that is far more accessible to people involved in the cooperative movement. This is obviously a sign of the times and one that we on this side of the house welcome. There is a bit of confusion about how many co-ops we have in Western Australia. I have a list here and it makes fascinating reading. At lunchtime on 18 March this year, it was stated in the other house that there were 72 co- ops in WA and by teatime it had gone up to 73. The number of co-ops in Western Australia is around the mid- 70s. As many honourable members would know, co-ops range from very small enterprises, particularly in Western Australia in the agricultural sector, to quite big operations like credit unions. There are also taxi co-ops, which is well known to most of us. On the national and international scene, there are very large companies such as Fonterra, which is not exactly the flavour of the month in Western Australia at the moment having decimated our iconic Peters ice-cream. I make that point by way of bringing to the attention of honourable members the fact that cooperatives cover a range of activities.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6571

On page 9 of the bill is a table of cooperative principles. Those principles are worth drawing to the attention of members. They are, in order — 1. Voluntary and open membership A co-operative is a voluntary organisation, open to all persons able to use its services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. The second principle is democratic member control. At the risk of asking for the slight indulgence of the house to refer obliquely to a debate in the other place, it is well worth looking at the contribution made to the debate by my colleague Bill Johnston, who took this debate into places where many members had not expected it to go. Members will see, if they read that debate, that he awakened a lot of interest, particularly among members on our side of the house, into what he calls democratic capitalism. Members can see those principles of democratic capitalism reflected in this table of cooperative principles. The first principle is voluntary and open membership. The second is democratic member control. The third is member economic participation, which is about the fact that members contribute equitably to the co-op. They are democratically controlled and the benefits are mutually divided amongst the members of the co-op. The fourth principle is autonomy and independence. The fifth principle is education, training and information. The sixth is cooperation among cooperatives. The seventh principle is concern for the community, which is worth reading into the record — Co-operatives, while focusing on member needs, work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies accepted by their members. I have referred to the fact that this bill has been around for a long time. I draw the attention of members for whom, perhaps, this is a new subject to the excellent report brought into this place by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, of which I think Mr Deputy President (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm) was a member. As members would know, the previous incarnation of this bill went through the other place, came into this place and was referred to the uniform legislation committee. We now have that report and we start the new process with the incoming government. This bill is virtually identical to the legislation brought in by the previous government. I commend this report to honourable members and I would like to draw members’ attention specifically to a couple of interesting points. The background to the bill, on page 2, section 4, refers to a 1998 report, so we are now going back 11 years when the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Intergovernmental Agreements brought down a report on this matter. As I say, it has been around for many years. That report contains an excellent definition of a cooperative, which if it is read alongside those seven defining principles, will give members in this house a very good idea of the sort of enterprise that we are talking about. The report reads — A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically controlled enterprise. That definition goes on for several paragraphs. I will not use up the time of the house by reading it all into Hansard, but pages 2 and 3 of that report are well worth reading. The states got together and decided on, dare I say, a cooperative approach to modernising and standardising this legislation. The objective is to bring co-ops into the twenty-first century. As things stand in Western Australia, there are various limitations on the activities of co-ops, importantly to do with raising funds, but there are several other aspects in which co-ops are at a disadvantage when they are compared, for example, to the standard company format. One of the important things that this bill does is to introduce the notion of cooperative capital units, which will enable co-ops to raise funds in a way that is much more similar to a way that a company raises funds. I will give members the example that was used to explain that concept to me. At the moment, a cooperative can raise funds only from people who are members of the cooperative. For example, if a cooperative in Harvey or somewhere down in the bush has three or four members and they want to club together to buy a tractor, the funds can be raised only from those four members of the cooperative. This legislation will enable the cooperative to go outside its membership to raise funds from the wider community, in exactly the same way that a company is able to. As I said, we are talking about enterprises that range from small local supermarkets right up to things like Co- operative Bulk Handling Ltd. I have to declare an interest here. I have one share to my name—only one share, and it is declared every year in my declaration of member’s interests—and that is in the Denmark Cooperative. I went to the co-op the other day and found to my horror that it no longer sells groceries. It is all cookware and things like that. So I had to hike up the road to IGA after all. However, the Denmark Cooperative is certainly one of those enterprises that will benefit from this legislation. There is one more reference to this in the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review report. On page 4 there is a section that I think is worth reading into the record. This is a comment made by

6572 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Mrs Karen McKeown, who was the legal policy officer from the then Department of Consumer and Employment Protection. Her advice to the committee on behalf of DOCEP was — [I]n Western Australia we are really characterised by the fact that there is a strong agricultural regional theme underlying a lot of our cooperatives. There are several different types. There are the small local supermarket-type cooperatives, which are referred to as service cooperatives. That is the situation in which, for example, you pay an annual fee and become a member of the cooperative, and, as a result, you get produce at a discounted rate. That is the sort of arrangement I was describing with the Denmark Cooperative — You then have the more marketing-type cooperatives, such as CBH—Co-operative Bulk Handling— where the farmers provide grain to the cooperative, and the cooperative then proceeds to market that grain, obviously at a better rate. I guess the underlying theme for a lot of cooperative structures is the notion of economies of scale, so members take advantage of the economies of scale to drive better bargains in terms of selling and marketing their produce. That leads me to probably the central point I want to make, which is that often cooperatives are formed in response to failures of the classical capitalist market. At no time has this been more relevant in recent history than it is at the moment, when the whole of world capitalism is being seriously rocked by a series of events, including the most extraordinary unethical behaviour by people who should have known better and who have clearly abrogated their responsibilities. However, I put it to the house that at no time in recent history has this kind of legislation been more relevant in helping people who are prepared to put their capital, their energy, their investment and their professional pride into an organisation like a cooperative. I have referred to the cooperative capital units, and I have explained my understanding of what they do. I welcome that on behalf of the opposition. There are also new provisions relating to the responsibilities of directors. I believe that is very important. Again, it is a very timely move. Given that we have been working towards this for 11 years, it turns out to be a very timely move in 2009, and certainly members on this side of the house will do nothing to slow down the progress of this bill through the house. On behalf of the opposition, I report to the house that we see no need to go into committee. I have a couple of questions. Hon Norman Moore: There are a couple of amendments, so we need to go into committee. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I thank Hon Norman Moore, who has pointed out that there are a couple of amendments to be considered. Perhaps to save time, I will raise a couple of queries in the hope that the parliamentary secretary, or whoever has carriage of this — Hon Norman Moore: If they are not too hard, I might be able to handle them. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Is it Hon Norman Moore? Hon Norman Moore: I am playing it a bit by ear at the moment. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Okay. I do not think they are particularly complicated, but it would be nice to have a clarification on the record. The Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review report to which I have referred refers to an intergovernmental agreement that Western Australia decided not to sign. I gather that we decided not to adopt the template legislation but to go it alone. I do not doubt that we have come up with a good result, but I wonder what the status of the intergovernmental agreement is. Is it still waiting to be signed, or have we bypassed it by bringing in our own legislation? It is not clear to me from reading about the background of the bill why Western Australia decided to implement “alternate consistent” legislation rather than adopting the national template. It is not entirely clear to me what the local requirements were that led to that. Some clarification of that would probably be worth placing on the record. I also note that, although there is clearly very broad support throughout the cooperative movement for this bill, only about 15 of the 75-odd co-ops were represented at the workshops held after the release of the green bill in 2006. It seems to me that the logical explanation for that is perhaps that members of co-ops are extremely busy people who do not have time to go to workshops. I wonder whether the minister or the parliamentary secretary— whoever has carriage of this bill—could give us a bit of an update on the level of support in the cooperative community. My third question is about whether there are any excluded activities, meaning that certain enterprises would be precluded from becoming eligible for cooperative status. Are cooperatives eligible for Lotterywest funding, for example? It would be very useful to have that clarified. On that note I will finish my contribution and listen with interest to what people in other parties and my colleagues on this side of the house have to say in the hope that we can progress this bill expeditiously.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6573

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [8.03 pm]: In speaking on the Co-operatives Bill 2009, I make my first substantive contribution to debate on a bill since being elected for my first term. I may depend on my notes a bit more than other more experienced members might, and I hope I can beg their indulgence. Like me, this bill is back in the chamber, as Hon Sally Talbot mentioned, more or less in the same form as before. It is a recycled bill, and that means that we Greens are positively inclined towards it. We recognise that, apart from some minor administrative amendments, this bill was passed in the Legislative Assembly and endorsed by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. Hon Simon O’Brien: A fine committee it was, too. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Does the honourable member remember it well? At the time of the last state election, the bill was yet to be debated, so here we go with it again, and I understand it is looked forward to by the sector. However, the bill has had a longer gestation period than that. Recently a meeting took place between my office and the Federation of Housing Collectives—also known as FOHCOL— which I must add was not amongst the cooperatives directly consulted about this bill. It represents an important group of potential cooperatives, which I will speak about today. At that meeting, it was pointed out that this reform has been on the cards since 2001. We are therefore delighted to be progressing it this evening. This legislation has been anticipated by not only the identified current cooperatives industry but also those industries that might expand into this cooperative model. I will say a bit more about the importance of the reform from the viewpoint of potential cooperatives. I respectfully suggest that the needs of the current industry and the future industry will be much better served by what the bill will provide. It is quite a bulky collection of reforms. The bill seeks to replace the current outdated Companies (Co-operative) Act 1943 and the Co-operative and Provident Societies Act 1903 with laws that we believe comfortably sit in the twenty-first century. In broad terms, we are very comfortable that the legislation belongs in 2009 and we have no intention of holding up the passage of the bill with a detailed debate. However, I have a series of questions that arose from the briefing that we had. I will give a copy of those questions either to the parliamentary secretary or the minister who is dealing with this bill to help us interpret some of the less specific points in the bill, which Hon Sally Talbot has mentioned. I acknowledge the important role that the cooperative business structure has thus far played in Western Australia, particularly in regional Western Australia. The use of co-ops to date has been predominantly a regional phenomenon. City people probably have not had much contact with co-ops, with the notable exception of organisations such as Liquor Barons and perhaps the University Co-operative Bookshop Ltd. The government says that there is a greater scope for the use of the cooperative model in Western Australia, and we absolutely agree with that. As the small business spokesperson for the Greens (WA), I acknowledge the importance of having this model for that sector and the potential that it introduces. I agree also that there is untapped potential for the increased use of co-ops regarding the environment, water, transport and housing. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could expand on the sorts of things the government has in mind when it talks about the potential to expand the use of cooperatives in those areas. Because this is an expansion into a new industry, some funding might be needed to promote it. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could outline the funding in this year’s budget and in the forward estimates for the promotion of this new cooperative model, because it will be expanded from its traditional areas into these new areas. For the time being, I will outline some of my thoughts about the potential growth for this industry and the parliamentary secretary can let me know if I am in the right ballpark. From the point of view of environmental protection, I understand that some people in the community, particularly in Darlington, are looking to work cooperatively to get discounts on the purchase of solar panels. I am not sure whether that is what the government had in mind when it referred to the environmental protection of co-ops. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could enlighten us about that. That certainly would be very exciting for us. Housing affordability also warrants some attention. I am also the housing spokesperson for the Greens. The Greens have strongly supported community housing for many years. We have made the case for stronger investment in this vital sector. Housing cooperatives are a form of community housing that provide secure tenure and affordable and quality housing. They can assist not only in housing affordability, but also in building more vibrant, cohesive and, we would say, even safer communities. I am advised that there are no official housing co- ops in Western Australia because they fall under a different structure. Most of them are registered under the Associations Incorporation Act. However, we do have housing collectives. The co-ops that I have spoken to are very keen to adopt this new model because they will be legally entitled to call themselves cooperatives, whereas they are currently called collectives. We hope that this bill will change that and that Western Australians will be able to exploit that model. Housing collectives provide a much needed additional type of tenure option in Western Australia. In Western Australia, the two dominant models of tenure are private ownership and private rental. These options are not affordable for, or attractive to, a growing number of people. I often wonder how we managed to get to the stage where one of our most fundamental urges as humans—to design and build a place in

6574 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] which to live—has become so expensive, so bureaucratically onerous and so removed from our cultural life that very few people now do it. The Co-operatives Bill will go some way towards ensuring that people who want to build a house collectively and affordably, and want to start a business collectively and affordably, can do so. As I mentioned earlier, housing collectives were left off the table when it came to consultation and drafting of the bill. There are 10 housing collectives known to the Federation of Housing Collectives—four in the south west, one in Broome, and five in the metropolitan area. I seek leave to table a list of the housing cooperatives in Western Australia. Leave granted. [See paper 1129.] Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I feel it will be worthwhile if I take this opportunity to fill in the obvious gaps with a brief lesson in housing collectives 101. I will then describe a recent tour that I have done. It will be very brief. In fact, I may leave it for the subject of an adjournment debate at another time. The basic theme is that the Federation of Housing Collectives defines “housing collectives” as “Not-for-profit, member managed incorporated associations which aim to provide secure, affordable, quality housing which is designed and managed by collective members”. Most of the housing collectives in Western Australia are non-equity collectives; that is, they are funded by the Western Australian Department of Housing under the community housing program. Housing collective tenants or members are usually on low incomes. Having said that, not all housing collectives are like that. There are models that allow people to acquire equity. At the housing collective that I visited in Fremantle—Pinakarri Community in Hamilton Hill—there are some houses that are owned outright by members of the collective. The remainder of the houses are owned jointly and are managed in conjunction with the Department of Housing. Cooperative housing provides benefits for not only individual members but also the broader community. One of the benefits for the community is the ability to build communities that are safer and more inclusive. The benefits for individuals include long-term security of tenure in quality housing; affordable housing; the opportunity to be part of a supportive and friendly community; the opportunity to choose where to live; and the opportunity to contribute to innovative design and construction in the building of the home. At Pinakarri, they have been able to install a greywater system, with the assistance of some grant funding, and there are also some houses that are designed to take advantage of passive solar energy. Another benefit is the opportunity to benefit from education and training. That education and training is aimed at helping members to gain confidence and to develop the skills that they need to run the cooperative—skills that they may not have had the opportunity to develop in the past—because they effectively have to learn how to manage what is really a business. Another benefit is that it frees members from having to be dependent on others, because they are able to run things for themselves. It also allows them to be part of a democratic and consensus-based organisation that values all members and their contributions. We see there the theme that the member for Cannington, Bill Johnston, has spoken about in the other place. The democratic ability to determine how we live our lives is very empowering for people, particularly if they are struggling financially. For many people, cooperatives provide all the benefits of owning a home, without the financial burden. They are usually not-for-profit organisations, and they are managed by the members, who also live in the property. In this sense, the members take on the responsibility of being both the tenant and the manager of the housing. Cooperatives can also be of benefit to the wider community. They provide community resources through community education, events and facilities. In many ways, they contribute to a sense of community and a balanced social mix in the areas in which they are located. Many co-op members are also involved in other activities, such as community theatre and environmental groups. There are generally three types of ownership models—equity, shared equity and common equity. In Western Australia, the majority of collectives fall under the common equity model. This means that the collective receives 100 per cent of its funding from Homeswest to construct or purchase the housing, and it enters into a legal arrangement with Homeswest, which secures the government’s interest in the property. The title to the property is held by the collective, but individual members do not own their dwelling. Instead, members pay to Homeswest a rent set at a maximum of 25 per cent of their gross household income, up to a maximum cost rent. Under this scenario, housing collectives fall into the category of public housing, and they are forced to compete for a tiny pool of Department of Housing resources allocated to the entire community housing sector. This is where we see the theme winding back to the new cooperatives bill and the capital that may be gained by developing that model. Being dependent on the Homeswest pool of money has stifled the growth of housing collectives and hindered a great opportunity for Western Australians to build and live in co-op houses. This bill could provide a great opportunity to allow the housing collective sector to grow independently of Homeswest resources and instead be recognised as a valid model for other ownership and funding options, as happens in other states. I ask the parliamentary secretary, who is also the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Housing and Works, to address a series of questions about the government’s intentions for future support of the housing collective model. I should note that I will provide the parliamentary secretary with my speech notes. Will this bill allow

