legislative council - parliament of western australia

Legislative Council

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Nick Griffiths) took the chair at 2.00 pm, and read prayers.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA, GENETICALLY MODIFIED FREE ZONE Petition

HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan) [2.01 pm]: I present a petition containing 1 400 signatures couched in the following terms —

To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled.

We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are opposed to commercial growing of GM crops in this State as GM crops will inevitably contaminate non-GM crops and result in the loss of our ‘clean green’ image. Furthermore, no adequate, independent health studies have been done to prove that GM foods will not cause health impacts for current and future generations.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to introduce a strict liability regime to ensure all parties involved in bringing GM crops and/or food into Western Australia (including growers and patent holders) will be held legally liable for any contamination incidents causing market and economic loss, health impacts or environmental damage associated with GM crops/food.

Your petitioners respectfully request the Legislative Council to extend the moratorium on the growing of GM crops in Western Australia until above issues have been addressed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[See paper 4045.]

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE — ESTABLISHMENT

Motion

HON BARBARA SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [2.03 pm]: Thank you, Mr President.

Point of Order

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I seek the President’s clarification on the condolence motion.

The PRESIDENT: The previous Business Program that I received had the condolence motion on it. However, I am advised that motion has been removed from the Business Program at the request of the late Hon Phillip Pendal’s family. I do not know why, but his family has requested that the condolence motion not proceed today.

Debate Resumed

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I move —

(1) Pursuant to section 51 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006, a Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People be appointed by the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly.

(2) The terms of reference of the joint standing committee be as contained in the schedule annexed.

(3) The Legislative Council seeks the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly.

SCHEDULE

9. Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People 9.1 A Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People is

established.

9.2 The committee consists of four members, two of whom are appointed from each house. The chairman must be a member of the Legislative Council.

9.3 A quorum is two members of whom at least one is a member of the Council and one a member of the Assembly.

[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 4 June 2008] 3433

9.4 A report of the committee is to be presented to each house appointed for the purpose by the committee.

9.5 The committee will not meet while either the Assembly or the Council are actually sitting unless leave is granted by the relevant house(s).

9.6 Without limiting the effect of anything contained in these terms of reference, chapter XXII of standing orders, the standing orders of the Council relating to standing committees, will be followed as far as they can be applied.

9.7 It is the function of the committee to —

(a) monitor and review the performance of the functions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People established under the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006;

(b) monitor the relationship between the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the minister;

(c) monitor the effectiveness or otherwise of the Commissioner for Children and Young People;

(d) examine such annual and other reports of the Commissioner for Children and Young People as the committee thinks fit and all public sector offices, agencies and authorities for any matter which appears in, or arises out of, any such report and is relevant to the other functions of the committee;

(e) examine the annual budget of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and make recommendations to the Treasurer in relation to that budget; and

(f) report to Parliament in relation to —

(i) whether any changes should be made to the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006 or any other legislation;

(ii) any review of the act; and

(iii) any other matter relevant to its terms of reference.

I gave notice of this motion on 24 October 2007, which was International Children’s Day. I chose that day to give notice of the motion because I was aware that the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006 required the government to establish a standing committee.

I take this opportunity to place on record the opposition’s view that this motion should be supported in that the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People be a committee of the Legislative Council, that it consist of two members from each house, and that the chairman of the committee be a member of the Legislative Council.

The government was reluctant during deliberations on the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill 2005 to ensure that the Commissioner for Children and Young People be truly independent of the government. A number of amendments to ensure the commissioner’s independence were debated on the floor of the chamber and prior to reaching this place. Without wishing to revisit the five hours of my speech in the second reading debate to establish in the chamber the importance —

Hon Kate Doust: For new members who have not heard it before, Hon Barbara Scott might want to refresh their memories!

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Would members like me to go from go to whoa?

Hon Simon O’Brien: I feel a sense of nostalgia coming on!

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: It will be just an executive summary; I will try to precis it.

I refer to the importance of a children’s commissioner of Western Australia. I notice Hon Kim Chance is now having a little chuckle to himself. There were times during my speech in the second reading debate when he was not amused at all. Some of the things that I raised as issues for children had not even come across his radar. He did not consider that bullying in bathrooms at schools was an issue that teachers or the commissioner should be concerned about, but I can tell him that it is an issue.

I want to simplify this motion today and remind the chamber that it is a simple motion. Part 7, section 51, of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006 requires that a joint standing committee of the houses of Parliament be established. The section states in part —

3434 [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 4 June 2008]

(2) The functions and powers of the Standing Committee are determined by agreement between the Houses and are not justiciable.

That provision went through Parliament with the support of the Greens (WA), and I note that Hon Giz Watson is here. During the process of the select committee inquiry into whether Western Australia should have an advocate for children in the form of a children’s commissioner, the Greens were very supportive of the establishment of a standing committee of the Parliament to which the commissioner would report, and they were supportive of the concept that the commissioner should not have to report to a minister. Only when we achieve that transparent mechanism will we ensure the scrutiny of Parliament and allow the Parliament to hear from the commissioner, rather than allowing the commissioner to be constrained by a minister. That is one tenet of the legislation that has been fought and won in many jurisdictions.

We are moving today for a stand-alone committee to be established to receive reports from the children’s commissioner and to hear what work is being done to review policies and practices involving children. The committee will also review other matters to do with children in this state and alert the commissioner to things that Parliament might wish to have reviewed in detail. That is the right and proper role of a children’s commissioner, particularly in circumstances in which the Parliament does not have time to scrutinise some of the policies and practices involving children.

Some members in the chamber will recall that as far back as 2002 I held a major children’s summit in Fremantle. More than 300 people from across all child sectors in Western Australia attended. A very simple message came through from that. There was general agreement that Western Australia needed to have a children’s commissioner. Such a position should be held by an independent advocate, a fearless advocate for children; not just another government agency dealing with children. The general consensus was that if it was to be that, it would be better to not have one at all. We know that a number of agencies and ministers have dealings with children. I will go into that a bit later. The view, therefore, that people were convinced that it was timely for Western Australia to put in place an independent commissioner for young children was a very general view. The view was presented to the Parliament’s Select Committee on Advocacy for Children (Appointment of a Commissioner for Children) and included in the select committee’s recommendations. The select committee report contains a number of references to the features of a clearly independent commissioner. I quote from paragraph 6.7 on page 62 of the report under the main heading “Features of the Role of the Commissioner” —

Independent of government 6.7 Independence from government is seen as essential by the vast majority of submissions and

those who provided oral evidence at hearings.

One submission was quoted in the report, which stated what we needed as follows —

. . . a “fearless advocate through legal means or policy articulation, without political redress, and be protected from the usual bureaucratic punishment for being a squeaky wheel: budget cuts and administrative restructures.”

That was also quite clear in the evidence that came from a number of people. It is probably best articulated in those words, but it sends a very clear message that a children’s commissioner should be able to act as a fearless advocate and be protected from the usual bureaucratic punishment for being a squeaky wheel; in other words a bit like an Auditor General.

The committee also considered the characteristics of a children’s commissioner. Paragraph 6.28 on page 67 of the report states —

The Committee finds that the direct accountability of a commissioner to Parliament ensures the commissioner’s independence from government.

That is what the committee fought for. The report goes on —

Hon Barbara Scott MLC and Hon Giz Watson MLC recommend that the government give due consideration to the provisions in Part 6 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 (NSW)

That is part of the legislation we reviewed in that committee and it was reviewed prior to the current motion being placed on the notice paper. Even then the government was not keen that a separate oversight standing committee be established. However, as I said, the Greens (WA) supported that amendment, and the amendment was passed and is now part of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act. That part of the act now provides for a joint oversight committee of both houses of Parliament. It follows the model of the committee established under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act and is reasonably flexible on the powers that are to be determined by Parliament. The underlying issue is that the Parliament determines the role, function and budget of the children’s commissioner, and in that way recommends a budget, although the Treasurer ultimately


decides on the budget. However, in that way the Parliament, and not the executive government, gives a sense of independence to the operation of a children’s commissioner, for which we fought very strongly. As I said earlier, New South Wales has a specific standing committee that oversees its children’s commissioner, and I must say in this Parliament today that Gillian Calvert, the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People, is in my opinion probably the most effective Commissioner for Children and Young People in Australia. Our commissioner has not been in place long enough for there to be a comparison. Gillian Calvert has been a very effective Commissioner for Children and Young People; in fact, she has initiated some collaboration between the commissioner for children in Queensland and commissioners in other places.

I do not intend to again go through the reasons that we need an independent children’s commissioner. However, I remind the chamber that this government has put in place an act that requires the establishment of a standing committee of both houses. My motion requires that the Legislative Council be responsible for the joint standing committee. I see no sound reason that that should not be the case, because the true role of this place is as a house of review. This place continually reviews legislation and positions, and it ensures that those positions are funded well enough to be effective. That is where my motion leads us today. If an argument is put forward by the government that the Legislative Council cannot resource this committee, I would again say what I have said a number of times in this chamber: when will this government recognise that fighting corruption and seeking out corrupt persons in this state and ensuring that there is sufficient government funding should be as important as our children? We have a very powerful Public Accounts Committee and a very powerful Corruption and Crime Commission. Those bodies are rightly linked to Parliament. In that way, Parliament can oversee public accounts activities and can respond to allegations of corruption by public officers and other people.

The functions of the joint standing committee as set out in the motion have been drawn from the New South Wales act. A role of this committee will be to monitor and review the performance and functions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People established under the act. That is important. I do not think any children’s commissioner would want to be a stand-alone island. It is important that the functions of the commissioner be reviewed and that the commissioner can act for children in a fearless way and report back to Parliament. The commissioner should not be responsible to a minister. Parliament needs to have the ability to monitor the relationship between the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the minister. I make it clear that the minister referred to in the act is not the Minister for Health, the Minister for Education and Training, the Minister for Child Protection or the Minister for Communities; indeed, the Attorney General has responsibility for the commissioner. It is important that Parliament know whether that relationship is open and accountable and that the commissioner is not constrained by someone tightening the budget strings, as can often happen. It is renowned around the world that in countries that fight corruption, accountability instruments are in place. If budgets are tightened, the work that is commissioned to be done cannot be done. It is important that the Parliament has the opportunity and power, which is proposed by this motion, to monitor that relationship by protecting the independence of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. I am not talking about personalities of either ministers or commissioners; I am talking about a transparent instrument of the Parliament that allows it, in an honest, frank and open way, to monitor not only that relationship, but also the effectiveness or otherwise of the children’s commissioner. What is the point of having a funded independent commissioner if the commissioner feels so hidebound that he or she cannot act for children or is restrained in some other way? The Parliament needs to know if that were to occur; therefore, an open, two-way flow of communication is needed.

Paragraph 9.7(e) of my motion refers to examining the reports of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. I sat on what was previously the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission for four years, and that experience, together with my attendance at international transparency corruption conferences around the world, gave me a far better insight into the operation of an independent standing committee of the Parliament and the importance of its achieving transparency in government. If each one of us boasts of belonging to a democracy that will fight corruption, abuse or whatever else is at its core, that will happen only when proper accountability instruments are in place. Even then, things do escape, and members would have read about a senior member of a corruption and crime commission in another state in the paper in the past day or so.

Certainly, Parliament should have the power to review and continually monitor what is happening. It should be able to view the commissioner’s reports and maybe even instigate the review of other agencies on matters about which the commissioner might not be aware. I would like to make it very clear that in the best interests of children in Western Australia, the children’s commissioner will need to represent many areas. Apart from the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People being the voice of children and young people in the heart of government, it also has the responsibility to allow the voices of children to be heard in some way. We hope that children and young people will have that opportunity. The role of the Commissioner for Children and Young People is not a narrow child protection role, as such. Western Australia has 500 000 children aged from zero to 18 years. I understand that about 1 500 of these


children have child protection orders over them. They are the children for whom the Minister for Child Protection has responsibility. I need not go through the important things that should be monitored in the good growth and development of our children in Western Australia, but I will mention a few matters so that members can appreciate how wide the scope is for a children’s commissioner and how important it is that Parliament has the opportunity to provide for the work to be undertaken through the budget, as well as to initiate or suggest inquiries.

The early intervention, detection and prevention of, say, mental illness is an emerging real problem in our community. It is often measured in the classroom when little children get there and a parent might say a son or daughter has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I can assure the chamber that there is a high level of mental illness in very small children today. That is a sad reflection on our community. It can be measured in very small babies. The cortisol level in the brain of a small infant of one or two years of age in child care can be measured through the tongue and the moisture in the mouth. The level of cortisol in the brain determines the level of stress. I have seen a graph from the research that has been conducted in Western Australia. Edith Cowan University did some of the first work showing the cortisol levels in very small children in situations in which they were stressed. The testing was done in some childcare centres in crowded circumstances. It has also been conducted by medical people in instances of family and domestic violence. Very small babies and little children can suffer from stress, which will lead to dysfunction and to mental illness. Although we might identify it with the name ADHD and ask where it came from and why it is there, the name ADHD is given for a very serious condition in young people. We often see that the recommended medical intervention is drugs. That sort of thing has been talked about for a long time. It is an issue that affects many children. The Parliament may have an opportunity to say to the Commissioner for Children and Young People that it will be looked at.

Early intervention in the areas of speech, hearing and sight is critical in determining later outcomes for children. We need to look at the issues of low birth weights, the use of folate, the importance of breastfeeding and the importance of home visiting by child health nurses and other intervention therapists in high-risk families. We need to look at the physical activity levels of children, their participation in sport, the role that volunteers now have, how much television children should watch, whether little children should have television and video access in their bedrooms, what sort of computer games are being watched, what sort of food should be advertised on television and whether schools should do something about children’s diets.

I referred earlier to bullying and violence. Major issues of bullying and violence at schools are often perpetuated by those children who have suffered bullying and violence at home and just cannot manage within their peer group. It can be blamed on too much inactivity and the frustration of little children sitting down and watching television for too long. The Parliament should be concerned about literacy and numeracy levels, class sizes, the state of both government and non-government schools, the use of the huge resources of schools before and after school hours, and how much activity can be carried out at the school to help children. Wonderful homework classes for high-risk children, many of whom are Aboriginal, are happening in a part of my electorate. That use of the school after hours is extremely beneficial for those children who want to access it.

There is a big ongoing debate in the community about child care. I have always drawn the discussion about child care back to children, and this is what a commissioner for children should be saying. Many people would perceive that we provide child care to suit parents who want to go back to work or have respite. I do not make any criticism there, because, having raised four children of my own, and now having six grandchildren, I can say that every young mother needs respite while raising children. If the provision of child care is restricted to only those who are working and earning a wage, we should look at that, but the emphasis should always be on the quality of the care. There should be very little difference between child care and early learning centres that provide good education programs. Issues such as immunisation and dental decay should also be considered. There is a high level of dental decay in the community in children under the age of five, and it is said that one of the contributing factors is the increase in the purchase of bottled water and other sorts of drinks for little children, instead of the provision of tap water, which contains fluoride. These issues relate to every one of us because in the end they will create huge costs to the mental health system, the education system and the budget of the government. We need to make sure that, by reporting to the Parliament, the Commissioner for Children and Young People is on track with what the Parliament wants, although the commissioner should not necessarily cover inquiries or divulge things in particular agencies that the government would perhaps be embarrassed about.

As I said earlier, child protection issues are critically important, as we have seen in Parliament in the past couple of weeks through the vigilant questioning of Hon Robyn McSweeney about the number of placements of small children in foster care. I view it as almost a form of child abuse when two, three and four-year-olds are put in 16 or 17 placements in the space of a year.

We also need to look at preventive programs that will assist early intervention in learning, the good growth of children and the development of parenting skills. I spent quite some time in Parliament a couple of weeks ago


talking about the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey. The Parliament needs to make sure that those issues are being investigated and that recommendations are put in place. Although it is the responsibility of the government to do that, the role of the Parliament is to ensure that the Commissioner for Children and Young People is able to undertake that sort of inquiry. The commissioner, Michelle Scott, has assured me that the plight of Aboriginal children will be one of her overriding priorities, but the commissioner herself does not necessarily have to be responsible for conducting all the inquiries that may be important. The state of Aboriginal children in this state is reprehensible. It is all documented in that report by the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research. That is the sort of thing the Commissioner for Children and Young People needs to be considering at the outset, along with a range of other matters that are prioritised. A standing committee of the Parliament may have the opportunity to raise and prioritise some of those issues.

I referred earlier to stress and the effect it has on cortisol levels in the brain. When I spoke about the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey I talked about the life stress events of many young Aboriginal children, and how many of these children had experienced 14 major life stress events in their family in the past 12 months. I can guarantee that if their cortisol levels had been measured, the level of cortisol in their brains would have been very high. Cortisol causes stress and manifests as dysfunctional behaviour, frustration, hitting out at people or whatever—an inability to focus on the job in hand. It impedes children’s learning and their development towards becoming fully functioning children.

My motion to establish the committee that the government is required under the act to establish, and the terms of reference, as indicated on the notice paper, refers to monitoring and reviewing the performance of the functions of the commissioner and examining the annual budget. It refers also to the importance of the commissioner being able, within reason, to undertake the investigations and reports that are necessary. The final term of reference is “any other relevant matter” and I have touched on a few of those matters in my comments.

It is very important that the Parliament be reminded that the children’s commissioner has been termed a children’s watchdog. The commissioner’s role is that of a watchdog, but it is more than that. The proper place for this committee is within the Legislative Council, where our committee system is established in such a way that we have the time to review and very carefully study these matters. In the 2007-08 Budget Statements the estimate for the children’s commissioner is still about $1.5 million. This was an issue that caused much debate in this chamber around the time we debated the bill. When the opposition went to the 2005 election with a commitment for a fully funded children’s commissioner, we promised $5 million a year. That was determined on the basis of the cost per child according to comparisons in other jurisdictions. I think it was about $8 per child per year, if my memory serves me correctly. I cannot find the figure in the report, but I will come back to it. The point is that $1.5 million is not enough for the commissioner to do the thorough work that should be allocated. I have found the relevant page in the report of the Select Committee on Advocacy for Children (Appointment of a Commissioner for Children). It shows that New South Wales, which had a budget of $6 million, had more than double the number of children in Western Australia and an allocation of $3.90 per child. Tasmania was very poorly funded. Queensland, with 917 559 children, had a budget of $9.4 million. These are figures from 2004, when this report was written. I visited Northern Ireland at about that time. It had a similar number of children—500 000—as Western Australia, with a budget of almost $5 million and an allocation of $9.49 per child.

Going into the 2005 election, the opposition worked on a figure of about $9 to $10 per child per year, which is a reasonable amount of money. The budget for the children’s commissioner this year is not generous. One of the issues that came up in the select committee inquiry was the need to ensure true accountability to Parliament and that Parliament, and not a government minister, was able to provide that accountability properly.

I conclude by saying to the house that much has been said about a children’s commissioner in Western Australia. We look forward to hearing from the commissioner publicly. The part of the act that was assented to late last year is a very important part of ensuring that the position of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Western Australia is transparent and independent and a position of true advocacy for children and young people that gives children and young people an ability to be heard. It is not a one-person job by any means; however, the commissioner does not have a very big staff. When we look at the comparative numbers in Northern Ireland and its budget, we realise that far more extensive work can be done. When we debated the creation of the children’s commissioner, I put on record that the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People commissioned Queen’s University, the major university in Northern Ireland, to conduct a major research project about wait times and the importance of early intervention for young children. That was a major commitment that cost in the vicinity of $1 million. We need that sort of budget if we are to make decisions for children based on sound research. It is the same argument I have always used when I have held up as an example the research that has been conducted in this state by the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research. The Minister for Child Protection made the point during that debate that the government had spent $1 million to help fund the survey that was done by the institute. That is very good. However, it is important to ensure that money is not wasted and that the findings and recommendations are implemented, which will require more funding.


The opposition has provided strong powers for the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People, and it has, with the support of the Greens (WA), inserted this requirement into the act. It is up to the government to put in place what is required under the act; that is, the establishment of a joint house standing committee. I urge this chamber to be strong and courageous enough to tell the Premier and the Attorney General that the committee should be run by this chamber, which is geared up to do proper committee work and can ensure the thoroughness that is needed. The standing committee could and should be influential, and we should not accept as an excuse that there is a lack of funds. I commend the motion that I moved.

HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Minister for Child Protection) [2.52 pm]: The government opposes the motion. I will move an amendment to the motion when I have finished making my comments. The government supports the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People. Where we differ from the detail of the motion moved by Hon Barbara Scott is that we argue that the member’s motion would set up a committee that would play a de facto administrative role that would intrude on the work of the commissioner. We differ also on where it should sit and how it should be resourced. Hon Barbara Scott’s motion is too open-ended and, with some of the matters she raised, seeks to include issues that existing parliamentary committees are able to deal with. I will talk about each of those points sequentially.

The essential difference between us relates to paragraph 9.7(b) and (c) of the schedule to Hon Barbara Scott’s motion. The committee should review, monitor and consider the activities of the commissioner but should not provide a de facto administration of the office of the commissioner by effectively looking over the commissioner’s shoulder as she carries out her duties. The act already sets out that the commissioner is empowered to report directly to Parliament; that is, not through the relevant minister, but directly to Parliament, herself. Those reports will provide an opportunity for the commissioner to raise with the Parliament directly any matters that she sees fit without sanction and without vetting, authorisation or permission from the relevant minister. To that extent, I would argue that Hon Barbara Scott’s motion seeks to come between the minister and the commissioner when it does not need to. The act is already clear that the commissioner can provide reports directly to Parliament, and I have no doubt that the commissioner will do that. That relationship is set out clearly in part 4 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act.

Paragraph 9.7(d) of the schedule in Hon Barbara Scott’s motion states that the function of the committee is to —

examine such annual and other reports of the Commissioner for Children and Young People as the committee thinks fit and all public sector offices, agencies and authorities for any matter which appears in, or arises out of, any such report . . .

Hon Barbara Scott gave examples of what is meant by paragraph 9.7(d). It is quite an open-ended term of reference. It is not what was intended when this matter was debated and when a provision for the establishment of a joint standing committee was inserted into the legislation. Various bodies, including the Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards and the Corruption and Crime Commission, can deal with other matters appropriately. We also differ on which house should have responsibility for the joint standing committee. I take issue with Hon Barbara Scott’s proposition that that responsibility should sit with the Council. The Legislative Assembly has more members than does the Legislative Council. Apart from the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission, of which I was a member when I was first elected to Parliament and which was chaired by Hon Derrick Tomlinson, responsibility for the majority of joint standing committees has sat with the Legislative Assembly. The government’s position is that responsibility for joint standing committees rest with the Legislative Assembly because it has more members. It is the case that the Legislative Council is the house of review—there is no question about that. Council members are smaller in number compared with Assembly members, yet they are already committed to heavy duty review of legislation and other matters that come before the Council. Committee work in the Legislative Assembly—I am sure that Legislative Assembly members will take issue with this—is less onerous than committee work in the house of review. There are more Legislative Assembly members than there are Legislative Council members; therefore, the demand on them is less onerous. It is appropriate that the joint standing committee be housed and resourced in the Legislative Assembly. The amendment that I will move will propose that responsibility for the joint standing committee sit with the Legislative Assembly.

In essence, we do not agree with proposed paragraph 9.7. The proposed terms of reference are open-ended. Hon Barbara Scott listed a range of matters that relate to children—matters that rightly fall within the scope of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. The intention behind establishing a joint standing committee was that such a committee would review and monitor the functions of the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People, not review, monitor and oversee all matters relating to children. The joint standing committee should review and monitor the functions of the office and report to Parliament. Hon Barbara Scott’s terms of reference are operationally intrusive and highly prescriptive. For those reasons, we do not support the motion. It ought to be the case that the terms of reference will enable Parliament to respond to issues that are raised by the commissioner—we have no issue with that. The commissioner ought to be able to put matters before Parliament.


Further, the commissioner ought to be able to answer questions asked by the joint standing committee on how he or she carries out the functions of the office. For those reasons, the government will oppose the motion. I will now move an amendment. Some members, including Hon Barbara Scott, have seen an unsigned copy of this amendment.

Amendment to Motion

Hon SUE ELLERY: I move —

To delete the schedule and insert instead —

SCHEDULE

9. Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People 9.1 A Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People is

established.

9.2 The joint standing committee shall comprise two members appointed by the Legislative Council and two members appointed by the Legislative Assembly.

9.3 It is the function of the joint standing committee to —

(a) monitor, review and report to Parliament on the exercise of the functions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People;

(b) examine annual and other reports of the commissioner; and

(c) consult regularly with the commissioner.

9.4 A report of the joint standing committee will be presented to the Council and Assembly by members of the joint standing committee nominated by it for that purpose.

9.5 Without limiting the effect of anything in standing orders 289 to 292, the standing orders of the Assembly relating to standing and select committees shall apply.

I will give an explanation of the amendment for the benefit of members. The first part of the motion that appears on the notice paper in the name of Hon Barbara Scott is —

To move —

(1) Pursuant to section 51 . . .

The act is then named. It continues —

(2) The terms of reference of the joint standing committee be as contained in the schedule annexed.

(3) The Legislative Council seeks the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly.

That would remain. I am putting forward an alternative form of words to form the schedule to the motion that is already before the house.

HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the Opposition) [3.05 pm]: The motion that has been moved by Hon Barbara Scott today has been on the notice paper for a very long time. Indeed, notice of this motion was given on 24 October 2007. The reason Hon Barbara Scott put her motion on the notice paper is that both houses of this Parliament have passed legislation to establish a Commissioner for Children and Young People. That legislation provides also for the establishment of a joint standing committee to oversee the activities of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. Since 27 October 2007 when this motion was moved, the government has had the opportunity to indicate to the opposition whether it will be supporting this motion, or whether it will be doing something different. I therefore find it extraordinary that today, Hon Sue Ellery has said, in her response to the speech made by Hon Barbara Scott in moving this motion, that she has given some members a copy of an amendment that she proposes to move to the motion—one of those members is Hon Barbara Scott, who I gather received a copy of the amendment this afternoon—and the rest of us can have a look at the amendment in a moment! I have now seen for the first time —

Hon Sue Ellery: With respect, Hon Barbara Scott asked for an extra copy so that she could show you!

Hon NORMAN MOORE: I have now seen for the first time the government’s proposed amendment to a motion that has been on the notice paper since October last year! This is the first time that this particular amendment has been presented to me, and, indeed, to this house. I would have thought the minister might have given some notice of an amendment, or some indication prior to this time, of what the government had in mind.

Hon Sue Ellery: I do not think so!


Hon Kim Chance: You must be joking!

The PRESIDENT: Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. I do not know why members are interjecting.

Hon NORMAN MOORE: I do not know either, Mr President. I can just imagine how the Leader of the House, when he was sitting on this side of the house, would have reacted if we had not given him six months’ notice of what our government was going to do! This motion has been on the notice paper since October last year. The minister now wants to amend this motion substantially. However, she has given us a copy of the amendment only after the motion has been moved. This house has already passed legislation to provide for a standing committee to oversee the functions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. Why has the government not brought in a motion to establish that parliamentary committee? Why has the government not done something about it? The relevant legislation was passed by Parliament, and members opposite form the government, but the government did not move to establish a parliamentary committee. The opposition then moved a motion, yet the government, at the last second, has told us that it wants to amend the motion in a significant way. I am sick to death of the way this government, these days, seeks to avoid any scrutiny. This government spends as much time as it can ensuring that nobody knows anything about what it is doing.

