Legislative Assembly

Document Sample
Legislative Assembly Powered By Docstoc
					                                          Legislative Assembly
                                           Thursday, 18 October 2007


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs D.J. Guise) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers.
                                GREENWOOD SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
                                                     Petition
MRS J. HUGHES (Kingsley) [9.01 am]: I have a petition with 99 signatures that has been certified by the
Clerk and is couched in the following terms -
         To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western
         Australia in Parliament assembled.
         We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia, say that the development of the new Greenwood
         school is a positive development however, the peripheral construction to accommodate the school will
         potentially have a negative impact on the safety and amenity of the local area.
         Namely, the proposal for a new road to go through the existing school site will contribute to traffic
         congestion and development of a major thoroughfare, loss of any existing bushland will be to the
         detriment to the environment and amenity of the area and the potential for an increase in density of
         public housing will bring down the value of the area for current residents.
         We respectfully ask the Legislative Assembly to call on the government to:
                  1.       Seek alternative options so a new road is not constructed through the existing school
                           site,
                  2.       To prevent any bushland degradation and,
                  3.       To limit any new public housing in the area.
[See petition 259.]
                            PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE -
                           REVIEW OF ASSEMBLY’S COMMITTEE SYSTEM
                           Extension of Reporting Date - Statement by Deputy Speaker
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs D.J. Guise): The Speaker wishes to advise members that on 17 October
2007, the Procedure and Privileges Committee resolved to extend the reporting date for its review of the
Assembly’s committee system to 10 April 2008.
                                               PAPER TABLED
A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.
PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE - INQUIRY INTO MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
                                                Notice of Motion
Mr J.A. McGinty (Attorney General) gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move -
         That this house authorises the Procedure and Privileges Committee, and consequently the Corruption
         and Crime Commission acting on its behalf, to have access to all documents in the custody of Assembly
         committees or the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly which the Procedure and Privileges Committee
         members consider are relevant to the current investigation into allegations of misconduct by members
         of the Legislative Assembly.
                          JIAO DAN - PREMIER’S MEETING WITH PARENTS
                                              Statement by Premier
MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [9.04 am]: Yesterday at midday I met with the parents of young
Chinese student Jiao Dan, who was so shockingly and tragically murdered in Perth last week. I wanted to
personally pass on to Jiao Dan’s parents on behalf of the government and people of Western Australia our
profound sympathy, sadness and regret over the death of their daughter. This is something that should never
have happened. Jiao Dan’s parents are enduring a pain that no parents, indeed no-one at all, should have to
endure.
The death of Jiao Dan also reflects badly on our state’s reputation in China and other parts of the world as a safe
destination for overseas students whose presence we value so highly and who contribute and have contributed so
6424                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

much to our society over a long period. We need to be able to assure existing and prospective overseas students,
their parents and families that our city and the state of Western Australia is a safe and welcoming environment,
although, at the same time, we need to point out that sometimes terrible things happen here, as they do in other
large cities around the world. All of us love our city of Perth and our state and know that it is one of the best
places in the world to live. We need to do everything we can to ensure that we remain a desirable destination for
young people wanting to pursue their education abroad. We have worked hard to attract them to WA and would
welcome many more.
I intended my visit to Jiao Dan’s parents to remain entirely private. They were, as everyone will understand,
extremely distressed, although they were also composed and very dignified in their distress. I offered whatever
assistance they might need from the state. Jiao Dan’s father asked that I publicly pass on their thanks to the
Western Australia Police and authorities for their assistance, and their strong desire to see the court case against
the man accused of killing their daughter dealt with quickly and the full force of the law brought to bear. They
also pleaded with me that we do everything within our means to ensure the safety of other students and to
prevent a similar tragedy in the future. That is all they asked of me, and I gave them that commitment. Once
again, I pass on to Jiao Dan’s parents and family our deepest sympathy and sorrow, and thank them for agreeing
to meet me.
                                           DES SULLIVAN MEDAL
                                        Statement by Minister for Tourism
MS S.M. McHALE (Kenwick - Minister for Tourism) [9.07 am]: Last year I had the great pleasure of
awarding the inaugural Des Sullivan Medal to the remarkable Des Sullivan himself. Some members may be
aware that several weeks ago Des passed away peacefully in his sleep at the age of 88. I wish to take this
opportunity to record my condolences to his family and friends. Des Sullivan managed Rottnest Island for more
than 25 years. He was formerly a World War II Lancaster bomber airman. He pushed for the construction of
cottages and shops on Rottnest Island, pointing out the absurdity of tourists being housed exclusively at
Thomson Bay.
The Des Sullivan Medal recognises the outstanding contribution by an individual to the economic, social or
environmental sustainability of Rottnest Island. Des’s significant contribution to the island will once again be
recognised in the presentation tonight of the second Des Sullivan Medal. This year’s very worthy recipient is Pat
Barblett. Pat has contributed so much and still continues to contribute much time, effort and passion to Rottnest
Island, as well as to environmental conservation and ecotourism in Western Australia. Pat was Rottnest Island’s
first female chair and was a board member for 15 years. Pat has served on more than 20 boards during her many
years of service to tourism and is a member of the Conservation Commission. She is also the founder and
immediate past chair of FACET, the Forum Advocating Cultural Ecotourism, and continues to be actively
involved with the Friends of Rottnest, an initiative of the Rottnest Island Foundation, which raises funds for
environmental projects. In 2001 Pat was awarded the Centenary Medal by the Prime Minister for services to
environmental conservation and cultural tourism and was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003 for
her services to environmental conservation and management and to the development of cultural tourism and
ecotourism in Western Australia. She also received the Sir David Brand Medal in 2003 for individual excellence
and achievement in and contribution to Western Australian tourism. It is with great pleasure that I will officiate
at tonight’s presentation, as it is an extremely fitting way to honour Des Sullivan’s enormous contribution to
Rottnest Island and tourism in Western Australia.