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6575 more scope to provide social housing under the cooperative model; and, if so, how? How many of the hurdles facing the formation of housing cooperatives will remain after this bill is enacted? Will we be able to jump those hurdles? How does the government intend to change the structure of this bill so that cooperatives can function effectively? Does this bill and/or government policy reflect a move away from housing collectives and cooperatives being 100 per cent dependent on Homeswest funding under the common equity model? How will this bill assist other businesses that currently provide services to housing collectives, such as bookkeepers, to also become cooperatives? I mentioned earlier that FOHCOL—the Federation of Housing Collectives—was not consulted during the development of this bill, and it is clearly a potential area for this model. Is there any way that it could be involved in the drafting of regulations that fall from this bill, if there are any? If so, how will FOHCOL be involved in rolling out the government’s plans to promote the co-op model? That is key to expanding this exciting opportunity in housing across all housing sectors, private and community, once the bill becomes law. The last three questions provide a segue for the broader issue of consultation thus far, and the government’s plans for future consultation. Government documents on this issue make much play of the involvement of the cooperatives industry, and we have no reason to doubt those claims. However, notwithstanding the importance placed on encouraging the co-ops—or more specifically, encouraging the uptake of the cooperative model in a broader range of areas, which we brought up during the briefing with the department—we were told that there is a list of other potentials, and we would like the government to expand on that. It seems at this point that not enough has been done to take into account these new potential markets, and we would really love to hear about that. How were cooperatives that are not members of Co-operatives WA—which, as Hon Sally Talbot mentioned, is the peak non-government organisation for the sector—brought into the consultation process? How were the interests and views of potential cooperatives elicited and considered during the consultation process that led to the bill? It may just be that there were the workshops that were broadly advertised for a wide group of people; we are asking if any attempt was made to identify those potential future markets. I ask the parliamentary secretary whether cooperatives that were not members of Co-operatives WA will be involved in drafting the regulations, if any, that will be necessary once the bill becomes law; and, if so, how? I also ask whether the interests and views of potential cooperatives will be factored into rolling out the government’s plans to promote the co-op model once the bill becomes law; and if so, how? Like Hon Sally Talbot, I acknowledge the importance of the co-operative’s ability to raise capital, and the importance of the bill’s proposed new cooperative capital unit, which we will call CCU. These CCUs expand the capacity of co-ops to raise capital beyond the pool of its existing members. The bill and the associated government documents provide some information about how these CCU provisions will allow that new capital to be accessed in a way that will also protect the interests of members. I received some additional information in the briefing the Greens received and subsequently by email, but I would like to put those questions on the record and I invite the parliamentary secretary to put the responses on the record. I therefore call on the parliamentary secretary to outline how the CCU provisions will offer cooperatives the opportunity to expand their capital base while safeguarding the rights of members. Please also explain how the CCU provisions will be regulated, and at what levels that regulatory role will be funded during the budget estimates and forward estimates years. It is my understanding that the comparative start-up costs for cooperatives are relatively more affordable than that for companies, but not for incorporated associations. The registration fees, for example, depending on whether it is an association, a cooperative or a company, are $126, $274 and up to $400 respectively. If the organisation intends to lodge a prospectus, then under the existing cooperatives legislation the lodgement fee for a disclosure statement is $1 238.30; whereas the cost is $2 010 for a company under the Corporations Act. Members can see that there may be an economic imperative to stay as one structure or the other and we may miss the opportunity to develop into this new model. I also note that I have been assured from briefings with the Department of Commerce that other measures are included in this bill that promote cooperatives as an affordable business model. For example no registration fee will be payable for existing cooperatives transferring to the new legislation; it is anticipated that organisations that apply to register as a cooperative under the new act will pay registration fees commensurate with existing fees; and other measures have also been taken to mitigate the costs of the new legislation to cooperatives. In particular, small cooperatives will be exempt from some of the financial reporting requirements, and the regulations to the new act will contain model rules for cooperatives, which should mitigate some of the costs incurred in preparing rules to comply with the new legislation. Wrapping up, the Greens (WA) strongly support the affordability provisions in the bill and will monitor the degree to which cooperatives remain an affordable option for current and future cooperative business owners. In conclusion, the Greens support the long overdue package of reforms and I look forward to the parliamentary secretary’s answers and to keeping this issue of housing cooperatives on the agenda in future. Thank you, Mr Chair.

6576 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

HON PHILIP GARDINER (Agricultural) [8.23 pm]: Clearly, I am in this chamber representing the Nationals tonight. I am very happy to speak on this Co-operatives Bill 2009. It is a harmonisation and modernisation bill, as has already been made clear by earlier speakers. It is interesting to note that the harmonisation bill for the cooperative structure is taking place in the year 2009. Harmonisation for the main alternate structure, a corporation, occurred somewhere back around the late 1970s to the early 1980s. It is interesting to note how the Melbourne-Sydney-Canberra axis is focused on corporations almost as if that is the only model when, as we have already heard, the cooperative model is a well tried and tested model that currently represents the biggest bank—or close to it—of the world—Rabobank. Therefore, it is not just building the critical mass of small operators when there is a service orientation required and when there is a particular product focus associated with it. That is the element that drives the development of most cooperatives—building the critical mass to give the countervailing power to the next stage in the value chain with whom they deal. Otherwise, small business has little hope of competing in the long run. I am very proud to speak to this bill because it is not just close to my own philosophy; it is also at the heart of the Nationals’ philosophy of looking after the interests of small business and giving them the opportunities to grow, and to allow that to happen largely in the regional areas where many cooperatives develop because that is mostly—not only, but mostly—the home of small business. I was involved with the Australian Wheat Board back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At that time the Australian Wheat Board was operating with a government guarantee for its overseas funding. It was operating as a cooperative, and all the surpluses were distributed back to those members, or those grain growers, who were selling grain to the wheat board. All the surpluses went back to those “quasi” members. But with the removal of the government’s guarantee of borrowing, that organisation had to develop a corporate structure. At the time there were two options—the cooperative option and the corporate option. Do members know what held it back? The cooperative option. It was claimed that it could not be done because there was no harmonised legislation for cooperatives across the country, and, to be a cooperative, the members had to be a part of the cooperative. But the rights across the states, with the different cooperatives laws, disallowed that common property to occur. I said, “Change the law. Get it harmonised.” Of course in those days demutualisation into corporations was very easy money for investment bankers. They said, “Let’s go the corporate model.” That situation was the first step in the demise of organisations such as the Australian Wheat Board, the properties of which had a lot of benefits, in my view, for Australian wheat growers, but the conflict of interest in the corporate model failed it. Whereas if it had been a cooperative model, and if it had had good management and astute management, it could well have prevailed and continued. That just shows the importance of what we are dealing with tonight in terms of getting Western Australia’s cooperative law harmonised with the rest of the country. I do not think there is much more that I can add to what has already been said. The various points of the improvements have been raised—the registration, commonality, the facts about cooperative capital units have been noted, and the benefits they have for capital raising. People do not fully understand the economic power that cooperatives can build. We should remind ourselves that Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd—probably the biggest cooperative in this state—at the height of the economic uncertainty in November or December 2008, went out and borrowed $2 billion; and it is a cooperative. It is claimed that cooperatives do not have the commercial clout; but, in actual fact, during the unprecedented difficulties we were facing with the world financial crisis, cooperatives came through better than corporates. That was evident not just with CBH but evident also with an organisation such as Rabobank. This bill is a very important step for Western Australia now and in the future. The changes have been thoroughly endorsed by the existing cooperatives. I could go through the cooperatives we have contacted, but none of them has any concern about what is in this bill. We are in a happy situation of having a bill that the industry believes is right and, from what I hear, members believe is right. I am very happy to endorse this bill. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House). REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT (TAXATION) BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [8.31 pm] — in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Revenue Laws Amendment (Taxation) Bill 2009. Despite the fact that I was not in this place when one or two members made their contribution to this debate, I have had a full briefing on the comments made by them. The advisers have provided me with the answers to questions raised by members. It is worth mentioning that whilst the second reading of this bill was given by Hon Norman Moore, who was, at that time, representing the Treasurer in this place, changes in representation have taken place. That is the reason that I am closing the second reading debate and, hopefully, I will be able to answer the questions raised by members.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6577

In terms of the briefings I have had from Treasury, land tax is expected to bring in about $563 million this financial year within a total revenue pool of about $20.7 billion. That information was necessary for me to get this in context. Of course, this government has already reduced land tax and the metropolitan region improvement tax by seven per cent. Further changes will take place to land tax through regulations later in 2009- 10. Those changes cannot be brought on earlier, although some members have sought for that to be the case, because, if they were, it would affect the 2009-10 assessments. I am referring to the changes that will be made by regulation to extend the time to pay by instalments and reductions in the flat charge. They are minor changes. For example, for landowners who wish to pay their bills in two instalments, the time to pay will be extended from 110 days to 175 days. For those who wish to pay their land tax in three instalments, the time to pay will be extended from 175 days to 240 days. These changes will be made in the land tax area. As members have mentioned, this bill gives effect to two additional land tax measures contained in the 2009-10 budget. The first measure referred to by members is the cap on the growth in individual land tax values by a certain percentage. This financial year that percentage will be 50 per cent. That will ease the impact of rapidly rising land tax bills on taxpayers. That is the reason it is referred to as capping. Hon Giz Watson raised questions about why the 50 per cent applies, what can happen to it and whether it could be varied. Only one cap can be set under this bill. If we were to do otherwise, we would have to introduce a totally different piece of legislation. Only one type of capping can be provided for by this legislation. That does not mean that the amount of the cap cannot be varied by regulation, but other types of land cannot be capped. Equally, on that same point, at any point the setting of the prescribed percentage by regulation is set by taking into account that the revenue impact of setting a cap at 10 per cent or five per cent would severely impact on revenue collections. In any event, a regulation of this nature would be subject to disallowance in this place and that will be something that people can have input to at a future time. People have mentioned that there are about 2 600 land tax payers who will benefit from these changes in any one year but that is out of a total of 106 000 land tax payers; therefore, only about 2 600 are likely to benefit in this particular year. People have talked about the lost revenue to government in this year of about $6.9 million and more than $11.5 million over the four years. I am aware that Hon Helen Bullock asked where this money is coming from, but I think that it needs to be understood that it is actually lost revenue; it is not like it is expenditure that has been found to have been spent somewhere. Once the bill has been passed, the regulation will be made to cap the growth for this year and, as I have indicated, this year it will be 50 per cent. The reason this needs to be contained in regulation rather than in the bill is to give that flexibility to deal with changes in the property market. I think that the suggestion about not having that flexibility is a concern because that is precisely what it is meant to do—to be able to rise and fall on the basis of how land values are rapidly increasing or not rapidly increasing. Hon Ken Travers: Do you expect the government will actually change that on an annual basis? I understood that the 50 per cent would stay there. Hon HELEN MORTON: I have been advised that the government will review the preliminary data from the Valuer-General each year and ascertain whether there is a need to change that cap. We have seen some fairly volatile markets in the past few years, and in the absence of something like that happening it most likely would stay at a fairly regular level. However, I think that if we see something like the volatile markets we saw over the past few years, and changing or even decreasing values are a possibility, I suppose that that 50 per cent might change to something different. Hon Ken Travers: I think that in certain pockets there will definitely be reduced land tax this year. Hon HELEN MORTON: That amending regulation will be gazetted and will enable that year’s land tax bill to be issued in a fairly timely manner, and we are looking at that happening this year. It is important to realise that the land tax may increase by more than 50 per cent, as Hon Giz Watson has mentioned, despite the capping because it is the land value that is capped not the land tax itself. A property that is worth $500 000, for example, has tax of about $180. If the property value increased to, say, $1 million in the year, which is not unreasonable to imagine happening and I have known that to happen, the 50 per cent capping rule on that would mean that the land value would be capped at $750 000 but the land tax payable on $750 000 is $405. Therefore, in that particular year the land tax would have more than doubled from $180, so land tax can still increase quite substantially for a particular land tax payer. Another reason that a taxpayer might pay more than a 50 per cent increase in land tax is if he or she buys more taxable land in a year so that land tax is charged on the aggregated taxable value of all land held in the same ownership. Therefore, even though the value of the individual lots may be capped, the land tax payer may pay more than 50 per cent than in the previous year purely on the basis that he or she has purchased more taxable land, and I think that is really straightforward. People need to understand that it is not a cap on how much land tax a person might pay in a year. Concerns were expressed about the windfall gains. As I mentioned earlier, only 2 600 land tax payers are estimated to benefit. Benefits to these landholders are in the form of a limit in the amount of land tax levied on certain land. Landowners will still be paying higher land tax bills with respect to the 50 per cent value increase.

6578 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

A lot of these land tax payers are paying much more than 50 per cent. The difference is already at least 50 per cent more than what they paid the previous year to even get to the cap. The reintroduction of concessions for developers who subdivide land was also mentioned. These concessions were abolished in 2003. They have now been reintroduced. They will allow subdivided land that meets certain criteria to be taxed at the lower rate, the rate of the unimproved land, which is referred to by people as en globo or in total. I asked my advisers where that word comes from but nobody seemed to be able to find it. Hon Helen Bullock: It is a legal term. Hon HELEN MORTON: I thought it sounded Spanish or French. Hon Giz Watson: It’s probably Latin. Hon HELEN MORTON: That is right. The rate of the unimproved land prior to subdivision will be the rate of tax for one year only. As people have mentioned, the purpose of this initiative is to remove a cause for some developers to hold back from subdividing land around June. That will happen so that these people are prevented from paying the higher tax if the lots were taxed individually rather than as a total lot. Apparently, it also causes quite a bottleneck in terms of the approvals process. It is hoped that that will smooth that out a little. It is aimed quite fairly and squarely at large developers to maintain the flow of subdivisions. The purpose of this change is to maintain the flow of subdivisions and maintain the release of land for development. It is not about reducing tax to land buyers, nor the subdivision of land to get a tax break on a smaller lot of land that already has a house on it. It is one measure to ensure that there is a steady flow of land onto the market. That, in turn, will benefit home buyers. It will help to smooth out that market, a market that has been quite volatile in the past 12 months to two years. Availability has declined and it has pushed up prices dramatically. As I mentioned, it is also about reducing that bottleneck. This measure is estimated to cost around $9.2 million over four years. Much of the bill is about changing the wording in the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002, the Land Tax Act 2002 and the Metropolitan Region Improvement Tax Act 1959 to enable the assessments to be made on the concessional value or the cap value of the land rather than the unimproved value. The process of land taxing is one of ongoing assessments year in and year out. That is why the retrospectivity is necessary. I cannot remember who, but somebody asked a question about retrospectivity. I think it was Hon Giz Watson. As land tax is retrospective up to a number of years, the bill has to make provisions for assessments that span the old arrangements and the new arrangements. The retrospectivity is necessary for that reason. The old arrangements are pre-2009-10 and the new arrangements come into effect from then onwards. Retrospectivity regulation in this bill is only for that one year to bridge the old and the new parts of the legislation. It has been included in the bill to address the situation that the bill would not be passed until after 1 July 2009. Obviously it was anticipated that it would not be passed, and that was the case. The commencement of the bill is important from two aspects. It was anticipated that the bill might not be passed before 1 July 2009; however, the retrospective aspects of the bill enabled the assessments for this financial year to be based from 1 July 2009, regardless of when the bill is passed. Normally, land tax bills come out around late September or early October, but because of the manner in which this bill has been slightly delayed they will go out in late November this year. I have responded to the main points raised by Hon Giz Watson. Hon Helen Bullock raised some issues and indicated that she was not opposing the bill, but asked about tax relief. I say again that this is about reduced revenue, not about expenditure. There is no suggestion there will be no funding or reduced funding to not-for- profit organisations. It is revenue that is not going to be acquired this year, and it is not a matter of changing expenditures as a result of that. The questions raised by Hon Helen Bullock about payroll tax and stamp duty will be considered in the fullness of time. It is certainly not something related to this. Hon Helen Bullock: We are very patient. We are waiting. Hon HELEN MORTON: Good; we need to be patient. That concludes my comments in closing this debate. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Helen Morton (Parliamentary Secretary), and passed. TOBACCO PRODUCTS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2008 Second Reading Resumed from 13 May.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6579

HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [8.49 pm]: The opposition is pleased to support the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 2008. It does a number of important things along what has really been an evolutionary path in addressing the issue of tobacco control and limiting the effects that tobacco smoke has on those who choose to not partake in smoking tobacco. I am a former smoker, so I am the worst kind of person who is supportive of changes to the Tobacco Products Control Act because I know what it is like to smoke. It took me three occasions over a 10-year period to stop. But I eventually made a promise to myself that I would stop on my thirty-fifth birthday. That is what I did, and I have not smoked since. The bill does a couple of important things designed specifically to limit the exposure to tobacco smoke of those who do not smoke. The bill prohibits the display of tobacco products or smoking implements for sale, other than for defined specialist retailers. This is quite an important thing to do, because as the laws for the sale and advertising of tobacco have changed over the years, the industry has really focused on designing its packaging and putting a lot of effort into point-of-sale marketing. Everyone is familiar with what they see front and centre when they enter a supermarket, which is that section of the supermarket where people can buy tobacco products. The companies have really focused on how they can sell their product by maximising the space that is available to them. As that space has shrunk, they have developed more and more specific ways of trying to attract the attention of those who perhaps have not yet started smoking—young people, in particular—but who might be attracted by the way that they promote their product. Over time, through a combination of both the state and commonwealth laws, we have seen restrictions on point-of-sale advertising. This bill takes us one step further along that evolutionary path by reducing that even further and prohibiting the display of tobacco products, except for certain retailers. The other area in which we hope the legislation will have the greatest impact in reducing the exposure of non- smokers to cigarette smoke is in the components of the bill that go to prohibiting smoking in certain outdoor areas. Therefore, the bill provides measures for restricting smoking in most outdoor eating and drinking areas, in children’s playgrounds where there is playground equipment, and in the patrolled areas of public beaches. It also takes a further step in respect of children in particular, and introduces a prohibition on smoking in vehicles if a person under 17 years of age is in the car. That is a really important step for us to take, because if people wanted to argue against components of this bill, they might be able to mount an argument that says that when people are in a playground or on a beach, they perhaps have some choice in what their exposure might be because they can move to another area. People cannot do that in the enclosed space of a vehicle, so I think this is a really important step forward to protect children’s growing lungs from exposure to tobacco smoke. The bill also takes certain other steps in respect of offences. It provides for the expansion of the types of people who can be appointed investigators, and it deals with some other matters regarding enforcement of the provisions. I thought I might just take a few minutes to talk about the history of tobacco control in Western Australia, because Western Australia has been at the forefront of tobacco control in this country, and important steps have been taken by Liberal and Labor governments and the Greens (WA) in moving the debate forward. When we were in government and I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health I was pleased to play a part in some of the changes to the legislation that happened, and to work with my federal colleagues in the Howard government on changes we could make to the advertising of tobacco products, particularly on the packaging. The interesting thing is that the history of tobacco control in Western Australia goes back a lot further than members might think. I will rely in this part of my comments on a paper provided to me by my colleague Roger Cook, the member for Kwinana and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place. It is entitled “Tobacco control legislation and public policy in Western Australia, 1911-2007”, by Maurice Swanson and Betty Durston from the National Heart Foundation of Western Australia. I have had the opportunity to work with Maurice in particular on several occasions on tobacco legislation. He is one of a number of Western Australians, whom I will identify later, who have played an important role in the development of the legislation now before the house, although I hasten to add that Maurice’s involvement does not go back to 1911. According to the paper that Maurice was involved in putting together, Western Australia took its first step along this evolutionary path back in 1911 when, with a piece of legislation designed to control the risk of fire, the Western Australian Parliament prohibited smoking in theatres. A few years later, in 1916, Parliament passed legislation to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to people under 18 years of age. Way back in 1916, Western Australia was limiting the sale of tobacco products to minors. There was then a bit of a gap in the evolutionary path until we reach the organisation around public health activism in the late 1960s in Australia. We see legislative changes starting to occur in the 1970s. We had two pieces of quite significant legislation at the beginning of the century, and then a significant gap including the two world wars, which would not have done anything about reducing the number of people who smoke. In 1975 the Western Australian Parliament passed legislation requiring that people selling tobacco products be licensed. I am not sure whether the motivation at that time was controlling access to a substance that was not healthy or was more around licensing so that the government could collect revenue from the sale of tobacco. I suspect it may have been the latter, but I do not have any evidence to confirm it. In 1978, the then Minister for Health gazetted

6580 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] regulations that took us down the path of making enclosed workplaces smoke free. Changes to the Health Act required employers to provide workers with a safe environment by eliminating any nuisance-causing agents in the air. In 1982, public transport was the focus of the changes to tobacco control, and regulations were gazetted prohibiting smoking in or upon any portion of a public transport vehicle not set apart for smoking, or on any public transport trust premises where a notice was displayed that smoking was prohibited. The Australian Council on Smoking and Health is one of the major public health lobby organisations against tobacco. This paper points out that it was formed back in 1967. In 1972, it started to agitate in Western Australia to pass laws on the advertising and marketing of tobacco products. Some members of this chamber might remember Dr Tom Dadour, who was a member of Parliament. He introduced a private member’s bill that was aimed at prohibiting tobacco advertising. The bill was passed in the Legislative Assembly but was defeated by two votes in the Legislative Council. In that same year the National Heart Foundation conducted the first Quit campaign using commercial advertising to encourage smokers to give up smoking for at least one day. Some people think that advertisements have no effect on people’s habits or on public health. The first time that I seriously tried to stop smoking was when Fiona Stanley did a television advertisement that said smoking killed more women than cervical cancer. I told Fiona Stanley that both Hon Giz Watson and I tried to stop smoking when we saw that ad. I remember watching that and thinking that smoking was bloody stupid and that I should stop doing it. It took another 10 years before I completely stopped, but I did. In 1983, the then Minister for Health, Barry Hodge, introduced legislation on tobacco advertising and the promotion of products to attract young people in particular to smoking. That led to an interesting public debate in which the tobacco industry engaged and it also demonstrated the mighty power of the dollar by the way that industry conducted its campaign to oppose those changes. The bill passed through the Legislative Assembly again but was again defeated by a margin of two votes in the Legislative Council. Although that legislation was defeated, the government determined that it would increase the revenue it collected from tobacco products from 12.5 per cent to 35 per cent, which is a big jump to make. That generated an additional $20 million in revenue. Part of that revenue was allocated to public health expenditure in the Department of Health to conduct a statewide smoking and health education campaign, which later became the Quit campaign. In 1985 and 1986, work began with ministers from around Australia to put new health warnings on cigarette packets. They were introduced in 1987 throughout Australia and included warnings such as “smoking causes lung cancer” and “smoking causes heart disease”. The introduction of those new warnings, which replaced the previous warnings that said “warning: smoking is a health hazard”, was again bitterly opposed by the tobacco industry. In 1987, the federal government prohibited smoking on all domestic aircraft and in 1989 the WA public service became a smoke-free workplace following the lead that had been set by the commonwealth in 1986. During 1989, the Western Australian government announced its intention to introduce legislation prohibiting all forms of tobacco advertising and to establish a public health foundation. One of the major stumbling blocks for the organisations that received sponsorship from the tobacco industry was what could be done to replace the income that they had been receiving from the tobacco industry. The WA government of the day flagged its intention to establish an alternate source of funding for those sports and arts organisations that had previously been receiving tobacco industry sponsorship. That followed similar moves that had been made in Victoria and South Australia. This time, unlike what had happened in 1982 and 1983, the Tobacco Control Act 1990 was passed and was proclaimed on 1 February 1990. Further changes then occurred along the evolutionary path. In 1996, the government of Western Australia announced the establishment of the Task Force on Passive Smoking in Public Places. One of the roles of that task force was to identify strategies that could be put in place to minimise the community’s exposure to passive smoking in public places. In announcing the task force, the Minister for Health at the time said, “There is now conclusive scientific evidence and substantial public concern about the health risks for non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke.” In July 1997, and before the task force had reported its recommendations to the then Minister for Health, the then Minister for Labour Relations, Graham Kierath, announced that the government had moved to restrict smoking in enclosed workplaces. Specifically, the minister gazetted regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1984 that effectively prohibited smoking in all enclosed workplaces, including those within the hospitality industry. That was seen as a radical move at that time, and hats off to Graham Kierath for that. I would not take my hat off to Graham Kierath for many of the other things that he did, but it was certainly a radical move to try to stop smoking in the hospitality industry. That was reacted to very strongly at the time by those who wanted to continue to provide places in which people could smoke. Some people took the view that if we were not going to allow people to smoke at a pub while they were having a drink, the world would practically come to an end. At the time there was a pretty wide-ranging debate in the community—I am sure there was also a wide-ranging debate in the government—about whether that was the appropriate step to take. It is worth noting at this point that all along the way there have been incremental steps, incremental steps and incremental steps, but all those steps have been heading along the same path—that is, to reduce the exposure of

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6581 people to tobacco smoke because of the effect that has on people’s health. The government of the day responded to that debate by introducing amendments to the Health Act to provide for regulations that would require all enclosed public places to be smoke free from 29 March 1999. Although some specific exemptions to those regulations were provided, those regulations were themselves the subject of considerable debate. I was a union official at that time, and I remember that there was considerable debate among our members, many of whom worked at Burswood Casino and in the hospitality industry, about exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace. Those members who have stood around a gaming table at a casino would know how close the players are to the croupiers. I remember the croupiers talking to me about how customers who were not happy with the way the cards were falling would sometimes express their agitation by literally blowing smoke in the faces of our members, the croupiers. Hon Liz Behjat: Shanti Da Silva. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is right—Shanti, a fantastic member. The debate moved on, and certain areas were exempted, but Burswood remained a problem child for us for some time. Hon Giz Watson: It still is. Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes. After the change of government, there was push for the Minister for Health of the day to conduct a review. This is where the activism of the Greens, on behalf of the health lobby, moved the debate along inside the Labor Party as well. The minister of the day undertook a wide-ranging review into the operation of the regulations and how successful, or otherwise, they had been. That report was tabled in Parliament and it made a number of recommendations. In response to the recommendations, the government proposed further restrictions on smoking in enclosed public places within the hospitality industry. Again, there was a proposition for an exemption for the International Room at Burswood Casino. The regulation review ensured that a report was provided to Parliament in December 2005, and the government made a commitment to implement the recommendations and any suggested time line for implementation. In 2004, the then Minister for Health negotiated with the hospitality industry—mainly the Australian Hotels Association—to ban smoking in all enclosed areas of hotels from 31 July 2006. At about the same time in 2004, I became parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health. One of the first tasks I was given was to participate in the ministerial council meetings on smoking legislation. I will have to ask honourable members on the other side to remind me of the name of the woman who was the then parliamentary secretary to the federal health minister. Her name was Trish Worth and she was a member of federal Parliament from the electorate of Adelaide in South Australia. She did a lot of work on behalf of the federal government initiating the graphic health warning pictures on cigarette packets. I vividly remember the first meeting of that ministerial council; I was a newly sworn in parliamentary secretary and had no idea what ministerial councils were all about. I think I had been a parliamentary secretary for all of about three days. The ministerial council was held here in Perth, and Trish Worth was making a presentation on the proposed graphic warnings to appear on cigarette packets. They were pretty disgusting and horrifying photos, but those are the photos that continue to appear on cigarette packets today. I place on the record my commendation of the work that Trish did in making sure that we pushed the graphic warning initiatives through. Members can imagine the resistance from the tobacco industry to having such images appear on cigarette packets. In 2005 we introduced further changes to the Tobacco Products Control Bill as a result of some concerted lobbying from the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, Cancer Council WA and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. These changes particularly addressed new marketing and promotional activities of the tobacco industry. I remember briefings at the time in which public servants were advised that the tobacco industry is always looking at new ways to find and to take advantage of loopholes in existing legislation to market its product, so we were making changes to the legislation to try to keep ahead of the tobacco industry. New parts of the Health Act were introduced, pretty much based on best practice in Australia and other countries. These included prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to young people; discouraging more generally the sale of tobacco by young people through more stringent application of the proof of identification requirement; licensing restrictions; restrictions on the sale of smoking paraphernalia; and a range of other matters in respect of the promotion and marketing of tobacco. For example, there was some debate about the sale of lollies that looked like cigarettes; many of us enjoyed them as children. Hon Simon O’Brien: They were called “fags”. Hon SUE ELLERY: They were called fags! Hon Simon O’Brien: Now they’re called “fads”, believe it or not!