Hon Kim Chance: How does establishing a select committee cover anything up? I would have thought it would have been the reverse.

Hon NORMAN MOORE: The Leader of the House can, as is his right, stand in a minute and make a speech about the accountability of the state Labor government —

Hon Kim Chance: I have no problems at all in doing that!

Hon NORMAN MOORE: — and tell me why he believes that responsibility for a committee that is supposed to review the activities of this particular position ought to reside in the Legislative Assembly.

Hon Kim Chance: The minister just did that.

Hon NORMAN MOORE: Why should that responsibility not reside in this chamber, which has a function to review government legislation and government activities? Of course the government wants the joint standing committee to reside in the Assembly; it will then change the rules in due course and make it a government-dominated 3:1 membership, or something like that, to ensure the government controls it. Indeed, the rest of the amendment—I have not even had a chance to read it yet; I could only listen to what the minister said—is all about ensuring that the committee cannot do anything and that nobody can keep an eye on what the commissioner is doing; that is, the amendment will reduce the capacity of the parliamentary committee to oversee what is going on.

Hon Barbara Scott has proposed how this joint committee might oversee the activities of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. What she has proposed is perfectly legitimate and sensible; indeed, her motion gives this Parliament the capacity to oversee the functions of this officer. The whole intention of having this commissioner was to provide an opportunity for a person who is independent of government to look after the interests of children. That person was to report to Parliament and was to have a relationship with a parliamentary committee, as opposed to being a simple government public servant who will do what the minister of the day demands. If the government was serious about this matter, it would have asked the opposition some time ago, when Hon Barbara Scott put the motion on the notice paper, to sit down and explore whether some sort of a compromise, if one was required, could be worked out. It is in the interests of children that this be done properly, but, no, it was not done in that way—at the last second, the government dropped a significant amendment on the supplementary notice paper and gave people like me no time to read and understand what that amendment is about. It would be helpful if, on the odd occasion, the opposition was included in the government’s plans, and occasionally the government told the opposition a way forward on such matters that might meet both our requirements. Instead, the government comes into the house at the last minute and states that it does not like what the opposition put forward in October last year, and then outlines what it wants in its place.

I am a bit interested to know what the mover of the motion thinks about this amendment. She has probably not had much more time than I have had to consider what this amendment means, and, indeed, whether it will simply put in place a joint parliamentary committee that will be totally toothless and will have very significant difficulty in overseeing the activities of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. That is the problem I face in determining whether this is a good amendment. I have no doubt that we will hear from other members about whether they think this is a good amendment, but I suspect that we will not get the best outcome, because an adversarial situation has been created. We could have sat down behind the Chair and worked out some sort of a solution to this matter that would have met the requirements of both sides of the house.

I wait to hear what my colleague Hon Barbara Scott thinks about this amendment, but, on the surface of it, as far as I am concerned at least in respect of one matter, these sorts of committees ought to be part of the Legislative


Council. If having those sorts of committees poses a problem of resourcing, that is the government’s problem, and it is time it did something about it. As the President quite rightly pointed out recently in terms of the Legislative Council budget, this is the sort of committee that ought to be resourced and operate under the standing orders of the Legislative Council, because that is our function and our role, and, indeed, that is what this house is fundamentally all about.

HON BARBARA SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [3.15 pm]: I want to echo the remarks of my leader, Hon Norman Moore, because as he rightly said, this motion has been on the notice paper for many months. In the eyes of the public and the opposition, this motion does nothing more than to ask whether this government is real about wanting a children’s commissioner. Is this government real about wanting the Parliament to scrutinise —

Several members interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members, we have been listening to the speakers so far in relative silence. The Minister for Child Protection has moved an amendment. Members can speak to the amendment. Those members who have already spoken to the motion can speak to the amendment. Those members who have not spoken can speak to the substantive motion. Hon Barbara Scott is now speaking to the amendment.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Thank you, Mr President. I received the amendment in the lunch break. This amendment says to me that the government has only just considered this motion. I know The government came up with this amendment last week because the Greens had a copy of the amendment and therein lies the —

Hon Norman Moore: Is the member saying other parties were advised?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Other parties had a copy of an amendment last week to which the opposition was not privy. Today’s amendment has had changes to that. This is an indication to me of the arrogance of the Attorney General of this state. Through the utter arrogance that maybe by the twist and the turn of an amendment in the Parliament, he may be able to ensure that a Commissioner for Children and Young People will not have the ability to thoroughly scrutinise what is happening to children in this state today.

I wonder why the amendment was not shared with me earlier. However, paragraph 9.1 of the amendment states that the committee will be a joint standing committee—that is fine; that is what the opposition wants. The amendment states that the committee will comprise the same number of members as I stated in the original motion. In paragraph 9.3 the amendment states that it is the function of the joint standing committee to monitor, examine and consult regularly with the commissioner, as the Minister for Child Protection said. I outlined in my motion the joint standing committee’s functions simply for clarity. However, all the functions of the standing committee form part of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act. Therefore, the content of the motion really does not matter to a degree; the minister cannot change the joint standing committee requirements unless she changes the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act. Section 19 on page 11 of the act states, in part —

(k) on the Commissioner’s own initiative or at the request of the Minister or the Standing Committee, to advise the Minister on any matter relating to the wellbeing of children and young people;

(l) to consider, and make recommendations in relation to, any written laws, draft laws, reports, policies, practices, procedures or other matters relating to the wellbeing of children and young people that are referred to the Commissioner by the Minister or the Standing Committee;

I move to page 20 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act. I mention the page number for the benefit of the minister’s advisers who might be listening to make it easy for them to send a little message to say it is all in the act. Perhaps the advisers were not aware that all the functions of the standing committee are clearly enunciated in the act. Section 36 states, in part —

(3) If a government agency, or an employee or officer of a government agency, answers a question or produces a document which is claimed to be subject to legal professional privilege the Commissioner may not include the answer or document or the substance of the answer or document, in any report to Parliament but may report the answer or document confidentially to the Standing Committee.

(4) If the Commissioner reports an answer or document confidentially to the Standing Committee under subsection (3) the Standing Committee must consider in private session whether the answer or question should be reported to Parliament, and, if the Standing Committee considers it appropriate, the Standing Committee may report the answer or document to the Parliament.

The requirement to establish the joint house standing committee is at page 26 of the act. Part 9, section 57, “Recommendations by the Standing Committee”, states —


In the determination of the budget for the Commissioner for a financial year regard is to be had to any recommendation as to that budget made to the Treasurer by the Standing Committee.

This indicates that the minister’s motion has been drafted in haste and at short notice.

Hon Sue Ellery: Nothing at all in my amendment changes any of the things that are set out in the act.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: No. That is what I am saying. It is almost nonsensical to even include in the motion some of the functions of the standing committee because they are already in the act. I put them in my motion for clarity only.

Hon Sue Ellery: I don’t think you understand the point that I am making.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Then make the point again.

Hon Sue Ellery: No, it doesn’t matter. I don’t think you want to understand the point I’m making.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am very open to understanding if the minister has a clear and concise explanation.

Hon Sue Ellery: I don’t think you need to repeat the things that are in the act in the terms of reference because they are legislated for; they are set out in the act. However, that is not the reason I say that your motion goes to intruding into the operations of the commissioner. I take no issue with what is set out in the act. Your motion goes beyond those things set out in the act, and it intrudes into the operations of the office of the commissioner.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Mr President, this is at the nub of the issue. The Attorney General and the minister representing him have this great suspicion that we want something further than what is in the act.

Hon Sue Ellery: I haven’t even discussed this with the Attorney General.

The PRESIDENT: Hon Barbara Scott is now addressing me, rather than answering the interjection.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I have here a list of the commissioner’s functions taken from the act. We could put all those functions into the schedule for the standing committee, but the minister’s proposed amendment makes only three points —

9.3 It is the function of the Joint Standing Committee to —


(b) to examine Annual and other Reports of the Commissioner; and

(c) to consult regularly with the Commissioner.

I have news for the minister: there are also others. The functions of the commission are clear in the act.

Hon Sue Ellery: There’s no dispute.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Okay! The minister was disputing it. For clarity, my motion included some of those functions—not all of them.

Hon Sue Ellery: And went beyond, is what I say.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: It did not go beyond the act and is not intended to intrude on the commissioner’s role—quite the opposite. I am staggered and surprised that a minister with the responsibility for child protection could indicate that my suggestion would be for the Parliament to intrude on the operation of a commissioner for children. I have stood in this chamber for years and advocated the need for an independent commissioner for children—a fearless advocate who is given the powers of the Parliament to investigate matters relating to children. The functions of the committee are conferred on it by the act. I included them in my motion only for clarity.

Simply, the minister’s amendment tells the opposition two things: firstly, the Attorney General wants to have this committee made up of members of the Assembly or the Premier is saying, “Don’t let’s give any more power to that upper house because they do good things up there. If we give them some more money to do an oversight committee for the children’s commissioner, they will make us look silly down in the other chamber. We don’t want that. We will twitch this motion around. It will have the same number of people, two from each chamber—that should satisfy them. It will have the powers that are given to it by the act, but we will have it in the Assembly so we can have more control of it.” That is the first supposition.

The second supposition is that there is another agenda—the government does not really want the Legislative Council in this state to continue to function. It is going to squeeze the purse strings. We are being told, “Oh, it’s got to go to the Assembly because we have no funds here. We have no funds here to run the functions of the Council.”

Hon Sue Ellery: Did I say that?


Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I have never said Hon Sue Ellery said it. Will she listen to what I am saying?

Hon Sue Ellery: I’m trying to. It’s difficult to follow.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Does the minister want me to shout?

Hon Sue Ellery: No, but it’s difficult to follow.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Does the minister want me to repeat it?

Hon Sue Ellery: Yes.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am suggesting there are three things driving the changing of this motion. Firstly, the arrogant Attorney General does not trust the upper house to conduct the business in the way it sees fit and wants it in the Assembly. Secondly, the Premier does not even want the Council to exist. Thirdly, the government is not going to give the funding to the Council to do its proper work. Simply put, those are the reasons. If the minister does not understand them —

Hon Sue Ellery: I understand them, but they’re in your head. They bear no relationship to reality.


Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am suggesting that that may be behind the change in the motion —

Withdrawal of Remark

Hon KIM CHANCE: Mr President, I raise a point of order under standing order 97. Hon Barbara Scott has raised imputations of improper motives and has reflected personally on the Attorney General in a manner that I find offensive. I seek the withdrawal of those comments.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think Hon Barbara Scott has transgressed standing order 97. Members should always be mindful of standing order 97—I had cause to mention it yesterday. I will read it out in full so that members can be even more mindful of it. What Hon Barbara Scott has said did not transgress, in my view. Standing order 97 states —

No Member shall use offensive or unbecoming words in reference to any Member of either House, and all imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly, and when any Member objects to words used, the presiding officer shall if he considers the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, order them to be withdrawn forthwith.

The words of standing order 97 are there to guide us and members will note there is a role for the presiding officer at the end of standing order 97. “Unbecoming words” is a phrase that members should bear in mind and, when we make reference to members of this house or the other place, we should be cautious. Hon Barbara Scott has not transgressed.

Debate Resumed

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Mr President, thank you for that sound advice; I appreciate it.

I was explaining to the chamber that the government has caused the opposition to raise some suspicions about the government’s commitment to establish a standing committee of the Parliament for the reasons I have just outlined and the additional reason my colleague Hon Norman Moore raised in his comments. The Commissioner for Children and Young People Act requires the establishment of a standing committee of the Parliament. The government has dragged its feet and does not want to be caught out or shown up in this regard. Either that, or the department responsible for implementation of this part of the act is disorganised and unprepared. That is what I meant when I made reference to the Attorney General; it is his responsibility. In my view it is arrogant of the Attorney General to wait until the motion on the notice paper was moved—a motion placed on the notice paper by the opposition—to move an amendment. The Attorney General knows full well, as an Attorney General ought to know, that the establishment of a standing committee is required by the act and something that the government ought to have done. This delay, therefore, indicates some reluctance on the part of the government to do this. For no good reason, on the day of debate on this motion we are presented with an amendment to the motion that the proposed joint house committee reside in the Legislative Assembly. The government has given no good reason for that amendment. It is not prepared to debate the reason, whether it is for budgetary or control reasons or whether it is a long-term goal to squeeze all the activities of the Legislative Council by tightening its purse strings.

As I said, the functions of the commissioner are very clear and are set out in the act. The amendment will not alter them, even though the minister has tried to take a cheap shot at me by saying that I wanted a controlling measure placed on the commissioner. That is something I have always fought against. I therefore oppose the amendment.


HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [3.33 pm]: I will quickly contribute to this debate by referring to a number of issues of which I believe I have some experience. I am a member of both current joint standing committees, which of course include members of the other place. I believe I heard the minister say that not only are resources by way of dollars available to the other place, but also many more members are available for appointment to the proposed joint standing committee. My experience on the two joint standing committees on which I serve—one with eight members and one with four members, which is six members in total from each house—is that there are often difficulties for some members of the other place attending at the appointed time for the committee to meet. If the minister knows something different and believes that there are members of the other place who can sit on these joint standing committees when those committees meet, I would love to hear more about that. We may then possibly determine which members will be appointed to the two joint standing committees on which I serve. If that is the reason the government is putting forward for this joint standing committee to come under Legislative Assembly standing orders, it needs to think again. I agree with Hon Barbara Scott. I believe there are other issues associated with this matter, and the issues are certainly not in the interests of children; they are in the interests of this government. The people of Western Australia need to be made aware of that. This has nothing to do with trying to ensure that the joint standing committee operates in the best possible manner; it is all to do with protecting the government. I do not know exactly how the government believes it will be protecting itself, but members can be assured, and I feel quite strongly, that that is the reason for its wanting to go down this particular path.

I believe that if the joint standing committee comes under Legislative Assembly standing orders and is chaired by a government member, this whole exercise will be a sham. The issue of child protection has been spoken about for some considerable time-many years. It has taken that long to reach the point at which legislation is now in place, and that legislation provides for the creation of an oversight committee. I believe it is incumbent upon this government to ensure that it continues what was intended by way of that enactment to protect children, not itself. If it is firmly of the belief that by moving this amendment it is doing exactly that, it is up to government members to stand in this place and explain that to the satisfaction of members on this side of the chamber, the members of the Greens (WA) and the Independent, Hon Shelley Archer. They are the members whom the government needs to convince. We know that government members are convinced; we know the path that they want to go down. It suits them admirably, but it does not suit people on this side of the chamber. We are concerned about the protection of children. We are concerned that an oversight body be put in place that will undertake the role that Parliament intended it to undertake. What the government has proposed by way of this amendment will not fulfil that role. If government members believe otherwise—I presume that they do because the government has moved this amendment—it is important that they stand and argue their case to convince other members in this place. If they do not, they will be seen to be going down a path that is not in the best interests of children.

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [3.38 pm]: We are, in essence, debating two options to establish a standing committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People. The bare structure of both sets of words are similar, but obviously some points are being debated about which form of words will faithfully reflect what Parliament intended when the necessary legislation was passed to establish the Commissioner for Children and Young People. Of course, section 51 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act requires the establishment of a joint standing committee. I have had the opportunity to look at both. I acknowledge Hon Barbara Scott’s comments. It would have been more constructive had the opposition had longer to look at the alternative form of words. I have been on the receiving end of this sort of thing; therefore, I have some sympathy for the opposition. Hon Barbara Scott would know that I did attempt to get her a copy of the alternative form of words earlier, but I was not at liberty to give it to her. In establishing committees the cooperation of all interested parties is the better way to go about it, because, ultimately, we will come into this place and make a decision. It is hard for members to deal with the issue having only just received an alternative form of words.

The alternative form of words that the minister has moved by way of an amendment accommodates the intention of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act. Paragraph 9.3 of the minister’s amendment states —

It is the function of the Joint Standing Committee to —


It has been pointed out that the functions, 15 in all, are outlined in part 3 of the act. The minister’s amendment clearly states that it is the responsibility of the joint standing committee to monitor, review and report and that that report be presented to the Parliament. The amendment is faithful to that provision as well.

I have some sympathy for Hon Barbara Scott’s position on the question of whether the joint standing committee should be a committee of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly. I note that the majority of joint standing committees are committees of the Assembly. The Assembly has additional resources that the Council


does not have, and I take the member’s point that that is not an ideal situation. However, for me it is not a significant point. The committee will comprise two members from each place; therefore, members of the Council will be well represented on the committee. The committee’s proposed terms of reference mirror the arrangements for the committee overseeing the Corruption and Crime Commission. In fact, because the role of these committees is similar, that is the model that I felt was the clearest one to look to for the basis on which to establish this particular joint standing committee.

The Greens (WA) are happy to support the minister’s amendment. The words that the minister has proposed will adequately reflect the intention and spirit of the act. It is clear that the amendment provides sufficient capacity for the joint standing committee to faithfully reflect the legislation that was passed by this place to establish the office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. I have some sympathy that it has taken a while to get to this point. However, it is not that long ago that the position of commissioner was established and the commissioner established her office. Probably right now she is starting to do some substantive work. It is appropriate that we establish this joint committee now. With those comments, the Greens are happy to support the amendment.

HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [3.44 pm]: I will make a few comments on the amendment proposed by the Minister for Child Protection. In part, we are losing focus on what the responsibilities of the new committee are to be. There is no doubt that section 51 of the act requires a Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People to be appointed. Hon Barbara Scott, in her original motion, set out some of the functions that she believed should be carried out by the joint standing committee. The minister has looked at the terms of reference, as it were, of the original motion and decided that it would be clearer to state the functions of the joint standing committee to be as set out in her amendment. Proposed paragraph 9.3 states —

It is the function of the joint standing committee to — (a) monitor, review and report to Parliament on the exercise of the functions of the Commissioner

for Children and Young People; The functions of the commissioner, which are set out in section 19, are extremely wide. In particular 19(k) and 19(l) indicate the breadth of the functions of the commissioner, but, more than that, the responsibilities of the joint standing committee. Section 19, for instance, states —

The Commissioner has the following functions . . . (k) on the Commissioner’s own initiative or at the request of the Minister or the Standing

Committee, to advise the Minister on any matter relating to the wellbeing of children and young people;

(l) to consider, and make recommendations in relation to, any written laws, draft laws, reports, policies, practices, procedures or other matters relating to the wellbeing of children and young people that are referred to the Commissioner by the Minister or the Standing Committee;

If it is the responsibility of the commissioner to act in that way, implicit in that is that it is the responsibility of the standing committee to also have consideration for those particular matters. Hon Barbara Scott was outlining them. I agree with Hon Giz Watson that the joint standing committee is able to monitor, review and report to Parliament on all the functions as set out in section 19. We know that the act also provides for other responsibilities in respect of the joint standing committee. I think the principal question that needs to be answered is whether the minister’s amendment is detracting from the intent of Hon Barbara Scott’s motion. I think the answer to that is no. I think that the minister’s amendment takes into account the matters raised by Hon Barbara Scott. I might say that Hon Barbara Scott recognised that in her comments.

The bottom line is that the dispute appears to be over whether the joint standing committee should be managed by the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly—that is, operate under the standing orders of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly. Quite clearly, and I have made the point on many occasions, I believe that any joint standing committee of the Parliament that has an oversight role should be a committee of the Legislative Council. I am not about to change my view now. That seemed to me to be exactly what Hon Barbara Scott was saying—we want a joint standing committee established but we want the committee to operate under the standing orders of the Legislative Council. The reason that Hon Barbara Scott said that we oppose the amendment as moved by the Minister for Child Protection was not that we oppose the establishment of a joint standing committee, but that we oppose in particular proposed paragraph 9.5 of the minister’s amendment, which would bring the joint standing committee under the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. That, in my view, is where the argument is at the moment.

Hon Giz Watson said in her comments that she accepts that the committee should be under the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly on the basis that the Legislative Assembly has greater resources than the Legislative Council. I understand why that is said, because regrettably at the moment, because of a contraction of


government funds to the Legislative Council and its very limited funding right across the board at this stage, the Legislative Council is not in the same position as the Legislative Assembly in respect of funds generally. The President has commented on that matter in this house, and both the President and the Clerk are working on it on an almost weekly basis—I could be corrected if they were to interject and say a daily basis—to try to improve the situation in the Legislative Council. We thank the President, and indeed the Clerk, for the work that they are doing in that regard. All we do is ask the government to listen and start releasing the purse strings, because there is nothing worse than a government that tries to strangle the house of review so that the government is not scrutinised in a proper manner. That is what is being done to the Legislative Council at the moment. For political reasons related to avoiding scrutiny, the government has not been forthcoming with adequate funds for the Legislative Council. I come back to the nub of the question before the house. It is not about the establishment of a joint standing committee—we all agree that it must be established, and in fact the law requires it to be established—but about whether it should be a committee under the standing orders of the Legislative Council or those of the Legislative Assembly. This side of the house would prefer it to be a committee of the Legislative Council, and that is the reason we oppose the amendment moved by the minister, and we will continue to do so, notwithstanding the fact that we want a joint standing committee established as soon as possible. Perhaps the minister can indicate by way of interjection whether she is prepared to have the committee operate under the standing orders of the Legislative Council.

Hon Sue Ellery: No.

Hon GEORGE CASH: The minister is shaking her head, in a negative fashion and says no. Therefore, the opposition rests its case. We can do no more than vote against the amendment in its present form in the interests of standing up for the Legislative Council.

Before I sit down, I will mention just one other thing. I am sure it was a slip of the tongue when Hon Giz Watson said that she believed—I am paraphrasing what I think she said—that all joint committees are under the Legislative Assembly and therefore they should continue to be so. I remind Hon Giz Watson that we are required to establish a joint standing committee of audit, and both the Greens (WA) and the Liberal Party have made it very clear that we believe that the joint committee of audit should be established under the standing orders of the Legislative Council, for very good reasons. If I may be so bold as to correct my friend and colleague Hon Giz Watson, we on this side do not by any means believe that all joint standing committees should come from the Legislative Assembly.

Hon Norman Moore: The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation is one of ours.

Hon GEORGE CASH: That is also one of ours, is it? It is clear that there is an opportunity for both houses to be responsible for the running of joint standing committees. Both the Greens and the Liberal Party have stated their case on the question of the joint standing committee of audit, and Hon Kate Doust, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, will no doubt bring something forward to establish that committee, because that is also a requirement of law. In the meantime, we oppose the amendment moved by the minister for the reasons I have stated.

Amendment put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (14)

Hon Shelley Archer Hon Kate Doust Hon Paul Llewellyn Hon Giz Watson Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Sue Ellery Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Ed Dermer (Teller) Hon Vincent Catania Hon Jon Ford Hon Sally Talbot Hon Kim Chance Hon Graham Giffard Hon Ken Travers

Noes (13)

Hon George Cash Hon Donna Faragher Hon Norman Moore Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller) Hon Peter Collier Hon Nigel Hallett Hon Helen Morton Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Ray Halligan Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Brian Ellis Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Barbara Scott

Pairs

Hon Adele Farina Hon Anthony Fels Hon Sheila Mills Hon Barry House Hon Batong Pham Hon Ken Baston

Amendment thus passed.

Motion, as Amended

Question put and passed.


CHRIS READ — DISCLOSURE REGARDING OSCAR PROJECT Motion

HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan) [4.00 pm]: I move —

That this house directs the Standing Committee on Public Administration to inquire into matters following disclosure by Mr Chris Read in 1999 of inappropriate practices regarding the OSCAR project whilst he was working at the office of the Ombudsman. In particular, the committee should consider —

(1) contractual arrangements with Mr Chris Read whilst he was working in the Ombudsman’s office;

(2) circumstances relating to the transfer of Mr Read from the Ombudsman’s office to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet;

(3) actions taken by various government departments in relation to Mr Read regarding this matter; and

(4) legislative changes necessary to ensure that people who work in the Ombudsman’s office have access to objective and impartial investigation and, if appropriate, redress relating to internal administrative decisions.

I have moved this motion because people who work in the agencies listed in schedule 1 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971, the act that provides for the role of the Ombudsman in Western Australia, have nowhere else to go to have an administrative action investigated. Pages 14 and 15 of the act refer to the extent of jurisdiction of the role of the Ombudsman. It states quite specifically —

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to all departments and authorities.

(2) This act does not apply to —

It then lists them, including “any department or authority specified in Schedule 1”. Listed in schedule 1 is —

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations and the Deputy Commissioner for Administrative Investigations under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971.

When I asked the Ombudsman whether that meant just those two individuals or the office and all the work undertaken within the office, he made it very clear to me that it meant all the commissioner’s delegates and the work undertaken in the office of the parliamentary commissioner. It basically means that the Ombudsman is precluded from being involved in an issue that occurs within that office for which a person would normally seek the Ombudsman’s involvement.

I have been seeking redress for Mr Chris Read, who has worked in the Ombudsman’s office, through various means for the past three years. I have been looking for an agency that will take responsibility for investigating Mr Read’s grievance. I have not been able to find one that will take it on. Members might suggest that the matter should have been investigated and dealt with six or seven years ago, and I would agree entirely. It is not that there was no attempt to have the matter investigated in a timely manner but it was not possible to find an appropriate agency to comprehensively investigate the matter in a manner that reflected the Ombudsman’s redress guidelines. Even today—eight years later—there are ongoing actions regarding this man and the behaviour of various government departments, which I believe continued to escalate the grievances. The guidelines I am seeking are put out by the Ombudsman’s office and are referred to as “The Ombudsman’s redress guidelines”. They state in part —

In the Ombudsman’s view it is essential that, when the service provided to an individual is unsatisfactory and the agency has in some way contributed to this, the agency should provide redress to remedy the situation.

The “Code of conduct and organisational values” reads —

The values in these codes should guide the way staff deal with aggrieved complainants. For example, “fairness” is demonstrated by maintaining an open mind in investigation and action; recognizing the lawful rights of others to natural justice and equitable outcomes; and allowing people access to due process. The principle of “openness” requires acknowledging mistakes, explaining actions and apologising. These principles underly the redress guidelines.

In the Ombudsman’s view, the ethical principles in the codes of conduct of public sector agencies are consistent with a redress framework which provides that, when people are unfairly or unreasonably affected by decisions, the agencies should take all fair and reasonable steps to make good.


The redress principles include admitting that a mistake has been made, apologising for making a mistake and making the mechanisms visible by making them public. The fourth principle of the guidelines under the heading “fair and reasonable” states —

Redress should be fair and reasonable to both the person affected and the agency. There are a number of criteria that need to be considered.

• Decisions not based entirely on legal grounds — Technical legal questions cannot and should not be ignored. However, fairness involves considering all of the ways in which the circumstances in question have affected the complainant and the wider community. This involves both legal and non-legal issues. An approach guided solely by legal principles risks being rigid, lacking the flexibility necessary for customer-focused agencies. Appropriate weight should be given to broad questions of reasonableness, the effect of decisions and the ethical obligations of fairness and accountability.