                                    ROYAL FLYING DOCTOR SERVICE
                                                    Grievance
MR B.J. GRYLLS (Merredin - Leader of the National Party) [9.09 am]: I rise to grieve to the Minister for
Health about an iconic Australian institution, the Royal Flying Doctor Service. All members of Parliament
would have been concerned to read the recent press in which the Royal Flying Doctor Service basically stated
that it is in crisis and believed that it could not deliver the level of service to the community that it should
deliver.
A total of 6 000 patients are transported by the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Western Australia each year. In
the past fortnight alone, RFDS transported 400 patients. Currently, the RFDS is forced to use 82 per cent of its
time and resources for inter-hospital transfers. These are hospital-initiated jobs and they will continue to grow in
number. This is not the time for a debate about the centralisation of health services from regional Western
Australia into the metropolitan area, but I think the extra pressure on the RFDS is a result of exactly that. With
less service offered in country communities, more patients require transfer, and they are transferred either via the
voluntary ambulance system or through the RFDS, which puts enormous pressure on both organisations.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service states that it is now unable to respond to all calls within its benchmark time of
one hour and 15 minutes because of a lack of staff and the increase in patient numbers. This crisis was
                                  [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6425

highlighted when the RFDS could not respond to an emergency call, which resulted in the death of a mid-west
man last month.
What will the Minister for Health do to ensure that all Royal Flying Doctor Service planes can leave base within
the 75-minute benchmark time? What does the minister believe is an acceptable response time? The RFDS is
such an important service for country people living in regional and remote areas that people need to have
confidence that it can respond and meet its requirements in emergencies. At the moment, it seems that with the
RFDS spending 82 per cent of its time on inter-hospital transfers, some of those emergencies are being missed -
for many people that is a life or death issue.
As I have said, we believe that the increase in patient numbers is a direct consequence of the reduction of
services in regional and rural hospitals and, of course, the acute shortage of doctors in regional communities.
The Australian Medical Association suggests that regional Western Australia is short by 60 doctors, and that
number is predicted to increase with time. This was brought home to me at my office in Merredin on the
weekend when the young son of my electorate officer needed a Royal Flying Doctor Service transfer to Princess
Margaret Hospital for Children. There was a delay, so it was 15 hours from the time of the incident to when the
RFDS could get the boy to Perth the following morning. That happened in Merredin this past weekend.
The state government currently supports the Royal Flying Doctor Service to the tune of $18 million a year, with
an additional $13.5 million contributed by the federal government under a new agreement. The increase in
flying hours and the increase in patients mean that the RFDS cannot keep up with demand on its current level of
funding and staffing. We do not need to point out that with a $2.3 billion surplus, wealth that is primarily
created by people who live and work in regional and rural Western Australia, this is an issue that can be
addressed quickly and immediately by the government. At this stage, many of the services that we would like to
see delivered in country hospitals are not delivered, requiring patients to be transferred, thus putting extra
pressure on the system. The debate today is about whether the Minister for Health will respond to the fact that if
the service is not offered in country communities, people need to be transferred to Perth, so there needs to be a
system for those transfers.
I will quickly turn back to the volunteer ambulance drivers, who are also part of this challenge. I am sure that
when volunteer ambulance officers get involved in St John Ambulance, they do so because they want to respond
to emergencies and make sure that they are available in those most traumatic times. What we find is that most of
our volunteer ambulance drivers spend most of their callout time doing transfers to and from Perth. From
Merredin, for example, it is probably a three and a half hour trip each way on the highway to Perth, so seven
hours return, and that is without counting the time spent at the hospital. With the system of centralising health,
we have volunteers who pick up the slack to do those transfers. Some of them have a day job looking after the
family home or working in the business sector in Merredin, but they actually spend seven hours away from that
job to do patient transfers. That is happening at the St John level; those volunteers are required to do patient
transfers. I have highlighted that at the Royal Flying Doctor Service level, 82 per cent of its jobs are patient
transfers. I think it is important that we get a system that works for the transfer of patients from country
hospitals to the metropolitan hospitals where those services are now available. I believe this is becoming a core
health delivery issue. It is not about transport any more: under the health budget, the transport of people to
where the service is delivered is just as important as providing the service itself.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service has put its requirements to us: it needs two new prop-drive aircraft to deliver
the service that is needed. The RFDS would especially like to get a jet aircraft for service delivery in the far
north, in the Kimberley and the Pilbara, where the turbo props take a bit of extra time; it believes it can cut an
extra hour off the flight times by using a jet aircraft. The RFDS also told me that it requires at least one extra
doctor, pilot and nurse at each of the following RFDS stations: Kalgoorlie, Derby, Port Hedland, Meekatharra
and Jandakot. Of course, if we were to locate extra doctors, pilots and nurses in those regional areas, the
provision of housing and infrastructure for them would also be really important.
Quite clearly, this issue needs a working relationship between the federal government and the state government.
There is no reason why in this current election campaign we cannot, as Western Australians, put pressure on
both sides of federal politics to come up with some funding allocations to deal with this really important issue in
regional Western Australia.
MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [9.17 am]: The arrangement in respect of the Royal
Flying Doctor Service is that the commonwealth government assumed responsibility for primary evacuations and
also for clinics. In this current year, it has made $8.6 million available for the Royal Flying Doctor Service to
achieve that objective. The state has responsibility for inter-hospital patient transfers, and in the current year
provides $19 million for that purpose. It is interesting to note that the state contribution has increased from
$11 million in 2001 to $19 million in 2007. It is pleasing to note that the commonwealth government conducted
a national review of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and proposed to increase its contribution to the Royal
Flying Doctor Service from the current $8.6 million to $13.3 million. However, the commonwealth contract has
6426                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

not yet been finalised and therefore the money is not flowing. I think if greater emphasis was put on finalising
the terms of that contract with the commonwealth, the increase in the commonwealth contribution from
$8.6 million to $13.3 million would have an immediate and salutary effect.
The state government in respect of its contribution received a proposal from the Royal Flying Doctor Service on
28 September - only a few weeks ago - that sought a five-year investment plan that would see it with more
aircraft and more staff. The Royal Flying Doctor Service has bases at Derby, Port Hedland, Meekatharra and
Kalgoorlie, which are each currently staffed with five pilots, five nurses and three doctors. At the Jandakot base
it has eight pilots, eight nurses and six doctors.
Dr K.D. Hames: Are you sure they are all there, because I heard it was four; at Derby and Port Hedland they
only have four.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Sorry, those are the figures I was given by the Department of Health, so I presume they
are accurate.
There was a proposal to meet with the Royal Flying Doctor Service next week to further progress its claim,
which was received some two weeks ago. The issue has been brought into sharp focus by two matters. The first
is the rural doctor shortage. It is very interesting to note that claims were made in the media about the shortage
of doctors in rural areas. There is, of course, a shortage of doctors in rural areas; it is not a new phenomenon in
Western Australia. Both state and federal governments have made considerable efforts to address the issue of
doctors in country areas. An increase of almost 100 additional doctors has occurred in country areas over the
past five years, which represents an increase of just over 20 per cent. Of course at any one time other issues
need to be addressed, but it is pleasing to note the number of doctors working in country Western Australia has
increased by that quite significant amount. The second matter that I think has given rise to current concerns is
the tragic death of a man at Ejudina station, which is 160 kilometres from Kalgoorlie, or one and a half hour’s
travel time. He suffered a brain aneurysm. This did not involve a hospital transfer, as members would be aware,
but an emergency evacuation. The response time was not what it should have been for a variety of reasons,
which I think have been well documented in the public arena.
We need to work collaboratively here to make sure that people have equal access to services to the extent
possible regardless of where they live in Western Australia. The Royal Flying Doctor Service has an important
major role to play in ensuring that people in very remote, sparsely populated areas of Western Australia have
their access to health care guaranteed. The delays that have occurred in response times are not satisfactory. I
expect the Royal Flying Doctor Service to do better than it did on that occasion. We will be meeting with the
Royal Flying Doctor Service next week to further progress its five-year investment plan. Perhaps it is too late
now that the commonwealth government is in caretaker mode, but I would have thought it very important that it
proceed to finalise as quickly as possible its contract negotiations. What has been agreed is the amount of
money that will flow, but it is not flowing at the moment because the contract has not been finalised. I would
certainly like to see that progressed as a matter of priority. Maybe, because of the caretaker convention, it needs
to await the outcome of the federal election.
Mr B.J. Grylls: Would you address the question of volunteers in the minute and a half you have left?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: We have relied in most country areas on volunteers to staff St John Ambulance. In the
major country centres there are of course paid ambulance officers and in some parts of the state, where we have
traditionally relied on volunteers, we are not able to get sufficient volunteers. I am thinking particularly here of
the north of the state. I have personally been involved in some discussions with St John Ambulance about
providing a salaried paramedic to coordinate the role of the volunteers in some of the major towns to provide that
level of professionalism. We have certainly been discussing that for the Kimberley towns and some of the
Pilbara towns as well. I think that would be an important initiative.
Mr B.J. Grylls: The problem arises for some of those hospitals, such as those at Narrogin, Merredin and
Moora, which have been relying on volunteers.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think in the larger country towns the model of having a professional paramedic to
coordinate the volunteers, rather than relying on a strictly volunteer service, would raise the level of
professionalism and the standard of health care that is delivered. I support it, but it is not something that we have
done in the past. We have been having discussions at Kununurra, and I think Newman although I am not 100 per
cent sure. I am not certain whether it has been implemented in that area yet.
                              SCHOOLS - GRASSED AREA MAINTENANCE
                                                     Grievance
MR J.N. HYDE (Perth - Parliamentary Secretary) [9.25 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Education
and Training. I raise the issue of the maintenance of schools with grassed areas and the policy of the department.
I bring to the minister’s attention the case of the excellent North Perth Primary School in my electorate, which is
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                         6427

around 100 years old, has great traditions and has wonderful heritage buildings. It has a tremendous parents and
citizens association that fundraises for a variety of causes. There is pressure on inner city schools.
Unfortunately, the previous government closed down Leederville Primary School. The kindergarten and
preprimary school student enrolment numbers in North Perth have gone from 20 to around 90, which has put
pressure on play areas. We are all aware that with the decrease in rainfall, changes caused by global warming
and other factors, tremendous pressure is placed on schools that maintain grassed areas. The old days when we
were primary school kids with a beaut, large, green oval and grassed areas around our school have long gone
because of cost pressures and sustainability factors.