6582 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes; I have seen them. All this was designed to limit the number of new smokers, and to try to restrict the number of young people who took up smoking. Fiona Stanley was the one who convinced me to give up smoking, but I also saw a documentary about the way in which cigarette marketing targets young people. I was a pathetic Alpine smoker! Several members interjected. Hon SUE ELLERY: That is right—I was a girl smoker! I therefore took offence at all of that. I thought, “Intellectually, can’t you see how they are designing these cigarettes to make them attractive to you. You are really pathetic if you keep smoking on the basis of that marketing.” Therefore, the motivation came from not only Fiona Stanley but also the documentary on marketing by the people who manufactured Alpine cigarettes—I probably should not be saying that—to get me to smoke these cigarettes. The point I am making, though, is that there have been on all three sides of politics in Western Australia concerted efforts over time to limit the take-up rate of cigarettes and to restrict the exposure to residual smoke for those who choose not to smoke. The bill that is before us today is another step on that evolutionary path. There are people in the public health advocacy lobby who would say that we need to be moving faster and we need to be getting closer to the point where we completely eliminate smoking. I think we will as a country get to that point. However, the history of the changes that we have made since 1911 in respect of smoking has shown that Western Australian parliamentarians have been making the laws better in respect of exposure to tobacco smoke and in respect of limiting the number of people who take up the habit. I am therefore pleased to say that the opposition supports the bill. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [9.15]: I have the privilege to represent the Minister for Health in this place and therefore I am managing the bill on behalf of the government. However, it is a private member’s bill being sponsored in this place by Hon Giz Watson. My role and involvement in this place as the government minister responsible for the bill is therefore a little different, but it is important that the government view be put on the record. I note the contributions that have already been made, including an interesting summary of the story so far from the Leader of the Opposition. We are all familiar with a lot of things that she repeated, but it was interesting to have them put into context, particularly a couple of matters that went back to 1911 and 1916. That was an interesting social history. To come to the bill that is currently before us, though, it is a bill to amend the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006. It does so in a number of ways, which are set out in the bill. The bill has evolved somewhat since its inception as a private member’s bill. It is fair to say that in certain key ways it is rather different from the initial draft or perhaps indeed the first print of the bill that set out on its progress through the Parliament some while ago. It is different in the following ways: firstly, I noted the concluding remarks of Hon Sue Ellery, who acknowledged that there are probably plenty of people—I forget whether she used the term activists or lobbyists, but it was a term — Hon Sue Ellery: Public health activists. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Public health activists. That was the term that was used about people who want to make very big strides in the direction that this bill and others like it seek to go. However, the processes that these people have had to deal with thus far have had a moderating effect. Hon Sue Ellery described how those competing dynamics have worked in this debate and related debates over the years. That is certainly what has happened in this case. The bill before us has been moderated. It has been moderated in a way that makes it by and large acceptable for the major government party to offer its support. Indeed, the Minister for Health has spent a lot of time sitting down with the sponsor of the bill—I am not being rude when I say this—to knock it into shape; that is, to make it a bit more practical in its application. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact is that sometimes members need some assistance when putting through a private members’ bill if they do not have the resources of government. The involvement of government drafters and others is needed to help the process of massaging the terms of the bill into a form that will make sense and will be practical in its application. Most certainly, if amendment is required, assistance is needed to make it broadly acceptable across all sides of the house. That is what has been provided in this case. That is reflected in a couple of documents that I will refer to now. Firstly, I refer members to the bill itself. If members were ever so bored that they wanted to refer to debates in another place—of course, I would never refer or allude to debates in another place!—but if, hypothetically, members were so bored, they might see some reflection of the Minister for Health’s assistance in the bill before us. There have already been some changes. The Liberal Party, or the chief government party, will be supporting this bill.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6583

However, I now come to the second document that I need to refer to. That relates to supplementary notice paper 17, issue 1, dated Tuesday, 18 August 2009, which members also have available to them. On that supplementary notice paper members will see a number of amendments. They stand in my name. They stand in my name because that is intended to indicate that these amendments have government support. But I will go a little further than that and indicate that behind the chair there has been some substantial discussion to make sure that there is general across-the-board agreement that these amendments are acceptable. I understand that is so from the sponsor of the bill in this place, and that the primary author of it is also accepting of the amendments. Above and beyond some matters that are present in the bill that is before us, these amendments finetune the bill to address some concerns. I am now going to briefly allude to what those concerns are. I want to conclude my remarks in a moment so that we can get into committee and go through each of these amendments, but, in broad terms, there is recognition, for example, that the community is perhaps not ready to have a total smoking ban in licensed outdoor drinking areas. We have dealt with places where food is served in a restaurant setting, including alfresco areas, but where there is, for example, the proverbial beer garden at the front of the Bassendean Hotel, where everyone who goes there is basically there for a drink and a smoke together, they will still be able to use up to 50 per cent of that area. A lot of people, if they are a drinker and a smoker in that bar or that beer garden, will see that as a major imposition. In the government’s view a total ban is not a reasonable prospect, and I hope that will be the whole house’s view. Having last time shoved all of the smokers out of the bars and into the beer gardens, it is not reasonable that we now pursue them in the beer gardens and say, “Now you’re not allowed to smoke in the open area as well!” Hon Norman Moore: They will be out on the street somewhere. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: That is what will happen. They will be out on the street. What happens in countries that have banned smoking in bars that do not have beer gardens, through lack of space or whatever, is that everybody is out on the footpath smoking and drinking. There is a ripple effect, so I am told, Mr Deputy President (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm), by members who have had the privilege to travel extensively to places like London and Dublin and have observed this. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy President, know exactly what I mean. Other amendments on the supplementary notice paper also seek to moderate and reflect the intent of what appears in the bill, but they are only what we would normally understand to be tidying up amendments. They are not major policy amendments. They have arisen consequent to deliberations that have taken place elsewhere. With those thoughts, I advise the house that the Liberal Party will support this bill subject to the inclusion of the amendments contained on the supplementary notice paper. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [9.26 pm] — in reply: I have the honour to have responsibility for the carriage of the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 2008 through the Legislative Council. I acknowledge the support from both the opposition and government for this bill. It is a good example of the work that has been done in the other place and inside and outside this chamber to come to an agreement for a progression of good public health policy with regards to smoking which, as we know, is the cause of the most preventable deaths in Australia. I appreciate that Hon Sue Ellery and Hon Simon O’Brien expressed their respective party’s support for the passage of this legislation. I also acknowledge the government’s assistance in providing drafting services and advice from officers of the Department of Health to assist me in, hopefully, seeing the carriage of this bill through this place. I do not wish to make any other comment, because I did not hear any opposition to the bill. Therefore, it does not require a response in that respect. I commend the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon Michael Mischin) in the chair; Hon Giz Watson in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The government supports the short title and will be moving amendments to clauses as displayed on supplementary notice paper No 17. Clause put and passed. Clauses 2 to 6 put and passed. Clause 7: Sections 107A to 107F inserted — Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I move —

6584 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Page 4, after line 25 — To insert — (4) A responsible person in relation to licensed premises may allocate as a smoking zone for the premises one or more places in one or more outdoor eating areas to which a restaurant licence does not apply, but the total area of all the smoking zones for the premises must not exceed 50% of the total area of all the outdoor eating areas to which a restaurant licence does not apply. This is the amendment that I alluded to in my second reading contribution. It will provide that a responsible person in relation to licensed premises may actually allocate a portion of certain parts of the premises as a smoking zone, notwithstanding other considerations in the bill and the changes that we are in the process of making. Members will notice by the terms of the amendment that this consideration is not to be applied to any eating area, including outdoor eating areas because we are talking about only outdoor areas at the moment, but the total area of all the smoking zones for the premises must not exceed 50 per cent of the total area of all the outdoor eating areas to which a restaurant licence does not apply. This gives the capacity for smokers who have been sent outside into the cold — Hon Giz Watson: Or the warm. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Or the warm, depending on the time of year, outside under the waft of the eucalypts in the beer garden, if they can detect the difference. It provides the capacity to have such a place if the responsible person, the owner or the licensee of the premises, wishes to do so. The reference to outdoor eating areas is a health-based reference as well. The Minister for Health raised this consideration in the context of someone going to, for example, a hotel and entering the beer garden portion because they like to drink and smoke but also thereon being able to have something to eat of the bar snack variety because if they were precluded from doing that that would be injurious to safety perhaps, if they were to drink without the capacity to eat. However, it does not relate to a reversal of the current laws that relate to prohibitions on smoking in restaurants and in areas, including alfresco areas, that are specifically put aside for the consumption of meals. I will not go into it any further than that now, except to say that all the indications I have are that all involved in this debate are prepared to accept this amendment, which is why I have moved it on behalf of the government and obviously we hope to get the support to insert it. Hon GIZ WATSON: As sponsor of the bill, I am pleased to support the amendment. It is fair to say that the initial intention of the member for Alfred Cove, who generated the private member’s bill in the other place, was to include all outside areas in licensed premises. I accept that this area of public policy has benefited from support across parties and across political divides. Agreement has been struck that the amendment, as moved by the Minister for Transport, is acceptable. As a former smoker, I accept that we need an incremental approach to persuade people and make it more challenging for people to continue to smoke. Because smoking in pubs and beer gardens is one of the places where people can smoke, this is a reasonable compromise at this time. It will still mean that 50 per cent of the outside areas of licensed premises will be smoke free. I acknowledge that it was complicated to try to work out 50 per cent of the total area of all the outdoor eating areas but this amendment is certainly acceptable. Hon SUE ELLERY: I want to rise once with respect to all of these amendments to indicate that discussions were held and agreement reached between all parties behind the chair about how this legislation should move forward. The amendments before us today reflect those agreements. I will not stand again but I indicate that we support the amendments. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: I want to discuss this amendment a little. In all hotels, not just hotels in country towns but in city hotels as well, when sporting teams finish their matches they go to a beer garden as some will be smokers and some will not be. I take the point made by Hon Giz Watson that the proposed changes are incremental. I am uncomfortable with this aspect of the bill. Everything else is terrific, including hiding the cigarettes. I would like to think that the definition of a smoking zone, be it 50 per cent or whatever it is, can almost be a notional 50 per cent. I am sure that the framer of the bill was thinking of drawing lines and imagining that the smokers were on one side and the non-smokers were on the other. I can also imagine that in certain areas there may be five smokers and five non-smokers and the non-smokers can occupy 50 per cent of the area but not by line and maybe satisfy the words of the amendment. That is the stage that I would like to get to on this bill at this time and then maybe tighten it up as the number of smokers gets smaller and smaller. I am worried about the social implications of a group coming together that plays sport or is a mixed race group and some will smoke and some will not. I am reluctant to see the separation only because they smoke at this time. The meaning that I am putting on it is a nefarious meaning in a way, which means that it will not achieve anything if it is defined the way I have just defined it. Is that what we really want to do? If we do, that is fine but if we do not, I will have difficulty drawing lines.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6585

Hon GIZ WATSON: From discussions I have had and from my knowledge of pubs, which is a bit rusty I have to say, one of the reasons for the wording “50% of the total area of all the outdoor eating areas” is that often there are a number of outdoor areas, certainly in the larger metropolitan pubs. It is envisaged that there could be non-smoking and smoking areas outside. I agree that when smokers and non-smokers socialise it can be an unsolvable problem. When a person’s mates are smokers, a decision has to be made to either hang out with them and take the consequences or try to persuade them to move aside when they want to smoke. I do not know that this legislation can really address that issue. Certainly, in my discussions with the advisers it was very much envisaged that there would be a separate outside area that would be for smoking and another area that would be non-smoking. That is not possible in all venues, but that is the sort of arrangement that would be arrived at with any particular premise. That is the intent of expressing it in that way. Hon PHILIP GARDINER: I accept the member’s explanation of the intention of the bill. I suspect that if push came to shove, those words could be more loosely interpreted, and maybe we will have to live with the eventuality. Hon GIZ WATSON: I spent some time discussing this backwards and forwards. From what I understand from the drafters of the bill, it was hard to come up with a form of words that dealt with the challenges of describing that 50 per cent. The experience with other limitations and restrictions on smoking in licensed premises is that there would be negotiations with each premise as to how those requirements would be met. It is very much the intention to, where possible, create an area where smokers and non-smokers can be outside. The argument would be that that is the best scenario to meet the objectives of this bill. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: As the mover of this amendment, I might be able to help bring this matter to a speedy close, and give comfort to Hon Philip Gardiner at the same time by referring to the next couple of amendments that I will move that are related. This amendment tidies up some other clauses which are in the bill that I propose to delete and which address the member’s concerns. If this amendment succeeds, I propose to delete page 9, lines 20 through 25. Hon Philip Gardiner might see, if he compares those lines with the amendment we are now debating, that it is an evolution to try to capture that which Hon Giz Watson was describing to the member. He is quite right, and to have a space with a line drawn on the floor saying smokers this side and non-smokers that side is a bit of a nonsense. I heard someone in this debate say that it is a bit like having a non-urinating end of a swimming pool, if members know what I mean! We can have by-laws, put signs up, and even draw lines on the bottom of the pool, but it is all futile. However, this provision allows for a bit of mix and match. Say two areas qualified. One area would be for smokers and the other area would not be. That is the practical reality. Yes, sure, people will have to work out whether they are going to hang out in the smoking area with some of their mates or in the non-smoking area with some others. That is just what they have to work through. I hope that deals with it, and hopefully we can now move on. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Michael Mischin): For my part, I am grateful for the minister’s vivid assistance to the debate. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 8 to 10 put and passed. Clause 11: Glossary amended — Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I move — Page 9, line 19 — To delete “that — ” and insert — allocated under section 107B(4); Page 9, lines 20 to 25 — To delete the lines. Very briefly, clause 11 amends the glossary that is in the act that we are amending. The specific term that my two amendments propose to amend is the one that we see on page 9 of the bill, which is “smoking zone”. The impact of these amendments is felt in other places where these terms defined in the glossary are used. By way of brief explanation, we propose—members will see it in the first amendment—to take out the word “that” and insert the words “allocated under section 107B(4)”, so that the definition would read — smoking zone means a place allocated under section 107B(4); Members might think that that looks like an obscure provision. At the moment it is part of a clause, but in due course, when the amendment is passed, it will be part of a section. However, at the moment it is part of a clause, and members will not find it in the act yet, because it is elsewhere in the bill. I can tell members where it came from. It should look familiar, because it appears a couple of lines up on the supplementary notice paper. In effect, that new subsection (4) that we inserted under the last amendment is the new subsection (4) for section

6586 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

107B. That is how it is related. Therefore, the “smoking zone” definition will be as we have just been discussing, and 50 per cent of us can all live happily ever after. The second amendment that I have moved is to delete lines 20 to 25, because obviously that part of the definition is redundant. However, to read this, one must have regard for the other amendment we have just passed. Amendments put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. New clause 6A — Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I move — Page 3, after line 10 — To insert — 6A. Section 24 amended In section 24(1) after “products” insert: or smoking implements I direct the attention of members to section 24(1) of the principal act, which reads — The holder of a retailer’s licence must not display, or authorise or allow to be displayed in, or in the vicinity of, the premises specified in the licence information about the availability or prices of tobacco products unless the information is displayed in accordance with the regulations. This existing provision requires that tobacco products may only be lawfully displayed in a prescribed way. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the items subject to restrictions by adding smoking implements, such as pipes, bongs or cigarette papers, that might tempt some hitherto smoke-free member of our society. In future, they will be protected under this proposed provision, and I commend it to the chamber. New clause put and passed. New clause 6B — Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I move — Page 3, after line 10 — To insert — 6B. Section 32 amended In section 32(1): (a) in paragraph (d) after “tobacco products” insert: or smoking implements (b) in paragraph (d) after “those products” insert: or implements (c) in paragraph (f) after “product” insert: or smoking implement The new clause just passed sought to extend the definition of tobacco products in relation to displays to include smoking implements. Section 32 of the principal act, which this new clause seeks to amend, acts in a fairly similar way, but in this case it relates to advertisements and information provided about tobacco products. This amendment inserts “smoking implements” or “implements”. It is very similar in its intent and function to the previous new clause, so I imagine it will have the support of the chamber. New clause put and passed. Title put and passed. Report Bill reported, with amendments, and the report adopted. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Returned Bill returned from the Assembly without amendment. CROSS-BORDER JUSTICE AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Michael Mischin (Parliamentary Secretary), read a first time.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6587

Second Reading HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The cross-border justice scheme will introduce a collaborative system of justice administration in the region where the borders of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory meet. The scheme was instigated by the NPY Women’s Council, which initially approached state and territory governments in 2003 seeking a solution to the serious justice problems in this remote region. In response, the governments of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia developed the cross-border justice scheme. As noted by the former Attorney General in the introduction for the Cross-border Justice Act 2008, the scheme “seeks to break down the barriers that the borders create in the administration of justice in the cross-border region”. The cross-border justice scheme will allow police, magistrates, fines enforcement agencies, community corrections officers and prisons of one jurisdiction to deal with offences that may have occurred in another of the participating jurisdictions. Western Australia developed the model legislation for the cross-border justice scheme, which was then used as the basis for the drafting of the Northern Territory and South Australian legislation. Western Australia’s Cross-border Justice Act 2008 was assented to in March 2008. During the consultation process with South Australia and the Northern Territory, several issues were raised that resulted in minor changes to the model legislation. The changes were agreed to by all three jurisdictions and incorporated in the South Australian and Northern Territory legislation. The Northern Territory’s Cross-border Justice Act 2009 was assented to in March 2009, and South Australia introduced its bill into Parliament in February 2009. The Cross-border Justice Amendment Bill 2009 amends the Cross-border Justice Act 2008 to ensure consistency with the South Australian and Northern Territory mirror legislation. To enable the cross-border justice scheme to operate successfully, it is critical that the legislation is uniform across participating jurisdictions. To ensure such consistency in the model legislation, the 2009 bill amends sections 7, 8, 29, 36, 54 and 55 of the Cross-border Justice Act 2008, and also inserts a new section, section 139A, into the act. The amendment to section 36 and the insertion of proposed section 139A represent the only two substantive amendments to be made to the Cross-border Justice Act 2008 by way of this bill. The first substantive amendment is to section 36 of the act. South Australia and the Northern Territory expressed concern that the text in section 36(1) did not make it clear that the section applied to only those persons released without charge. Consequently, this section is amended to clarify that it specifically relates to persons released without charge rather than simply persons released. In section 36(1) the word “released” will be deleted and the words “released without charge” will be inserted. The second substantive amendment made by this bill is the insertion of a new section, section 139A, into the act. Proposed section 139A addresses an issue raised by the coroners in South Australia and the Northern Territory. Concern was raised that section 34(3) of the model legislation may prevent a state or territory coroner from investigating the death of a person that occurred while the person was in the custody of another state or territory. Proposed section 139A will ensure that the coronial jurisdiction of each participating state or territory is not affected by the new scheme. Consequently, this proposed section clarifies that the operation of Western Australia’s Coroners Act 1996 will not be affected by the Cross-border Justice Act 2008. It is important to note that the coroners have an administrative mechanism for determining which state or territory would hold an inquest in the event that two or more of the participating jurisdictions may have the jurisdiction to investigate a death in custody. In terms of the remainder of the Cross-border Justice Amendment Bill 2009, sections 54 and 55 of the act will be amended, not substantively, in order to make these sections clearer. Additionally, amendments will be made to sections 7, 8 and 29 to correct minor drafting errors. The Cross-border Justice Amendment Bill 2009 will ensure consistency with the South Australian and Northern Territory legislation. The government acknowledges the support given to the cross-border justice scheme by the previous state Attorney General, Hon Jim McGinty, MLA, and also by the Attorneys General of South Australia and the Northern Territory. The government further acknowledges the work of the commonwealth Attorney-General in realising the operation of the cross-border justice scheme. Hon Robert McClelland, MP recently introduced the Law and Justice (Cross Border and Other Amendments) Bill 2009 into the commonwealth Parliament. This bill received assent on 7 September 2009 and makes the necessary amendments to the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 to facilitate the operation of the cross-border justice scheme.