They are the sorts of things that have been lacking from the various government agencies that I have gone to when attempting to have this matter dealt with. The fourth principle includes equal treatment and resources not being used to disadvantage a complainant, and states —

Agencies are typically large, with access to resources and advice not usually afforded to most citizens. Using these to the disadvantage of complainants only exacerbates the detriment suffered.

When I outline what I believe has occurred, members will see that the government agencies that either have been involved in or I have sought to have involved in this process have exacerbated the detriment suffered by the complainant. The agencies have done this by using their ability to access rather large resources. The fourth principle also states —

• Proportion — Redress should be proportional to the detriment suffered. This involves weighing the problem and possible solutions to find an appropriate balance.

The fifth principle is “restoration” and states —

Generally, when a person suffers a detriment wholly or partly as a result of the inappropriate actions of an agency, that person should be restored to their original position.

I would like members to remember that point later when debating this motion. The guidelines continue —

When this is not possible, fair and reasonable alternatives should be offered.

The guidelines contain more principles. A section in the guidelines refers to external considerations. Under the heading “Legal liability” the guidelines read —

. . . the agency should provide appropriate redress that obviates the need for that person to pursue their legal remedies.

. . . Agencies have a duty to correct or rectify problems arising from maladministration for which they are responsible. Agencies should make sensible decisions to reach out of court settlements, or better still, to forestall the need for legal proceedings at all. Redress can be offered without admission of liability. The agency may wish, if offering an Act of Grace payment, to enter into a deed with the complainant by which they release the agency and the State from any liability related to the complaint.

The guidelines refer to other areas and then outline the various steps that should be taken. That is the kind of agency that should look at this particular matter. However, that kind of agency is completely precluded from looking at this matter because it is a schedule 1 agency as described in the act.

In a nutshell, Chris Read is a 57-year-old long-term public servant who has not worked for the past eight years but who has continued to receive a salary and allowances. He has not been on workers’ compensation or sick leave for all that time, although he was diagnosed with depression five years ago. While he was still at work he received workers’ compensation for a short period to pay some bills. He is partially unfit and can undertake only light duties. He does not believe that he has any skills. He feels unemployable and carries the stigma of having been a whistleblower. He ended his marriage two and a half years ago. His two daughters, who are aged 14 and 16 years, live with his ex-wife. His 18-year-old mildly disabled son is living with him for a while. He has a new partner and has moved to Mandurah. I bring that information to light because I want members to realise that I am talking about a real person.

In 1989 Chris Read worked for the Industrial Relations Commission as a level 6 information technology manager. He referred an inappropriate work practice to what was then the Office of Merit Protection. That resulted in what he considered to be retaliatory harassment, which meant that he was unable to work for six months. The situation involved a relatively unhappy working relationship, but I cannot be clearer about it. In


1993 he sought and commenced work with the Ombudsman for a three-month trial as a level 6 senior investigating officer. He was seconded for one year on the basis of having done reasonably good work. He then secured two further three-year secondments. In total he worked in the Ombudsman’s office for seven years. During that time he applied to have his position reclassified to a level 7 position. He was successful, along with a few others. Over the next two years he advanced to a level 7.3 position. During that time he noticed inappropriate practices in the management of a new computer project that was being managed by the Ombudsman. He raised the matter directly with the Ombudsman. Chris Read told me that the Ombudsman did not consider that it was a big issue. Mr Read thought that it was a big issue so he told the Ombudsman that if he did not ask the Auditor General to do an independent external review of the matter, he would ask him. In an attempt to settle the matter, the Ombudsman called in another agency person to undertake an informal review. In some respects that could be considered a whitewash of the complaint. The damage was done. The Ombudsman said that he would not renew Mr Read’s contract, which was up for another three-year instalment. He indicated that that was because of unwarranted criticism and unsatisfactory performance. However, the Ombudsman resiled from the claim of unsatisfactory performance on appeal. It was just as well that that was so because Chris Read had received a number of increments, one of which had been three or four weeks before the Ombudsman suggested that he was not performing satisfactorily. Once again, the damage was done. The situation in the office became unacceptable. Almost everybody understood that Chris Read was to be moved.

Debate interrupted, pursuant to temporary orders.

Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE IRON ORE — PRODUCTION FORECASTS

556. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources:

I refer the minister to question without notice 534.

(1) Why are production forecasts for individual projects deemed confidential when public companies disclose their production targets to shareholders and the investment community?

(2) What information is the department relying upon for its forecast price falls for iron ore in 2010-11 and 2011-12?

(3) Why do the figures provided by the minister show a price rise for iron ore of some 28.8 per cent in 2008-09, when the budget papers state that the budget estimates for royalties are based on a 67 per cent price increase in the forthcoming year?

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. However, it has not been possible to provide a response in the time available, and I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to place the question on notice.

SYNERGY — ANNUAL DISPLACEMENT STATEMENT

557. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy:

This question is to the same minister. I hope he has his mind on the job today. I refer the minister to his disclosure that Synergy’s 2007-08 annual displacement statement indicates that the average vesting price paid to Verve Energy for the year is $64.82 per megawatt hour, which is a cut of 5.9 per cent on the $68.88 paid the previous year.

(1) Will the minister table the 2007-08 annual displacement report; and, if not, why not?

(2) Will the minister table the Office of Energy report recommending the cut in price paid to Verve for 2007-08?

(3) If the minister will not table the report, will he outline the main reasons that Verve Energy had a price cut imposed on it?

(4) Does the $64.82 figure in the 2007-08 displacement report include price cuts imposed on Verve in the second half of 2007?

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question.

(1) Synergy’s “Annual Displacement Statement of Opportunities” for 2007-08—the ADSOO—is a public document produced by Synergy and is available on the Synergy website.


(2) No. The report on the vesting contract reset outlines the annual revisions to the pricing arrangements under the vesting contract. However, as the pricing under the vesting contract is commercially confidential, the report is also confidential.

(3) Synergy pays Verve Energy for energy and capacity credits under the vesting contract based on netback pricing, meaning that Verve Energy is paid a price that reflects Synergy’s revenue from tariff customers and inherited retail contracts covered by the vesting contract less a net retail margin, which is kept by Synergy, less network tariffs paid to Western Power and less other defined costs relating to Synergy’s participation in the wholesale electricity market. Prices are reset under the vesting contract annually in accordance with the formulae specified in the schedules to the vesting contract. Vesting contract prices are confidential, but the rest of the vesting contract is a public document. A copy of the vesting contract, excluding prices, can be obtained from the Office of Energy’s website. As a result, it is open to anybody to review the specific reset calculation methodology.

The Office of Energy annually undertakes the reset calculations in the schedules to the vesting contract based on data provided by Synergy, Verve Energy, Western Power and the Independent Market Operator. Synergy and Verve Energy are fully involved in the reset processes. Given the tariff freeze, a limited amount of tariff revenue has been available to support Synergy, Verve Energy and Western Power.

The prices that Verve Energy receives for supplying electricity under the netback pricing mechanism under the vesting contract are reset annually to account for the factors listed above. Therefore, the annual changes to the prices Verve Energy receives are effectively determined by changes in Synergy’s vesting revenues, which are determined largely by tariff volumes and the regulated tariff rates and changes in costs under the vesting contract. These changes in costs are determined by other wholesale electricity purchases for vesting contract customers, Synergy tariff volumes and Western Power’s network tariffs and other costs—market fees, regulatory charges etc.

(4) The ADSOO provides Synergy’s forecasts of the “average vesting price” over a 10-year period. As such, the ADSOO does not indicate the actual prices that Synergy will pay to Verve Energy in any given year. However, it should be noted that in making its forecasts in the ADSOO, Synergy accounts for the annual vesting contract resets by making assumptions on each of the key inputs into the netback calculation—tariff volumes, retail tariff prices, network tariff prices, market fees and regulatory charges. Synergy’s assumptions for each of these inputs are provided in the ADSOO.

OFFICE OF SHARED SERVICES — ORACLE LICENCES

558. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer: I refer to government tender AGR2008128 awarded to Delexian for Oracle licences for the amount of $115 538.95.

(1) Is the value of this tender included in the $450 million estimated project cost associated with the Office of Shared Services?

(2) What is the total value of Oracle licences and other software upgrades across the agencies that are being rolled into the Office of Shared Services?

Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question.

(1)-(2) The government tender AGR2008128 does not concern contracts held by the Office of Shared Services and is, therefore, not a matter for the Treasurer. It is recommended that the question be referred to the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

GNANGARA NYOONGAH COMMUNITY — CHILDREN

559. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY to the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the Gnangara Nyoongah community, and the comments of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Michelle Roberts, that her primary concern has been for the children living in that community, and that she has made it quite clear that she does not think children should be living there.

(1) Has the Department for Child Protection had any involvement with the families and children living at the Gnangara Nyoongah community?

(2) If yes to (1), in what capacity?

(3) How many children are living at that community?

(4) What are the ages of those children?


(5) How many times has the department visited the community in the past five years?

(6) What allegations of abuse, if any, have been of concern to the department?

(7) Have any of the children at the community been placed on care and protection orders?

Hon SUE ELLERY replied:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.

(1) Yes.

(2) The department has investigated child protection reports as well as responded to requests for services, including parent support services, on a case-by-case basis.

(3)-(4) The number and ages of children living in the community fluctuate as families move in and out of the community. The department does not have access to the information sought, and it would not be possible to provide an accurate response to these questions.

(5)-(7) Specific information about the number of departmental officer visits to the community over the period of five years, as asked, will be contained in individual case files. As the population in the community includes families who are mobile, the relevant departmental files are held across a number of offices. It is therefore not possible to provide an accurate response within the required time frame. For the same reason, it is not possible to provide an accurate response to questions regarding the number of allegations, or those placed on care and protection orders, within the required time frame. I can advise that during 2007, two children who were linked with the community, but who did not appear to live there, were the subject of substantiated allegations of abuse and were taken into the care of the chief executive officer. Those children are not permitted to return to the community. During 2007, the Mirrabooka DCP office established a Gnangara working party that liaised with the local school principal, and its members and other Mirrabooka office staff undertook regular visits to the community.

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER INTERPRETATION SERVICE

560. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer to Western Australia’s continued lack of a statewide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages interpreting service for use in court proceedings, medical contexts or other situations.

(1) What progress has been made since the Equal Opportunity Commission provided its report on an appropriate model for such a service?

(2) What progress will be made over the next 12 months towards establishing such a service?

Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.

(1)-(2) The Equal Opportunity Commission’s submission on the provision of a statewide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages interpreting service is currently under consideration by the government. Western Australia and a number of other states and territories have raised this issue with the commonwealth government through the Council of Australian Governments’ Indigenous reform agenda.

ESPERANCE FORESHORE — SAND BYPASSING

561. Hon WENDY DUNCAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure:

I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 361, in which she committed to a feasibility study this year to investigate mechanical sand pumping options to deliver sand to the Esperance foreshore in the long term.

(1) Has funding for the feasibility study been allocated in the 2008-09 budget?

(2) Has the government considered sand bypassing as a stand-alone option for repairing and maintaining the foreshore; and, if not, why not?

(3) If yes to (2), why was it not presented to the Esperance community as an option for the long-term repair and maintenance of the foreshore?

Hon SALLY TALBOT replied:

I answer on behalf of Hon Adele Farina. I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for some notice of the question, to which the following answer has been provided by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

(1) Yes.


(2)-(3) The advice to the government is that sand bypassing alone will not provide sufficient protection for the foreshore. All options presented to the Esperance community require the ongoing placement of sand on the beaches. Funding has been allocated to investigate whether this can be undertaken by bypassing the sand using a mechanical pumping system.

LEVEL 3 CLASSROOM TEACHERS

562. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Education and Training: (1) How many —

(a) primary school teachers currently hold level 3 classroom teacher status; and

(b) secondary school teachers currently hold level 3 classroom teacher status?

(2) What is the current salary of a level 3 classroom teacher?

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question.

(1) (a) A total of 374, which includes early childhood education.

(b) A total of 287.

(2) The current salary ranges from $76 132 to $77 744, as per the 2006 general agreement.

NEVILLE VAN HAEFTEN

563. Hon HELEN MORTON to the minister representing the Minister for Health:

Further to the answer to question on notice 6137 on 6 May 2008 regarding the consent for Mr Neville van Haeften to be transferred to Fremantle Hospital to be subjected to various tests and assessments —

(1) On what date did the family members agree to the transfer and assessments?

(2) Was this agreement in writing; and, if so, will the minister please table the written consent?

(3) Does the minister deny that by 6 October 2005 both Ms Van Haeften and Mrs Maumill had made contact with the staff at Whitby Falls Mental Health Rehabilitation Hostel stating that under no circumstances was Neville to be removed from the hostel?

(4) Does the minister deny that if verbal consent had initially been given and then subsequently withdrawn by the legal guardian then the latter direction should prevail?



(1)-(2) At a meeting between Ms van Haeften, Mrs Maumill, the late Dr Mark Rooney, Executive Director of Mental Health, South Metropolitan Mental Health Service, and senior Armadale Mental Health Service staff on 16 September 2005, a verbal agreement was made. Although the agreement was not in writing, the meeting was mentioned in subsequent correspondence dated 7 October 2005 from Dr Rooney to Ms van Haeften.

(3) By 6 October 2005, both Ms van Haeften and Mrs Maumill had made contact with the staff at Whitby Falls hostel, raising their concerns about the transfer and assessment.

(4) Generally at law, a competent patient or the patient’s substitute decision maker such as a guardian can withdraw a valid consent, whether verbal or written, at any time prior to or even during treatment. However, the application of the legal principle will always be dependent on all the facts of the particular matter. Issues such as the best interests of patients in terms of their health and welfare must be considered. Without knowledge of all the particular facts of this matter, it is very difficult to answer any more definitively than this.

BUSSELTON JETTY — FUNDING

564. Hon BARRY HOUSE to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for South West: I refer to the proposed Busselton jetty project.

(1) Is the Shire of Busselton or LandCorp responsible for the cost of the land adjacent to Sir Stewart Bovell Park that has been earmarked for replacement facilities for Churchill Park users?

(2) Will the state government fund the $6 million that was previously committed to the jetty restructure by the Howard government but withdrawn by the Rudd government?


(3) If the answer to (2) is yes, will this amount be forwarded from the 30 per cent tax equivalent payment from LandCorp to the state government?

(4) If not from this fund, from where will it be derived?

(5) If there is eventually enough profit in the project, will the state government refund the Busselton shire’s $11 million share or portion thereof to the jetty refurbishment?

(6) Has the project considered incorporating a visitor centre for the Geographe Bay Tourism Association and the foreshore tourist precinct?

(7) If no to (6), why not?

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Barry House for providing notice of the question.

(1) The purchase of land for replacement sporting facilities will be negotiated as part of a project agreement with the Shire of Busselton. No decision has yet been made in relation to responsibility.

(2) The state government is still considering a request from the Shire of Busselton to advance an additional $6 million for jetty refurbishment.

(3)-(4) No decision has been made.

(5) Yes.

(6) This will be a matter for the Shire of Busselton in determining future use of lease sites.

(7) Not applicable.

YIRIMAN PROJECT — DIVERSIONARY PROGRAM

565. Hon SHELLEY ARCHER to the minister representing the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to a recent media release from the Minister for Corrective Services dated Monday, 5 May 2008, entitled “New scheme for young offenders in the Goldfields” and the minister’s response to question without notice 278.

(1) When will the Kimberley response task force report its recommendations on sentencing options, diversionary programs for youth and supervision of juveniles?

(2) Is the government planning to expand youth regional justice services, similar to those in the goldfields and Geraldton, to the Kimberley?

(3) If yes to (2), when will they be operational?

(4) If yes to (2), when does the minister expect young offender strategies will be introduced in the Kimberley?

Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services has requested that this question be put on notice.

MIGRATION — GOVERNMENT WEBSITE

566. Hon RAY HALLIGAN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Small Business: I refer to the http://www.migration.wa.gov.au website.

(1) When was the website established?

(2) What is the purpose of the website?

(3) How many hits has the website received since July? The written question states 1 July 2008 but I hope the minister might have realised it should have been 1 July 2007.

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Ray Halligan for the question and I am happy to advise that we understood the question to mean 1 July 2007.

(1) It was February 2005.

(2) The website was developed to provide information about state sponsorship for migration and general information about living and working in Western Australia.

(3) I found this answer incredible: the number of hits was 3 267 093 in the period 1 July 2007 to 4 June 2008.


STATE FORESTS — OLD-GROWTH FOREST LOGGING

567. Hon PAUL LLEWELLYN to the Minister for Forestry: In the context of the rising tide of community concern about the continued logging and felling of old trees in state forests, I ask a question in three parts.

(1) Is the minister continuing to issue licences that result in the felling of old native forest trees in state forests?

(2) If no to (1), how can the minister account for the logging at Diamond Forest, as reported in The West Australian today?

(3) If yes to (1), how is this consistent with Labor Party policy to end old-growth forest logging?

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) Mr President, I have a problem with my hearing. Hon Paul Llewellyn asked a question in three parts,

and I heard about half the question. Does the member have a copy of the question?

Hon Paul Llewellyn: Yes, the minister will easily be able to read it!

Hon KIM CHANCE: I have a problem with my reading, too, Mr President!

The PRESIDENT: If need be, the question can be placed on notice.

Hon KIM CHANCE: Hon Paul Llewellyn seems to be asking whether there is a rising tide of community concern about logging. Certainly, I am not aware of any such concern. Indeed, I believe the community has both adopted and embraced the Australian Labor Party’s old-growth forest policy. People recognise that more than 1.2 million hectares of forest are now protected from any form of harvesting—that is two-thirds of the Western Australian forest area. That is the policy we were elected on; it is the policy that we delivered the day after we were elected.

Hon Norman Moore: Do you still support it?

Hon KIM CHANCE: The government very strongly adheres to that policy.

Hon Norman Moore: What about the minister?

Hon KIM CHANCE: The minister, of course, agrees with the government!

Part (2) of the question appears to be asking whether any logging is happening in old-growth forests. I can assure Hon Paul Llewellyn that that is absolutely not the case. No logging is occurring in the old-growth forests, and there has been no logging since the day after the election of the Gallop government. Part (3) does not make sense. I have just said that all of our actions are entirely consistent with the old-growth forest policy.

SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES — FEDERAL FUNDING

568. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Disability Services:

I refer to the minister’s press release dated 30 May 2008 titled “Federal funding welcomed for people with disabilities” which states that $88.4 million in federal funding has been secured to assist people with disabilities. As a result of this federal funding, how many additional people does the minister estimate will receive funding under the combined application process programs for supported accommodation, intensive family support and alternatives to employment in 2008-09 and 2009-10?

Hon SALLY TALBOT replied: I thank Hon Donna Faragher for some notice of this question, to which I provide the response on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Disability Services. The minister has responded in the following terms.

As indicated in the press release, the $88.4 million, when combined with the state government effort over the next four years, will assist approximately 2 000 people with accommodation support respite and family support. Specifically, it is estimated that the additional federal funding in 2008-09 will assist 102 people in accommodation support and 191 people in intensive family support. The commonwealth has not allocated funding to the states or territories for the alternatives to employment program. The commonwealth requires that the funding be expended on accommodation support and respite.

In 2009-10, it is estimated that the additional funding will assist 61 people in the accommodation support program and 115 people in the intensive family support program. The commonwealth has not allocated funding to the states or territories for the alternatives to employment program. The commonwealth requires that the funding be expended on accommodation support and respite.


LEEMAN PRIMARY SCHOOL

569. Hon BRIAN ELLIS to the minister representing the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to energy company Aviva’s policy to house its construction workers and permanent workforce in the Eneabba area in order to construct and operate the Coolimba power station.

(1) Is the minister aware that during construction 600 workers will be located in the towns of Leeman, Green Head and Eneabba?

(2) Is the minister aware that Aviva anticipates that more than 100 families will be permanently located in the area and there will also be a multiplier effect for support services and industries?

(3) Is the minister aware of community and shire concerns that facilities at Leeman Primary School are being downgraded?

(4) Given the need for resources and staff to be retained to educate the children of the Aviva workforce, will the minister maintain the current level; and, if not, why not?

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes.

(3) The facilities at Leeman Primary School are not being downgraded. The school is being reclassified from level 4 to level 3.

(4) The school will continue to be resourced on its entitlements. As with all schools, the entitlements will be adjusted according to movements in enrolment. Mr Laurie Andrew, a director of schools, has met with the relevant shires and has given assurances that the department will respond quickly if and when the student numbers increase.

AUSTRALIAN WOOL INDUSTRY — PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

570. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: Given the impact on the Australian wool industry of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ lobbying of wool processors against using Australian wool that has come from mulesed sheep —

(1) Has the minister inquired about the real outcome of what PETA is trying to achieve?

(2) What strategies has the government implemented or will it implement to stop PETA from bringing the Australian wool industry to its knees?

(3) Will both state and federal ministers for agriculture give a guarantee to the wool industry that they will do everything in their power to prevent PETA from continuing to have a detrimental effect on this industry?

Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Nigel Hallett for providing notice of his question. (1) The honourable member will be aware that PETA’s mission statement states categorically —

. . . animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

A national wool industry task force has been established to address the mulesing issue. This task force comprises all the peak bodies that represent the business of the Australian sheep and wool industries. They include LiveCorp, WoolProducers Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Australian Wool Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia, the National Farmers’ Federation, the Woolmark company and the Federation of Australian Wool Organisations. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food is an associate member of FAWO and is kept informed of the actions of the task force in dealing with the PETA issue via its membership of FAWO. It is important that government work closely with the industry task force in dealing with the threat that PETA’s actions pose to the industry.

(2) The Department of Agriculture and Food is undertaking research on the most effective way of minimising fly strike risk on sheep that are not mulesed. It is important that preparative actions be taken during this season. Mulesing remains a practice covered by the relevant code of practice in Australia.

(3) I will continue to work with the federal and other state agricultural ministers in supporting the sheep and wool industry task force in this matter. As the honourable member will be aware, the federal Minister for Agriculture has strongly represented the interests of the Australian wool industry to those


clothing manufacturers who have been threatened by PETA’s standover tactics. The Western Australian government strongly supports the commonwealth’s position. The extortion that has been practised by PETA, a foreign-based interest group, is effectively a form of commercial terrorism and will be resisted.

HALDEN BURNS — REMOVAL FROM REGISTER OF LOBBYISTS

571. Hon ANTHONY FELS to the Leader of the House representing the Premier:

I refer to lobbyist group Halden Burns. Given the clear conflict of interest between the Halden Burns lobby group and the Labor Party, combined with the admission by John Halden of the receipt of confidential cabinet information, will the Premier immediately remove Halden Burns from the state government’s Register of Lobbyists; and, if not, why not?

Hon KIM CHANCE replied:

I thank Hon Anthony Fels for giving notice of the question.

Mr John Halden’s comments have been referred to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to provide advice on whether Mr Halden has breached the lobbyists’ code of conduct. In addition, the Premier has asked the director general to refer the matter to the Corruption and Crime Commission.

KUNUNURRA LAKESIDE SUBDIVISION NON-POTABLE WATER SCHEME

572. Hon KEN BASTON to the minister representing the Minister for Health:

I refer to the Kununurra Lakeside subdivision non-potable water scheme that is sourced from Lily Creek Lagoon and to question without notice 501 of 27 May 2008.

(1) What are the particular conditions that the Department of Health has laid down for the use of non-potable water in stages 1 and 2 of the Kununurra Lakeside subdivision?

(2) What are the conditions placed on non-potable water supplies provided to land subdivisions located in Perth?

(3) In what way does the water supply from Lily Creek Lagoon not meet the conditions for its use as non-potable water for landscaping?

(4) Will the minister confirm that the health department refuses to allow this water to be used for landscaping and similar purposes?



(1) The Department of Health supported the proposed Lakeside subdivision subject to the following conditions: water would need to be supplied at class A pathogen-free standard to all residential customers; preliminary testing of the existing lake water would need to be undertaken for microbial pathogens to identify the levels of treatment and pre-commissioning testing required; and a full hazard analysis critical control point based risk assessment proposal needs to be provided.

(2) The conditions placed on non-potable water use in a subdivision will depend on how the water is to be used, from where the water is sourced and the treatment methods and proposed water quality.

(3) If the conditions in (1) are met, the water from Lily Creek can be used for the purposes outlined in the proposal.

(4) The Department of Health allows water to be used for landscaping and similar purposes as long as it meets the minimum health standards and approval has been given.

QUESTION ON NOTICE 5995 Paper Tabled

A paper relating to an answer to question on notice 5995 was tabled by Hon Kate Doust (Parliamentary Secretary).

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 6223, 6228 AND 6229 Answer Advice

HON SALLY TALBOT (South West — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.01 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 138(d), I inform the house that the answer to question on notice 6228 from Hon Paul Llewellyn to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for the Environment on 10 April 2008 will be provided on


5 June 2008; the answer to question on notice 6223 from Hon Wendy Duncan to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 10 April 2008 will be provided on 26 June 2008; and the answer to question on notice 6229 from Hon Giz Watson to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 10 April 2008 will be provided on 26 June 2008.

COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS — CONSIDERATION Committee

The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the chair.

Standing Committee on Legislation — Eleventh Report — “Annual Report 2007” Resumed from 6 December 2007. Consideration of report lapsed.

Natural Resource Management Arrangements — Review — Statement by Minister for Agriculture and Food

Resumed from 28 September 2006. Consideration of statement lapsed.

Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation — Twenty-fourth Report — “Town of Claremont Standing Orders Local Law 2007”

Resumed from 19 February. Motion

Hon RAY HALLIGAN: I move — That the report be noted.

The twenty-fourth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation relates to the standing orders local law 2007 of the Town of Claremont. The recommendation of the committee was that the local law be disallowed. Members will be aware that quite frequently I move protective notices of disallowance, which enables the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to negotiate with either the local government authority or the government agency about its subsidiary legislation. Often there are issues—some relatively minor and others not so minor—that require amendments to those particular pieces of subsidiary legislation. The purpose of moving a protective notice of disallowance is to provide Parliament with the opportunity of disallowing that instrument should the agency or local government authority not satisfy the concerns of the joint standing committee.