I am aware that the department is conducting some excellent Waterwise projects in collaboration with the
Department of Water and others. However, my principal concern is that primary schools are able to get money
each year to re-grass areas. I think we need to take a new tack and look at some of the synthetic, soft-fall
surfaces to see if we can look at tweaking or renegotiating the department’s policy. Instead of what I think may
be a waste of maintenance money to replant and reseed grass in areas where it will not have a long-term life or
give a long-term benefit, perhaps some of that maintenance money could be diverted to help subsidise the
creation of soft-fall areas at schools. For grass to be viable and grow it needs about eight hours of sunlight. The
area at North Perth Primary School receives about only three hours of sunlight a day. Funding has been received
on three occasions; in fact, some experts from the department are inspecting the North Perth Primary School site
today. I do not think that maintenance for new grass is a good use of resources. More importantly, if we are
looking at the best outcome for students, when enrolment figures are going from 20 to 90 students, grass will not
be a sustainable solution. The reason we need these areas is so that kids have an area in which not only to have
their lunch and drinks and socialise, but also to play. Clearly, brown earth that is not grassed is more likely to
have uneven surfaces and become dusty and dirty. Its uneven surfaces cause difficulties when setting up play
equipment. It is also makes it more difficult for preprimary kids to run around safely. Ultimately, it limits the
enjoyment of outdoor play and the whole look and feel of the learning environment. I invite the minister to join
me in visiting the school. I know the minister is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of schools and receives
invitations all the time, but I think this would be a good chance for him to come with me to look at the situation
and see if there is a possibility of our accessing maintenance funding.
The federal government has finally seen its responsibility to give back to the community of Western Australia
some of the billions of dollars that it earns. Unfortunately, it has changed the rules on the Investing in our
Schools program. The P&C at North Perth budgeted a number of projects on the basis of what it thought would
be a $150 000 grant, but the federal government unfortunately changed the rules and the grant was limited to
$100 000. The P&C has been unable to access $11 000 that it was expecting from that federal grant money
because the grant money has been cut. I am aware of community water grants and other whole-of-government
solutions, but it seems to me that there is the potential for the state to look at its practices. I am thinking of the
labour hours used in sending grass experts to primary schools to look at areas, to go back to head office and to
confirm that grass has died. Yes, under our existing policy the department is able to give $2 000 or $3 000 every
couple of years for re-grassing, but perhaps we could look at the policy and ask ourselves why we do not
quarantine that money to empower local schools in their decision making. For instance, when a school faces a
situation in which a formerly grassed area of its grounds does not receive a full eight hours of sunlight a day and
it is not practical to re-grass it, the school could instead use a synthetic treatment. While that would initially
have a higher start-up cost of perhaps $20 000, it might prove to be more economically beneficial in the long run
and, more importantly, could provide a much better outcome for students. I ask that the minister consider
whether there is any space within the policy of the Department of Education and Training to fund this sort of
activity. I invite the minister to join me in visiting North Perth Primary School.
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham - Minister for Education and Training) [9.30 am]: I thank the member
for Perth for his grievance. He has once again shown himself to be an ideas man by coming up with another
innovative solution to a problem in the community. I have visited North Perth Primary School twice this year
and am very familiar with the school. It is indeed a beautiful school that has a very good sense of history. The
school is the beneficiary of higher density living, with young families moving back into more inner city areas of
Perth. This area once had an ageing demographic but the population is becoming increasingly youthful, hence
more children now attend the local primary school. This has put pressure on grassed areas of the school grounds,
as the member for Perth outlined. Accordingly, some areas, particularly if they receive only three hours of
sunshine per day, suffer as a consequence. The member for Perth has suggested that synthetic materials could be
used in some of these areas rather than grass to ensure that we do not end up with run-down, dirty or dusty areas.
That is an innovative idea. I will consider this idea and whether there is the potential to trial this sort of initiative
in some higher usage areas. A trial would enable us to determine whether the community would accept the use
of this sort of material, whether the children liked it, whether the material lasts and whether it is cost effective -
all those sorts of things. I am not saying that we will absolutely do it, but some people from my office and the
department will visit the school with the member for Perth to look at the spot to which the member referred and
to examine whether a trial can be implemented.
6428                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

The member for Perth’s proposal could have environmental benefits. The government has a range of policies in
place to encourage sustainability and a sense of environmental responsibility in schools. Schools can apply for
funding under the $5 million Solar Schools Program to install solar panels to assist in meeting their energy
needs. The latest funding round for this program ends on 9 November. Rossmoyne Senior High School, which I
visited yesterday, has solar panels on one of its roofs to assist with the heating of its swimming pool. This
program has multiple benefits, including educating children about the opportunities for alternative energy
sources, saving energy costs for schools and helping the environment. That is one program. Three hundred and
forty schools also participate in the Waterwise Schools Program. Under this program, for example, schools can
apply to retrofit dual-flushing toilets to improve their water efficiency. A range of programs are in place to try to
educate and assist schools in this regard. The member for Perth’s idea is one that we are keen to examine.
The member raised the subject of the support provided by the commonwealth government to public education.
My view is that in the past couple of years, the behaviour of the commonwealth government towards public
education has been nothing short of disgraceful. The agenda and long-term ambition of the commonwealth
government is to denigrate, run down and hopefully destroy as much as possible of state public education
throughout Australia. However, I do not think that that ambition is shared by the state opposition. Although the
member for Cottesloe made some errors when he was education minister, he does not share the ambition of the
commonwealth government to destroy public education. The way in which the commonwealth government acts,
the sorts of things it says about public education and the sorts of initiatives it tries to force upon the state
government are strange, weird and counterproductive. However, it does not try to force those things upon
private schools, which are also the beneficiaries of public money. It is nothing short of a determined effort to
devastate and destroy public education. The commonwealth dresses up its initiatives in all sorts of language
about trying to lift standards and meet the needs of communities and parents and so forth, but its initiatives and
ideas and the way in which it tries to force them on people who have some experience in running schools, which
it does not, are appalling.