6588 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

The cross-border justice scheme is a groundbreaking approach from Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory to enhance the safety of those living in the remote communities in the cross-border region. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned and bill referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, pursuant to standing orders. ACTS AMENDMENT (BANKRUPTCY) BILL 2009 Returned Bill returned from the Assembly without amendment. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.06 pm]: I move — That the house do now adjourn. Minister for Environment — Answers to Questions — Adjournment Debate HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [10.06 pm]: I rise with slightly more decorum than I did earlier when I found myself entering the chamber to complete silence because I was supposed to be on my feet, and I had a mouthful of crabsticks from the members’ bar! I thank Hon Giz Watson for rescuing me with a glass of water; it is good that Hansard cannot record everything that goes on in this place! I want to draw attention to a couple of answers the opposition has received from the government in this place over the past two days. It is always good, after we have come back from a break, to give ministers a chance to get back in the swing of things, to read up on their briefs and see how adequately they can answer questions. Unfortunately, today and yesterday the Minister for Environment has failed to answer questions that in my view any minister worthy of the title would regard almost as dorothy dixers. To the three or four questions I have put to her this week I have received no answers, and I want to talk about some of the problems that that is causing. In common with many other members, I woke up this morning to read the article by Robert Taylor in The West Australian. The article is entitled “Cabinet a work in progress—or not, as the case may be”. The government has enjoyed a very long anniversary; it started on 6 September, but because it took some days after last year’s election for the National Party to make up its mind whether it wanted to be progressive or reactionary, the anniversary seems to be extending itself over several days. As a result we have seen quite a few of these comment pieces in the media about scorecards, reports and that sort of thing for the government’s first year. I quote the comments made in the article about Hon Donna Faragher. It states — The youngest member of Cabinet, she has a big job and struggled early on. Still not dealing with issues affecting Woodside because of conflict-of-interests kerfuffle over her husband’s shares. I have to say that this is still a matter of some concern and confusion on this side of the house. It seems as though it was only last week that one of Hon Donna Faragher’s colleagues had to get his partner to sell shares in a company because of a conflict of interest. Hon Donna Faragher interjected. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have not yet got to the main subject that I want to deal with; I am just giving a bit of commentary on the article that appeared in The West Australian this morning. Hon Donna Faragher interjected. Hon Ken Travers: You’ve touched a raw nerve! Hon SALLY TALBOT: I do seem to have upset Hon Donna Faragher a bit, do I not? Just let me carry on for a while. We asked her to clarify the position some weeks ago and we were told that she was still standing aside from Woodside issues. According to Robert Taylor, that has not changed. Hon Simon O’Brien: Is that what you base everything on—what you read in the paper? Hon SALLY TALBOT: We do not really know what is going on there. Hon Simon O’Brien: Tell us the Robert Taylor bit about the Leader of the House being all fuzzy and environmental. Tell us about that bit. Are you hooked on that as well? Hon Ken Travers: Was it news to you, too? Hon Simon O’Brien: Certainly not, but I want to know what the honourable member thinks. I mean, that was written by the same person in the same publication on the same day. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Mr President, Hon Simon O’Brien — Hon Simon O’Brien: Do you take that as gospel as well?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6589

The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Sally Talbot is trying to make her own speech. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you very much, Mr President. I appreciate your intervention. Hon Simon O’Brien may like me to jump straight to another paragraph headed “Simon O’Brien”. I enjoyed this. I am sure my colleague Hon Ken Travers enjoyed this too because this is the subject of some great concern to us. It states — This low-profile Minister has to find a way out of the Liberal promise to complete the Roe Highway extension to Stock Road, a project getting bogged down in studies and protests that was a daft idea anyway. The Perth-to-Bunbury Highway still isn’t open and there’s no sign of a start on the Butler railway extension. Mr President, I am distracting myself here. I do not really want to talk about Hon Simon O’Brien. I want to talk about Hon Donna Faragher. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have got through only the first paragraph on Hon Donna Faragher; she has obviously caused a bit of concern. I guess that my problem with this is that I have already owned up to the house tonight that I own only one share, and that is a share in the Denmark Co-Operative. However, it has never seemed to me to be that hard to sell shares if they are in some sort of conflict with what I am doing professionally. I therefore do not really know what is going on here. However, clearly, Hon Donna Faragher is still not dealing with matters affecting Woodside. The article in The West Australian goes on — Business claims she was quickly captured by Department of Environment and Conservation bureaucrats but she has the Premier strongly in her corner and shows signs of improvement with handling of Gorgon final approvals. I will make a couple of points about this. One is about the handling of the final approvals for the Gorgon project. One does not have to be a student of political history or state development in Western Australia to know exactly what Hon Donna Faragher did. The scope of the Gorgon project was expanded, but she knows as well as we do that the real work on Gorgon was done by the Carpenter Labor government and the Minister for Environment at the time—Hon Mark McGowan—not her immediate predecessor, Hon David Templeman. Several members interjected. Hon SALLY TALBOT: The Minister for Environment at the time put in place the basic framework which Hon Donna Faragher then tinkered with. However, the main point of this is that all Robert Taylor could find to say about Hon Donna Faragher in The West Australian, our own state daily newspaper, was that she had the Premier strongly in her corner. That raises an interesting point about what is going on here and about who is driving this car. I strongly suggest—we see evidence of it every day—that it is not the minister who is driving this car. Clearly the Premier is providing most of the traction here. That is evident in a number of different areas, which I am happy to go into on another occasion, as I do not have time now. It was interesting to note yesterday that we seemed to have a new contender for this position. If all the speculation in the media is right and the Premier is working up some kind of reshuffle in the next couple of weeks, Hon Donna Faragher should take a close look at Hon Norman Moore. Even though the Premier has said that Hon Norman Moore is not a warm and fuzzy person on the environment, I wonder what that means about what will happen to all the cute little animals who might miss out on their press releases if Hon Norman Moore takes over. However, the Premier said that Hon Norman Moore is becoming one of the great conservationists of the Western Australian government. Unfortunately, Hon Norman Moore has been called away from the house on urgent parliamentary business. I think that if he were here he would be blushing on hearing what the Premier said about him! Even that was not the main point I wanted to make. The Minister for Environment can resolve all these questions about whether or not she is in charge of the environment portfolio by showing us that she is prepared to stand up to the Premier and stand up to her cabinet colleagues on some key issues that she simply has to win for the sake of the environment and for the sake of the community of Western Australia. She has got some great role models here. Hon Peter Collier has clearly shirt- fronted the Premier on some energy reforms—what my colleague Hon Kate Doust calls “government by thought bubble”. Hon Peter Collier stared the Premier down, and Hon Peter Collier won. He provides a fine role model for some of his colleagues. We saw earlier this afternoon another minister who has been called away from the house on urgent parliamentary business, Hon Robyn McSweeney, stand up to the Premier. It was absolutely spectacular. She showed fantastic commitment to promote the issue of breastfeeding in Western Australia. I was very proud to be in the house when she said that. I do not know whether she knew that she was flatly contradicting the leader when she said

6590 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] that; nevertheless, that does not matter. She is another fine role model. Hon Donna Faragher, when I make these speeches, gets very upset because she clearly thinks I am having a go at her. Retail Trading Hours — Adjournment Debate HON JIM CHOWN (Agricultural) [10.17 pm]: Last Thursday, 3 September, I was returning from a meeting in Corrigin. I exited Brookton Highway to get on to Albany Highway out at Armadale to commence driving towards the city. The traffic density was light to moderate. As I progressed further towards the city, the traffic density started to increase. In fact when I got to around Cannington it became almost rush hour in both directions. Initially, I thought there might have been some sort of accident, but the reason for the increase in the density of traffic soon became apparent. I was approaching the Westfield Carousel shopping centre. Obviously there is a great number of working families availing themselves of the opportunity—the narrow window that we have in this state—to access retail outlets during extended trading hours on Thursday evenings. It took only a quick phone call to Westfield’s state retail leasing manager to inform me that there are 3 000 parking bays at Carousel shopping centre. He also informed me that on a Thursday evening, 95 per cent of those parking bays are used; that is, about 2 750 people from working families attend this shopping centre. That of course is exemplified throughout the metro area. If the opposition wants a mandate on why extended trading hours need to be put in place, there it is. If members opposite went into their electorates and spoke to people who were engaged in the workforce they would find that most people nowadays would be appreciative of having extended trading hours in this city. In fact, as a country member who now resides in Perth, I find it absolutely extraordinary that we cannot shop after six o’clock but we can go to a liquor outlet and buy booze up until 8.30 at night! We are in the twenty-first century here—please! In so far as the National Party’s exemption from this debate, which was brought forward by Hon Sue Ellery, let me inform the house that currently trading hours can be amended for areas outside the metropolitan area by ministerial order. Many regional towns currently operate under extended trading hours and the granting of these orders is generally contingent upon evidence showing local government community support for change. In fact, in Denmark—which is the electorate of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mr Terry Redman—shops can trade from 8.00 am to 9.00 pm. But the fact is the National Party does not have an electorate in the metro area. In this instance I am talking about the metropolitan area. Two parties are involved—the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. The Liberal Party wants extended trading hours. The Labor Party has flip-flopped and gone to water on this issue. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. Hon JIM CHOWN: That does not matter. Labor Party members should represent the majority of electors in this city. Hon Ken Travers: Are you going to vote on this issue, because you are not a metropolitan member? Hon JIM CHOWN: I have as much right to speak on this issue as any other member in this house, and I intend to do so. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Perhaps the member might address his remarks to the Chair. That is one of the rules of debate. Other members will then not have an excuse to interject. Hon JIM CHOWN: Thank you, Mr President. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2009 — Point of Order Hon KEN TRAVERS: I ask that the member identify the document he is referring to. Debate Resumed Hon JIM CHOWN: I am referring to a document from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that has been researched by my office and is titled, “1367.5 — Western Australian Statistical Indicators, June 2009”. The structure of the Western Australian workforce is very different today from what it was 30 years ago. In 1979, by far the largest group in full-time employment in the Western Australian workforce was males. Males comprised 62 per cent of the workforce. By 2009, male full-time workers comprised only 45 per cent of the labour force. As a corollary, the number of male part-time workers has increased by between three per cent and eight per cent. Over the same period, and this is the important point, Hon Ken Travers, the number of female part-time workers has increased from 14 per cent to 20 per cent. The number of female full-time workers has increased from 21 per cent to 24 per cent of the total workforce. This indicates that, as opposed to previous years, both mum and dad are working. Members would be aware that most people work from between 8.00 am and 8.30 pm to between 4.30 pm and 5.00 pm. Most people residing in the metropolitan area would spend between 45 minutes to an hour getting home from work. That is the reason that we need extended trading hours.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6591

In December 2007 the Australian Institute of Chartered Accountants released the results of a local survey done in August 2007 into the issue of regulated trading hours in Western Australia. The institute surveyed over 200 members and chartered accountants program candidates based in Western Australia to assess their views on retail trading hours. Eighty-one per cent of respondents believed that deregulated trading hours in Western Australia would have a positive impact on the state. In fact, 50 per cent of respondents expressed a preference for complete deregulation of trading hours. The four main reasons given by these respondents were, firstly, greater convenience, 39 per cent; secondly, it makes Perth more attractive to tourists and young people, 24 per cent; thirdly, it provides for balanced work and family commitments, 18 per cent; and, fourthly, it creates more jobs and employment opportunities, 10 per cent. I ask the Labor Party to come on board with this initiative. I am sure it would not like mum or dad to say when they go to the fridge at seven o’clock on a weeknight, “Well, there’s no fresh milk and there’s no fresh bread, but there is a tin of peaches. I will never vote Labor again.” We are living in the twenty-first century. Perth is labelled as Dullsville, thanks to the Labor Party. The Labor Party’s initiative to remove Perth’s Dullsville label was to put a Ferris wheel on the Perth foreshore. That Ferris wheel exemplifies the Labor Party, which opposes extended trading hours, because it is static. It can be seen but it does move. It actually rotates in one spot and that is what the Labor Party has demonstrated in this house on this issue. There is more. The Ferris wheel can be accessed until 9.00 pm. I hope that by the time the retail trading hours issue is next before this house or the other place the Labor Party has reconsidered its position, has changed its thinking about representing this community and votes for the deregulation of trading hours. Burrup and Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement Implementation Deed with Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation — Adjournment Debate HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [10.25 pm]: I wish to touch this evening on the terrible circumstances surrounding the death of the two-year-old child who was electrocuted in a state-owned house in Roebourne. I wish to extend my sympathies to the tight-knit community of Roebourne, the Ngarluma Yindjibarndi, Yaburara Mardudhunera and Wong-goo-tt-oo peoples. Michelle Adams, a person whom I know and respect, is the aunt of the young child and is also the chair of the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, which is the prescribed body corporate that represents all the native title parties and groups in Roebourne. Unfortunately, the Premier, when asked whether he thought the family should shoulder some blame for the death, said, “Well, the house was in a deplorable state, wasn’t it?” I think the television footage showed that. The Premier has made these unhelpful comments when in fact it is the inactivity of the government that in part has led to these conditions in Roebourne. What I wish to do in this adjournment debate is to identify what I believe to be one of the fundamental problems that exist in the situation that many in Roebourne find themselves in and that may have led in part to this terrible incident happening. Those problems are firmly laid at the feet of state government, not only for failing to ensure that the house was electronically secure, but also because the state government has failed to honour its contractual responsibilities to that community set out in 2003. In 2003 the state government entered into the Burrup and Maitland Industrial Estates Agreement Implementation Deed with the Aboriginal groups that I previously named. The Burrup agreement enabled the state government to compulsorily acquire native title rights and interests in the area of the Burrup Peninsula and certain parcels of land near Karratha. As an offset to this agreement, the state government entered into a compensation and fiscal package with benefit programs and land packages with the Ngarluma Yindjibarndi, Yaburara Mardudhunera and Wong-goo-tt-oo peoples. If those funds and agreed benefits had indeed flowed to the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation in 2004 or at any time after that, the situation in Roebourne might be quite different. In my view, the community has still been able to lift its standards significantly, notwithstanding the lack of support from the government. The Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation is still waiting for those funds and commitments to be implemented today in 2009. Things that would have assisted the Roebourne community in its struggle to improve its lot would have been the employment and economic development opportunities established by the BMIEA. These were promised in that agreement but instead there has been a loss of benefits flowing into the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation associated with the continuing costs incurred by that community in taking legal action against the state government to attempt to acquire the land packages, funding and rents associated with the agreement that had been established in 2003. It is interesting to note that the state government took in excess of five years after the establishment of the BMIEA to appoint an employment services provider, even though it was expected that this would proceed in 2003 immediately upon the signing of the BMIEA. The Department of Education and Training continually advised the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation that it was progressing things but the reality was that nothing was being done. By the time the employment service provider was appointed, got up to speed with everything, conducted the audits and had approached various industries, the employment opportunities that were available had reduced significantly. In effect, the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation missed the boom and all the apprenticeships and employment opportunities that arose from it.