In this instance, the report, which I hope members have read, is quite comprehensive and includes a copy of the standing orders local law 2007 of the Town of Claremont, as well as letters written to the town by the committee seeking assistance and responses from that local government authority. I propose to read some of the report. I hope that members, if they have not had the opportunity to read the report, at least take note of what is being said. At page 1 the report refers to background information and the fact that the Town of Claremont standing orders local law 2007 was made under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Local Government Act 1995 and was published in the Government Gazette on 23 August 2007. It goes on to state that the Town of Claremont advised the committee that the purpose of the local law was to ensure that the Town of Claremont had an effective and up-to-date standing orders local law and to allow the Town of Claremont to operate council meetings and associated business within legislative requirements. The local law was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 2 and 14 November 2007. The committee resolved on 2 November 2007 to move a notice of motion of disallowance of the local law to preserve its position while giving the local law further consideration. The Town of Claremont was advised of that resolution by letter dated 9 November 2007. That letter is included in the report at appendix 2. The committee’s concerns start on page 1. The report states —

The Committee had a number of concerns, of varying degrees of seriousness, with the Local Law. In summary, the significant concerns were:

• conflict between the definition of “urgent business” in clause 1.3 and the provisions of clause 4.11(1);

• notice provisions in clause 2 appeared to be an unauthorised expansion of the notice scheme found in the Act and the Interpretation Act 1984;

• reference to regulation 8 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 rendered clause 3.2(1) ambiguous;

• apparent anomaly in clause 4.11(1)(b) providing that business that a Town of Claremont employee cannot deal with in ordinary time is “urgent business”;


• lack of the public access to decision making (transparency and accountability) contemplated by the Act in the Local Law’s provisions with respect to answers to questions on notice;

• the validity of clauses giving power to the chief executive officer (with the concurrence of the Mayor or presiding member) to excise matters from notices of motion and reject questions on the ground of “potential to expose the Council, Councillors or employees to legal action” in light of provisions in the Act specifying the circumstances in which the Council and its members and employees are to be protected from legal action and the potential for such clauses to detract from the “good government” of the persons in the district;

• apparently conflicting confidentiality obligations imposed in the Local Law and potential conflict between the Local Law’s provisions and regulation 6 of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 and regulations 14 and 29A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996;

• apparent conflict between clauses 6.2 and 6.3 and section 5.92 of the Act in the former having potential to prevent production of documents required to be produced by the Act;

• clause 17.9(3)(b) appeared to confer an unauthorised power on the CEO to veto committee recommendations (in providing that the CEO may request committee recommendations be withdrawn and for a recommendation to be withdrawn where such a request is made);

• that the clauses relating to presentation and discussion of committee reports (which do not follow the Western Australian Local Government Association Model Law), which appeared to unduly restrict information being provided as to the reasons for committee recommendations, did not appear to reflect the role of committees as contemplated by the Act or further the “good governance” of the persons of the district;

• clause 19.5 was in conflict with the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 1996 provisions concerning disclosure of interests; and

• inconsistent and, on occasions incorrect, references to the Act and Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 in various clauses of the Local Law.

One might rightly say that was convoluted and, to some extent, when reading it out in that manner, it would appear to be just that. That is all the more reason that members should obtain a copy of the twenty-fourth report and read it for themselves. Members are aware that the joint standing committee took into consideration many concerns about this particular local law.

The report continues —

2.3 The Committee wrote to the Town of Claremont on 19 November 2007 setting out these, and its other, concerns in detail. The Committee requested the Town respond by 26 November 2007 to enable consideration of that response having regard to the possibility of the motion for disallowance being brought on for debate in early December 2007.

2.4 The Committee’s letter is set out in Appendix 3. On page 3, the report goes on to state —

The Town of Claremont responded by letter dated 10 December 2007, subsequent to the Committee’s final meeting of 2007, which was on 5 December 2007. The Committee was not, therefore, able to consider the Town’s response or seek further information prior to debate of the motion for disallowance of the Local Law.

The town’s letter of 10 December 2007 is set out at appendix 4. In the committee’s opinion, the town’s response does not adequately address many of the committee’s concerns. I will give one example at page 4 of the report, which states —

For example, while acknowledging that there had been a drafting error in clause 1.3 that lead to conflict between that clause and clause 4.11, and that that error required rectification by amendment of clause 1.3, the response to the Committee’s query as to how clause 4.11 worked in practice was:

It states —

it is indicated that in the past seven years since the former Standing Orders Local Law was introduced the intent has been well understood and has enabled the smooth flow of the meeting, particularly where matters of an urgent nature arise. Experience has shown that the intent of the clause has operated successfully over many years and it is for that reason that the [Town] has retained the provision in the new standing Orders Local Law.


As alluded to previously this clause is identical to that in the former Standing Orders Local Law and as the Town is not aware of any amendment to [the Act] that would have changed the legal basis upon which the clause operated there does not seem to be any reason why it could not be repeated in the Standing Orders Local Law 2007.

In respect to clause 4.11(1)(b) it would appear that the clause would be more effective as part (iii) of 4.11(1(a) [sic] but can also be effective in categorising those matters which are genuinely of an urgent nature and cannot be dealt with by employees. It is not intended that matters be characterised as urgent merely because they cannot be dealt with by an employee but that it is just one criterion to be considered.

The report goes on to state —

The Town’s response to the Committee concern as to the notice provisions in clause 2 was also to advise of the intent of the provision, not to explain how as worded it complied with the relevant legislation.

. . . While the Committee accepts the Town’s intentions, it must consider the legal effect of the wording of the Local Law. In the Committee’s opinion, it is not possible to circumvent the unintended consequences of drafting by implementing the intent, not the effect, of a local law.

That is again a very important aspect of many of the local laws presented to the joint standing committee on behalf of the Parliament, and an area that the committee and its staff scrutinise quite strongly. The report goes on to state —

Similarly, in response to the Committee’s concern at incorrect references to the Act and Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the Town of Claremont said:

The comments of [the Committee] are noted. It is the Town’s view, however, that the reference to various sections of the Act and/or Regulations should be seen as footnotes for the assistance of understanding the Standing Orders Local Law.

. . . The Committee observes that the references to the Act and Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 are not footnotes and that there is no statutory provision or principle of interpretation that permits them being “seen as footnotes”. Further, where references are incorrect, the Committee does not accept that those references provide “assistance of understanding” the Local Law.

The Town’s response to a number of issues was that clauses queried were present in the Town’s former Standing Orders Local Law or in other local laws. For example, in response to the Committee’s query on use of the undefined colloquial terms “open doors” and “closed doors”, the Town responded:

Again this terminology has been used in the former Standing Orders Local Law with no difficulty being experienced or comment from [the Committee] . . . A quick review of other Local Government Standing Orders Local Laws notes that they contain similar clauses.

In response to the issue has [the Committee] provided previous advice to Local Government of its concern as to the use of this terminology?

The report goes on to say —

The Committee observes that while these terms are in use in other, though not all, standing order local laws, generally there is a definition of either the term “open doors” or “closed doors” in the definition section of the relevant local laws. (The Committee did not review every standing order local law and is not, therefore able to make a categorical statement). This is consistent with the WALGA Model Standing Orders Local Law.

The Committee does not consider it appropriate to use these undefined terms in a local law.

More generally, the Committee has not undertaken a review of all local laws to identify whether or not, and the extent to which, the relevant provisions of the Local Law are present in other local laws. It proposes liaising with the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, through the Local Laws Working Group, in this respect.

I will come to the conclusions shortly. The report goes on to say — While it is aware of the importance of consistency, the Committee is not precluded from raising an issue falling within its Terms of Reference by the fact that an issue has not previously been raised.

This is something that many local governments have brought to the attention of the committee over the years—that, because something may have been missed, what they are proposing should be allowed to remain in the local


law. This suggests, of course, that two wrongs make a right, but that is not the view of the committee. The report continues —

The Committee also observes that its experience is that while a local government may be of the view that its clause is in substance the same as that in another local government’s local law, in fact there is often a change of wording which has an unintended legal effect on the validity of the provision as is illustrated by the example given above.

I now come to the conclusions, which state — The Town of Claremont has offered an undertaking to amend the Local Law to address some of the Committee’s concerns. However, significant concerns remain with respect to clauses 2, 4.9(2)(a), 4.10(2), 4.11(1) and the disclosure of interests provisions. The Town of Claremont has sought further information on some points. However, the deadline for debate of the motion for disallowance precluded further dialogue.

In light of the nature and extent of the concerns with the Local Law, the Committee resolved to proceed with its recommendation that the Local Law be disallowed.

As members can tell, many issues arose because of this particular local law, and there was also a timing issue. As members are fully aware, there was a final date not only for disallowance, but also for when the motion must be debated and a decision made. Two situations arose with this particular local law: firstly, as I have just mentioned, the issues of local law that the committee identified as needing amendment and, secondly, the timing issue; that is, when the committee asked that the Town of Claremont respond by 26 November 2007, but the town did not respond until 10 December. There is, of course, a reason that the committee gives the local government authority a date on which it can expect a response; namely, to overcome part of the situation that is reported in the twenty-fourth report. I again encourage members to read this report. Every member in this chamber has many local government authorities within his or her region, and at some stage some of those local authorities may be in touch with members seeking their assistance. That has happened in the past and no doubt will happen in the future. It is incumbent upon members to learn about these areas and to identify by way of these reports some of the issues brought forward by the committee. I do not expect members to be able to provide answers to the local government authority, but at least they can identify something that may be a relatively simple matter. I mentioned that, if the local government authority does not provide the information requested by the joint standing committee within certain time lines, there will be inevitable consequences. If members can assist local government authorities in that respect, it would help everyone. Again, for those reasons, I encourage members to read the twenty-fourth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. Question put and passed.

Annual Reports — Delay in Tabling — Statement by Minister for Education and Training Resumed from 28 September 2006. Consideration of statement lapsed.

Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations — Eleventh Report — “Budget of the Office of the Auditor General”

Resumed from 20 February. Motion

Hon GIZ WATSON: I move — That the report be noted.

I thought it would be useful to make a few comments on what is a very brief report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations regarding the Office of the Auditor General; in fact, it is only a double-sided sheet of paper. Members will be aware that the Auditor General Act 2006 provides that a joint standing committee on audit be established comprising an equal number of members appointed by each house. It is topical, given we were discussing the establishment of a joint standing committee earlier today. We note, as Hon George Cash said in his earlier comments, that that committee on audit has not been established. However, committee members were keen to fulfil the spirit of the work that that joint committee should do; namely, one of its functions will be to make recommendations to the Treasurer about the budget of the Office of the Auditor General for any given financial year. Therefore, in the absence of that joint committee and in order to fulfil that function, the committee provided the Auditor General with the opportunity to make a submission on the budget of his office for the 2008-09 financial year with a view to the committee making recommendations to the Council and/or the Treasurer on that budget. The Auditor General, Mr Colin Murphy, welcomed the opportunity


to provide a submission to the committee. The Office of the Auditor General requested a budget appropriation of $16.63 million for the 2008-09 budget. The committee considered that request and endorsed the appropriation. The committee also asked the Auditor General whether that budget was considered adequate to achieve his work for the 2008-09 financial year. Paragraph 1.8 of the committee’s report states —

When asked “will that be sufficient for you to carry out all the functions that you believe are necessary for your office to carry out?”, the Auditor General advised:

That is exactly the case. That is our best view of what we will need. We are quite pleased about that because in previous years, as you can see from the table on page 1, —

Which was part of the submission he provided —

every year we have needed to go back to seek supplementary funding just to maintain services. I have been keen . . . to get our budget on a sustainable basis, which actually provides the funding that we think we will need for that year and future years.

In that meeting we were able to fulfil the requirements that should appropriately be carried out by the joint standing committee on audit, which has not been established. The first of the two recommendations that flowed from that meeting states —

The Committee recommends that the Legislative Council note the Estimates and Financial Operations Committee’s endorsement of a budget appropriation of $16.637 million to the Office of the Auditor General for 2008/09.

The second recommendation states —

The Committee recommends that the Treasurer note the Estimates and Financial Operations Committee’s endorsement of a budget appropriation of $16.637 million . . .

It was a brief report but the standing committee was mindful of the obligations under the Auditor General Act 2006 in seeking to provide information to the Council so members are aware that we are providing the Auditor General with an opportunity to report to the standing committee.

Hon RAY HALLIGAN: I commend the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations for going down this particular path. I am a great believer in the need for a joint standing committee on audit and I have no doubt it will be established in the not-too-distant future. I do not see that it will have to sit all that frequently. One of the reasons for its existence would be to assist with the employment of an Auditor General—I understand that can occur every 10 or 15 years—and also undertake the task that the standing committee undertook; that is, speak to the Auditor General about the budget.

I have been concerned in the past that the Auditor General may—and then again may not—have been under resourced because I had certain issues with the work undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation that I believe required the assistance of the Auditor General. More often than not, the Auditor General had to suggest that resources, both in personnel and in a dollar sense, were not available at that point. Any number of issues are associated with the Auditor General, the work of his office, his resources and the methods by which both houses can seek assistance from that office to undertake work that is considered appropriate for the good governance of the state of Western Australia. I commend the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations for providing the Auditor General with the opportunity to express his sentiments on the budget allocation and also for reporting to the house and providing other members of this chamber with that information. I hope that the standing committee is prepared to continue down this path until the joint standing committee is established.

Members will be aware that before the creation of the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People three other relevant joint standing committees existed. The first is the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the second is the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission and the third deals with parliamentary services. The first committee comes under the standing orders of the other place, the second comes under the standing orders of this place and the third alternates between the standing orders of the two houses on an annual basis. That provides some evenness. It is not all down one end, so to speak. Members in this place must remember that the Legislative Assembly does not have the majority of joint standing committees. It is important that the majority of committees continue to be controlled by this chamber because it is the house of review. I reiterate that if members believe that all the resources—other than money—are given to the other place, they must think again because it does not work that way. There are problems associated with personnel, but that has occurred over a considerable time. If the committees are to operate as well as I know they can operate, that control must come from this chamber.

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I was concerned the Chairman was not going to catch my eye. As a member of the committee, I believe we served a very useful purpose in ensuring that the Auditor General was given an opportunity to appear before a committee of Parliament and to give us his views about whether he thought his


budget was adequate. As Hon Giz Watson pointed out, it was an opportunity for the Auditor General to tell us whether he thought he was fulfilling the intentions of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations and to advise us on the role that he can play. It was very useful for the Auditor General to indicate to the committee that the appropriation he sought from Treasury would be sufficient to carry out the functions that he was required to undertake in this state. It is also worth noting that although it was only slightly different, the actual appropriation allocated to the Office of the Auditor General was $16 668 000, which was beyond the wildest dreams of both the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations and the Auditor General. It is more than we had indicated in the report based on his advice of what would be sufficient. I suspect that that is a result of minor calculations for certain matters. In the main the general essence was there.

The report refers to the issue of the joint standing committee on audit. Members will recall that that arose from a report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations that dealt with the Auditor General Bill 2006. A number of recommendations were made in the committee’s report. A joint standing committee on audit must be established. Although I accept that the arguments about which house should be responsible for the audit committee are worthwhile, it would not matter whether the committee were chaired by a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. I am not sure which committee Hon Ray Halligan was referring to when he suggested that there should be a rotation of the chairperson and the standing orders. I think it was the Parliamentary Services Committee. I think that issue has more to do with who is chairing the particular meetings. The Parliamentary Services Committees are odd committees because they are two committees that meet together. Perhaps we should think about taking a lead from the Parliamentary Services Committee. As a Legislative Council member who chairs a committee that operates under the Legislative Assembly’s standing orders, I find the Legislative Assembly’s standing orders to be quite beneficial at times because the Legislative Assembly’s interpretation of the role and activities of a chairperson are far broader than the Council’s interpretation of the role and activities of a chairperson. As a chairman, I consider that the Legislative Assembly provides a far greater degree of flexibility. I am not sure that it really matters too much. As has been demonstrated by this report, either the Public Accounts Committee or the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations can separately carry out the necessary oversight functions. Bringing the two together from time to time would be an advantage for both committees to ensure that there is proper oversight. This report demonstrates that that is possible and that the oversight functions can be conducted by either committee with or without a joint standing committee on audit. It would be useful to establish the joint standing committee on audit to provide the opportunity for the two committees to meet and confer.

Another key point is that our committee has fulfilled its role as an oversight committee. The necessary resources and funds are being provided to the Auditor General. As a house of review, we must ensure that the necessary resources are being allocated. That is clearly the case given that not only did the Office of the Auditor General receive everything that was asked for, but also the actual appropriation was, purely from an accounting point of view, slightly more than what was asked for and recommended by the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations operating on its own. The argument that not having the audit committee is a problem is overstating the case; equally, however, getting on with appointing it would be a useful exercise.

Question put and passed. Department of Education and Training — Corruption and Crime Commission Investigation —

Statement by Minister for Education and Training

Resumed from 17 October 2006.

Motion

Hon PETER COLLIER: I move —

That the statement be noted.

This statement relates to what was a fairly dark period for the Department of Education and Training, because essentially it was established that the former complaints management unit was perhaps not doing its job as effectively as it could have been. In this instance, the statement referred to five cases of sexual misconduct by teachers against students, which can never be tolerated, of course. These cases were revealed only as a result of a Corruption and Crime Commission investigation. As the statement mentions, this resulted in the then director general, Paul Albert, being removed from his position. This investigation created quite a cloud over the Department of Education and Training, particularly the complaints management unit. This statement refers to the fact that any sexual misconduct will not be tolerated, and that is a given, I imagine. As I said, the statement refers to five particular cases. The then minister states —

The department’s complaints management unit, established in 2002, will be significantly strengthened with extra staff and resources. I am also initiating a review of all the department’s structures, including district education offices.


I have a few concerns about whether the intent of the ministerial statement has been carried out in the Department of Education and Training. I acknowledge that the department has, subsequent to the CCC investigation, established the professional standards and conduct division, but whether that division of the department is any more efficient than its predecessor is debateable. The reason I say that is that I regularly ask questions about this section of the department regarding the number of complaints against teachers, the number of cases that are outstanding and the number of cases that have been resolved etc. Whether it is the minister who has a real reluctance to answer any of my questions or whether the department itself continues to have efficiency concerns, particularly about this division, is debateable. I will talk about that in a moment. The minister also said in the statement —

Of particular concern to me as minister is the CCC’s claim that the department has resisted its attempts to bring about change. This is clearly not good enough and I have made that plain to the department.

Having been fairly intimately involved with the department from an external perspective, particularly over the past two and a half years, I can attest to that. I think there is a real cultural problem in the department with change. The establishment of the professional standards and conduct division was definitely a step in the right direction. However, as I have said, I have asked a number of questions about this section on a fairly regular basis. As at the establishment of this new section on 16 November 2006, there were 199 outstanding complaints. From 16 November 2006 to 28 March 2007, there were a further 41 complaints. None of those 41 complaints had been resolved by the end of last year. I was not able to establish how many of the 199 complaints that were received prior to the establishment of the division had been resolved. I asked again on 8 May this year how many of the 199 outstanding complaints remained unresolved. I asked that question because when the professional standards and conduct division was established, there were 158 outstanding complaints. Between 16 November 2006 and 28 March 2007, an additional 41 complaints were made. That is a total of 199 complaints. That is a lot of complaints against teachers. We always need to act on the presumption of innocence. I receive regular complaints from teachers who are under a cloud of investigation by this particular department that their cases are taking months, if not years, to resolve. I believe that this matter needs to be approached in a two-pronged way. I am extremely conscious that we need to provide a safe haven for our children in our classrooms. That is absolutely essential. However, at the same time, we need to ensure that teachers who are under the cloud of a vexatious claim are allowed to go back into the classroom.

On 8 May 2008, I asked again how many of the 199 outstanding complaints against teachers remained unresolved, and I was asked again to put the question on notice. As I have said, it is almost commonplace for the Minister for Education and Training to ask me to put my questions on notice. The Department of Education and Training has been told by the minister to lift its game because it has a cultural problem—and it has. Frankly, we would assume that this brand, spanking new division within this department, which has a host of new officers, including officers from the police force, would be able to provide the most basic details about how many complaints have been made against teachers, and how many of those complaints remain unresolved. The fact that the department is not willing to do this means that either the minister is being contrary, or there has been no change in this department as a result of this CCC investigation and this ministerial statement. During the budget estimates, I put a number of these questions on notice, because I knew that I would then not need to wait for nine sitting days—or virtually until after the end of the winter recess—before I would find out what is taking place within this department. It should not have been necessary for me to do that. However, if the Department of Education and Training is not willing to be transparent and provide a response to these questions, I wonder whether we are doing enough to ensure the safety of our children in our classrooms.

The then minister said also in her statement —

This new branch will be established and headed by an executive director reporting directly to the director general to ensure that the department’s capacity to deal with misconduct, including cases of a sexual nature, are strengthened.

The department will implement a number of additional measures to build on its commitment to ensure that no stone is left unturned in making Western Australia’s public schools the safest in the whole country.

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. However, as I have said, I have some concerns about the efficiency of this new branch. If this new division of the Department of Education and Training cannot provide the most fundamental and basic facts about complaints that have been made against teachers, I wonder whether the department has moved on, and whether it has learnt from its mistakes and is heeding the request of the minister to ensure that every child in our education system is safe.

Question put and passed. Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs — Eleventh Report — “Annual Report 2007”

Resumed from 27 February 2007.


Motion Hon BRUCE DONALDSON: I move —

That the report be noted. It is clear from this report that many people in the wider community have a cultural mindset about petitions of last resort. As members would know, any petition that is tabled in this house is referred automatically to the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs for inquiry and report. Many people believe that if they ask the Legislative Council to take action through a petition, the matter that they have raised in the petition will be dealt with in a way that will suit the particular circumstances of the petitioners. Some petitions can have 12 000 signatures, so there are quite strong feelings about some issues in the wider community. During 2007, 32 petitions were finalised, and another 21 are still ongoing, and in the meantime more and more petitions have been tabled in 2008. Between 2001 and 2005, the seven-person Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs dealt with petitions. A subcommittee was formed, and the subcommittee would meet to take evidence etc, and to deliberate on the petitions. The results of that process would then be returned to the seven-person committee, which was like boiling the cabbage all over again. The other, say, three members who were not present during the earlier deliberations wanted to find out for themselves and not just give a tick to something; in other words, they did not trust their own colleagues, I suppose—I do not know. This is a very vexed question about the Legislative Council. The Western Australian Parliament is the only Parliament in Australia that deals with petitions in this way. The Queensland Parliament wants to go down the path of using electronic media to deal with petitions, as is done in other jurisdictions around the world. This means that members do not have to table petitions because, as long as the petitions meet with the requirements of the Clerk, they are automatically transferred to a committee. Since 2005, a five-person committee has considered petitions, but we are finding that if a number of bills are referred to that committee or it undertakes a major inquiry, for argument’s sake, it is almost impossible, through a lack of time, for it to deal with petitions properly. I think the original concept had a lot of merit; that is, the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs and Statutes Revision, chaired by Hon Murray Nixon—I cannot remember who else was on it with him—did a terrific job in handling up to 100 petitions a year and reporting its findings constantly, as that was its sole purpose. As we come into the thirty-eighth Parliament, the government and the house will be making decisions on the future structure of some committees. It is very important for the house to examine very carefully how petitions will be handled in future. I do not believe that we can educate the general public about certain government policies and indicate that certain things have already been laid down and are in place and the planning has been done properly.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to temporary orders. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm

ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers

Resumed from 3 June on the following motion moved by Hon Kate Doust (Parliamentary Secretary) —

That pursuant to standing order 49(1)(c), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 3940A-H (budget papers 2008-09) laid upon the table of the house on 8 May 2008.

HON BARBARA SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [7.30 pm]: This evening I will begin talking about something that is quite dear to my heart in my portfolio—that is, the belltower. As many members would know, I am a great supporter of the belltower. It is a beautiful icon of considerable cultural and historical significance, housing as it does bells that were cast in the fifteenth century and gifted to the state of Western Australia for the bicentennial celebrations of this nation. The bells are from St Martin-in-the-Fields.

It was only because we had in Richard Court a Premier who recognised the significance of this wonderful gift that his government decided to house the bells down on the foreshore. Many will recall the controversy at the time of its construction in 2000, largely manufactured by those members opposite. From their behaviour it is clear that they are unrepentant for the consistent remarks made at the time about the belltower.

Hon Sue Ellery: I never said anything about the belltower!

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am looking over the minister’s head at somebody else!

According to those opposite, that belltower, which cost $5 million, could have built every school in this state, cleared up all the hospital waiting lists, and given every pensioner an all-expenses-paid holiday in Broome every winter for the next 2 000 years. It was the year 2000 then. Such claims, of course, were quite ridiculous. Members opposite shamelessly time and again trotted them out as though they were the gospel truth. However, I tell them that the $2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money that this government has lost could have rebuilt every school in this state—$2.5 billion. Yes, Hon Ken Travers may frown, but he should just hear me out. Most people have


difficulty grasping the concept of that huge sum of money, so let us think of it in terms of belltowers—little $5 million lots. Two and a half billion dollars is worth 500 belltowers, give or take a belltower or two. Can members imagine that; 500 belltowers on the Perth foreshore?

Hon Simon O’Brien: There would be no room for the Ferris wheel then!

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Indeed!

The incompetence of this government is stunning beyond description. A small child could have managed the state more responsibly. However, the government did not actually build those 500 belltowers. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure did not jump up in cabinet and say, “I’ve got a great idea for a tourism attraction for this city.” No, that did not happen. What did happen, though, was this: the government took that $2.5 billion—500 belltowers worth—of hard-earned cash from the people of Western Australia, out of the pockets of struggling mums and dads, and burnt it. How did the government burn it? First, there was the almost $500 million—to be exact $491 million, or 100 belltowers by the way—for the Office of Shared Services. The money that was lost—$491 million—after the predicted spend of $82 million had already been spent. Then there was $1 billion—200 belltowers—for the cost of the Verve Energy bailout. Finally, there is $1 billion extra—another 200 belltowers—that it cost to put the southern suburbs railway in the wrong spot along the river.

Hon Ken Travers: Don’t tell me you’re still going to argue against the fast direct route; are you? You are the only person left in the state doing that!

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am not. I am just putting on the record, Hon Ken Travers, the cost of rerouting the railway to the wrong spot—admittedly all the pelicans like to use it—instead of routing it through the eastern suburbs where it was desperately needed. Of course, that was another of the sneaky little tricks by this government. It thought that if it paid cash for the railway when it had the cash that it would look as though it had cost only half a billion dollars more than the correct route would have cost; however, that is not the case. The worst aspect of these potential belltowers is that they were the only ones I could think of off the top of my head last week while I was listening to Hon George Cash’s brilliant exposé of the waste of funds that this government has cost the state over the Shared Services debacle. I must confess that a rather obvious question popped into my head during that speech. I wondered just how much money this Labor government had lost in its terms governing Western Australia. I would hate to think how much that would be in today’s dollars or how many belltowers it could have built. Perhaps a smart accountant might work that out for me. The question we need to ask is: how many more belltowers are the Premier and Treasurer hiding from us?

I will now spend some time talking about how the government could have invested funds in projects that would have benefited the citizens of this state in the long term, rather than those non-existent belltowers that I have referred to. I will begin with some of the projects in the arts portfolio, for which I have shadow responsibility. In preparation for my speech on the budget, I reviewed the notes that I made as shadow minister over a period on my very wide consultations and introductory meetings with the artistic directors of many performing arts companies and the managers of performing arts venues. I realised that little had changed in the six years since I began this journey as an advocate of the arts fraternity in Western Australia. I have made a list of the areas in which nothing much has changed. The West Australian Ballet Co, the Western Australian Opera Co and the West Australian Symphony Orchestra still need new homes. The Western Australian Youth Music Association, formerly known as the WA Youth Orchestra, also needs a new home. Nothing in this year’s budget indicates that this situation is about to change in the near future.