The member for Perth gave a good example. The state government puts the vast bulk of money into public
schools in this state. About 90 per cent of money for state schools comes from the state government. Our
government has increased the allocation to state schools by 30 per cent in real terms during the six and a half
years in which we have been in office. In overall terms across Australia, the Western Australian government
spends 12 per cent more than the national average per state school child. Public schools educate everyone, from
the very top to the very bottom. They have to cater for everyone. The running down of public schools by the
commonwealth government through the destructive language it uses and the strange ideas that it wants to
implement, such as the bizarre performance-based pay model that would reduce teachers’ wages, are a blight on
the public school system.
                        GRASS PATCH GRAIN BIN - HEAVY HAULAGE ACCESS
                                                     Grievance
DR G.G. JACOBS (Roe) [9.37 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and
concerns heavy haulage access to the Grass Patch grain bin in the Esperance region. Grass Patch is
50 kilometres north of Esperance and has a 240 000-tonne grain bin. To put that in perspective, it is predicted
that the Esperance zone will produce 1.5 million tonnes of grain this year. It is the first quality assurance bin in
Western Australia, which means that good farming practices by farmers enables them to receive a small
premium for the delivery of quality assured grain. There are 5 000 truck movements in and out of that bin in a
season. The nub of the issue is that the railway and the Coolgardie-Esperance Highway are, at some points, only
29.5 metres apart. This causes a problem with large rigs. By a large rig, I mean a 36.5-metre road train, which
vehicles have used the highway since 1976. Although the department was aware of the situation - safety issues
were raised by representatives of Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in June this year - nothing has been done to
significantly alter the infrastructure to allow the rigs to run safely. The nub of the issue is that if there are only
29.5 metres between the railway line and the highway at Tom Starcevich VC Drive, when a 36.5-metre rig pulls
in to cross the railway, there is not enough room for it to sit between the railway and the highway. In the
eleventh hour Main Roads Western Australia placed a restriction on the length of trucks. The maximum length
is now 27.5 metres. That is Main Roads’ solution to the problem. I attended a meeting in Grass Patch
yesterday - being paired in Parliament allowed me to do that - that was called by the shire. The meeting was also
attended by about 100 grain growers and representatives from Main Roads’ heavy haulage division and from the
local shire. At the meeting someone pointed out that the fact that there is a 20 tonne differential between running
a 27.5-metre pocket road train and a full 36.5-metre road train. Main Roads’ response was a knee-jerk reaction
on the eve of harvest - the growers will start harvesting this week. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
must address the fact that Main Roads has failed to work through the significant infrastructure issues. Meeting
attendees moved motions from the floor that call for remedial action to allow 36.5-metre road trains to access the
bin during the 2007 harvest. A motion was moved to address and correct the infrastructure issues before the next
season. I am here to outline not only the problems, but also some of the solutions that came out of that meeting;
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                       6429

namely, a gravel stand-off angled lane at the crossing, particularly at Tom Starcevich VC Drive, which is the
access to the bin. That would allow trucks approaching the railway from the west to stand off with enough
distance, because they would have gone across the hypotenuse of the corner. When trucks come out of the bin
and cross the railway line, if they stand off at an angle, there is a distance between them and the highway before
they pull onto the highway. There are some safety issues, and if the government does not attend to them, the last
dog of the road train will hang over the railway line if it is moving in a westerly direction, or over the highway if
it is moving in an easterly direction. It is also important to recognise that appropriate mobile electronic signage
would solve the issue for this season. As I said, road trains have been running in this area since 1976. The
safety issue must be addressed. However, the restriction on the length of trucks is a last minute, knee-jerk
reaction; the minister and her department have not addressed the infrastructure issues. It will be costly to the
industry. If a lighter truck is used, or one that cannot carry the same amount of grain, we will run into
6 250 passes and an extra $2 a tonne in transport costs. Guess what? Those costs will inevitably be passed on to
the grain grower. This will be a costly exercise. This is an impost on farmers. Growers in Esperance have had
some grain this year, for which they are thankful. However, why put this impost on farmers on the eve of
harvest when this matter could have been addressed as far back as June? We have come to the eve of harvest
and Main Roads has taken the easiest option, which is to restrict the length of trucks. We must bring the
infrastructure into the twenty-first century. The growers produce a significant amount of crop and the
infrastructure should be consistent with the value of the produce from this region. It is very important that we
address those infrastructure issues. Not a lot of thought has gone into allowing the operation to continue during
this harvest, which will be only six weeks. Unless the government gets off its tail and does something very
quickly, the season will be over. The other concern that arose from the meeting is that the heavy haulage
officers will pull growers over if they run a 36.5-metre rig into the bin. There should be a grace period to allow
us to sort out this issue. As I said, there would not be too much of a cost, not that that is an issue, because this is
a valuable region and we must address the issue. I urge the minister to deal with this issue now in time for this
season’s harvest. We need to run the full road trains into that bin.