6592 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

The Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation has been entitled to land at various intervals since the signing of BMIEA. Despite ongoing negotiations with the state government, MAC still does not have any of the land that it is rightfully entitled to. This was the essence of the agreement in 2003. Many people have approached the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation to joint venture or purchase land from it but because MAC still cannot get the land allocation from the state government in this much-touted agreement, it cannot enter into negotiations and it cannot get recompense or economies of scale from the land it is supposed to be entitled to. As a consequence of a series of breaches by the state government, MAC has missed out on pursuing available business opportunities through joint venture, leasing or sale of the respective land allotments and has therefore significantly lost out financially as a consequence. Many of those interested parties have gone elsewhere and sought land from other locations, including Woodside. Due to the costs that have been incurred by MAC, such as legal and specialist adviser fees in pursuing the state government in an attempt to get it to honour the contractual obligations of 2003, it has not had the financial resources to progress any of its own business initiatives. The corporation seeks to stand on its own two feet with the aim of creating its own income-generating opportunities through such things as tourism activities, establishing its own self-funded business and assisting local Indigenous small business owners. As a result, MAC is continually seeing individuals and businesses, often not local to the region, and taking advantage of business opportunities that it should have been in a position to tender for had the state government adhered to its legal obligation. Many MAC members live in poverty conditions in reasonably remote places so their access to facilities and support services is extremely limited. MAC wants to establish support networks to alleviate some of the problems that its members, particularly the elderly, regularly encounter. MAC wants to, in effect, pay its own way and reduce its dependency on the government in the medium to long term. For example, it would like to be able to finance the purchase of a dialysis machine for its own people in the Roebourne region but it does not have the available funds to do so. The deceased child is a MAC child. This is a perfect example of the necessity of MAC to get fully operational and venture into income-generating activities so that it can assist with proper housing for its people and not rely on the current Homeswest housing, which is substandard. It would be interesting to see how many MAC people have passed away over the past few years. I am aware that people are attending up to three funerals a week as a result of people passing away in that environment. If the state government really wants to assist Indigenous people to stand on their own two feet, to seek meaningful employment and to have a future that they can be proud of, the state government and its bureaucrats must stop being mean-spirited and must get on with implementing the terms of the BMIEA agreement so very generously entered into by the Roebourne community in 2003. It is now 2009 and that community has received nothing from that agreement. In 2009 it is still trying through legal means to get the government of the day to provide the resources that were agreed to in what was cited as one of the best Indigenous agreements in this state. Minister for Tourism — Consumer Complaint— Adjournment Debate HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [10.34 pm]: I rise on the adjournment debate this evening to bring to the attention of the house a concern that was raised with me by Mr Klaus Graef von Adametz. Mr von Adametz phoned my office on 28 August very concerned. He had written to the Minister for Tourism about a holiday package to Mauritius that he was sold in April this year. He did not feel that he got the package that was advertised and called on the minister to do something about this. I want to put on the public record his correspondence to the minister that clearly outlines his concerns. On 27 July 2009, Mr von Adametz wrote — Dear Mrs. Dr. Constable: Re; Misled information from local wholesalers. We went on holiday to Mauritius April May this year, after we have studied an offer and internet information from the nominated hotel Paradise Cove & Spa and the brochure from the wholesaler Fiesta Holidays. The wholesaler declared this hotel as a 5 Star hotel. During our 18 nights stay which included the “All Inclusive Package” we stopped our lunch after several days and requested a better dinner offer as the hotel repeated their selection every 7 days. The wholesaler didn’t mention that everything will be charged in Euro. Instead of two swimming pools we found only one. The mentioned three restaurants were indeed only one and the “kitchen” for lunch was a take-away as we know from our beaches with the toilets next door — I am reading this letter as it is written — The wholesaler declared in his brochure “Hotel Ratings” that Mauritius does not have an official grading system and therefore Fiesta has done it themselves. Photos made by us show the different to their promises and what the hotel has on internet.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6593

After return, we got written statements from travellers which confirms that the facilities of this hotel does not stay for a 5 star hotel. We lodged our written complaint to the hotel before we left and to the wholesaler, which ignored and like to have their retail agent as a witness, which was never in this hotel either. We asking you is that under the policy of tourism allowed to provide a hotel ranging on his own but do not accept the consequences and avoid any complaints of misleading travellers? We send you some copies. If you need the full document, please contact us. A Magistrate Court hearing is set for the 26. October 2009 This constituent wrote to the Minister for Tourism to raise the issue and basically asked whether she could do something about companies which advertised falsely about holiday packages to offshore destinations. He feels as though he has been ripped off. He was promised certain things as part of the package, and he does not feel that he got what he paid for. I do not think that this is an isolated case and because this is probably a bit more widespread than we perhaps know, this is indeed a very important issue. Mr von Adametz is concerned that he has, after writing to Dr Constable, not received a response from her, not even an acknowledgement of the fact that he has gone to the trouble to pen a letter to her explaining the concerns that he has. He also argues that the Tourism Australia licence should be a warranty for the customer and should be under its administration or control if a company has failed to administer it properly. He posed the question: is $9 000 not a lot of money? He says that one would expect a proper holiday facility for that amount of money. Quite clearly, he believes that paying $9 000 for him and his wife to go to Mauritius should have, in fact, provided a much better holiday than it proved to be. For many people a holiday is a highlight of their life. Many people may get only one holiday in their lifetime. Many people would have to work very, very hard to save a large sum of money like $9 000 so that they can go for a holiday, and it is a very special thing for them indeed. To be disappointed to the extent that he and his wife were disappointed is extremely unfortunate. I guess, to his credit, he wants to ensure that other people do not have to go through the same experience that he and his wife have gone through. He in fact wrote to the minister. Having not received correspondence or acknowledgement from her office, he came to me, as shadow Minister for Tourism, to have me ask the minister why she has not replied to his repeated attempts to contact her; what the consequences are, and whether she could explain these to him, of a Tourism Australia licence holder advertising facilities of a hotel or resort falsely; and what actions can be taken against the holder of a Tourism Australia licence if these advertised facilities are not what the holder purports them to be to a traveller. I believe that they are fair and reasonable questions. I explained to him that perhaps this may also be an issue for the minister responsible for consumer protection and that perhaps he should have also written to that minister also. However, I explained to him that should this not be in the Minister for Tourism’s portfolio and should there be some overlap, one would expect that the Minister for Tourism would send it across to the appropriate minister. I have to say to the house that I am very disappointed that the Minister for Tourism has not, at the very least, acknowledged this correspondence. On behalf of Mr von Adametz, I would like the minister to take note of what has been said in this place this evening and make the appropriate effort to respond to him. I am sure that this is not an isolated case, and I believe that it would give a lot of people a lot of comfort if they knew that they could be confident of getting what they paid for. It does not matter whether that is when they buy a fridge or a car, or when they buy a service such as a holiday. I think it is very important that people get the proper value for the money that they work so hard to earn. Minister for Environment — Answers to Questions — Hon Sally Talbot’s Comments — Adjournment Debate HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Minister for Environment) [10.42 pm]: I do not intend to delay the house for terribly long. The PRESIDENT: By the way, by my reckoning, the minister has about five minutes if she requires it, with bits and pieces from the previous three speakers. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Thank you, Mr President. I want to respond to a particular aspect of Hon Sally Talbot’s quite pathetic contribution, which, quite frankly, was 10 minutes of my life that I cannot get back. However, I want to clarify one aspect, and I tried to interject to inform the member, but she did not seem to be interested in hearing it. My husband appears once again to be very popular with Hon Sally Talbot. I will tell him when I get home. Unfortunately, I am not sure whether he will be all that flattered, but, anyway, I will let him know. I can confirm for the member that my husband has sold his shares. However, as previously advised in this house when I was asked a question by, I think, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, a determination has been made that I will not deal with matters concerning Woodside for at least six months after his departure from that company, as and when determined by the Premier. That was the case and remains the case. Hon Sally Talbot: When are the six months up?

6594 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: As I have said, it is about six months, and as and when determined by the Premier. That is effectively a grace period, and that reflects the propriety and accountability of this government— something that the previous government really had a lot of difficulty dealing with. I just say to Hon Sally Talbot, who is, I must say, chief of the fun police and who is always so very negative about simply everything—the world at large—that if she is going to come into this house and have a go at me, she can do that; that is fine. If she is going to have a go at my husband, she can do that, but she should get her facts right. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 10.44 pm ______

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6595

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 824. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) (a)-(d) Paul Everingham 8 December 2008 at Ministerial Office for the purpose of facilitating talks. Also in attendance was representatives from North West Iron Ore Alliance, Atlas Iron Limited, Brockman Resources Limited, and BC Iron Limited. 21 January 2009 at Ministerial Office for the purpose of discussing National Jet Systems. 4 February 2009 at Ministerial Office for the purpose of making introductions & discussing DP World. Stephen Galilee 25 February 2009 at Ministerial Office for the purpose of making introductions & discussing Leightons. Barry MacKinnon 26 March 2009 at Ministerial Office to discuss North West Iron Ore Alliance.

MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 825. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Disability Services (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) (a)-(d) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 824.

MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 832. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Environment (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: [See paper 1125.]

6596 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 833. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Youth (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: In my capacity as Minister for Youth: 1 (a)-(d) N/A MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 839. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1) (a) 1 Tamatha Smith 2 Peter Dowding 3 Megan Anwyl 4 Sarah Browne 5 John McCourt 6 Wendy Pryer 7 Anne Burns (b) 1 Tamatha Smith (Professional Public Relations) 2 Peter Dowding (Fremantle Consulting) 3 Megan Anwyl (Megan Anwyl) 4 Sarah Browne (FD Third Person) 5 John McCourt (McCourt and Associates) 6 Wendy Pryer (Wendy Pryer) 7 Anne Burns (Halden Burns) (c) Anwyl 4/11/2008 Smith: 5/11/ 2008, 7/4/2009 Pryer 11/11/2008 Dowding: 4/12/2008, 12/5/2009 McCourt 4/2/2009 Browne 1/4/2009 Burns: 4/4/2009 (d) Smith: Yilgarn Infrastructure 5/11 — Oakajee, Mega Uranium 7/4 — Uranium Mining Dowding: Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation (both dates) — Housing Anwyl: Mid West Iron Ore Alliance — General Midwest Iron issues Browne: Galaxy Resources — Lithium mine at Ravensthorpe McCourt: (McCourt and Associates) — General Kimberly issues Pryer: Leedal Holdings Pty Ltd — Alcohol restriction in Fitzroy Crossing Burns: Halden Burns — General regional development matters/North Port Development

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6597

MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 840. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1) (a)-(d) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 839. MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 841. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1) (a)-(d) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 839. MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 842. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1) (a)-(d) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 839. MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 857. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Attorney General (1) Can the Attorney General, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Attorney General met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: As at 23 June 2009: (1) (a) Nil. (b)-(d) Not applicable.

6598 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 858. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Corrective Services (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) (a)-(d) Please refer to Question on Notice LC 857. MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 859. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Water (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) (a)-(d) [See paper 1127.] MINISTERS — MEETINGS WITH LOBBYISTS 860. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health (1) Can the Minister, — (a) provide the names of lobbyists or their representatives that they have met with since 23 September 2008; (b) provide details of who the lobbyists were representing when the Minister met with them; (c) advise the date of each meeting and where the meeting took place; and (d) advise the purpose of the meeting? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) (a)-(d) [See paper 1128.] GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 870. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Public Transport Authority (1) Yes. (2) (a) Mrs Barbara Reany of 3 Stirling Grove, Mandurah. (b) $5000 (c) Act of Grace payment in relation to construction works between 2002 and 2007 associated with the Southern Suburbs Railway (Mandurah line).

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6599

Main Roads (1) No. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Department of Transport (1) Yes. (2) (a)-(c) Refer to attached table. [See paper 1123.] GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 871. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Disability Services For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) No. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 878. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Environment For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: Department of Environment and Conservation (1) No ex gratia or one off payments have been approved since 23 September 2008. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable. Perth Zoo (1) No ex gratia or one off payments have been approved since 23 September 2008. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable. Office of the Appeals Convenor (1) No ex gratia or one off payments have been approved since 23 September 2008. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Swan River Trust (1) No ex gratia or one off payments have been approved since 23 September 2008. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Botanical Gardens and Parks Authority (1) No ex gratia or one off payments have been approved since 23 September 2008. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable

6600 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 879. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Youth For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: Department for Communities; Office for Youth (1) No ex gratia or one off payments have been approved since 23 September 2008. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 885. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: DPI (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Gascoyne DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Goldfields Esperance DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Great Southern DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Great Southern DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Kimberley DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Landcorp (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6601

Landgate (1) Yes (2) (a) (i) Customer — Mr Pace. (ii) Registered Proprietor. (iii) Solicitors acting for Executrix of a deceased estate; and a bank. (b) (i) $88.00. (ii) $4704.14. (iii) $7000 paid to Solicitors and $3000 paid to the bank. (c) (i) Refund to customer who paid twice for a duplicate certificate of title. (ii) Full and final settlement of a claim for compensation arising out of an office error in the registration of land process. Without admission of liability. (iii) Full and final settlement of a Supreme Court action and any potential claims arising out of an office error in the registration of land process. Mid West DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Peel DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Pilbara DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable RDL (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable South West DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable Wheatbelt DC (1) No (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 886. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(2) (a)-(c) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 885. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 887. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008?