Although His Majesty’s Theatre is historically known as the home of WA Ballet, which was founded in 1952 and currently employs about 21 permanent ballet dancers, since the expansion of its repertoire and growth from a state ballet company to an internationally attractive ballet destination, it is in need of larger storage facilities and a more suitable rehearsal venue. There is nothing new in the budget for WA Ballet. WA Opera, together with the Western Australian Arts Orchestra, which was merged with the West Australian Symphony Orchestra in 1989 to allow WASO to expand the number of its players, have also been resident at His Majesty’s Theatre since it was purchased by the state and officially reopened in 1980. As far as back as 1999, the major performing arts inquiry entitled “Securing the Future” cited His Majesty’s Theatre as being outdated and undersized for the needs of two such significant performing arts companies. The deficiencies ranged from the size of the stage, once considered one of the largest in the country, to site limitations and significant health and safety concerns, with features such as air conditioning being in the way. We went through the phase suggested by the Australia Council for the Arts that the opera and ballet merge. I was a strong advocate for both those companies retaining their independence, because that is where they both wanted to be. I see in the budget that His Majesty’s Theatre is to share $1.3 million with Perth Concert Hall to have a new sound system installed and carpet replaced. That is a positive but small investment. It still does not create a new home for the West Australian Ballet, the Western Australian Opera or WASO. WASO is in desperate need of a new home. Most people in this chamber would know that the West Australian Symphony Orchestra has had a long association with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and was housed in the ABC building on Adelaide Terrace. Once the ABC shifted to its new site in East Perth, the


practice area in that wonderful area that WASO was able to call home is no longer available to the orchestra. Where is WASO to go? We have all these paid people in the West Australian Symphony Orchestra who have to attend practice sessions, some of which are conducted in the new ABC and some at the Perth Concert Hall. Whenever WASO practises in those venues, it is charged a rental fee. Unfortunately, the old ABC site belongs to the commonwealth government, which has indicated its intention to sell the site. Even though there is a local push to have the old site heritage listed and retained, the feeling is that it will be sold and redeveloped because it is a prime site. Although the plan to move into that venue has been in the pipeline for some time, it has now totally evaporated.

Unfortunately, although $8 million has been set aside in the previous and current budgets to cover WASO’s relocation, in the current real estate market that amount will by no means be sufficient to secure a new venue. It comprises funds contributed by the Perth City Council, the Western Australian government and the federal government. As I said, it will by no means be sufficient to secure suitable premises in a suitable location.

Feeding into the West Australian Symphony Orchestra is the Western Australian Youth Music Association, which provides much of the talent for WASO. The Western Australian Youth Music Association, formerly known as the WA Youth Orchestra, is over 25 years old and grew out of the University of Western Australia training orchestra association, which was formed in 1974. The WA Youth Music Association currently boasts 300 young members from all over Western Australia, ranging from eight to 23 years of age. It is an absolute joy to hear these young players perform in groups whenever the opportunity is afforded them. This group of dedicated and talented young people and the equally committed conductors and tutors are desperately seeking a home. The association is currently located in a venue in Mt Lawley. Unfortunately, this significant pool of talent for our state symphony orchestra appears to have escaped the minister’s attention in this year’s budget. I can find no mention whatsoever of any allocation of moneys to this association.

I move now to the performing arts and the proposed new theatre to be constructed in Northbridge. It is proposed to comprise a 575-seat theatre and a 200-seat flexible studio theatre, with associated rehearsal space. It will provide a much-needed purpose-built venue for contemporary productions. I want to make it very clear that the proposed new theatre that will be built in Northbridge is a replacement theatre for the Playhouse Theatre, which operates from premises owned by the Church of England. All of the area it occupies, from Pier Street around to St Georges Terrace, has long been earmarked by the Anglican Church for redevelopment. The church has been very generous in allowing the Playhouse Theatre to continue on that site. The planned new theatre for Northbridge is not a major performing arts centre and not what I would term a world-class major performing arts centre. If people have the opportunity to visit somewhere such as the Millennium Centre in Cardiff, Wales, they will understand what I am speaking about when I refer to a major performing arts centre. The centre has a number of theatres. It is almost like a performing arts village where small dance companies can feed off larger ones and a great deal of interaction takes place between organisations that run different projects. I have great respect for the concerns of some of the contemporary performing arts companies in Perth. The feedback that I have is that the government conducted very little consultation with the performing arts companies on the building of this new theatre and who would move into the theatre. I am reliably informed that the Black Swan Theatre Company, which is currently housed in the Old Masonic Hall, Broadway, Nedlands, was told that it would occupy this new theatre. I might also point out that the original budget for this new theatre in Northbridge was $42 million. It has now blown out by almost $50 million to $91 million, and the building has not yet begun. That blow-out represents almost another 10 belltowers.

I will now make some comments about the State Library because there have been a lot of issues concerning the State Library in the past year or so. I have had related to me the concerns that librarians and staff have with the many staff changes and the shifting of people around. Although the government has recognised the issue that I raised in my last budget speech about the book purchase program having been seriously underfunded over the past few years and has agreed to spend a significant amount of money this year—that is, $58 million by the end of the financial year—there is a lot of catching up to do. I have great fears that when this amount of money is expended there will then be more catching up to do just to keep pace with the day-to-day use of libraries. I place on record tonight that libraries in Western Australia are the most used cultural centres in any community. According to this year’s budget, the government anticipates a decrease of $2 per access client interaction in this current year compared with the actual cost of $11; that is, a reduction in the cost from $11 to $9 per client. I hope that does not affect the efficiencies of libraries, because we all know the benefits of libraries for all age groups in the community, from little children to the elderly, the partially blind and whoever. I am wondering whether this item in the budget could be attributed to the fact that the staffing levels at the State Library, where I have heard so many concerns in the past year, will drop from 243 full-time equivalents in 2006-07 to an estimated 232 FTEs in 2008-09. At some stage I will be asking more direct questions of the minister about the reason for this decline. There will be fewer staff to attend the wishes and the needs of the growing public. A major concern has been expressed to me in the past 18 months about shifts in staffing and the demeaning, perhaps, of the important historic collections at the Battye Library and other areas.


I will move now to a very significant part of government responsibility: the record keeping and archival services it should be providing. I am very disappointed that there is still nothing in the capital works program for building a repository for state records. Last year I made a number of statements about this concern. Thirty-two kilometres of records had nowhere to go and were scattered around departments. The minister made a cynical remark that she understood from my media statement that records were scattered on the floor of departments. The literal interpretation of my statement was that, instead of being at a central repository, the records were scattered around various departments and were being held in unsafe conditions in those departments. That is just not satisfactory, but the government has still not addressed that issue. How can students of history benefit when the records of the state are not kept in order, we do not have anywhere to keep them, and we rely on individual agencies to keep their records? Even this Parliament has a record-keeping log and is required to keep certain records, but individual agencies run out of space, so a proper record keeping and archival service needs to be provided.

During last year I asked some parliamentary questions about the legal deposit legislation. I refer in particular to my question without notice 196, asked in May last year, about legal deposits of all Western Australian electronic and printed publications. I note that this legislation has still not been brought before the house, even though consultation papers were distributed to major stakeholders and submissions closed in July 2007. May I tempt the Parliament by suggesting that a private member’s bill from the opposition may be necessary to bring about legislation necessary for the legal deposits of important historical documents of this state? I remind the chamber that Western Australia is the only jurisdiction without legal deposit legislation. Major works of importance could be forever lost to the public archive if this legislation is delayed any longer, even though the Parliament recognises that most print publishers will do the right thing and continue to embrace the spirit of this non-existent legislation. Has the government ever thought that publishers may begin to get the impression that if the government has not found time to legislate, it is not serious about the issue? By way of explanation, if a book or a periodical is officially published, there is a requirement to provide a copy to the Battye Library. However, there is no legal sanction to enforce that requirement, so it is just not happening.

I want to now spend a few minutes talking about the Australian Opera Studio and remind the government of the great disappointment of the Midland community and surrounding hills areas and other Western Australians interested in the training of young opera students over what I term a golden opportunity missed. It is potentially one of the greatest lost opportunities for the cultural life of Western Australia for many years. I am referring to the imminent closure of the Australian Opera Studio in Midland, which has been operating since 2002. Members in this chamber have attended many of the opera studio performances in the old Midland school, which was wonderfully restored and revamped to accommodate the Australian Opera Studio, and which was opened with great hope and enthusiasm by Greg Yurisich.

During the past six years the opera studio has run the only performance-based opera training of its kind in the world. I would like the house to be cognisant of the fact that, although there is an opera company in Western Australia, there are no permanent opera students or performers in paid positions in Western Australia, unlike the situations with the West Australian Ballet and the West Australian Symphony Orchestra. Every year, a number of lucky opera students, albeit not many of them—I think the number is between eight and 10 outstanding students—have been selected from thousands of applicants, and given the opportunity to hone their skills to world-class standard. They have received intensive instruction over a two-year full-time study period. Often the students had already graduated from the Western Australian Performing Arts Academy or the performing arts academy in Sydney. They have come to the opera studio with a number of skills. They have been given training in voice, acting, dance, physical fitness, stage, combat and business skills. They have also been taught French, German and Italian conversation skills, operatic and recital repertoire, oratorio, concert and musical theatre. Students have left, fully set to enter the world stage. We must remember that opera is sung in all those languages. The students have been put through a very demanding and very highly regarded program of training. The studio has produced more than 60 scheduled performances a year, plus 21 invited performances, including 27 master classes, four full operas and various oratorios, recitals, concerts and cabarets.

The scholarships were fully funded through the International Arts and Culture Foundation, philanthropists and private corporations. At this point, I give due regard and commendation to the Japanese philanthropist Mr Haruhisa Handa who, as one of the main supporters, has been behind this project. Almost all the studio graduates have gone on to much bigger and better things by winning prestigious prizes and contracts with major opera houses.

Over the past four years, my office has vigorously sought federal and state funding, without success due to a technicality. I can never quite fathom why this technicality prevented the opera studio receiving funding. It seems that funding was not possible for the opera studio unless it had a seat at the Australian Roundtable for Arts Training Excellence, which, in turn, was not possible without government funding of some kind. The opera studio in Midland was totally funded by philanthropists and private funding, and because it did not get state funding, it was not eligible for a seat at the Australian Roundtable for Arts Training Excellence. It is unfortunate


that the state government did not have the courage to overcome this obstacle and the foresight to recognise the enormous potential of this program to bring Western Australia into the next decade of opera training, even if it did not fall within the formal existing framework of training institutions.

The program that has been running at the Australian Opera Studio has been adopted by the Juilliard School in New York, which will open the Australian Opera Studio’s program in 2010 in conjunction with the New York Metropolitan Opera. When I received that news two weeks ago, I thought it a shame that we had lost a golden opportunity for young Western Australians wanting to reach their peak in opera studies. Juilliard in New York is taking up the very program that was begun at the foot of the hills of Western Australia. Unfortunately, the Australian Opera Studio will be closing its doors in Perth and Australia after its final production, one of Mozart’s works, on 12 and 14 September 2008. As Greg Yurisich, a wonderful opera singer and the director of the studio, put it, “There is no vision for the arts in WA; just a pot of money that has been thrown to the wind due to an absence of a vision.”

It is worth noting that the money needed to build a mere five to 10 belltowers placed in a foundation would have kept this superb school running in perpetuity. As I said at the beginning of my speech, one belltower is worth $5 million. This government has lost $2.5 billion in the past few months. Just one belltower, worth $5 million, put into a foundation would have saved that outstanding opera studio in Midland from closing. Some forethought of how we get funding for the arts needs to be part of the vision for the future of young Western Australians. If Western Australia is to regain its leadership position in culture and the arts, the powers that be need to display more innovation and leadership in embracing concepts that are more about innovation than bottom line. After all, if we cannot afford a more entrepreneurial and courageous approach in these times of massive budget surplus, when will we be able to afford them? When will we be able to afford to give young Western Australians an opportunity in this state—their home state?

I now want to move on to the Western Australian Museum—an imperative for the arts and culture sector in Western Australia. As we know, the Museum has closed and all its exhibitions, curatorial staff and works have been moved to Welshpool in an old pinball machine factory out of reach of the population. Schools cannot go there; nobody can visit. Although it is pleasing to note the allocation of expenditure in the budget towards arts and culture in this state—namely, $506 million—to facilitate the relocation of the Western Australian Museum, many members of the local arts and cultural scene, as well as the general public, have raised various concerns with me that I must address now. A primary concern is just how much of the $500 million will be spent on the Museum and how much will be spent on bailing the East Perth Redevelopment Authority out of its responsibility to remove toxic waste from the area and surrounding shores? The government has decided, against the wishes of most of the Museum’s staff and most of the people to whom I speak in the scientific area who have been associated with the Museum, that it will rebuild the Museum at the site of the East Perth power station. I have been told that it is estimated to cost $200 million to get rid of the toxic waste from the site. Minister MacTiernan spent a huge amount of money on an assessment of whether the remnants of the East Perth power station were worth keeping and restoring. That specialist’s report used a word that, as a lady in this chamber, I would not use. However, in layman’s terms, the report described it as a load of rubbish that was not worth keeping.

Hon Ken Travers: Do you agree with that view?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Of course I do. I do not believe that is where the Museum ought to be relocated.

Hon Ken Travers: Are you saying we should knock down the old power station?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am saying that the Museum should not be relocated at the old East Perth power station. If the government wants to keep the power station, it should keep it, but it is not a suitable site for the Museum, in my view.

Hon Ken Travers: What should we do with it then?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: If the government wants to open it up as a second-class visitor destination, it can do so, but it should not use the site for a major science museum for Western Australia. I will move on to that matter later.

The East Perth Redevelopment Authority is in charge of that area and of the land on which the current Museum is located in Francis Street. I have been told that in the vicinity of $200 million is needed to remove the toxic waste from the site in East Perth. Given the minister’s refusal to take the opportunity to answer the question on this during question time, I tend to think that the estimate might be accurate. That amount is enough to build another 40 belltowers. The $200 million will not be spent on a new museum but on extracting toxic waste from the old power station in East Perth.

Hon Ken Travers: Should we just leave the toxic waste there?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: The government can do whatever it wants to do if it wants to waste taxpayers’ money. I am explaining to the chamber that this government has wasted $2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money


through the shared services and other projects when there are good things that the money could be spent on for Western Australians now and into the future. If the member has the courtesy to listen, I will tell him more about those good things.

Hon Ken Travers: I am listening; I just want you explain yourself.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: There are problems with access to the East Perth power station.

Hon Ken Travers: I am trying to understand how cleaning up toxic waste is a waste of money. This government did not create the toxic waste; it is cleaning it up. It must be cleaned up by somebody at some time.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am not suggesting that it is a waste of money.

Hon Ken Travers: You called it 40 belltowers. The belltower was a waste of money.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: It certainly was not a waste of money. I am suggesting that the member is trying to con the Western Australian public into believing that the government is spending $500 million on building a new museum.

Hon Ken Travers: We are spending $500 million on building a new museum.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: The government is spending $200 million to clean up a power station that an architect from Sydney said was rubbish and was not worth restoring.

Hon Ken Travers: Is it okay to protect Fremantle wharf because of the industrial heritage issues but not okay to restore the East Perth power station?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: That is the government’s decision to make, not mine. It must decide whether it wants to save Labor Party history.

Hon Ken Travers: The East Perth power station is Labor history as well. You cannot have it both ways.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Why does the government not be honest about it? Be up-front. Do not tell us the government is spending $500 million on a museum if $200 million is to be spent on cleaning up the rubbish from an old power station that no-one can even get to and then turn it into a so-called state-of-the-art museum.

Hon Ken Travers: It is across the road from a railway line. What do you mean people can’t get to it?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: There is no rail station.

Hon Ken Travers: In East Perth? You have been in the southern suburbs for too long.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I have been where?

Hon Ken Travers: In the southern suburbs for too long.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Have I? Okay.

Hon Ken Travers: Aren’t you a member for the southern suburbs?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: I am. However, I have quite a lot to do with some areas of North Perth. I know the area well. I attended school not far from the site of the old power station a long, long time ago.

Hon Ken Travers: The railway station has not been relocated.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: It has not changed much either.

Hon Donna Faragher: The new Museum will take so long to build under this government that it will never happen.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Graham Giffard): Order, members! As interesting as these interjections are, I ask Hon Barbara Scott to direct her comments to the Chair so that she is less likely to invite interjections.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: Hon Ken Travers may find himself an exotic exhibit —

Hon Ken Travers: I am definitely exotic! Hon BARBARA SCOTT: — by the time the Museum is built. There are problems of public access and parking at the site of the former East Perth Power Station. Answers to questions I have asked in Parliament reveal that car parking will not be available and that there will not be enough Museum staff to advise and inform visitors because they are all at Welshpool. Further, exhibition space will not be dedicated to the Museum’s current collection and there will be a possible change of character and purpose with the new Museum, which is really worrying the Western Australian science fraternity. There is a paradigm shift because the government wants the Museum to be a social museum that focuses on grieving and mourning rather than a scientific museum. That change of character is of major concern to scientists in Perth


who have a real commitment to the scientific nature of the Museum. I have dedicated several estimates questions to this vexing issue; however, I have received nothing but evasive answers. If the project is kosher and the government is really going to build a wonderful $500 million Museum for Western Australia, why is it so unwilling to tell us about it? As a test, the magnificent Esplanade performing arts centre in Singapore—for those members who have had the opportunity to visit Singapore—cost $SG600 million, which equates to about $A500 million allowing for inflation and exchange fluctuations. Will we ever see a building as magnificent as that? I hope so, but I somehow doubt it under this government. I turn to some areas of interest outside the arts portfolio. As members know, I have had a long and burning interest in children’s issues. At the top of the list is children’s basic education, an area that is fraught with problems. My colleague Hon Peter Collier will deal with that issue. With regards to the teachers dispute, the government is again doing what it does best; that is, misleading the people of WA and blaming someone else for all the problems. The teachers dispute is not the only disaster in our education system. There are problems in the government sector and as more parents choose to have their children educated in non-government schools, the government system is in danger of becoming a second tier, thereby destroying the principle of equality of opportunity. There is also the problem of decaying infrastructure. As members who have visited schools in their electorate would know, some older schools are in a very poor state and need to be renovated. One particular school is John Forrest Senior High School at which, I have been told, only one of six toilets in a female toilet block is working. That is unacceptable, and it is all happening under this Labor government, which supposedly is a champion of children attending government schools. However, I am not sure how many belltowers we would need to fix this problem. What is certain is that the longer this government remains in office, the worse the rot will get and the more expensive it will be to spend money on infrastructure at schools and things like reducing class sizes, which are a problem at the moment. I have referred a number of times to waiting lists for therapeutic interventions. I want to place on record again that this government has an appalling record in children’s health. I condemn the Minister for Health, Hon Jim McGinty. In this chamber over a number of years I have consistently asked questions about long waiting lists for physiotherapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy. Although this is reported in the newspaper sometimes, it rarely is. That is because the newspapers like to be seen to be reporting stories about people waiting in ambulances and on trolleys. Of course, little children do not have a voice. They cannot go to the newspaper and say that they have had to wait for three years. They cannot express that view. Therefore, the media tend to focus on sick people rather than on exposing the importance of preventive health measures and early intervention. At this stage a lot of little children are suffering from speech problems such as speech delay—that is, delay in acquiring language—or actual physical speech problems, hearing problems or other difficulties that require therapeutic intervention. There are dozens of learning difficulties, and the spectrum of autism is very wide. We hear about that in our electorate offices almost every day—certainly I do. Little children who do not have a voice in this town have to wait inordinate amounts of time for treatment. The last figures I received for the south metropolitan region showed that some children had to wait for three years to see a speech therapist. We know that if parents want to take their child to a speech therapist, they must first of all take their child to a general practitioner. They must then get a referral to a specialist—maybe a paediatrician—who will then direct them to speech therapy or whatever is required. World research into early childhood development tells us three things, and they are three things that I have talked about in this chamber often. Dr Fraser Mustard, an eminent Canadian physician whom I am sure many members will have heard of—he was in this state last year and gave a number of public addresses—has stated that we should intervene early, intervene often and intervene effectively. I challenge the government of Western Australia today to take that simple message on board and put some money into intervention therapies to assist small children to overcome learning difficulties early. What did this government do as soon as it came to office? It abandoned the newborn hearing tests that were put in place by the Court government. That was an extremely successful program. There are young members on the opposite side with little children and newborn babies. THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Graham Giffard): And not so young members.

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: And not so young members with little children; is that the point the Deputy President is making? I missed that.

Hon Kate Doust: Not so young fathers with young children.

Hon Ken Travers: Geriatric fathers with young children!

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: In this chamber there are a number of parents of very young children. It must be very disheartening for them to know that when their little baby is born in a hospital, what used to be offered as a free hearing test is now denied them and they must pay for it. The government made that decision on the grounds that the test did not pick up many deaf babies; it picked up only seven or eight a year. What a disgraceful decision by this government! It is interesting to note that this test is available. My daughter had a baby three months ago, and she asked that the newborn hearing test be done on her baby; however, she had to pay for it. It is okay for people


in this state if they have the money to pay for such a test. I recall that when Dr Gallop came in as the brand-new Labor Premier of this state, he made much of his statement that, “I will mark a line in the sand, and I will make sure that all the children in this state are well cared for”. I have said often in this chamber that yes, there is a line in the sand—a person who is rich can access health services; however, a person who is poor and needy, and at risk, will need to wait and wait and wait, and will often pay very dearly. There are constituents in my electorate who have children under the age of five who need to access private speech therapy or physiotherapy. I know of parents who have mortgaged their homes so that their children can receive private speech therapy, because they understand that if their children’s speech delay or speech defect is not detected and corrected when their children are aged two, three or four, and before they get into kindergarten or school, their children will suffer enormously in their ability to read and be competent at school.

I would like to finish on a topic that was the subject of a motion in this chamber today. That is the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Western Australia. As I said earlier, the budget for the Western Australian children’s commissioner is $2.5 million per annum. That will increase in line with the consumer price index from $2.442 million in the 2008-09 budget to $2.564 million in five years. I have already stated in this chamber that the opposition parties went to the 2005 election with a clear commitment to establish a children’s commissioner that would be funded to a minimum of $5 million, with an approximate spend of $10 a year for every child in Western Australia. This budget provides $2.5 million for the children’s commissioner. That is what the government said it would do. However, it is still way below what every child in this state deserves. It is also just $500 more than the $2 million that Hon Jim McGinty has just spent on refurbishing his offices. It is an absolute disgrace that a government minister could spend $2 million on refurbishing his office yet hand out a paltry $2.5 million for the children’s commissioner in Western Australia! That probably equates to $2 or $3 per child per year for the enormously important work that we have now come to understand is the role of the children’s commissioner in Western Australia.

Hon Bruce Donaldson: Did that include a new crockery set?

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: It might well have included that, although I would hate to think of the brand that he would have chosen. It would not be a Western Australian brand, I do not think.

Hon Ken Travers: If he had been a Liberal minister, we would know what brand he would have chosen!

Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Did you jump up and down when Rhonda Parker bought her new tea set? You probably wanted a Wedgewood tea set of your own!

Hon Kate Doust: Was it a Wedgewood or a Royal Doulton?

Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Yes—what was it?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Graham Giffard): Order, members!

Hon BARBARA SCOTT: In formally noting the budget papers, I want to express my disappointment at this government’s allocation to the arts, and to children. I say again that many belltowers could have been built with the $2.5 billion that this government has wasted in just the past year. When members of this government were in opposition, they made a field day of Richard Court building a belltower to house the bells of St Martin-in-the-Fields. That was a historic and significant gift from the British government to the government of Western Australia. The belltower should be recognised by every Western Australian as a significant destination for tourists in this state. I remind the chamber that this government’s priorities are totally wrong. In this time of great income for this state because of the resources boom, there should be a shift in the spending in this budget. I fear that history will tell a tale of great waste and lost opportunities for not only the children of this state, but all the citizens of this state, and in particular for the area for which I have shadow responsibility—the arts and the performing arts.

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [8.31 pm]: I rise to make a few comments about the budget. There can be no doubt that Western Australia is in the middle of an unprecedented economic boom, and with that boom comes a large budget surplus that could be spent in all sorts of ways. I will talk tonight about how the government is dealing with the conservation and management of the environment in Western Australia, and how the government is dealing with people who are missing out on the boom—there are a lot of them. Unfortunately, a growing number of people, for various reasons, find themselves going backwards in their capacity to participate in the good fortunes of the Western Australian economy. In the view of the Greens (WA), unfortunately this budget does very little to assist those people. Also, this budget’s capacity to address pressing environmental issues is nothing short of appalling. It is a business-as-usual budget and the sort of budget I would expect from a Liberal Party government. It is no different —


Hon GIZ WATSON: On those two issues —



Hon GIZ WATSON: I am going to make everybody happy tonight—I can tell!

The point is that I do not think that this budget approaches those two key issues any differently from the way we would expect from either of the major parties. It is a budget that is very much directed at big capital works programs, with $7.6 billion being allocated for that use. Obviously, arguments can be made that when there is a large budget surplus it should be invested in long-term assets, but the Greens would argue that there are critical matters that also need an injection of money, and that money has not been delivered in this budget.

I first outline how this budget fails to adequately assist people who are not sharing in the boom, and in this regard I will refer to comments by the Western Australian Council of Social Service, the peak body in this area. I particularly want to talk about housing because that issue has come up time and again. The government has suggested, which we support, moving to a policy of social inclusion. If the housing access issues are not addressed, we will never have an inclusive society in Western Australia. I am referring to the state budget information sheets from the Western Australian Council of Social Service. The first one is entitled “Planning for Communities”, and it states —

WACOSS advocates for immediate action on developing and implementing a social inclusion strategy. We call for a public commitment to this from the Premier. We propose the formation of a taskforce, including people from Government, non-government and industry.

It is fair to say that the government has announced this initiative and it is welcome, but this budget has in some areas failed to adequately support this new direction.

WACOSS recommended in this area that support be given to a social inclusion strategy task force; that two senior policy officers, government and non-government, and a part-time administration officer be appointed. There was support within the Department for Communities for this funding, but no specific allocation has been made in this budget for this purpose. It is interesting that this was the key announcement around the time of the budget in this area of supporting the community. There seems to be a lot of in-principle support but some of the specific funds are just not allocated.

In terms of the recommendation on evaluating WA’s social wellbeing, government departments need to adopt social inclusion indicators as key performance indicators, establish a monitoring committee comprising representatives of a variety of departments, and annual reporting by the Premier and Parliament.

WACOSS’s comment on this budget was that there were no funds earmarked for statewide consultations. The reference group is intended to provide consultative input, but no funding was allocated to support this reference group. As much as there is a welcoming of this initiative, there does not seem to be an equal contribution of funds to ensure that it is a participatory process.

I will talk now about housing. In another one of its budget information sheets, WACOSS states —

A range of housing strategies are proposed to ease the current crisis including increasing public housing and community housing. There are also recommendations for a new public housing funding model and strategies for increasing the stock of affordable housing. Programs established under the Homelessness Strategy should continue to be supported and expanded. We call for improvements in the diversity of housing stock, which would help address the ongoing shortage of boarding and lodging houses, and small homes. There are also recommendations to expand existing housing support programs for young people, aboriginal families, people with mental illness or living with disabilities, ex-prisoners, and tenants of residential park homes and in remote areas.