MS A.J.G. MacTIERNAN (Armadale - Minister for Planning and Infrastructure) [9.45 am]: I thank the
member for Roe for his grievance. Obviously, he has a legitimate concern. It is dislocating to have a ban
imposed such a short time before the harvest. It is true that longer vehicles have been operating since 1976. My
understanding is that those vehicles were 33 metres in length. Of course, this issue arose only after the iron ore
industry started to use the rail network, which was in 1994-95. The iron ore industry’s use of the railway started
off at a very modest level and has gradually built up so the conflict has not always existed. Since that time the
vehicles have become longer and there is much more intense use of the rail. It is my view that approval for
36-metre rigs on those roads should never have been given. That was a mistake. Requirements should have
been imposed for infrastructure upgrades, which is what is done in any other industry. I point out that Co-
operative Bulk Handling’s grain growing and grain handling is like other industries, such as the mining and
manufacturing industries. Businesses are required to contribute to the road network if they put a particular strain
on the network. We have had many discussions with our friends at CBH. For some reason they tend not to view
CBH as a business and feel that it should not have to make that kind of contribution. However, that being said -
Dr G.G. Jacobs: If there is a policy problem, it should not be exercised now.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: We must examine that issue. I accept the point that the member made. I accept
that we cannot on the eve of a harvest make such a substantial change to the industry and not give it time to
adjust. We held meetings this morning to work out some alternatives. We are concerned about this issue;
indeed, CBH wrote to the heavy haulage division at Main Roads and alerted it to the problem. Main Roads is
considering - I accept the fundamental point that it is not reasonable to expect that the industry will adapt to this
at such short notice - a radio call system, which it will install at its own expense for this season. It will have
spotters involved who will be in direct communication with the freight trains. They will alert, on a standard
CB radio frequency, all the vehicles carting grain in the area to hold back from the intersection. There are 30
trains a week. We believe that this system, provided we can get sign-off from WestNet Rail, will enable us to
revise that ban. As soon as we have finished this grievance, Main Roads personnel will attempt to get sign-off
on this proposal so that we can reverse the ban for the season.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: Are you optimistic that you will get cooperation from the railways? They haven’t been
terribly cooperative in the past.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: It is in their interest to cooperate. We will strongly make that point to them. As
soon as this session is over, our senior people in the heavy haulage division of Main Roads will begin that
dialogue. As I said, I accept the fundamental point made by the member that it is dislocating to do this at short
notice. It is not reasonable to expect the industry to reconfigure itself in that time. However, we must address
the safety concerns. If that plan does not work, we will have a look at some of the options outlined by the
member for Roe. In the longer term, Co-operative Bulk Handling will have to accept that it will need to make a
contribution to get the safety issue resolved. I thank the member for his grievance and his positive attempts to
resolve the issue.
6430                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Dr G.G. Jacobs: So there is an assurance that 36.5-metre road trains accessing that bin can be run for this
season?
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: I recognise that there is a very legitimate concern, and if the government can put in
place a system - either the spotter system or, if that cannot work, some of the plans that the member has
proposed - the government will reverse the ban. The government will need a day or two to consider that.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: Six weeks of harvest.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: I recognise that, but the government cannot allow a system to continue that on
CBH’s own admission is very unsafe. I can only say it once again: the government accepts the member’s
fundamental point, and if we can put in place a system that will make this practice safe for the next six to eight
weeks, we will.
                                      GUILDFORD ROAD, MAYLANDS
                                                    Grievance
DR J.M. EDWARDS (Maylands) [9.51 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
and concerns Guildford Road, Maylands. Members would realise that Guildford Road is a particularly busy
road, and these days it seems busier than ever. The traffic appeared to decrease when the Graham Farmer
Freeway opened; people were going different ways and using the tunnel. However, with the increased density of
construction in the area, and the increased popularity of the supermarkets and shops in parts of Maylands,
Guildford Road is busier than ever.
The area I grieve about is the intersection of Guildford Road and Falkirk Avenue, Guildford Road and Rowlands
Street, and the general area between Eighth Avenue and Ninth Avenue going east in Maylands. On one corner
this intersection has a huge Coles supermarket; on the other corner, an increasingly popular IGA outlet, and a
number of other shops that are now doing much better than they have ever done in the past. Over the road is a
one-year-old McDonald’s outlet, which is becoming increasingly popular as well. The intersection is the site of
a lot of car and pedestrian activity.
Since 2004 I have been in discussion with Main Roads and other entities about this site and what can be done to
increase safety for pedestrians. The issue of the safety of pedestrians arose initially after concern about school
students crossing at that intersection, and that issue has been resolved with the establishment of a crossing
further east. In October 2004, near Falkirk Street, an elderly woman who was crossing the road had her foot
somehow trapped by a car and lost that foot. Fortunately, following that incident, there was an audit at the site,
which revealed that there were around 1 000 pedestrians a day crossing Guildford Road and Falkirk Road. After
the audit a number of solutions were put forward, and in 2005 a lot of community consultation was undertaken.
In 2005 there were 130 submissions, so community interest was really high. Unfortunately, as can happen with
good consultation, the different solutions were teased out and agreement could not be reached. Over time, a
focus group was formed to involve the local traders, residents, Main Roads, the City of Bayswater - all the
parties involved - to try to get a single resolution to the number of difficult problems that had arisen. There were
three meetings of the focus group, looking at different iterations of the plans to come up with the best plan, and
finally agreement. That agreement could not have come sooner, because earlier this year a young woman was
injured as she crossed the road at that site; unfortunately, she was hit by a car. Around the same time, a postie on
his bike had the bike clipped by a car as he was crossing at the same site.