6602 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

(2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(2) (a)-(c) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 885. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 888. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(2) (a)-(c) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 885. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 903. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Attorney General For each Agency under the Attorney General’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Department of the Attorney General (1) Yes. (2) (a)-(b) Midland Monumental — $11,720.50; Williams Handcock — $10,000; and Andrew Mallard — $3,050,000. (c) Payment to Midland Monumental to erect a memorial stone at the grave site of Cleon Jackman and his foster parents. The matter related to an unsuccessful application by the foster parents (now deceased) under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (WA). The foster parents of Mr Jackman were determined not to be parents under the definitions of the Act. Payment to a law firm, Williams Handcock, on behalf of A W Johnson, C Peters and C Sardinha. The payment was to reimburse court costs resulting from an error in processing a Statement of Claims for a workers' compensation matter. Payment to Andrew Mallard was in relation to his wrongful imprisonment. Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia (1) Yes (2) (a) One Legal Aid staff member (b) $147,287 (c) Voluntary Severance and Payment in Lieu of Notice as approved by the Public Sector Commission in September 2008.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6603

Commissioner for Children and Young People, Department of Corrective Services, Equal Opportunity Commission, Law Reform Commission, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Office of the Information Commissioner advise: (1) No. (2) (a)-(c) Not applicable. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EX GRATIA PAYMENTS 904. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Corrective Services For each Agency under the Minister’s portfolio, — (1) Has the Minister or the Director General of the Agency approved any ex gratia or one off payments, since 23 September 2008? (2) If yes to (1), — (a) to whom were these payments made to; (b) how much were the payments for; and (c) what was the purpose of the payment? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(2) Please refer to Question on Notice LC 903.. PERTH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 913. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Environment (1) When did the Perth Air Quality Management Plan (PAQMP) commence? (2) When was the five year review undertaken? (3) When did the Government receive the consultant’s report on this review? (4) Has the Government finalised its response to the recommendations in this report? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Has this report and the Government’s response been released to the public? (7) If no to (6), why not? (8) How many times did the Air Quality Coordinating Committee (AQCC) meet in 2008? (9) Who is the current chairperson of the AQCC? (10) Who are the other members of the AQCC? (11) Has the progress report on the implementation of the PAQMP for 2007-08 been completed and released? (12) If no to (11), why not? (13) Is the Government committed to the ongoing implementation of the PAQMP? (14) If no to (13), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1) The PAQMP was released in December 2000. In June 2002, the implementation strategy for the PAQMP, which comprises 12 Initiatives, 43 Programs and 126 Actions, was released. The Air Quality Coordinating Committee (AQCC) comprising seven State Government, seven non-government and one Parliamentary representative, was established to oversee its implementation. (2) The five year review was undertaken in 2007 by an independent consultant. The review was overseen by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and managed by a four-member steering committee comprising members of the AQCC and an external Chair. (3) The previous Government received the consultant's report in November 2007. (4)-(7) In January 2008, the review report was sent to the then Minister's office. In May 2008, the Minister requested that DEC draft a Government response to the report, however this was not completed prior to the 2008 State election. Further revisions to the Government Response report have since been made and the report is currently being finalised. (8) The AQCC met once in 2008, and on 19 February 2009.

6604 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

(9) The interim Chair of the AQCC is Dr John Todd, an independent air quality expert with significant experience in air quality management. (10) The current membership comprises representatives from the Department of Environment and Conservation, Department of Health, Department of Planning, Department of Treasury and Finance (Building Management and Works), Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Sustainable Energy Development Office, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of WA, Conservation Council of WA, Kwinana Industries Council, Pollution Action Network, Royal Automobile Club of WA, and WA Local Government Association. (11)-(12)The progress reports to June 2007 and June 2008 are still being finalised. The PAQMP is a Government plan with other departments as lead agencies for some of the initiatives in the PAQMP. Input from these departments is being sought to facilitate the finalization of the reports. An AQCC meeting is scheduled for 15 October 2009 where updates on activities will be presented by the AQCC members. This information will be used to finalise the progress reports. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.

MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES — COMPLIANCE MONITORING 914. Hon Alison Xamon to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Water I refer to the recent Auditor General’s report, Public Sector Performance — April 2009: Management of Water Resources, and in particular the findings regarding inadequacies in compliance monitoring in Western Australia (pp.17-18), and ask — (1) What immediate and long-term actions has the Government taken to ensure the Department of Water, across all regions, systemises its approach to water license compliance monitoring? (2) Given the Auditor General’s previous findings in 2003, which were reiterated in the 2009 report, what programs of proactive compliance monitoring will the Department of Water introduce statewide, across all water management areas? (3) Will the Government now immediately introduce a statewide standardised, transparent, accountable and publicly viewable system of recordkeeping of compliance monitoring activities, follow-up actions and outcomes? (4) How many water allocation licences issued under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act, and for what volume of water, were current at the end of each year, — (a) 2003-04; (b) 2004-05; (c) 2005-06; (d) 2006-07; (e) 2007-08; and (f) 2008-09? (5) How many licences issued under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act, and for what volume of water, were subject to compliance surveys for each year, — (a) 2003-04; (b) 2004-05; (c) 2005-06; (d) 2006-07; (e) 2007-08; and (f) 2008-09? (6) The Auditor-General found the level of Department of Water compliance monitoring activity has declined, what has the Government done to turn this disturbing trend around, and what assurances can the Minister give regarding future department compliance monitoring activity? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: The Department of Water has provided the following response: (1) The Department of Water (DoW) is implementing process improvements to improve our compliance monitoring.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6605

(2) As part of its continuous improvement process to enhance compliance issues, the DoW has developed a performance indicator to measure proactive compliance monitoring with the target of spending not less than 10% of the resources allocated to the licensing function. (3) No, but this information is captured in the DoW's complaints management system and the water licensing database. (4) The data below indicates the number of inforce licences at the end of each year, generally with a annual water entitlement greater that 1500 kilolitres per annum: (a) 2003-2004 — 25,652 licences (b) 2004-2005 — 19,297 licences (c) 2005-2006 — 17,589 licences (d) 2006-2007 — 17,435 licences (e) 2007-2008 — 13,829 licences (f) 2008-2009 — 13,792 licences Note: The decline in licence numbers can be attributed to a number of licences issued under the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Act 1909 being cancelled in 2005, the introduction of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Exemption and Repeal (Section 26C) Order 2007 and the amalgamation of a number licences. (5) The data below indicates the number of licences that were subject to compliance surveys for each year, and generally for those licences with a water entitlement greater than 50,000 kilolitres per annum: (a) 2003-2004 — 1254 compliance surveys (b) 2004-2005 — 1173 compliance surveys (c) 2005-2006 — 715 compliance surveys (d) 2006-2007 — 577 compliance surveys (e) 2007-2008 — 500 compliance surveys (f) 2008-2009 — 428 compliance surveys (6) Please refer to the response given for question 2. SHARK BAY WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE — REPORT 917. Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Regional Development (1) Will the Minister advise whether she has reviewed the consultant’s report on the Shark Bay World Heritage Centre? (2) If yes to (1), I ask the Minister to table the report? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: 1. Yes. In 2007 a working group was formed to investigate strategies for ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the Shark Bay World Heritage Discovery and Visitor Centre. The Working Group included representatives from the Shire of Shark Bay, the Department of Environment and Conservation, Tourism Western Australia, the Gascoyne Development Commission in addition to the then Member of Parliament for the Mining and Pastoral Region, Hon Vince Catania and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, Hon Sally Talbot, who also chaired the Working Group. The Working Group appointed an independent consultant, Peter Backshall of MarkeTrade, to provide a business and marketing plan for the Shark Bay World Heritage Discovery Centre that presented a detailed financial and operational assessment of the Centre, evaluated existing and potential new activities of the Centre, and identified measurable achievements and a process for review. Funding for the consultancy was provided by the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, the Gascoyne Development Commission and the Shire of Shark Bay. This business and marketing plan, entitled Shark Bay World Heritage Discovery & Visitor Centre Business & Marketing Plan 2009 — 2013, was completed in November 2008. It encompassed a review of the Shark Bay Interpretive Centre Business Plan (2004) and forms part of the undertakings set out in the 2004 Financial Assistance Agreement between the Shire of Shark Bay and the Minister for Regional

6606 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Development. It replaced the Shark Bay Interpretive Centre Business Plan (2004) and should guide the Shire of Shark Bay in managing the Centre into the future. 2. I hereby table the attached report — Shark Bay World Heritage Discovery & Visitor Centre Business & Marketing Plan 2009 — 2013. [See paper 1126.] GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 924. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Public Transport Authority (1) A total of 464 creditors were outstanding with a total amount of $25 826 887.83. (2) A total of 3 creditors were outstanding with a total amount of $7 048.35 (3) A total of 1 creditor was outstanding with a total amount of $165. (4)-(5) Nil. Department of Transport Please refer to Legislative Council Question On Notice 955 answered by the Minister for Planning in relation to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The Department for Transport was not established until 1 July 2009. Main Roads (1) $44 508 411.32 Creditors — 282 (2) $483 436.17 Creditors — 24 (3) $256 662.64 Creditors — 8 (4) $3 832.35 Creditors — 2 (5) $9 711.90 Creditors — 1 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 925. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Disability Services For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) 34 Creditors, outstanding $167 347. (2) 4 Creditors, outstanding $2 323. (3) 2 Creditors, outstanding $6 358. (4)-(5) Nil. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 939. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, —

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6607

(1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: DPI Refer to PQ 955 answered by the Minister for Planning in relation to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The Department for Regional Development and Lands was not established until 1 July 2009. Gascoyne DC 1. 24 $55,557 2. 24 $55,557 3. 24 $55,557 4. 24 $55,557 5. 24 $55,557 Goldfields Esperance DC (1) A total of $139,362.46 outstanding to 14 creditors for less than or equal to 30 days; (2)-(5) Nil South West DC (1)-(5) Nil. Wheatbelt DC (1) 23 creditors, 66782.09 amount. (2)-(5) Nil Peel DC 1. 6 creditors totalling $211,130.60 2. 5 creditors totalling $37,702.16 3. 3 creditors totalling $31,729.17 4. 1 creditor totalling $212.43 5. Nil Pilbara DC (1) 3 creditors totalling $192,915.00 (2)-(3) nil (4) 1 creditor totalling $500.00 (5) nil Kimberley DC (1) Creditors $2,266.00; (2)-(5) Nil. Great Southern DC Top of Form (1) Nil (2) $7,598.74 — 5 Invoices (3) $3,300.00 — 1 Invoice (4)-(5) Nil Mid West DC (1) 9 Creditors for an amount of $20,630.45

6608 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

(2)-(4) nil (5) 1 creditor for an amount of $120.95 Landgate (1) $1,343,997.00 — 45 creditors (2)-(4) Nil (5) $6,909.77 — 2 creditors Landcorp All Creditors Without Retentions Amount $ Number Amount $ Number (1) $2,260,634.40 78 $2,254,585.24 77 (2) $2,743,300.07 97 $2,716,822.62 95 (3) $5,509,681.41 107 $5,436,269.95 104 (4) $5,876,222.84 112 $5,708,705.66 107 (5) $7,785,193.93 125 $5,712,849.14 110 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 940. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Lands For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 939. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 941. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 939. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 942. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6609

Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1)-(5) Refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice 939. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 945. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Treasurer For each Department and Agency within the Treasurer’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: Western Australian Treasury Corporation (1) $146,850 outstanding comprising 21 creditors. (2)-(5) Nil. Department of Treasury and Finance. (1) 571 Invoices with a GST inclusive amount of $4,075,894.31 (2) 177 Invoices with a GST Inclusive amount of $1,176,200.03 (3) 52 Invoices with a GST inclusive amount of $274,000.02 (4) 30 Invoices with a GST inclusive amount of $112,628.45 (5) 57 Invoices with a GST inclusive amount of $184,417.57 Insurance Commission of Western Australia. (1) $4,031,602.09, 765 creditors as at 3rd July 2009. Figures are not available as at 24th June 2009, as this date is retrospective to when the question was received. The most current and most accurate figures available are at the 3rd July 2009. (2) $2,326.57, 9 creditors (for creditors outstanding 31-60 days). (3) Nil. (4) $212.43, 5 creditors (for creditors outstanding 90-120 days). (5) Nil. GESB (1) $1,358,914.46 — 19 creditors (2) $446.85 — 1 creditor (3)-(5) Nil GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 957. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Attorney General For each Department and Agency within the Attorney General’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Commissioner for Children and Young People The following information was provided by the Office of Shared Services which administers payment to the creditors on behalf of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. (1) $86,721.60 — 17 creditors

6610 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

(2) $3,463.61- 5 creditors (3) $204.20 — 1 creditor (4)-(5) nil Department of Corrective Services As at 30 June 2009: (1) Amount of creditors $18,896,163; number of creditors 534. (2) Amount of creditors $149,457; number of creditors 85. (3) Amount of creditors $177,983; number of creditors 59. (4) Amount of creditors $89,741 number of creditors 36. (5) Amount of creditors $100,700 number of creditors 72. Department of the Attorney General Includes transactions to 30 June 2009. (1) $23,111,079 owing to 317 creditors. (2) $17,017 owing to 13 creditors. (3) $3,850 owing to 6 creditors. (4) $1,639 owing to 2 creditors. (5) $6,809 owing to 11 creditors. Director of Public Prosecutions (1) $662,867 owing to 48 creditors. (2) $346 owing to 2 creditors. (3) $49 owing to 1 creditor. (4) Nil. (5) Nil. Equal Opportunity Commission of WA

Summary of Outstanding Creditors (1) < 30 (2) < 60 (3) < 90 (4) < 120 (5) > 120 Total days days days days days Count of Creditors 6 4 2 0 1 13 Sum of Invoice Amount 1,389.71 820.39 2,435.92 0 203.50 4,849.52 Law Reform Commission of WA Includes transactions to 30 June 2009. (1) $14,423 owing to 4 creditors. (2)-(5) Nil. Legal Aid Commission of WA (1) $259,498.01 and 98 trade creditors. (2)-(5) Nil. Legal Costs Committee Includes transactions to 30 June 2009. (1) $2,565 owing to 1 creditor. (2)-(5) Nil. Office of the Information Commissioner (1) 32 creditors under 30 days, totalling $62,994.04. (2) 9 creditors between 30-60 days, totalling $7,631.48. (3) 7 creditors between 60-90 days, totalling $6,330.89. (4)-(5) Nil.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6611

Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission Includes transactions to 30 June 2009. (1) $409 owing to 1 creditor. (2)-(5) Nil. Professional Standards Council Includes transactions to 30 June 2009. (1) $43,567 owing to 1 creditor. (2)-(5) Nil. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 958. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Corrective Services For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(5) Please refer to Question on Notice LC 957. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 961. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Local Government For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, as at 24 June 2009, — (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: LOCAL GOVERNMENT This total includes Regional Development under the previous Department of Local Government and Regional Development. (1) $4,658,577.20 (46 creditors) (2) $37,702.72 (4 creditors) (3) $23,794.85 (4 creditors) (4) $512.38 (2 creditors) (5) $22,000.00 (1 creditor) METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES BOARD (1) $396,849.50 (43 creditors) (2) $17,307.56 (11 creditors) (3)-(5) Nil. NATIONAL RAIL SAFETY INVESTIGATOR 970. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Transport I refer to the Australian Transport Council (ATC) of Ministers’ approval of model national rail safety legislation that was to be implemented across all States by the end of 2008, and the ATC endorsement of the Regulatory Impact Statement for a single national rail safety investigator, and ask —

6612 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

(1) Will the Minister introduce the approved model national rail safety legislation? (2) If yes to (1), when? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) Does the Government support the establishment of a national rail safety regulator and a national rail safety investigator? (5) If no to (4), — (a) why not; and (b) what will the Government introduce as an alternative? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) Yes (2) Introduction will follow Cabinet's approval of the printing of the draft Bill. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes (5) (a)-(b) Not applicable. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS, COMMITTEES, INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 980. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, over which the Minister holds responsibility, - (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 31 March 2009? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable MINERALS AND ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS, COMMITTEES, INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 981. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Fisheries For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, over which the Minister holds responsibility, - (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 31 March 2009? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6613

(5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS, COMMITTEES, INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 982. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Electoral Affairs For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, over which the Minister holds responsibility, - (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 31 March 2009? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) Nil (2)-(6) Not applicable GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS, COMMITTEES, INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 1018. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Water For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, over which the Minister holds responsibility, - (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 31 March 2009? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: The Water Corporation has provided the following response. (1) None (2)-(6) Not applicable The Department of Water has provided the following response: (1) One. (2) The "Independent Review of Salinity Recovery in the Collie River Basin" (Collie Independent Review) was approved by Cabinet on 20 April 2009 authorising a steering committee to oversee the project.