In terms of public housing, WACOSS recommended that there be increased funding to restore public housing to six per cent of total stock. Its response to the budget is that there is no new money and it states —

The amount remaining from last year’s budget is $240M. This is estimated to provide 1,124 extra dwellings. This is insignificant toward reducing the public housing waiting list of 17,500 people.

What is estimated in the budget this year will be able to provide just over an additional 1 000 dwellings; meanwhile, there are 17 500 people on the waiting list, and that figure is growing.

By way of an example, my office spent an entire week looking for emergency accommodation for a family. We were eventually successful, but our success was due only to the intervention of a minister. Housing was needed for three people—a single mother and twin daughters, who were trying to complete their last year at school. They had been unable to find any accommodation and were basically living out of the back of a car. It was a stunning example for me and for my office staff to realise just how much persistence is required to accommodate one small family who have been trying for months to access emergency accommodation. I should acknowledge that it was thanks ultimately to the Minister for Education and Training that they were provided with housing. The schooling issue for the two girls was so critical that the minister managed to intervene. However, with such an enormous number of people competing for very limited housing space, this budget will not in any way address this crisis. In terms of the funding model for public housing, the recommendation of WACOSS was to


recognise the state housing authority for community service obligation funding; the budget gave no funding commitment in this area.

The issue for young people in the private market, again, is a particularly acute area of need. WACOSS recommended an increased Keystart loan amount and encouraged rentals to young people. The budget gave no specific announcement in this regard, except to help more than 4 000 households enter into or maintain home ownership in 2008-09, with more than $200 million expected to be spent in regional areas; therefore, that is some improvement.

There is no apparent funding commitment for priority to be given to the development of culturally appropriate housing for Aboriginal families and singles. In the area of coordination for clients with complex needs, WACOSS recommended that the Department of the Premier and Cabinet examine and resolve national and state government policy issues impacting on service delivery to community housing tenants; again, there is no budget commitment in this area.

WACOSS recommended an increase in the number of properties in the community options and independent living programs, with a 15 per cent increase in funding for residential mental health care; in this area there was no budget increase. In terms of the requirements for social and affordable housing developments, WACOSS recommended a 15 per cent social housing requirement in all new developments on government or crown land and that 15 per cent of new private developments also be required to be affordable housing units; again, there is no apparent budget commitment to achieve this. WACOSS also recommended an appeals process for social housing to create and fund an external independent appeal mechanism for public and community housing; again, there is no apparent government funding commitment in this area either. In terms of the Valuer-General’s calculation of market rent, WACOSS recommended resourcing the Valuer-General’s office to calculate market rents over six months to improve the viability of the community housing sector; the comment in WACOSS’s recommendations is that there is no apparent government funding commitment to this area either.

In terms of training and skills development for community housing, WACOSS calls for a significant investment to provide accredited training; again, there is no government funding to meet this request. In terms of legal and consumer advice services for housing, WACOSS recommended that there be funding for a homeless persons’ legal clinic in the metropolitan area, a centralised residential park homes’ advice service and a tenants’ advisory service in the west Kimberley and Broome regions; the response in the budget is that there is no apparent funding commitment to meet these recommendations either.

Therefore, it is fair to say that there is overwhelming disappointment in the peak body of this state, which has spent considerable time and effort consulting with its members and summarising key recommendations to meet the shortfall in housing, that in this time of huge budget surpluses the response in the budget is totally inadequate to meet the housing crisis. We share WACOSS’s disappointment. Disappointment is a bit of a mild term. I think there is actually growing anger in the community. The crisis in public housing and in the provision of crisis accommodation is at boiling point. It has a knock-on effect. Just last week I was discussing the fact that people who leave the prison system might be able to get some short-term accommodation assistance, but it is exceedingly difficult to move from there into an affordable house or rental property because there is such a low vacancy rate in this area. That has consequences for people who want to move on with their lives and find somewhere stable to live. If they cannot achieve that, it is very hard to stay out of trouble.

In the area of safety and justice, the Western Australian Council of Social Service information sheet states that WACOSS advocates for greater support to break the cycle of violence by providing more child support workers in refuges, more funding for crisis accommodation and support services, and an increase in funding for community legal centres. A number of recommendations were made in the budget process. One recommendation was to establish a crisis care centre with accommodation and counselling for Aboriginal men in the metropolitan region to provide an alternative to incarceration for a cooling-down period. There is no apparent government commitment in the budget for this request. There is no apparent government commitment for restorative programs for perpetrators of family and domestic violence. A request was made for funding for two domestic violence legal workers in the metropolitan area and possibly more in regional areas, especially in the northern corridor, and to provide targeted outreach to women and children in refuges. Again, there is no commitment. There is no commitment for new support services for other forms of partner abuse. There is no apparent government commitment for increased core funding for community legal centres. There is no funding commitment for programs for women in prisons, which are currently delivered by volunteers. It is not a good look when there is no commitment to six of the nine recommendations in the area of safety and justice. The problem is that the people in the not-for-profit sector who are providing to the best of their ability the services that are so desperately needed are disheartened to find that although there is a budget surplus, no additional money has been provided to these areas. I remind members that crisis accommodation services for survivors of domestic violence—I am sure that the minister will correct me if I am wrong—are turning away as many people as are able to receive accommodation. I find that extraordinary in a community that is as wealthy as ours. We


will not prioritise the provision of what is basically a human right; that is, a safe refuge from the perpetrators of violence. We are very disappointed with that area of the budget. It is fair to say that the not-for-profit sector is disappointed. There has been increased funding to assist the various departments that work in this area, and that is welcome. I am not suggesting for one moment that that funding is not needed. The not-for-profit sector has received an assurance that it will have an indexed grant system, which is an excellent initiative that I give the Labor government credit for having put in place. This sector’s actual capacity to deliver these services is subjecting it to greater fatigue. I had the opportunity to attend the Western Australian Council of Social Service’s annual conference. I spoke to a number of people in attendance and found that there is a growing feeling of exhaustion in the sector, particularly in providing crisis accommodation and financial counselling. People are finding it increasingly difficult to keep going.

Hon Sue Ellery: There has been a massive injection of funding into financial counselling.

Hon GIZ WATSON: The minister is correct. I stand corrected because a chunk of funding went into that area. I will take financial counselling off the list. Perhaps people were feeling tired when they expressed their feelings to me and were not aware that help for financial counselling was on its way. It is a good initiative. Obviously it is essential for capacity building to, as a community, provide assistance to people to better manage their finances. I am thinking particularly of the organisations that on a daily basis are having to turn people away from the most basic of crisis accommodation because it is already full. As Western Australia is one of the wealthiest places in the world, it is extraordinary that that is the case.

WACOSS also made recommendations about social participation, including providing English classes for migrants and refugees. We certainly have a number of refugees who do not have good English skills and there is a need to provide them with English classes. Requests were made for child care for migrants attending English classes, the provision of more free childcare places for large families, and independent translating and interpreting services. I have on a regular basis asked questions in this place about independent translating and interpreting services. Many people who are new to this country cannot access translating or interpreting services when they are dealing with legal questions, government departments or perhaps courts. If they cannot access appropriately skilled and available translating and interpreting services to understand the processes that they are going through, their basic rights are undermined.

Another recommendation from WACOSS was to provide support to volunteers. It recommended that the state government take a leadership role by working with federal and local governments and Volunteering WA to establish a variety of strategies to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses incurred by volunteers. It also recommended fair wages for young people and suggested that the state government should abolish youth wages and promote awareness of young people’s work rights. WACOSS informs me that in all these areas there is no apparent government funding commitment.

There is a great deal of disappointment in how this budget will deliver social outcomes and address the promises that the state government made to turn Western Australia into a socially inclusive community. That is the federal government’s language and it seems to be in vogue at the moment. It is a great concept, but it will not happen without substantial budget commitments. We cannot see that this budget has delivered on that.

The second area that I will refer to is funding for the environment. Our comment when the budget was brought down was that the only green thing about it was its glossy, non-recyclable cover, perhaps designed to fool a few people. It certainly is not a very green budget. I had to look very hard to find mention of the environment in the Budget Statements. It was right at the back together with lifestyle, which probably really says it all. Somehow the fundamentals of life have been relegated to some sort of lifestyle option, such as what colour shoes to wear today or whether to have a latte or a short black coffee. It is deeply disappointing. The challenge of a booming economy is to recognise that inevitably it will put greater pressure on the environment. That is exactly what we are seeing. The “State of the Environment Report 2007” identified the top priority issues that should be addressed. Top of the list is climate change. Did the budget contain any initiatives to deal with the pressing challenges of climate change in Western Australia? No. We saw more funding for roads, infrastructure and transmission lines. The second priority in the state of the environment report was population and consumption. Nothing in the budget will address either of those issues. The report referred to greenhouse gas emissions, land salination, salination of inland waters, introduced animals, weeds and phytophthora dieback. The secondary priority subjects included soil erosion, altered water regimes, loss or degradation of wetlands, loss or degradation of fringing and in-stream vegetation, changed fire regimes, loss or degradation of native vegetation, degradation of marine environment, settlement patterns and loss or degradation of Aboriginal heritage. That was the assessment of the environmental challenges in Western Australia. Has the budget provided anything to deal with those issues? I refer to a Conservation Council of Western Australia media release of 9 May, which reads —

Budget Ignores Damning State of the Environment Report In July 2007, the Environmental Protection Authority released yet another damning report into the increasingly poor state of WA’s environment. The 2008/2009 Budget provides no significant additional


funding in reference to this report, instead focusing on subsidises for industry and development at the expense of our rapidly degrading environment.

Conservation Council of WA spokesperson, Jessie Cochrane said “This budget clearly displays that climate change and the environment are not priority issues for the Carpenter Government. Yet again, despite a record state budget, the carefully considered advice of the EPA has been ignored favouring further acceleration of the resources boom.”

Some of the areas highlighted by the EPA as requiring urgent action ignored by the Carpenter Government in the preparation of this budget are summarized below.

Biodiversity . . .

The Environmental Protection Authority stated in the state of the environment report —

There is insufficient knowledge about biodiversity in WA. Most biodiversity issues are serious and appear to be getting worse.

The budget response to this issue is some more money for the herbarium and no new money for biodiversity research or management. I might add that there is no sign of a biodiversity conservation bill either; not that it has anything to do with the budget, but the commitment to dealing with biodiversity issues in this state is appalling.

In the area of climate change the EPA stated —

WA is getting warmer. Rainfall is decreasing in the South West. Ocean levels are rising. Implications are severe. WA has the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world. Total emissions are relatively small on a global scale, but increasing rapidly.

Total emissions are increasing rapidly because this government intends to build more coal-fired power stations. How on earth the government can stand with any credibility and claim to be making any serious attempt to address climate change and at the same time approve the construction of new coal-fired power stations is absolutely breathtaking. There is no credibility in it at all.

Hon Bruce Donaldson: Shouldn’t we replace those with nuclear power stations?

Hon GIZ WATSON: No! Does the member want me to go on for another hour or two?

Hon Bruce Donaldson: You cannot have it both ways.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I think the member has heard that argument before.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Hon GIZ WATSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will focus my attention once more on the matters at hand. The budget response to climate change was the allocation of $50 million for renewable energy projects, and $8.9 million for low-emission energy research and development. It is worth noting that this is less than the powerline subsidies to various new mining projects. I refer particularly to $9.4 million allocated for new transmission lines for the Boddington goldmine and $4.6 million for a transmission line to Grange Resources’ mine. I cannot for the life of me work out why we subsidise companies to that extent. It is absolutely extraordinary when, if it is a profitable company, it should be able to stand on its own two feet. I have never understood why taxpayers’ money is spent on infrastructure for private companies.

Although the Environmental Protection Authority’s budget summary says that Western Australians’ ecological footprint is among the largest in the world, there was absolutely no budget response to this. The EPA says that the conservation sector has improved reservation levels in recent years, but there has been limited achievement against national reservation targets. It is worth noting that in my particular area, which is marine conservation, we are still progressing exceedingly slowly, not least because the Department of Environment and Conservation is funded too miserably to allow those reservations to be progressed. No additional money has been allocated to meet reservation targets.

A large number of weeds are present across Western Australia, and management action is currently inadequate. No additional money has been allocated to weed management, even though weeds are identified as one of the most significant threats to not only biodiversity but also agricultural areas.

In the area of loss or degradation of native vegetation, the EPA summary says that improved regulations are now in place, but clearing is still occurring as a result of population growth and economic development. No additional money has been allocated to protect native vegetation. A large number of feral animals are present in Western Australia. We have had some success in preventing incursion and eradication, but no additional money has been allocated for management or research, although the summary notes that $200 000 has been allocated to develop a rangeland goat industry—at the expense of the environment—and the agriculture budget has $140 000 for the control of feral animals, including goats, and $2.4 million for the control of starlings. The point is that some money has been allocated in the budget to deal with agricultural pests, but there has been no additional budget


allocation to deal with environmental pests. However, I acknowledge that if we can knock off the starlings and goats, it will be a win-win situation.

The marine environment has been highly impacted in coastal areas, and the condition of most marine environments remains largely unknown. The budget response has been to allocate no additional money to research, management or protection of this area.

The EPA summary states that the area of the south west affected by land and water salinity is increasing. Active management is underway, but significant land use changes are still required. Many south west waterways and wetlands are still severely affected. The budget response is no additional allocation of money.

The Conservation Council’s media release summary states about dieback —

This disease is affecting large areas of South West bushland and is increasing in extent. No cure is available as yet.

No additional money has been provided to dieback management or research. The media release states further —

An increased number of wetlands and water ways in the South West are affected [by eutrophication]. Severe loss of wetlands has occurred on the Swan Coastal Plain and in the Wheatbelt.

The budget response is that no additional money has been allocated for management protection or research. Those are the priority issues that the EPA has identified as the key environmental challenges in Western Australia. The media statement goes on to state —

With a $1.8 billion surplus the Department of Environment and Conservation and other relevant agencies should have been given the necessary resources to respond to the SoE report but only a minor budget of $238 million has been allocated to the DEC.

This budget is really disappointing for the environment. The Premier has said that the Government will re-invest every cent of the $1.8 billion surplus to build our state to ensure that everyone is benefiting from our strong economy. But no-one benefits when the environment is allowed to degrade.

It is worth noting that no-one is denying that, as I say, with increased economic activities, particularly mining activities, there are increased pressures on the environment and an increased need to manage the impact of those pressures. However, what do we see? We see that this government is prioritising a review of the environmental assessment process, which we have been assured has nothing to do with fast-tracking. However, every indication in the language we hear is that it is about efficiency, cutting red tape and removing duplication. From an environmentalist’s point of view, those are all the warning bells we have heard many times before. There is an emphasis on how we can facilitate business as usual in this state and let the environment go to pot, and that is basically what is happening.

This budget for the next 12 months reflects a lost opportunity for addressing the enormous environmental challenges in this state. It is a lost opportunity to invest heavily in things like known technology for renewable energy production. It is a lost opportunity to seriously tackle the huge environmental degradation in our rural area, the enormous challenge we face now given some of the information that is coming through in the media about increasing costs of fruit production, fertilisers and fuels and the global crisis facing food production. All these things are happening at an extraordinary rate. Here in this tiny corner of the south west of Australia we are very vulnerable to a range of factors. What I do not see in this budget is any real understanding of the challenges we are facing. This budget says let us continue to have a booming mining economy, let us continue to dig it up, ship it out and burn it off as quickly as possible because it is about making money. That is surely what it is about. Quite frankly, it does not indicate a government that cares about looking after those people who are falling through the cracks. Because we have a booming economy, those people are suffering the effects of increased house prices. Increased house prices are fine for those who already own a house that is becoming a more valuable investment. However, for people who do not own a house and want to get into the market or just want somewhere to rent, it is almost impossible to do so in Perth at the moment. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government cannot even provide good quality temporary accommodation for people who are caught in the housing crisis. On these cold nights, they are basically sleeping in the backs of cars or on someone else’s couch because they cannot find somewhere to rent or cannot access crisis accommodation.

I find it extraordinary that this budget has been all about good news and has not grappled with the growing problems that are not only causing people to stress, but also will continue to cause increasing social disunity. If we do not put money into these areas, not only the individuals who are missing out, but also the community across the board will reap the consequences.

In conclusion, if we do not take seriously the challenges and changes that are already afoot and happening at an accelerating rate as a consequence of climate change and global warming, we will lose the very slim window of opportunity that we have to use the wealth that we are creating now to put in place capital works such as flash buildings, “Dubai by the Swan”, the floating islands off Fremantle and other glittering things. However, we


should also be investing for generations of the future, for our children and grandchildren. If we do not apply this budget surplus to stabilise and repair the environment, we will continue to degrade the wheatbelt, our river systems, our Swan coastal plain and our forest systems. Obviously, this plea is too late for this budget, but there will be another one. I hope that by that time this government will have come to realise that we cannot ignore those priorities. We ignore them at our peril and by ignoring them we gamble with the future of all Western Australians.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson.

CHILDREN AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AMENDMENT (REPORTING SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN) BILL 2007

Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Sue Ellery (Minister for Child Protection), and returned to the Assembly with an amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL 2008 Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House), and passed.

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 2006 Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House), and passed.

STATUTES (REPEALS AND MINOR AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006 Second Reading

Resumed from 3 June.

HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the Opposition) [9.14 pm]: When debate was interrupted last night by the effluxion of time, I was criticising the government’s response to the twenty-first report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review on the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2006. I was going to say, however, that the government has responded properly to the bill and has put a number of amendments on the supplementary notice paper that are identical to those that are on the supplementary notice paper standing in my name. The government also has placed a number of other amendments on the supplementary notice paper that completely remove from the bill a number of other acts. The government has not only responded sensibly and properly to the committee’s report, but also has gone further than the recommendations of the report. I am unaware of the reasons why the government is seeking to remove some other acts from the bill but I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House provide that explanation.

I do not propose to take up any more time other than to say in conclusion that if we are to have omnibus bills of this nature, it is important to recognise the sort of legislation that should be contained within an omnibus bill. We must overcome the issues that have been raised by the committee in its report. Chapter 1 of the report, “Reference and procedure”, describes how over time various leaders—including me and the Leader of the House—and the committee have identified the criteria for the inclusion of an act in an omnibus bill. We must reach an agreement about that so that we do not have situations similar to this bill whereby the standing committee has stated that it is inappropriate to include certain acts within this omnibus bill. I hope we can seriously take that on board. We must acknowledge the issues raised in the report under chapters 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11 and agree that the best way forward with these sorts of bills is to recognise that they should contain repeals of and amendments to acts that are non-contentious. They should not involve issues of policy or change people’s rights, but should be only fundamentally clerical alterations to acts or repeal acts that have become obsolete by the effluxion of time. There is a message for us all in that. We will wait to see whether the same problems arise in the 2008 omnibus bill. I hope they do not, but in due course we will find out what the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review thinks about that when it reports to the house on the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2008.

With those comments, the opposition supports the bill, subject to the house agreeing to the amendments that have been recommended by the standing committee, albeit there are some variations suggested by the government. I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House’s explanation for those variations and I suspect we will be prepared to agree with them as well.

HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [9.18 pm]: I will make a contribution to the debate on this bill in light of the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review that I had the privilege to chair, and the twenty-first report into this bill that is before the house. The great benefit of referring a bill to a committee is it can expedite the business of the consideration in detail stage. That is never more so than


in the case of an omnibus bill such as this one. This bill makes a great number of amendments to the statute book by repealing a large number of acts and making numerous amendments. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated quite properly that because of the nature of some of the matters that have been drawn to the house’s attention by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review things will not be moving at as great a level of dispatch as they would in an ideal world. However, that does not mean to say that there has not been substantial benefit in sending the Statutes (Repeal and Minor Amendments) Bill 2006 to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. For example, at appendix 2 there are pages and pages of amendments that the committee endorses as suitable to proceed with without further comment or consideration in detail. The committee has drawn a number of matters to the house’s attention. The Leader of the Opposition has made mention of most of those matters. The problem with many of them is that they are the sort of amendments that should not fall within the ambit of an omnibus bill. I think the honourable Leader of the House is still to be convinced that that claim is the case, although as ever I am sure he is open to reason and reasoned argument.

At paragraph 1.8 of its report the committee notes that a distinguished former Leader of the House said when introducing an earlier omnibus bill —

Its aim is to make Parliament more efficient by reducing the number of amendment Bills dealing with relatively minor legislative amendments and repeals. Amendments and repeals included in the Bill are required to be short and noncontroversial. In addition, they must not impose or increase any obligations or adversely affect any existing rights.

That gives the capacity to not have to deal with 183 or however many amending bills to make minor changes. Agreement between both sides of the political spectrum under successive governments has meant that the omnibus bill has been a useful device as long as it has not exceeded those particular parameters. I note at paragraph 1.7 that the committee reminds the house that the second reading speech of the bill, which was delivered by the Leader of the House on behalf of the government, reads —

An omnibus bill is an avenue for making general housekeeping amendments to legislation. It is designed to make only relatively minor, non-controversial amendments to various acts and to repeal acts that are no longer required. Omnibus bills assist in expediting the government’s legislative program and parliamentary business by reducing the number of separate amendment bills that deal with relatively minor amendments and repeals. They also help to weed out spent or redundant legislation from the statute book. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has overseen the preparation of the bill to try to ensure that amendments about which there is some contention or complexity, or that make some substantive change to the law, are not included.

We are all in agreement. This is not the first omnibus bill that the house has dealt with; indeed, we have dealt with a number of them. A 2008 omnibus bill is currently before the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. The general rules agreed to by all concerned are reproduced at “Appendix 1, Premier’s Circular 2003/15” which was signed by Premier Gallop. It is headed “Statutes (Appeals and Minor Amendments) Bill”. The then Premier sets out a clear instruction to all concerned that this sort of a bill —

. . . is a vehicle for introducing a range of minor, non-controversial legislative amendments and repeals across government.

Matters that will be considered of a minor nature and suitable for inclusion in an Omnibus Bill will include, for instance:

• the repeal of obsolete legislation;

• the correction of typographical and other minor drafting errors; and

• amendments that make legislation more accurate by reflecting changes in names, titles, entities, designations etc.

Okay; all that is consistent with the arguments raised by the Leader of the Opposition, what has been said by successive leaders of the government in this place and what is reflected in the Premier’s circular. The committee reported the several occasions on which quite inappropriate matter was included in this bill—it must be borne in mind that we heard from witnesses and all who were concerned about it—such as, for example, provisions to make changes to the length of prison sentences and provisions relating to seizure or forfeiture of property in criminal cases. They are not minor amendments to change those sorts of rules, and we have drawn that to the attention of the house in the report. We will come to that in due course, because there are amendments on the supplementary notice paper. Recommendation 10 in the committee’s report states —

The Committee recommends that Premier’s Circular 2003/15, Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill, issued by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Western Australia, 24 November 2003 be amended and re-issued to make clear to departments that omnibus statutes


review Bills are not appropriate vehicles for amendments whose sole or principal function is: “to better implement the object or intent of legislation” or are otherwise justified primarily on the grounds of legislative policy.

That is a very fair and appropriate comment to support the integrity of future omnibus bills when they come before the house to facilitate the process of statutes review.

We were disappointed, as a committee, to receive this response to that recommendation —

The Government does not agree to recommendation 10, as the effect of which would unduly restrict the operation of the Bill. The Government is of the view that the Bill, and other such omnibus legislation, should not be restricted to merely technical matters concerning corrections of a typographical nature, which would be the outcome if this recommendation is accepted. Furthermore, the Bill and other such omnibus legislation should not, in order to be effective, be so limited that the Bill is only to apply to correct clerical mistakes, accidental slips and omissions that are of little consequence.

That is a disgraceful response. I do not know who drafted it. I would be interested to know who drafted it and plonked it in front of Premier Carpenter, who signed the covering letter, because that should be an embarrassment to the Premier. The response that has been written is quite at odds with the issues. The bill is not about accidental slips and typos. We are talking about the repeal, at a stroke, of large numbers of acts, and the amendment, in an extremely efficient way, of perhaps hundreds of acts in just one go, without this house having to spend its time reviewing each of those acts because we have a standing committee to do it. Whoever drafted this response does not understand what an omnibus bill is all about. Whoever drafted this response and put it in front of the Premier has done the Premier and this house a disservice by their snide remarks, by their immature phrasing and by their lack of understanding of what an omnibus bill is all about. I can tell the house, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, that it is also a poke in the eye to the committee and to the very professional staff who assisted in preparing this report and others over the years.

The benefit of the report is still here, and it will vastly facilitate the passage of this bill. However, unless the government is prepared to revisit its response to recommendation 10, that will severely undermine the confidence that this house should have in future omnibus bills. That would be a very poor outcome for statutes review in Western Australia.

Now that I have made that point—which I think is a point that everyone recognises had to be made at this time—I look forward to the rapid progress of this bill through its necessary remaining stages.

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [9.29 pm]: I want to make some short comments on the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2006. The Greens will support the bill. The bill has 159 clauses and amends a large number of acts and other legislative instruments. We note the report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. That report found that the overwhelming majority of the repeals and amendments in this bill are appropriate for inclusion in an omnibus statutes review bill. Other members have spoken about a number of clauses in this bill that should be subject to further debate, and a number of clauses that should not appropriately appear in an omnibus bill such as this. In the time that I have been a member of this place, omnibus bills seem to have raised controversy fairly regularly. From memory, every omnibus bill that I have dealt with in this place has contained one or two amendments that have not been minor and non-contentious. I find it extraordinary, when we are dealing with an omnibus bill from 2006, and when the next omnibus bill is about to come through, that we cannot deal with bills such as this more efficiently. I think this is a classic case in which the management committee of this house should be able to come to an agreement, if any of the clauses in an omnibus bill are not minor and non-contentious, that those clauses be deleted from the bill.

With those comments, we are happy to agree to the passage of this bill. I will save the remainder of my comments for the committee stage, when I will be seeking some clarification. The clarification that I am seeking is probably not dissimilar to the clarification that has been sought by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We agree with the comments that have been made by the standing committee. We add our voice in asking the government to please try to not include in these types of bills matters that are more substantial. I say that because it seems to me that we are wasting the time of this Parliament if we need to have this discussion every time an omnibus bill is presented to the house. Omnibus bills should be bills that we can all agree to quite quickly.

HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural — Leader of the House) [9.32 pm] — in reply: I thank all those members who have made a contribution to the debate on the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2006. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition invited me to address the issues that members have raised in either my closing remarks before the second reading vote, or during the committee stage. It would be much more convenient if I take the latter of those two options and deal with each issue at the committee stage. I say that because there is actually a different answer to each of the very different questions that have been asked by members. Therefore, it will be more convenient to deal with those matters at the committee stage. However, can


I just say by way of summary that I do not think there is any great dispute here. The government is firmly of the view that the great value of omnibus bills is that they allow us to undertake a tidying-up operation. It is essential in that process for everyone to have confidence that the matters that we are addressing in the bill are not matters of policy but are matters that fit that tidying up-type operation. I believe all parties have essentially the same view and it will become very clear that the government, the opposition and the committee are generally not at odds with one another. The government’s amendments will reflect that and it will become clear during the assessment of those amendments in committee.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

Committee

The Chairman of Committees (Hon George Cash) in the chair; Hon Kim Chance (Leader of the House) in charge of the bill.