I am aware that work is about to commence - in fact right at the moment work has probably just started. I urge
the minister to send a message back to Main Roads and the contractors who are undertaking the work, to ensure
that the work is undertaken expeditiously and that the area gets the solutions it is seeking. I am delighted with
the solutions that have been proposed. In the next month or so traffic signals will be installed at the intersection
of Guildford Road and Falkirk Avenue, which will dramatically improve the safety of pedestrians. There will
also be new treatments to the median strip, new turning lanes, and modifications to nearby roads to look at traffic
flow and pedestrian safety and marry the two up as closely as possible. I am aware that traders have had some
issues, perhaps wanting to give more focus to cars than to pedestrians, and I commend all the parties involved
because they have taken on board the messages that have been put out about pedestrian safety at this site. I also
ask that the minister keep in mind that the work being done by the engineers on behalf of Main Roads needs to
be expedited, because the City of Bayswater will be undertaking work when it is finished, particularly to upgrade
the lighting in the area to Australian standards. That work cannot be done until the other work has finished.
I thank the minister for listening to the concerns of the community and doing the audit, getting the plans, getting
the tenders out and finally giving the green light so that we know that work is about to start. In the electorate of
Maylands, and particularly around that local area and particularly from the point of view of pedestrians, we are
very keen that the work be undertaken as expeditiously as possible and that safety be restored to what is an
increasingly busy site.
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6431

MS A.J.G. MacTIERNAN (Armadale - Minister for Planning and Infrastructure) [9.57 am]: I thank the
member for the grievance. The government has done some research and can see that the member for Maylands
has been on the case of this project for some 14 years now. The first letter that the government was able to find
was a letter to Hon Eric Charlton, MLC, in 1993. There were a series of letters to Mr Charlton, a series of letters
to Mr Criddle, and then letters to me. I am pleased to say that the government has been able, during its time, to
act on this issue. What has been proposed and, as the member has quite rightly pointed out, is now just starting,
is a series of works that address that section of Guildford Road from Caledonian Avenue to Ninth Avenue,
Maylands. As the member pointed out, the difficulty with this road is that it is a major traffic artery to the north
east corridor, but the road also has a local community on it and has shopping on both sides. It is one of the
casualties of the growth of the city. I am really pleased to see that a lot of work is taking place around Maylands.
The government is working very constructively with the City of Bayswater to get good planning for the
Maylands area. The government hopes that one day Eighth Avenue will become the Napoleon Street or the
Bayview Terrace of -
Mr C.J. Barnett: It will never be a Napoleon Street!
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: It could be; the member never knows.
Mr C.J. Barnett: In your dreams!
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: But with better values, and certainly a better local member!
The extensive set of works that has been proposed is being funded by the safer roads program. The government
instituted a special program to sit over and above the black spot funding, to be able to take on challenging
projects and have a lump of money that could be spent to finally resolve what has been, on the member’s watch,
a problem since 1993. As for the expedition of the work, I must say that I am very pleased that the group that
has been awarded this contract is very keen to expedite the work. The contractor is limited because of the need
to manage the traffic and to accommodate the businesses. By and large, the works on Guildford Road have been
limited to between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm. The contractor has made a series of propositions wherein, because of
the counter-flow, it would like to work later and is keen to work on Saturday and Sunday. Main Roads is a little
concerned about that, as it wants to accommodate the businesses. However, quite frankly, the sooner this project
is completed, the better; and it would probably be preferable to have a more intense period of great disruption to
get the job completed. However, I will ask Main Roads and the Best Roads Group to liaise directly with the
member for Maylands on the issue of expedition to decide which way is the best way to get this result. My
instinct is to say, “Let’s go for it and get this job done as quickly as possible.” There is, therefore, no lack of
enthusiasm on the part of the contractor to accelerate the works. The contractor is in regular dialogue with the
shopping centres; however, perhaps with the member’s intercession we can get a better resolution. If the
member for Maylands is agreeable, I will arrange for Main Roads and the Best Roads Group to meet with her to
perhaps get some agreement on an extension of the time frame in which the contractor is allowed to conduct
those works.
I again compliment the member for the tenacity with which she has stayed on this cause. I am certainly very
pleased that not only have we been able to deal with one intersection but also we now have a comprehensive
bundle of works, and I look forward to being with the member in the next couple of months when we formally
announce the completion of these works.
                                     PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
                                   Seventh Report - “Annual Report 2006-07”
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [10.01 am]: I present for tabling the seventh report of the Public Accounts
Committee entitled “Annual Report 2006-07”.
[See paper 3371.]
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will speak briefly to the report. I am pleased to present the third annual report of the
Public Accounts Committee in the thirty-seventh Parliament. In the year under review the committee completed
an inquiry into local government accountability in Western Australia. The inquiry involved an extensive
investigation into addressing deficiencies in local government accountability mechanisms, which in turn impact
on state government expenditure. A number of recommendations were tabled, which will encourage greater
accountability in the local government sector, particularly with respect to audit arrangements, and which reflect
the committee’s overall commitment to ensuring sound procedures are followed in the expenditure of public
funds.
The committee also tabled an inaugural review of reports of the Auditor General. This was the first of what was
intended to be an annual consolidated report detailing the committee’s process for following up state government
agencies subject to a performance examination by the Auditor General. In maintaining this follow-up practice,
the committee continues to add value to the work of the Auditor General by reviewing the progress of state
6432                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

government agencies towards implementing the recommendations in the Auditor General’s reports. In the year
under review the committee also commenced an inquiry into the funding arrangements for Western Australian
infrastructure projects. The inquiry will examine the adequacy of funding arrangements for selected major
projects, with an emphasis on the federal-state funding relationship. This is particularly timely given the state’s
rapidly expanding resource sector, as the inquiry seeks to achieve a better outcome for infrastructure in the state.