6614 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

(3) The Chair of the Collie Independent Review steering committee is Mr John Ruprecht, Director Water Resource Management, Department of Water. Mr Ruprecht is a Senior Executive member of the Department of Water. (4) The Collie Independent Review steering committee first met on 21 May 2009 and the project is planned to be completed by 31 October 2009. (5) No sitting fees are paid to steering committee members — all members are ex-officio members of the public service. The total cost of the review is $250,000 as committed during the election. (6) Nil sitting fees have been paid to date and the final cost of the review is fixed at $250,000. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — REVIEWS, COMMITTEES, INQUIRIES AND TASKFORCES 1019. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health For all portfolios, Departments and Agencies, over which the Minister holds responsibility, - (1) How many reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces have been established since 31 March 2009? (2) Will the Minister list all the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established in that period? (3) What is the name and qualification of each person who heads each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that has been established? (4) Will the Minister list the commencement date and completion date for all reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (5) Will the Minister list the total cost of sitting fees and the total cost for each of the reviews, committees, inquiries and taskforces that have been established? (6) Will the Minister list the cost of sitting fees to date and estimated total final cost of each review, committee, inquiry and taskforce that is still current? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: Drug and Alcohol Office 1) The Drug and Alcohol Office has not established any reviews, committees, inquiries or taskforces since 31 March 2009. (2)-(6) Not applicable. Note: The above answer is for the Drug and Alcohol Office only. The Mental Health Division and mental health services in Area Health Services form part of the Department of Health and of hospitals boards which are in the Minister for Health's portfolio. As a consequence, information concerning the Mental Health Division and mental health services is included in the answer provided in respect of the Department of Health as a whole by the Minister for Health. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 1029. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, - (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days as at 31 July 2009? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days as at 31 July 2009? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days as at 31 July 2009? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days as at 31 July 2009? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days as at 31 July 2009? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Public Transport Authority (1) $6 438 640.38 Number of Creditors — 1 654

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6615

(2) $136 664.74 Number of Creditors — 8 (3)-(5) Nil. Main Roads (1) $8 481 082.25 Creditors — 212 (2) $402 017.38 Creditors — 33 (3) $94 194.07 Creditors — 8 (4) $19 634.00 Creditors — 4 (5) $56 251.80 Creditors — 1 Department of Transport (1) $1 259 164.58 (2) $1 259 164.58 (Note: This includes amounts from question 1) (3) $1 259 164.58 (Note: This includes amounts from question 2) (4) $1 259 164.58 (Note: This includes amounts from question 3) (5) Nil. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 1030. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Disability Services For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, - (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days as at 31 July 2009? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days as at 31 July 2009? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days as at 31 July 2009? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days as at 31 July 2009? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days as at 31 July 2009? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) 8 Creditors, Outstanding $50 790. (2)-(5) Nil. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 1064. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Water For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, - (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days as at 31 July 2009? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days as at 31 July 2009? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days as at 31 July 2009? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days as at 31 July 2009? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days as at 31 July 2009? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: The Department of Water has provided the following response:

6616 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

1) 356 creditors and the amount was $2,054,688. 2) 20 creditors and the amount was $136,987. 3) 0 creditors and the amount was $nil. 4) 0 creditors and the amount was $nil. 5) 2 creditors and the amount was $8,831. The Water Corporation has provided the following response: 1) 3,635 creditors and the amount was $24,654,796 2) 8 creditors and the amount was $87,640. 3) 0 creditors and the amount was $nil. 4) 0 creditors and the amount was $nil. 5) 1 creditor and the amount was $604. Note: Each period amount (1-5) is exclusive of other periods. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 1065. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, - (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days as at 31 July 2009? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days as at 31 July 2009? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days as at 31 July 2009? (4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days as at 31 July 2009? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days as at 31 July 2009? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1)-(5) The amount and number of outstanding creditors for the Drug and Alcohol Office as at 31 July 2009 are: Days outstanding Amount Number of creditors 0 — 30 Days $29,374 36 31 — 60 Days $144 1 61 — 90 Days $0 0 91 — 120 Days $0 0 121 Days + Over $0 0 Note: The above answer is for all Drug and Alcohol Office only. The Mental Health Division and mental health services in Area Health Services form part of the Department of Health and of hospitals boards which are in the Minister for Health's portfolio. As a consequence, information concerning the Mental Health Division and mental health services is included in the answer provided in respect of the Department of Health as a whole by the Minister for Health. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — CREDITORS OUTSTANDING 1066. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Local Government For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, - (1) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 30 days as at 31 July 2009? (2) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 60 days as at 31 July 2009? (3) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 90 days as at 31 July 2009?

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6617

(4) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding for less than or equal to 120 days as at 31 July 2009? (5) What was the amount and number of creditors outstanding more than 120 days as at 31 July 2009? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1) $943,953.18 (18 creditors) (2) $23,028.08 (5 creditors) (3)-(4) Nil. (5) $443.57 (4 creditors) METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES BOARD (1) $677,850 (82 creditors) (2) $88,756 (16 creditors) (3)-(5) Nil.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT UNIT 1074. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, - (1) Does the agency have a complaints management unit? (2) If yes to (1), how many complaints have been received by the agency since 23 September 2008? (3) What are the categories of complaints received? (4) What is the nature of complaints in each category? (5) How many of the total complaints fall into each category? (6) How many complaints in each category are under investigation by the CCC? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Public Transport Authority (PTA) (1) The Public Transport Authority has a complaint management system in place. (2) The number of comments and complaints received from 23 September 2008 to 14 August 2009 is 13 364. (3)-(5) [See paper 1124.] (6) I am not aware of any complaints that are being investigated by the Crime and Corruption Commission. Department of Transport (1) The Department of Transport has a complaint management system in place. (2) 52 complaints have been received since May 2009. (3) As at 26 August 2009, the category and number of complaints received is: · Services/standards/facilities — 43 · Legislation/regulations/rules — 7 · Information — 1 · Complaints process — 1 (4) The majority of complaints relate to motor vehicle or driver licensing customer service standards. (5) Please refer to (3). (6) I am not aware of any complaints that are being investigated by the Crime and Corruption Commission. Main Roads (1) Main Roads has a complaint management system in place. (2)-(5) For the period 23 September 2008 to 31 July 2009 a total of 591 complaints were recorded. In the table below these complaints have been grouped into one of 43 different categories.

6618 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

Complaint Category Number Received Complaint Category Number Received Animals 3 Publicity 2 Bridge Structures 2 Regulatory Signs 7 Community Engagement 3 Road Closure 9 Compensation Claims 7 Road Conditions 18 Construction Projects 2 Road Lines 6 Cultural Heritage 1 Road Pavement 7 Cyclists 71 Road Works 86 Damage 22 Roadside Memorial 1 Direction Signs 4 Roadside Rest Area 6 Drainage 2 Safety Issues 43 Fencing 3 Special Event 2 Flooding 2 Speed Zone 29 Goodbye Graffiti Campaign 6 Standards 1 Heavy Vehicle Access 3 Traffic Congestion 5 Heavy Vehicle Enforcement 11 Traffic Management 2 Litter 3 Traffic Signals 66 Maintenance/TNC 37 Vegetation 13 Noise Vibration 11 Visual Landscape 1 Parking 1 Warning Signs 2 Pedestrians 11 Website 11 Planning Issue 4 Other 60 Property 4 (6) I am not aware of any complaints that are being investigated by the Crime and Corruption Commission. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT UNIT 1082. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Water For each Department and Agency within the Minister’s portfolios, - (1) Does the agency have a complaints management unit? (2) If yes to (1), how many complaints have been received by the agency since 23 September 2008? (3) What are the categories of complaints received? (4) What is the nature of complaints in each category? (5) How many of the total complaints fall into each category? (6) How many complaints in each category are under investigation by the CCC? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: The Department of Water has provided the following response: (1) The Department of Water (DoW) has a Complaints Management Policy, Complaints Management System and a system administrator that coordinates responses through the system. (2) 104 complaints have been recorded since 23 September 2008 to present. (3) Categories of complaints received: (a) Requiring departmental attention (b) Referred to other agencies (4)-(5) Nature and number of complaints for each category: (a) Requiring departmental attention i. DoW's Internet access 9 ii. Illegal use of water 3 iii. Dispute — water service provider 1 iv. Processing licence application 1 v. Staff conduct 4 TOTAL 18

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6619

(b) Referred to other agencies vi. Water Corporation 82 vii. Department of Health 1 viii. Local Shire 3 TOTAL 86 (6) The DoW has referred no complaints to the Corruption and Crime Commission. The Water Corporation has provided the following response. (1) Yes. (2) 30,039 complaints. This is approximately 5.9% of all customer contacts received during the period. (3) Accounts 273 Billing Response 462 Collections / Payments 67 Concessions 97 Customer Service 26 Debt Management 52 Infill Sewerage21 Land Development 1 Meter Reading 50 Meter Replacements 87 Operations — Drainage 122 Operations — Sewerage 4,605 Operations — Water 18,602 Property Sales / Changes of Tenancy 117 Public Relations 16 Technical (building) Services 279 Water Conservation 374 Water Quality 4,788 30,039 (4)-(5) Refer Question 3. (6) None of the complaints, mentioned above, are under investigation by the CCC to the best of the Water Corporation's knowledge. WOODSIDE BROWSE BASIN JOINT VENTURE PROJECT 1149. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum In relation to the Woodside Browse Basin Joint Venture Project, - (1) What are the projected annual CO2-e emissions associated with the extraction and processing of the gas? (2) What are the total CO2-e emissions estimated to be produced as a result of using the gas as an energy source? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) The Woodside Browse Basin Joint Venture Project is in its initial stages of development. The Department of Mines and Petroleum does not have sufficient information at this time to make a reliable estimate of what might be the projected annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that would be associated with the extraction and processing of the gas. The Department has been advised that the Browse Basin gas contains between eight and twelve per cent carbon dioxide across the three fields, but it is not possible to estimate with any certainty what the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions might be from the extraction and processing activities until the engineering design has been completed. (2) The carbon dioxide equivalent emissions likely to be produced as a result of using the gas as an energy source will largely depend on the volume of natural gas used and the process by which it is used as an energy source. The Department has no detail about either of these matters at this stage. URANIUM MINING — COST OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION 1151. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum (1) What is the total estimated cost of drafting, finalising and implementing legislation required to regulate the mining of uranium in Australia, including the cost of drafting, finalising and implementing all related regulations, instruments, forms and procedures?

6620 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009]

(2) When does the Minister anticipate introducing this legislation into Parliament? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)-(2) This answer is provided in relation to Western Australia only, where no new legislation is required to regulate uranium mining. Existing State legislation that regulates the radioactive elements associated with mineral sand and tantalum mining is continuously updated and this addresses the regulatory requirements for uranium mining. Accordingly there is no additional legislative cost involved. Key State legislation involved is: Principle Issues Mining Act 1978 Mining Lease title, Program of Work (for exploration) and Mining Proposal (for mining), Mine Closure Planning. Environmental Protection Act 1986 - Part IV Assessment of uranium mining proposal; - Part V Works Approval licensing; - Native Vegetation Clearing Permit. Rights in Water and Irrigation Water Licensing. Act 1914 Radiation Safety Act 1975 Radiation Protection, Radioactive Waste Management, Management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), Safe Transport of Radioactive Material. Mines Safety and Inspection Part 16 Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations, Radiation Management Plan, Act 1994 Radioactive Waste Management Plan, Project Management Plan, NORM Guidelines, Mine Abandonment Plan.

PETROL TANKER EXPLOSION, MADDINGTON 1161. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum I refer the Minister to the recent explosion of a petrol tanker in residential Maddington on 14 May 2009, - (1) Media images of the explosion reveal the tanker was displaying Dangerous Goods placards. Was the prime mover and tanker trailer correctly and currently licensed and compliant with all Department of Mines and Petroleum Dangerous Goods transport licences? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Was the tanker driver correctly and currently licensed and trained in appropriate Dangerous Goods handling protocols? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Was the transport operator (Toll Holdings) correctly and currently licensed and trained in appropriate Dangerous Goods handling and transport protocols? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) Was the fuel station correctly and currently licensed and all staff trained and compliant in Dangerous Goods handling protocols? (8) If no to (7), why not? (9) Immediately after quelling the explosion and fire, a FESA, Police Department Arson Squad investigation was initiated. What were the findings of the investigation and when will the Minister table the report to Parliament? (10) What was the cause of the tanker explosion? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) Yes, the prime mover and trailer involved in the Maddington fire were both compliant with the relevant dangerous goods transport regulatory requirements and were appropriately licensed. (2) Not applicable (3) Yes, the driver was appropriately licensed for the transport of dangerous goods. Responsibility for training rests with the employer. (4) Not applicable (5) Yes, the transport operator, Toll Holdings, holds a current licence for the tanker trailer vehicle issued by Victorian Workcover Authority and employs drivers who are licensed to drive dangerous goods vehicles.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 9 September 2009] 6621

(6) Not applicable (7) Woolworths Ltd holds a valid Dangerous Goods Site Licence for the storage and handling of dangerous goods at the Maddington service station. Responsibility for training of staff rests with Woolworths Ltd. (8) Not applicable (9) Questions about the Arson Squad's investigation should be directed to the Minister for Police. (10) The Department of Mines and Petroleum is still finalising its investigation into the fire. From the information available it appears unlikely that precise cause of fire can be categorically determined. However, the most likely cause appears to be ignition of a fuel vapour-air mixture around the fill point by an undetermined ignition source. PETROL TANKER EXPLOSION, MADDINGTON 1162. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum I refer the Minister to the recent explosion of a petrol tanker in residential Maddington on 14 May 2009, - (1) Was the fuel tanker compliant with all relevant Western Australian licenses, including a recent hydrostatic pressure test, as required by the Australian Dangerous Goods code? (2) When was the fuel tanker last subject to a hydrostatic pressure test? (3) How many Dangerous Goods tankers currently registered in Western Australia, have been subject to hydrostatic pressure testing certification, both for new initial licences and for license renewals in the years — (a) 2004-2005; (b) 2005-2006; (c) 2006-2007; (d) 2007-2008; and (e) 2008-2009? (4) Does the Minister have confidence in Department of Transport license renewal and Dangerous Goods testing and certification processes, in the light of the recent Auditor-General report into Dangerous Goods, where the Auditor-General states ‘the Department is renewing licenses for tankers without ensuring that they are safe for transportation of dangerous goods’? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) Yes (2) A hydrostatic pressure test of the tanker involved in the Maddington fire was last performed on 24 April 2006. The two and a half year maintenance testing of the tank vents was last performed on 21 October 2008. (3) (a)-(e) The Department does not keep hydrostatic pressure test records of dangerous goods tankers licensed in WA. The regulations require the dangerous goods transport prime contractors to arrange the testing and to keep records of the tests. The Dangerous Goods Safety (Road and Rail Transport of non-explosives) Regulations 2007 and the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition do not mandate hydrostatic pressure testing of tanker vehicles for flammable liquids. However, maintenance of tanker hatches, vents and valves for flammable liquids must be done every two and a half years. (4) Questions about the Department of Transport's licensing system should be referred to the Minister for Transport. The dangerous goods transport vehicle licensing system has been amended in response to the Auditor General's report to ensure it meets the requirements of the relevant regulations. The maintenance of safety equipment on flammable liquid tanker vehicles rests with the tanker operators. The regulations specify that maintenance needs to be done regularly and records must be kept for not less than three years. In addition to the above, please also note my responses to QON 1161 on this subject.

______