Clauses 1 to 17 put and passed.

Clause 18: Adoption Act 1994 amended — The CHAIRMAN: Clause 18 deals with the Adoption Act 1994 amended. The question is that the clause do stand as printed.

Hon NORMAN MOORE: The committee recommended a number of amendments to clause 18 that stand in my name. I move —

Page 10, lines 1 to 5 — To delete the lines and insert instead —

(3) Section 52(1) is amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph (a) by deleting subparagraphs (iii) to (iiie) and the “or” after subparagraph (iiid) and inserting instead —

“

(iii) satisfies the age differential requirement set out in subsection (3);

”;

(b) after each of paragraphs (a) to (c), paragraph (a)(i) to (va) and paragraph (c)(i) by inserting —

“ and ”.

I notice that the government has an identical amendment under 10/18—I presume that means that the government agrees with the committee, so I recommend that the house agree with the committee’s findings on clause 18.

Amendment put and passed. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that clause 18 as amended be agreed to.

Hon NORMAN MOORE: I presume that means that 10/18 now does not proceed.

The CHAIRMAN: That is right; that has been dealt with.

Hon NORMAN MOORE: There is a further amendment to clause 18 recommended by the committee. The government has an identical amendment to the one I have on the supplementary notice paper. On the basis that the government has agreed with the committee’s report—as does the opposition—I move —

Page 10, after line 7 — To insert —

(5) After section 52(2) the following subsection is inserted —

“

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii) the age differential requirement is that the prospective adoptive parent —

(a) is not more than 45 years older than the child in the case where the prospective adoptive parent is the younger of prospective joint adoptive parents who, as a couple, have not adopted a child before; or


(b) is not more than 50 years older than the child in the case where the prospective adoptive parent is the older of prospective joint adoptive parents who, as a couple, have not adopted a child before; or

(c) is not more than 50 years older than the child in the case where the prospective adoptive parent is the younger of prospective joint adoptive parents who, as a couple, have adopted a child before; or

(d) is not more than 55 years older than the child in the case where the prospective adoptive parent is the older of prospective joint adoptive parents who, as a couple, have adopted a child before; or

(e) is not more than 45 years older than the child in the case where the prospective adoptive parent is a prospective sole adoptive parent and has not adopted a child before (whether as a joint or sole adoptive parent); or

(f) is not more than 50 years older than the child in the case where the prospective adoptive parent is a prospective sole adoptive parent and has adopted a child before (whether as a joint or sole adoptive parent).

”.

Amendment put and passed.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 19: Aerial Spraying Control Act 1966 amended —

Hon KIM CHANCE: I move —

Page 10, lines 8 to 15 — To oppose the clause.

This clause relates to the Aerial Spraying Control Act, which will be repealed by the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007. It is now redundant.

The CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the House has indicated he opposes the clause and obviously he will be voting no to the proposition that clause 19 do stand as printed.

Clause put and negatived.


Clause 32: Children and Community Services Act 2004 amended —

Hon KIM CHANCE: I move —

Page 15, line 17, Table row 5 — To delete —

s.231(4)

Clause 32 deals with the Children and Community Services Act 2004. I propose to delete reference to section 231(4) in the table because this section has been repealed by the Child Care Services Act 2007. The section has been repealed by another act; it has become redundant.


Clause, as amended, put and passed.


Clause 41: Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 amended — Hon NORMAN MOORE: I move —

Page 19, line 8 — To delete “27(1)(a)” and insert instead —

27A(1)(a)

This is an amendment recommended by the standing committee and, I presume, supported by the government because it has an identical amendment at 14/41.



Hon NORMAN MOORE: I move —

Page 19, line 11 — To delete “27(1)(b)” and insert instead —

27A(1)(b)

This proposed amendment again reflects the view of the standing committee’s report. There is an identical amendment under 15/41 from the government, so I presume the government accepts the standing committee’s report as well.

Amendment put and passed. The CHAIRMAN: I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition on amendment 5/41.

Hon NORMAN MOORE: I regret that this might take a few minutes. Amendment 5/41 standing in my name on the supplementary notice paper reflects a recommendation in the standing committee’s report. The minister has a slightly different amendment to the same clause and I will need an explanation from him, if I can have it, to indicate what we should do.

The CHAIRMAN: I will leave the chair at quarter to nine, but if the Leader of the Opposition moves his amendment —

Hon NORMAN MOORE: I want to hear the Leader of the House’s explanation.

Hon Kim Chance: Yes; it is best left until tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN: In that case, we are dealing with clause 41, as amended. We are at amendment 5/41 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on the supplementary notice paper. He has not moved it yet, but he will hear from the Leader of the House when we next return to the bill in respect of amendment 16/41 in the Leader’s name on the supplementary notice paper.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to temporary orders.

IMINTJI COMMUNITY — PROPOSED AIRSTRIP Statement

HON SHELLEY ARCHER (Mining and Pastoral) [9.47 pm]: I want to talk about the Imintji airstrip. The almost tragic helicopter accident at Imintji community on 12 May this year has raised a number of concerns, including the delays in establishing the Imintji airstrip. The helicopter accident on 12 May occurred at 11.00 am and resulted in four people requiring medical attention. Only by chance was a medical team in the area. The team was travelling with the Gibb River Road mountain bike challenge and was able to render assistance. Next time accident victims might not be as lucky. I understand that the pilot received internal injuries, a fractured hip and spinal injuries and was airlifted to Broome District Hospital by helicopter from the site of the accident. The other three passengers sustained back and neck injuries and had to endure a road trip to Mt Barnett. Anyone who has travelled that road will understand the discomfort that would have been endured by those accident victims. They were eventually evacuated from Mt Barnett at 7.00 pm that evening, arriving in Derby to be hospitalised at around 8.00 pm. That, in my view and in the view of the people of that community in the Kimberley, is a long time for anyone who has been involved in an accident to receive appropriate medical attention. The Imintji community is situated about 220 kilometres east of Derby along the very popular Gibb River Road and is fast emerging as a remote service centre for those who travel along the Gibb River Road and for the surrounding Indigenous communities. Apparently the community provides housing and a store, which includes fuel services, Centrelink services and access to a health clinic with regular visits from medical teams. It has a Kimberley wilderness adventure camp nearby and increasingly is becoming a stopover for tour operators and tourists. Imintji is cut off from any access to an airstrip and other services during the wet season when the roads are closed. Community members remain in the community and are completely isolated for long periods during the wet season.

I will give a bit of the history of the building of the airstrip at Imintji. The project began between 2001 and 2003, when discussions were undertaken and a concept plan for an airstrip was developed. The Centre for Appropriate Technology in Derby was approached by the state government to be the contract manager for the project, and funding was sought by the Centre for Appropriate Technology from the state and federal governments. After a considerable amount of time and lobbying, it was able to access various state and federal agencies for this funding. It took a while; nevertheless, it achieved its aims and got enough funding. Following this, tenders were awarded to construct the airstrip. However, work has been delayed due to landownership issues and airstrip maintenance responsibilities. As I understand it, the land where the airstrip is proposed to be constructed is managed by the Kimberley pastoral board, which leases the land to Mt House station. The Kimberley pastoral board would prefer that the land was excised from the lease and incorporated into the Imintji community reserve, and that Imintji become responsible for the maintenance of the airstrip. Mt House station agrees with the proposal to build the airstrip, but is not prepared to sell, transfer or assign the land to the Imintji community. It


has stated that it does not want the maintenance responsibility; it wants the airstrip fenced, which is quite appropriate, and, of course, it wants access to the airstrip at all times. Although there is no dedicated funding for maintenance at present, the Imintji community is suitably equipped and prepared to carry out all regular maintenance, such as slashing, mowing, cone maintenance, removal of anthills etc.

The Winun Ngari Aboriginal Corporation has included in its 2008-09 budget for community development employment projects sufficient funding to undertake this task. It hopes it will be able to offer to do the maintenance grade at minimal cost to the contractor that currently does the annual Main Roads WA opening grade of Gibb River Road, which is done just after the wet season is finished. I understand that the Kimberley pastoral board referred the matter of the land excise process to the Department of Land Information. This department considered the matter for a number of months and, for reasons that do not make sense to anybody who has been involved in the issue, returned the question of the land excise process to the Centre for Appropriate Technology and advised it to create a sublease or user agreement between all parties for the use of the land as an airstrip and for responsibility for the maintenance of the airstrip. This has created its own problems, as the Centre for Appropriate Technology has funding for only the construction of the airstrip; it does not have the funds, or even the expertise, to negotiate these sorts of legal agreements. The question that needs to be answered on this sublease is: who is responsible for initialising the creation of the sublease? It is quite clearly not the responsibility of the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Derby; nor should it be the responsibility of the Imintji community or Mt House station. I suggest that it is the responsibility of the relevant state government department; that is, the Department of Land Information should probably deal with the matter.

As a result of all the confusion about who should be responsible, the project has stalled and the ongoing future viability and safety of the Imintji community and others in the area are in jeopardy. This government constantly states that it wants to assist the Indigenous people of Western Australia, especially those who live in remote communities. Given these stated commitments, I urge the state government to urgently intervene in this matter so that construction of the new airstrip at Imintji can commence immediately. By “immediately”, I mean now during the dry season, when it is a little easier to travel to and from this community. As we all know, during the wet season the chance of travelling up and down Gibb River Road is almost nil, so the state government needs to intervene now and assist this Indigenous community to get on its feet and get its airstrip.

NARROGIN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Statement

HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan) [9.55 pm]: Today a crisis meeting, attended by approximately 70 people, was held in Narrogin to talk about an urgent response to the number of young people who have taken their lives in that town. Six young men between the age of 21 and 30 have died by suicide in the past five months in that town. Five of the six men were Aboriginal members of the Narrogin community. Some of these men were known to the WA Country Health Service’s mental health service. I ask members to please note that the evidence-based data provided by the Department of Health makes it absolutely clear that intentional self-harm was the leading specific cause of injury death among Aboriginal males living in Western Australia. The health department also knows that the number of suicides in this region was 2.8 times more than expected for Aboriginal males and 1.9 times more than expected for Aboriginal females. The regions of concern are known to the health department and they include the wheatbelt and the great southern.

The WA Country Health Service provides a country mental health service to Narrogin but the people who attended the meeting on 29 May and today said that it does not provide any field work and if Aboriginal people do not engage with the health service, the service does not have the resources to follow them up. They said that nothing is provided for suicide prevention and the services that are available are not culturally appropriate for Aboriginal people. The South West Aboriginal Medical Service does provide culturally appropriate mental health services, but it is not resourced to reach into Narrogin. The metropolitan Aboriginal Medical Service is not resourced to go to Narrogin. The Derbarl Yerrigan Health Service had Aboriginal-specific mental health funding withdrawn in 2003 on the basis that it was considered to be a doubling up of services. The Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention has an absolute pittance to progress its strategies in comparison, for example, with the Ministerial Council for Road Safety. The Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention is still waiting for the government’s response to a proposed five-year action plan, which was submitted months ago as part of a state suicide prevention strategy.

How many times did I have to raise the need for a Broome mental health service unit? Coroner Alastair Hope’s report came out in February 2008 and embarrassed this government into action after he reported on 22 Aboriginal deaths by suicide in the Kimberley and was damning of the government’s lack of commitment to mental health services in remote communities. More recently, Deputy Coroner Vickers implicated the deteriorating mental health service system in the nine suicide deaths she investigated and reported on in April this year.


How many times have I had to raise in this house the issue of the government’s unwillingness to implement the self-harm risk management guidelines as a priority? They were established by the College of Emergency Physicians and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists in 2000. The Auditor General reviewed the health department’s response to those guidelines in 2001 and gave the department a damning report. So concerned was the Auditor General that he followed up that review in 2005 and found that very little progress had been made. In fact, it has not yet been implemented.

A standing committee of this Parliament tabled a report on the same issue. The Vickers inquiry raised the issue yet again and still the self-harm risk guidelines have not been implemented. There is a pattern of response here—see nothing, know nothing and do nothing until severely embarrassed. Now we have Narrogin. The minister’s platitudes in his response to me in questions without notice are an example of what I am referring to. In response to my question about whether the minister was aware that an organisation was willing to provide culturally appropriate services to Narrogin communities, he said —

The WA Country Health Service Great Southern mental health service is committed to working with Aboriginal medical services in the south west and wheatbelt to enhance mental health services to Aboriginal communities and individual clients. The level of resourcing is monitored to ensure that service priorities are addressed.

They cannot be being addressed. The answer continues —

The WA Country Health Service Great Southern mental health service is providing support to community members and has safety plans in place for those at risk as a result of the recent suicides.

That is not what the Narrogin Aboriginal Community Suicide Crisis Meeting heard today. It continues —

The WA Country Health Service Great Southern mental health service will also provide staff to work collaboratively with Great Southern Aboriginal Medical Service, Holyoake and the Department of Corrective Services to address ongoing risk in the local community.

I wonder whether the minister does not understand that what people are saying is that they need a culturally appropriate mental health service in Narrogin. I also wonder whether the minister is waiting for yet another coroner’s report before he does anything about it. The meeting today determined that there is an urgent need for culturally appropriate mental health services in Narrogin, and that the WA Country Health Service cannot provide it. That was supported by the Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention. Although the minister would not commit any urgent funds, the South West Aboriginal Medical Service has said that regardless of it not having funding to do it, it would extend its services immediately into Narrogin but could do so only temporarily without funding. The meeting was looking for a permanent culturally appropriate Aboriginal medical service with a mental health service to be provided on a longer term basis in Narrogin. Again, this initiative was supported by the Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention, according to the meeting’s participants.

It is very frustrating raising these issues of suicide in Western Australia. There appears to be an attitude of acceptance of these deaths. There are more deaths from suicide than from road crashes, but these are preventable deaths. If those six young men in Narrogin had died in five months from road crashes or from some environmental cause, such as lead poisoning, or from some viral disease, this would have been given priority consideration and solutions would have been found immediately. Will the minister please use his significant influence to assure the people of Narrogin that he will make sure that resources are provided, first, for urgent crisis intervention services and, second, for longer term Aboriginal specific suicide prevention services in Narrogin before we witness any more deaths?

VICTIMS OF CRIME — MID-WEST SUPPORT SERVICES Statement

HON BRIAN ELLIS (Agricultural) [10.04 pm]: I have before me a horrific account of what happened to a victim of a bashing in Geraldton. What makes the story even more disturbing is that the victim was trying to defend another person who was subsequently killed because of the assault. The story gives an insight into the extra hardships that are faced by people living in regional and country areas—hardships that city people could not comprehend when they have all the services they need at their fingertips. I intended to tell this person’s story myself, but after reading the words that he wrote to me, I felt I could not do his story justice, so, with the house’s indulgence, I will read his story in his own words —

I was admitted to Geraldton Regional Hospital after being attacked and assaulted by a group of people.

I had several serious lacerations to my head, shoulder and chest. My ear had nearly been severed from my head. These were stitched by the doctor and a nurse. The stitches to my head were done without anaesthesia.


After a CT SCAN and an X-Ray I was informed by the doctor on duty that my jaw was broken. My lower jaw had been broken in the centre allowing my teeth to cross over at the front causing excruciating pain.

A laceration along the bottom of my mouth had resulted from the broken bone causing blood to pool in my mouth. Swelling of my tongue and mouth and nasal cavity made breathing very difficult.

As the blood pooled in my mouth breathing became impossible. Therefore every few minutes I would have to dribble as much of the blood out as I could before I choked.

I could not swallow due to the movement of my tongue putting pressure on the fracture and my throat being swollen.

I was given painkillers to relieve some of my discomforts so I had a chance to sleep that night.

I would wake up about every hour with a feeling of breathlessness and choking, and having to dribble blood so I could continue breathing.

The next morning I was informed that surgery on my jaw was required as soon as possible but the procedure was unable to be carried out at the Geraldton Regional Hospital so I would have to go to Perth for treatment.

I was unable to speak due to the fractured jaw, swelling and bleeding in my mouth. The only way I could communicate was by writing on paper and asked the hospital staff member “How will I get to Perth for the surgery?”.

They explained that I could not go by Ambulance, I could not travel via the Flying Doctor Service and that plane services from Geraldton were fully booked.

The Flying Doctor Service was unable to help because they were already committed to other patients that day.

Due to the pain I was experiencing driving and sitting in a car to Perth for 5 hours was unrealistic.

The only option left for me was to charter a flight to Perth. This was arranged by my parents for a cost of $1500.

I was transported from the hospital by my uncle to the flight, not by ambulance.

When I arrived in Perth I was not picked up by an ambulance but had to arrange for my parents to pick me up and take me to Royal Perth Hospital.

By the time I arrived in Perth the painkillers had worn off and I was again in excruciating pain. The outside temperature was 44°C and I was struggling to walk and not pass out.

My parents drove me to Royal Perth Hospital where I waited in the Emergency Department for the surgery I required.

The doctor that treated me at the Geraldton Regional Hospital believed my fractured jaw might have been very much likely to endanger my life if I did not receive proper treatment in a short period of time.

As I said before, this is a horrific story, and as members can imagine, it is not finished. The victim has only just returned to work more than five months after the bashing. He and his partner are afraid when they go out of their house. His partner even locks the house when she goes out to hang out the washing, and then locks herself back in the house. It has had a marked effect on their lives, as members can imagine. Although the bashing this victim received is not the government’s fault, it is the government’s responsibility to look into incidents such as this to find ways of stopping them from occurring again. The government is responsible for the services that are provided, such as the police response time. Is it resources or fewer police that cause the police to take so long to respond to an emergency call? Are health services sufficient to cover the treatment needed for such victims? Is it a matter of sufficient funding for services such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is such an important service for people living in the country, as is pointed out in this story? The Royal Flying Doctor Service is not just another interest group, as expressed by health minister McGinty.

The system failed this victim when he really needed it, and there are many questions that this government needs to answer. No-one should have to ask his retired parents to find $1 500 to charter a flight to Perth so that he can receive the same health care that city people take for granted.

House adjourned at 10.10 pm

__________


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

MITCHELL PLATEAU BAUXITE RESOURCE IN THE KIMBERLEY

5995. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development

Hydro Aluminum (Hydro) is the world’s third largest integrated aluminum producer and is at least 43.8 percent beneficially owned by the Norwegian Government. On 17 August, 2007, the Minister for State Development, in answer to question on notice No. 4941, indicated that Government agencies had been in communication with Hydro about Mitchell Plateau Temporary Reserve TR 70/5610H (TR) since 17 October 2005. The TR is currently held by the Mitchell Plateau Joint Venture (MPJV), split jointly between Rio Tinto (65.625 percent) and Alcoa (34.375 percent). The TR expired on or about 31 December 2007. On or about 14 May 2007, Hydro signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with United Minerals Corporation (UMC) to explore the possibility of bauxite mining and alumina refining in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. For the purposes of these questions, UMC includes its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bauxite Australia Pty Ltd. On or about 13 November 2007, Hydro announced its entry into a joint venture (JV) with UMC with the intention of ‘recovering bauxite and producing alumina in Kimberley, Western Australia’, and I ask —

(1) Does the TR remain in force?

(2) If yes to (1), is the MPJV in default of its obligations under the terms of the Alumina Refinery (Mitchell Plateau) Agreement 1971, (Mitchell Plateau State Agreement)?

(3) If yes to (2), has the MPJV’s rights of occupancy to the TR been renewed?

(4) If yes to (3), on what date, and until when?

(5) If no to (3), has the Mitchell Plateau State Agreement ended?

(6) If yes to (5), does the Minister intend to reclassify the TR as a section 19 area in accordance with the Mining Act 1978?

(7) If no to (1), has the TR been re-classified as a section 19 area in accordance with the Mining Act 1978?

(8) What fees and other payments (whether cash or in-kind) are made by the MPJV to Government and/or its agencies on an annual and/or more regular basis in relation to the TR, including, —

(a) the entity from which each payment is made;

(b) the amount of each payment;

(c) the Department and/or Agency to which each payment is made;

(d) the Department and/or Agency charged with responsibility for issuing each invoice to the MPJV and/or its associated parties; and

(e) the regularity with which each individual Department and/or Agency issues invoices to the MPJV and/or its associated parties?

(9) Have any Departments or Agencies, or any members of individual departments or agencies been instructed not to invoice the MPJV and/or its associated parties in, —

(a) the financial year ended 30 June 2008; and

(b) the financial year ended 30 June 2009?

(10) If yes to (9), please outline, —

(a) each Department or Agency which has been instructed not to invoice the MPJV and/or its associated parties and when;

(b) the periods in which they would have ordinarily been required to invoice the MPJV and/or its associated parties; and

(c) the amounts foregone by each individual Department or Agency as a result of each Department or Agency foregoing the invoicing of the MPJV and/or its associated parties?

(11) If yes to (9), please outline the reasons why each individual Department or Agency has been instructed not to invoice the MPJV and or its associated parties in the subject period(s).

(12) The Mitchell Plateau is a remnant of an elevated and dissected laterite-capped eroded plain which is bordered by a lower-lying sandstone plateau. The bauxite deposits occur in a lateritic sheet which


ranges in thickness from two to five metres and covers an area of 400 square kilometres. What is the total area of the TR (as measured in square kilometres)?

(13) As at 6 March 2008, and in accordance with current Geological Survey of Western Australia (GSWA) data, what are the, —

(a) total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves contained within the TR (without beneficiation) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values; and

(b) total drill-indicated reserves contained within the TR (after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values?

(14) As at 6 March 2008, and in accordance with current GSWA data, what are the, —

(a) total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves contained within the deposit known as Lone Dingo (without beneficiation) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values; and

(b) total drill-indicated reserves contained within the deposit known as Lone Dingo (after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values?


(a) total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves contained within the area known as Northern Plateau (without beneficiation) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values;

(b) total drill-indicated reserves contained within the area known as Northern Plateau (after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values?


(a) total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves contained within the area known as the Central Plateau (without beneficiation) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values; and

(b) total drill-indicated reserves contained within the deposit known as the Central Plateau (after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values?


(a) total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves contained within the deposit known as South Plateau — West (without beneficiation) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values; and

(b) total drill-indicated reserves contained within the deposit known as South Plateau — West (after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values?


(a) total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves contained within the deposit known as South Plateau — Central (without beneficiation) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values; and

(b) total drill-indicated reserves contained within the deposit known as South Plateau — Central (after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method) including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values?

(19) Can the Minister please show spatially the area and boundaries of known bauxite reserves within the TR in relation to current TR boundaries?

(20) Can the Minister please show spatially the area and boundaries of the lateritic sheet(s) within the TR in relation to current TR boundaries?

(21) In relation to Norsk Hydro and/or its associated entities, including Worley Parsons, (Hydro), has the Government or its Agencies had direct communications with Hydro in relation to the TR since 19 June 2007?

(22) If yes to (21), with whom and on what dates have these communications taken place?

(23) Can the Minister please table the communications between the Government or its Agencies with Hydro in relation to the TR?


(24) If no to (23), to the extent that the communications have related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to Hydro?

(25) If no to (23), to the extent that the communications have not related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, but have related to bauxite mining and/or alumina developments in the Kimberley region, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to Hydro?

(26) In relation to Norsk Hydro and/or its associated entities, including Worley Parsons, (Hydro), has the Government or its agencies had direct communications jointly with Hydro and members of the MPJV or their associated entities in relation to the TR since 19 June 2007?


(28) Can the Minister please table the joint communications between the Government or its Agencies with Hydro and members of the MPJV or their associated entities in relation to the TR?

(29) If no to (28), to the extent that the communications have related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to Hydro and members of the MPJV or their associated entities?

(30) If no to (28), to the extent that the communications have not related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, but have related to bauxite mining and/or alumina developments in the Kimberley region, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to Hydro and members of the MPJV or their associated entities?

(31) In relation to UMC and/or its associated entities, including Worley Parsons, (Hydro), has the Government or its agencies had direct communications with UMC in relation to the TR since 19 June 2007?


(33) Can the Minister please table the communications between the Government or its Agencies with UMC in relation to the TR?

(34) If no to (33), to the extent that the communications have related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to UMC?

(35) If no to (33), to the extent that the communications have not related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, but have related to bauxite mining and/or alumina developments in the Kimberley region, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to UMC?

(36) In relation to UMC and/or its associated entities, including Worley Parsons, (UMC), has the Government or its agencies had direct communications jointly with UMC and members of the MPJV or their associated entities in relation to the TR since 19 June 2007?


(38) Can the Minister please table the joint communications between the Government or its Agencies with UMC and members of the MPJV or their associated entities in relation to the TR?

(39) If no to (38), to the extent that the communications have related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to UMC and members of the MPJV or their associated entities?

(40) If no to (38), to the extent that the communications have not related to the status of the occupancy rights to the TR, but have related to bauxite mining and/or alumina developments in the Kimberley region, can the Minister please provide a detailed overview as to what the Government and/or its Agencies have communicated to UMC and members of the MPJV or their associated entities?

(41) Has the Government and/or its Agencies (including any consultants) had any communications with the MPJV and/or its associated entities (including its consultants) in relation to the relinquishment of all or part of the area incorporated within the TR to Hydro and/or UMC and/or the Hydro/UMC JV and/or one or more of the aforementioned parties or entities associated therewith?

(42) If yes to (41), with whom and on what date did these communications first take place?

(43) If yes to (41), with whom and on what other dates have these communications taken place?


(44) If yes to (41), can the Minister please table the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with the MPJV in relation to the relinquishment of all or part of the area incorporated within the TR to Hydro and/or UMC and/or the Hydro/UMC JV and/or one or more of the aforementioned parties or entities associated therewith?

(45) If yes to (41), but no to (44), can the Minister please provide a detailed overview of the nature of the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with the MPJV in relation to the relinquishment of all or part of the area incorporated within the TR to Hydro and/or UMC and/or the Hydro/UMC JV and/or one or more of the aforementioned parties or entities associated therewith, including the content of those communications?

(46) Since 1 January 2007, has the Government and/or its Agencies (including any of its consultants) been provided with feasibility studies, business plans, concept documents, or otherwise by any member of the Hydro/UMC JV and/or their associated entities (including any consultants affiliated therewith), evaluating one or more of the establishment of (not all-inclusive), —

(a) a port and materials off-loading facility at any of Port Warrender, Walsh Point or MacGregor Point, at or near the Mitchell Plateau;

(b) a haul road or conveyor system from the Mitchell Plateau to a port and materials off-loading facility at any of Port Warrender, Walsh Point or MacGregor Point, at or near the Mitchell Plateau;

(c) mine development plans, with various options for the sequential development of Lone Dingo and the Northern Plateau, the Central Plateau and the western and central areas of the South Plateau;

(d) the establishment of a construction workers’ accommodation village and mine workers’ accommodation villages;

(e) options and design models for barge/ship load-out options incorporating re-claimers, stackers, conveyors and ship loaders; and

(f) the bitumising of the Mitchell Plateau airfield to enable all-weather landing?

(47) Has the Government and/or its Agencies (including any consultants) had any communications with the Kimberley Land Council (KLC), (including any consultants), in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR since 1 January 2007?



(50) If yes to (47), can the Minister please table the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with the KLC in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR?

(51) If yes to (47), but no to (50), can the Minister please provide a detailed overview of the nature of the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with the KLC in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR, including the content of those communications?

(52) Has the Government and/or its Agencies (including any consultants) had any communications with Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation (WGAC), (including any consultants), in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR since 1 January 2007?



(55) If yes to (52), can the Minister please table the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with the WGAC in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR?

(56) If yes to (52), but no to (55), can the Minister please provide a detailed overview of the nature of the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with the WGAC in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR, including the content of those communications?

(57) Has the Government and/or its Agencies (including any consultants) had any communications with Kandiwal Aboriginal Corporation (Kandiwal), (including any consultants), in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR since 1 January 2007?




(60) If yes to (57), can the Minister please table the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with Kandiwal, in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR?

(61) If yes to (57), but no to (60), can the Minister please provide a detailed overview of the nature of the communications had between the Government or its Agencies (including any consultants) with Kandiwal, in relation to the possibility of future bauxite mining of all or part of the TR, including the content of those communications?

Hon KATE DOUST replied:

(1) Yes.

(2) No.

(3)-(7) N/A.

(8) (a) Mitchell Plateau Bauxite Company Pty Ltd (MPBC).

(b) Annual rental for occupancy rights is $70,543.55 (incl GST).

(c) The Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR).

(d) DoIR does not issue an invoice but on receipt of the rental payment a tax invoice is issued to the MPBC.

(e) Tax invoices are issued annually to the MPBC, subject to an application for the renewal of occupancy rights for the TR being lodged.

Also, an amount of $62,500 is paid annually by the MPJV to the Department of Environment and Conservation to manage facilities and infrastructure on the Mitchell Plateau including the airstrip, road maintenance and visitor facilities. Specific questions regarding the funding / contribution arrangements should be directed to the Minister for the Environment.

(9) No in respect to the Department of Industry and Resources.

(10) -(11)N/A.

(12) 1,765 sq kms.

(13)-(18)Information not available.

(19) No.

(20) Yes.

(21) Yes.

(22) Minister Logan met with representatives of Norsk Hydro and UMC on 4 February 2008. The Deputy Premier, Eric Ripper MLA, wrote to Hydro-UMC Joint Venture on 4 January 2008.

(23) Yes [See tabled paper no 4046.]

(24)-(25)N/A.

(26) See response to part 21.

(27) Minister Logan met with representatives of Norsk Hydro and UMC on 4 February 2008. The Deputy Premier, Eric Ripper MLA, wrote to Hydro-UMC Joint Venture on 4 January 2008.

(28) See response to part 23.

(29)-(30)N/A.

(31) Yes.

(32) See answer to part 22.


(34)-(35)N/A.

(36) No.

(37) N/A.



(39)-(40)N/A.

(41) No.

(42)-(45)N/A.

(46) No.

(47) No.

(48)-(51)N/A.

(52) No.

(53)-(56)N/A.

(57) Yes.

(58) Correspondence was received by the Department of Premier and Cabinet from Mr C Brown of the Kandiwal Aboriginal Corporation on 12 March 2008, which was referred to the Office of the Minister for State Development to respond.

(59) No other correspondence has been received.

(60) No. The response to the correspondence identified in part 58 has not yet been finalised by the Government or its agencies.

(61) It is not appropriate to supply information at this time, as the correspondence has not yet been finalised.

MINISTERIAL OFFICES — LOCATION, UPGRADES AND EQUIPMENT

6036. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for Regional Development

In respect to the Minister’s Ministerial Office, I ask —

(1) Where is the office located?

(2) Has the office been upgraded or refurbished since 2001, and if so, what has occurred and at what cost in each case?

(3) Has the office acquired any additional equipment, and if so, what and at what cost in each case?

(4) Has the office replaced any equipment, and if so, what and at what cost in each case?

Hon JON FORD replied:

(1) 9th Floor, Dumas House, 2 Havelock Street West Perth WA 6005

(2) Since 2001, the following refurbishment costs have been incurred at the current ministerial office:

2005/06 Fitout $405,219.50

2005/06 Move from May Holman Centre $1,227.50

2006/07 Fitout $5,404.00

Costs refers to refurbishments or upgrades in excess of $1,000 and charted to Office Establishment Costs — Capital.

(3)-(4) Given no time line has been specified for these questions, the following costs relate to equipment acquired and/or replaced from 1 April 2007 to 30 April 2008

Office equipment has been defined as machines, IT equipment, desks, chairs and other items that assist with an officer's operational duties.

During this period, 12 computers have been replaced as part of the Department of Premier and Cabinet's scheduled upgrade program. The average cost of each computer, with a keyboard, monitor and mouse is $1,250.00 excluding GST. This cost is incorporated into the budget of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Office equipment does not include mobile telephones and laptops as this equipment is the subject of other Parliamentary Questions which have been answered previously.


6037. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for Employment Protection








Please refer to question on notice 6036


6038. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for Fisheries









6039. Hon Norman Moore to the Minister for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne









6050. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Premier

In respect to the Deputy Premier’s Ministerial Office, I ask —






(1) 28th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower, 197 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000

(2) Since 2001, the following refurbishment costs have been incurred at the current ministerial office: 2002/03 Painting $15,622.00

Costs refers to refurbishments or upgrades in excess of $1,000 and charted to Office Establishment Costs — Capital.

(3)-(4) Given no time line has been specified for these questions, the following costs relate to equipment acquired and/or replaced from 1 April 2007 to 30 April 2008

Office equipment has been defined as machines, IT equipment, desks, chairs and other items that assist with an officer's operational duties.

The items are:


Hewlett Packard LaserJet P2015n Printer $481.14 Hewlett Packard LaserJet P2015n Printer $481.14 Sony ICD-MX20 Digital Voice Recorder $599.00 Cardscan 800/V8 Executive Business Card Scanner $414.63 Rexel 1400S2 Shredder $1,894.00

11 computers have been replaced as part of the Department of Premier and Cabinet's scheduled upgrade program. The average cost of each computer, with a keyboard, monitor and mouse is $1,250.00 excluding GST. This cost is incorporated into the budget of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Office equipment does not include mobile telephones and laptops as this equipment is the subject of other Parliamentary Questions which have been answered previously.

MINISTERIAL OFFICES — LOCATION, UPGRADES AND EQUIPMENT 6051. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Treasurer In respect to the Treasurer’s Ministerial Office, I ask — (1) Where is the office located? (2) Has the office been upgraded or refurbished since 2001, and if so, what has occurred and at what cost in

each case? (3) Has the office acquired any additional equipment, and if so, what and at what cost in each case? (4) Has the office replaced any equipment, and if so, what and at what cost in each case? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Refer to question on notice 6050.

MINISTERIAL OFFICES — LOCATION, UPGRADES AND EQUIPMENT 6052. Hon Norman Moore to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development In respect to the Minister’s Ministerial Office, I ask — (1) Where is the office located? (2) Has the office been upgraded or refurbished since 2001, and if so, what has occurred and at what cost in

each case? (3) Has the office acquired any additional equipment, and if so, what and at what cost in each case? (4) Has the office replaced any equipment, and if so, what and at what cost in each case? Hon KATE DOUST replied: Refer to question on notice 6050.

PUBLIC SERVANTS — PARENTAL LEAVE 6189. Hon Helen Morton to the Minister for Employment Protection representing the Minister for Police and

Emergency Services For each portfolio under your responsibility, please indicate the extent to which public servants have been paid for parental leave in each of the past five years according to the, —

(a) number of staff taking parental leave each year; (b) amount of time taken in parental leave each year, measured by weeks; and (c) total payments in parental leave made to public servants each year?

Hon JON FORD replied: Western Australia Police Service

(a)-(c)

Financial Year Police Staff No. of people

No. of weeks Police Staff Value

2002-2003 Nil Nil *

2003-2004 19 87.98 68,421.16

2004-2005 18 85.51 79,795.24

2005-2006 24 128.55 134,290.96

2006-2007 21 223.33 165,060.60 * Police staff did not have parental leave paid prior to 2003/04


The Fire and Emergency Services Authority (a)-(c)

Financial Year No. of people No. of weeks Value

2002-2003 5 12.2 13,408

2003-2004 13 65.9 60,685

2004-2005 23 121 116,999

2005-2006 28 167.6 180,834

2006-2007 36 258.5 267,328

Fire and Emergency Services Superannuation Fund

(a)-(c) Nil.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS — INTERNAL AUDIT VIA OUTSIDE BODY

6238. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Forestry

(1) Which department, authority, organisation or agency under the Minister’s responsibility undertook internal audits via an outside body in the years ended, —

(a) 30 June 2002;

(b) 30 June 2003;

(c) 30 June 2004;

(d) 30 June 2005;

(e) 30 June 2006; and

(f) 30 June 2007?

(2) What is the name of the outside body that carried out these services?

(3) What was the cost of each of these services?

(4) What contracts for internal audit services are in place for the 2007 — 2008 financial year?

(5) What is the value of each of these contracts?


Forest Products Commission

(1)-(3) 2002-2004 Not applicable; 2005 Stamfords $47,000; 2006 Stamfords $57,600; 2007 Stamfords $55,200

(4) A tender for a two year contract will be run in the coming months

(5) The contract is expected to be approximately $56,000 p.a.


6239. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for the Mid West and Wheatbelt


(a) 30 June 2002;

(b) 30 June 2003;

(c) 30 June 2004;

(d) 30 June 2005;

(e) 30 June 2006; and

(f) 30 June 2007?







Mid West Development Commission

(1)-(3) 2002 — Hall Chadwick $2,464 incl GST;

2003 — Hall Chadwick $2,541 incl GST;

2004 — Hall Chadwick $3,600 incl GST;

2005 — Bentley's MRI $2,900 incl GST;

2006 — Mid West Accounting Services $5,475 incl GST;

2007 — Mid West Accounting Services $5,475 incl GST

(4) Mid West Accounting Services

(5) $5,475 incl GST

Wheatbelt Development Commission

(1)-(3)

PKF Chartered Accountants as under: 2002 — $4,297.97; 2003 — $4,529.00; 2004 — $5,392.60; 2005 — $6,220.34; 2006 — $6,441.07; 2007 — $6,598.50

(4) Contract taken out for 30 June 2008 for period of 5 years to expire 30 June 2010.

(5) Contract for year ended 30 June 2002 — $3,731.88 per annum plus out of pocket expenses for travel and accommodation etc.

Contract for 3 years to 30 June 2005 — $3,731.88 per annum for year ended 30 June 2003 plus CPI for 2004 & 2005 plus out of pocket expenses for travel and accommodation.

Contract for 5 years to 30 June 2010 — $5,996.25 per annum plus out of pocket expenses for travel and accommodation.


6240. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Great Southern


(a) 30 June 2002; (b) 30 June 2003; (c) 30 June 2004; (d) 30 June 2005; (e) 30 June 2006; and (f) 30 June 2007?






Great Southern Development Commission

(1)-(3)

2002 — Wheatcroft Enterprises $1,501.50;


2003 — McLeod Partners $4,600.00;

2004 — McLeod Partners and Morgan Charter $6,489.00;

2005 — Morgan Charter $9,999.00;

2006 — Morgan Charter $5,898.00;

2007 — Morgan Charter and Witham Agronomy and Accounting $8,448.00

(4) Witham Agronomy and Accounting are undertaking our internal audit function for the 2007-08 financial year.

(5) $8,500.00 for the 2007/08 financial year.


6248. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Regional Development


(a) 30 June 2002;

(b) 30 June 2003;

(c) 30 June 2004;

(d) 30 June 2005;

(e) 30 June 2006; and

(f) 30 June 2007?






In terms of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, please be advised as follows:

(1) (a)-(f) Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

(2) (a) PKF Chartered Accountants.

(b) Hall Chadwick.

(c) Hall Chadwick.

(d) Hall Chadwick.

(e) Bentleys MRI Perth Pty Ltd.

(f) Bentleys MRI Perth Pty Ltd.

(3) (a) $4,645.

(b) $4,000.

(c) $15,785.

(d) $8,174.

(e) $11,628.

(f) $9,731.

(4) Contract awarded to Sutherland Rose Pty Ltd for operational, compliance and financial audits.

(5) $11,660.


6249. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Employment Protection


(a) 30 June 2002;


(b) 30 June 2003;

(c) 30 June 2004;

(d) 30 June 2005;

(e) 30 June 2006; and

(f) 30 June 2007?






The Department of Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP) has advised the Minister for Employment Protection that, in respect to the Employment Protection arm of DOCEP:

(1) The Department of Consumer and Employment Protection.

(a) 2001/2002 — Audits of Corporate Services functions, WorkSafe.

(b) 2002/2003 — Audits of Corporate Services functions.

(c) 2003/2004 — Audits of Corporate Services functions.

(d) 2004/2005 — Audits of Corporate Services functions, WorkSafe, EnergySafety.

(e) 2005/2006 — Audits of Corporate Services functions, Labour Relations.

(f) 2006/2007 — Audits of Corporate Services functions, Resources Safety Division.

(Note: Audits of Corporate Services functions were internal audits covering corporate services functions such as payment processing, contracting, personnel and payroll, assets, etc).

(2) (a) 2001/2002: Audits of Corporate Services functions — Hall Chadwick. WorkSafe — Stantons.

(b) 2002/2003: Audits of Corporate Services functions — Hall Chadwick.

(c) 2003/2004: Audits of Corporate Services functions — Hall Chadwick.

(d) 2004/2005: Audits of Corporate Services functions, WorkSafe & Energy Safety — Stamfords.

(e) 2005/2006: Audits of Corporate Services functions & Labour Relations — Stamfords.

(f) 2006/2007: Audits of Corporate Services functions — Bentleys MRI, Blue Zoo and Stamfords. Resources Safety Division — Blue Zoo.

(3) (a) 2001/2002: Hall Chadwick — $13,200, Stantons — $9,750.

(b) 2002/2003: Hall Chadwick — $25,877.

(c) 2003/2004: Hall Chadwick — $28,938.

(d) 2004/2005: Stamfords — $46,926.

(e) 2005/2006: Stamfords — $43,120.

(f) 2006/2007: Bentley MRI — $29,700, Stamfords $4,895, Blue Zoo — $23,200.

(4) Audits for Corporate Services functions — Blue Zoo & RSM Bird Cameron. Resources Safety Division — Blue Zoo.

(5) Blue Zoo — $39,918, RSM Bird Cameron — $13,000.

In terms of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board, please be advised as follows:

(1) (a)-(f) External auditors used for all years.

(2) (a) Arthur Andersen for part of 2002.

(b)-(f) Ernst & Young for part of 2002 & all other years.

(3) (a) 2002 $9,000.

(b) 2003 $10,500.

(c) 2004 $9,250.


(d) 2005 $13,900.

(e) 2006 $8,500.

(f) 2007 $25,000.

(4) Contract with Ernst & Young.

(5) $25,000.

In terms of the Department of the Registrar, WA Industrial Relations Commission please be advised as follows:

(1) (a)-(f) Yes. The Dept of the Registrar, WA Industrial Relations Commission undertook an internal audit via an outside body for all the years ended 30 June 2002 — 2007.

(2) For the 3 years ended 30 June 2002/2003/2004 the audits were conducted by PKF Chartered Accountants.

For the 3 years ended 30 June 2005/2006/2007 the audits were conducted by Stamfords.

(3) For the 3 years ended 30 June 2002/2003/2004 the cost of the audit was $21,250 (inclusive of GST).

For the 3 years ended 30 June 2005,/2006/2007 the cost of the audit was $16,225 (inclusive of GST).

(4) For the 2007/2008 financial year the Department has a contract with Stamfords to carry out the internal audit.

(5) The cost of the 2007/2008 contract for the internal audit will be $16,225 (inclusive of GST).

In terms of WorkCover WA please be advised as follows:

(1) (a)-(f) WorkCover WA undertook internal audits via an outside body for all the years ended 30 June 2002-2007.

(2) (a) 30 June 2002 — Stanton Partners

(b) 30 June 2003 — PricewaterhouseCoopers

(c) 30 June 2004 — PricewaterhouseCoopers

(d) 30 June 2005 — PricewaterhouseCoopers

(e) 30 June 2006 — PricewaterhouseCoopers

(f) 30 June 2007 — PricewaterhouseCoopers

(3) (a) 30 June 2002 — $28,512.00

(b) 30 June 2003 — $28,594.33

(c) 30 June 2004 — $49,968.81

(d) 30 June 2005 — $46,823.07

(e) 30 June 2006 — $53,203.21

(f) 30 June 2007 — $107,488.25

(4) Contract — PricewaterhouseCoopers

Contract — Grant Thornton

(5) PricewaterhouseCoopers — $60,188.05

Grant Thornton — $11,000


6250. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for Fisheries

(1) Which department, authority, organisation or agency under the Minister’s responsibility undertook internal audits via an outside body in the years ended, — (a) 30 June 2002; (b) 30 June 2003; (c) 30 June 2004; (d) 30 June 2005; (e) 30 June 2006; and (f) 30 June 2007?







For the Department of Fisheries:

(1)-(3) (a) 30 June 2002, Stanton Partners, $60,392 (b) 30 June 2003, Stanton Partners, $60,392 (c) 30 June 2004, Stanton Partners, $62,700 (d) 30 June 2005, Stanton Partners, $62,700 (e) 30 June 2006, Stanton Partners, $62,700 (f) 30 June 2007, Grant Thornton (formerly Bentleys MRI), $68,820

(4) Not yet appointed (5) N/A


6251. Hon Ray Halligan to the Minister for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne


(a) 30 June 2002;

(b) 30 June 2003;

(c) 30 June 2004;

(d) 30 June 2005;

(e) 30 June 2006; and

(f) 30 June 2007?






In relation to the Kimberley Development Commission please be advised as follows:

(1) Internal audits undertaken via an outside body in the:

(a) Year ended 30 June 2002 — Yes.

(b) Year ended 30 June 2003 — Yes.

(c) Year ended 30 June 2004 — No.

(d) Year ended 30 June 2005 — Yes.

(e) Year ended 30 June 2006 — No.

(f) Year ended 30 June 2007 — Yes.

(2) Names of the outside body that carried out these services were:

(a) Year ended 30 June 2002 — RSM Bird Cameron Partners.

(b) Year ended 30 June 2003 — RSM Bird Cameron Partners.

(c) Year ended 30 June 2004 — NIL.

(d) Year ended 30 June 2005 — Stanton Partners and Stamfords Advisors & Consultants.

(e) Year ended 30 June 2006 — NIL.

(f) Year ended 30 June 2007 — Stamfords Advisors & Consultants.


(3) Cost of each of these services were:

(a) Year ended 30 June 2002 — $2,200 including GST.

(b) Year ended 30 June 2003 — $3,245 including GST.

(c) Year ended 30 June 2004 — NIL.

(d) Year ended 30 June 2005 — Stanton Partners $5,170 including GST.

Stamfords Advisors & Consultants $3,026.65 including GST.

(e) Year ended 30 June 2006 — NIL.

(f) Year ended 30 June 2007 — $4,384.92 including GST.

(4) Contract for internal audit services in place for the 2007-2008 financial year was a three- year contract with Stamfords Advisors & Consultants from 2005-2006.

(5) The value of this three year contract with Stamfords Advisors & Consultants is $7,920.00.

In relation to the Pilbara Development Commission please be advised as follows:

(1) The Pilbara Development Commission undertook internal audits via an outside body for the following years:

(a) 30 June 2002

(b) 30 June 2003

(c) 30 June 2004

(d) 30 June 2005

(e) 30 June 2006

(f) 30 June 2007

(2) (a) 30 June 2002 — Northwest Accountancy Pty Ltd

(b) 30 June 2003 — Stamfords

(c) 30 June 2004 — Stamfords

(d) 30 June 2005 — Stamfords

(e) 30 June 2006 — Quantum Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

(f) 30 June 2007 — Quantum Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

(3) (a) 30 June 2002 — $5,324

(b)-(d) 30 June 2003, 30 June 2004 and 30 June 2005 — $25,344 over a 3 year fixed contract

(e)-(f) 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 — $8,280 over a 2 year fixed contract

(4) The contract for 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 had a 1 year extension option which the Commission has utilised. The internal audit for 30 June 2008 has been awarded to Quantum Consulting Aistralia Pty Ltd.

(5) $4,451

In relation to the Gascoyne Development Commission please be advised as follows:

(1) The Gascoyne Development Commission undertook internal audits via an outside body for the following years:

(a) 30 June 2002 — Yes

(b) 30 June 2003 — Yes

(c) 30 June 2004 — Yes

(d) 30 June 2005 — No

(e) 30 June 2006 — No

(f) 30 June 2007 — No

(2) (a) 2002 — K W Johanson

(b) 2003 — A R Fullaron & Associates. - Hall Chadwick


(c) 2004 — Hall Chadwick

(d)-(f) Not Applicable

(3) (a) 2002 — K W Johanson — $ 500

(b) 2003 — A R Fullaron & Associates.- $ 1100 - Hall Chadwick $2938

(c) 2004 — Hall Chadwick $2938

(d)-(f) Not Applicable

(4) Nil

(5) N/A

QUESTION ON NOTICE 5995 — CAPE BOUGAINVILLE — BAUXITE RESERVES

6291. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development

Further to question on notice No. 5995, Cape Bougainville in the Kimberley Region incorporates a high conservation value bauxite plateau surrounded by near continuous virgin rainforest. The rainforest is pristine by virtue of a fence that was put in place by the former Department of Conservation and Land Management (now the Department of Environment and Conservation), and I ask —

(1) As at 31 March 2008, and in accordance with current Geological Survey of Western Australia (GSWA) data, what —

(a) total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves have been delineated at Cape Bougainville (without beneficiation, including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values);

(b) total drill-indicated reserves have been delineated at Cape Bougainville after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method (including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values);

(c) total drill-inferred in-situ bauxite reserves have been delineated at Cape Bougainville (without beneficiation, including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values); and

(d) total drill-inferred reserves have been delineated at Cape Bougainville after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method (including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values)?

(2) As at 31 March, 2008, can the Minister please, —

(a) show spatially the area and boundaries of known bauxite reserves found at Cape Bougainville;

(b) provide details as to both the total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves and total drill-inferred bauxite reserves that have been delineated for each area at Cape Bougainville (without beneficiation, including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values), including the name of each deposit;

(c) provide details as to both the total drill-indicated in-situ bauxite reserves and total drill-inferred bauxite reserves that have been delineated for each area at Cape Bougainville after beneficiation using the hole cut-off method (including tonnages, grades and reactive silica values); and

(d) provide details as to the total area (as measured in square kilometres) for each bauxite deposit at Cape Bougainville?

(3) What is the total area of Cape Bougainville (as measured in square kilometres)?

(4) What current land tenure arrangements is Cape Bougainville currently subject to?

(5) Do any mining and/or exploration interests exist, or are there any pending, in respect of the area described generally as Cape Bougainville?

(6) If yes to (5), will the Minister please outline details as to, —

(a) the nature of the mining and/or exploration interests as split out by the type of interest;

(b) the nature of the mining and/or exploration interests as split out by the type of interest as further split out by interest holder(s) and its parent entity where a parent entity exists;

(c) the dates in respect of which each interest was acquired; and

(d) in the case of applications pending, the names of the applicants and the rights, if any, currently conferred upon the applicants?

(7) Will the Minister please outline, —


(a) when drilling exploration was last conducted at Cape Bougainville;

(b) the names of the parties involved in that exploration;

(c) the nature of conservation management regimes that currently exist in respect of Cape Bougainville;

(d) what studies have been undertaken by the Department of Conservation and Environment at Cape Bougainville since 1985; and

(e) what management plans exist for the protection of the conservation and heritage values of Cape Bougainville?

(8) Will the Minister please table all internal memoranda prepared by the Department of Conservation and Environment and/or the Department of Industry and Resources in respect of the conservation status and/or values of the Mitchell Plateau and/or Cape Bougainville since 1 September 2007?


(1)-(2) The Geological Survey of Western Australia has no data on bauxite reserves nor the area of each deposit. References containing information on the deposits are as follows. (a) BARDOSSY, G., and ALEVA, G. J. J., 1990, Lateritic bauxites: Amsterdam, Elsevier,

p. 454-456. (b) JOKLIK, G. F., JACKSON, W. P., and ZANI, J. A., 1975, Kimberley bauxite deposits, in

Economic geology of Australia and Papua New Guinea edited by C. L. KNIGHT: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Monograph 5, v. 1 -- Metals, p. 968-990.

(3) 470 square kilometres (4) Crown Reserve 24705 for the use and benefit of Aborigines (5) Yes (6) (a) Mining Leases M80/47 to M80/60

(b) Mining Leases M80/47 to M80/60: Holder 1 -- Alcoa of Australia Ltd and Holder 2 -- Mitchell Plateau Bauxite Co. Pty Ltd. Parent entities -- AngloGold Ashanti Limited (10.0%), AngloGold Ashanti Australia Limited (10%), Alcoa of Australia Limited (22.5%) and Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited (67.5%)

(c) Mining Leases M80/47 to M80/60 granted 06/08/1985 (d) Exploration Licence Application E80/3859 -- Kimberley Bauxite Pty Ltd Exploration Licence Application E80/3912 -- Bauxite Resources Limited. Rights conferred to the applicants consist of priority to ground not subject to existing granted mining tenure.

(7) (a) 1969 (b) AMAX Bauxite Corporation (a subsidiary of American Metal Climax Inc) (c) Not known (this part of the question should be referred to the Minister for the Environment) (d) Not known (this part of the question should be referred to the Minister for the Environment) (e) Not known (this part of the question should be referred to the Minister for the Environment)

(8) None for the Department of Industry and Resources. This question should be referred to the Minister for the Environment.

RACING, GAMING AND LIQUOR — PERSONNEL ISSUES

6293. Hon George Cash to the Minister for Racing and Gaming

I refer to File No L45/20/06 and the memorandum date 20 November 1998 from Mr E Romato, Manager Inspections, Office of Racing, Gaming and Liquor to the Manager Organisational Development, and ask — (1) Who was the Manager Organisational Development on 20 November 1998? (2) Did the Manager Organisational Development comply with the request of Mr Romato? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: (1) Ms Dorothy McLauchlin.

(2) I am advised that as the matter relates to a personal file which the department no longer possesses, it is not possible to answer the question. However, all personal and related files are maintained by the department in accordance with the State Records Office's General Disposal Authority for Human Resource Management Records.


TRPCEV, ALIC — RACING, GAMING AND LIQUOR — LEAVE RECORDS

6294. Hon George Cash to the Minister for Racing and Gaming

(1) On which dates in 2008 has Mr Alic Trpcev requested a copy of his leave records from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor for the period of his employment with the Department?

(2) On what date were the records provided top Mr Trpcev?

(3) Did the Department, at any time in 2008, advise Mr Trpcev the records did not exist?

Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied:

(1) 2 January 2008 and 8 January 2008

(2) 8 January 2008

(3) No

__________

legislative council - parliament of western australia

Documents