I thank the committee members for their sustained contribution, namely the deputy chairman, Dr Steve Thomas,
the member for Capel; Mr Terry Redman, the member for Stirling; Mr Peter Watson, the member for Albany;
and Mr Ben Wyatt, the member for Victoria Park. On behalf of the committee I also thank the previous
principal research officer, Ms Liz Kerr, and welcome her successor, Dr Julia Lawrinson. My appreciation also
goes to the current research officer, Ms Dawn Dickinson, and her predecessor, Ms Nicole Burgess. We were
concerned in June when the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly first of all interviewed and then recommended for
appointment the Sergeant-at-Arms to this august chamber, Ms Liz Kerr. She was, as the principal research
officer, the backbone of the committee, and we were very sad to lose her. However, we congratulate her on her
elevation to the position of Sergeant-at-Arms of this chamber. We were very pleased to be introduced to, and
then have appointed on the recommendation of the Clerk of this chamber, Dr Julia Lawrinson, who is also a very
excellent principal research officer.
I also give special thanks to my fellow committee members. During the past year when my chemotherapy
continued, there were times when I attended committee hearings more than a little nauseous. The meetings were
more than capably chaired by the deputy chair, Dr Steve Thomas, the member for Capel, with good contributions
from all other members. Thankfully, I worked my way into a period of remission and do not have to attend those
meetings bedevilled by chemotherapy any more. However, during that time I recall periods of travel to eastern
states conferences when my committee members took up the slack, as it were, when I was feeling crook and they
performed admirably. I am deeply indebted for the team effort that prevailed in those circumstances and for the
contributions of my fellow committee members.
As I said, the committee is currently investigating the funding arrangements between the commonwealth
government and the state government for infrastructure works in Western Australia, particularly related to the
mineral boom that this state is enjoying. A state infrastructure strategy review is underway at the moment,
which we are told will be ready for presentation by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure late this year
or early next year. Our committee will be looking at that review, specifically the funding arrangements with the
commonwealth. As we all know, Western Australians do not believe that during this critical time of our state’s
development an adequate return of royalties is coming back into Western Australia for the purposes of nation
building by helping us to build ports, rails and roads that affect exports and generate so very much wealth to the
state and to the nation of Australia. I therefore thank all members for their contribution.
DR S.C. THOMAS (Capel) [10.07 am]: I believe there is no speaking order today and will therefore speak as
the opportunity presents. I thank the member for Mindarie for his kind words. It has been rather a tragic year
for members of the Public Accounts Committee at a personal level. I am not sure why, or what we have done to
deserve the outcomes that we have had this year. One can only hope that we have turned the corner and life will
improve in the time being. It has been a difficult year for members at a personal level, but the good thing about
the Public Accounts Committee is that despite the personal tragedies that have occurred, the committee has
continued to function in an exemplary manner and is doing some extremely good work. When the committee
first came together at the beginning of this Parliament, it set itself an agenda with a long-term vision and some
long-term goals. I believe its investigations have set a benchmark for that long-term agenda, and no more so
than the current investigation into the infrastructure development across the state of Western Australia, which is
something that we hope not only will deliver the state the current boom as it exists but also has the potential to
convert that boom into long-term prosperity. It is something that many countries have failed to do and many
jurisdictions have failed to manage. If the Public Accounts Committee can come up with the right
recommendations that to some degree will future-proof the state of Western Australia, it will be a legacy that this
Public Accounts Committee will leave to the state of Western Australia. That is a potential legacy that very few
committees have an opportunity to leave.
The past year has been a particularly busy year. The committee set itself an agenda to look after the state of
Western Australia. It has not, as many committees tend to do, gone off travelling overseas and done various
other things. The committee has travelled extensively around the state of Western Australia.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: It has been to Esperance.
Dr S.C. THOMAS: It has been to Esperance, thank you, member for Roe. The committee had a good time
looking at the resources and the development of infrastructure not only in Esperance, but also in Ravensthorpe,
Hopetoun and other areas around Esperance. It is important for members to take the opportunity to investigate
the state of Western Australia, which the Public Accounts Committee has done. The Public Accounts
Committee has not seen that part of its role include the potential to travel around the world at taxpayers’
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                       6433

expense. It has spent most of its time travelling around Western Australia. In the past year the committee has
visited and held briefings in Esperance, Ravensthorpe, Karratha, the wheatbelt in regional Western Australia,
Northam, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie, Katanning, Albany and Busselton as part of its investigations into local
government and infrastructure. The committee has met with an enormous number of Western Australians to
canvass their views on a range of issues. It gives an indication of the direction of the Public Accounts
Committee.
I will go briefly to the first investigation that the Public Accounts Committee did; that is, an examination of the
financial management of the state, which involved a review of the Financial Management Bill 2005 and the
Auditor General Bill 2005, which at that time were green bills. It was proposed that these bills would replace the
Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985. However, while conducting this inquiry, the Public Accounts
Committee put on hold its investigation into the accountability of local government. The committee did some
very good work in comparing the bills and ascertaining where this state’s financial management could be
improved. I am glad that the government took on some of the committee’s recommendations and the bills were
altered accordingly.
As I said, while the committee was carrying out that investigation, it was not able to follow up on its report on
the accountability of local government. The report, which included some very good outcomes and
recommendations, has been allowed to lie on the table, and that is at the government’s peril. The relationship
between state and local governments is and has always been a thorny issue. The issue of accountability and the
long-term sustainability of local governments will not go away. That report will lie on the table for a long time.
Eventually, perhaps in a decade, somebody will say, “If only we had looked at accountability and audit more
closely, local government sustainability would not be in the mess that it is today”. In a decade members will
recognise that the groundwork has already been done on setting an agenda to protect local government. We have
missed the opportunity to do something about it now. I will continue to take an interest in this issue over the
next decade. There are two ways to deal with the issue: firstly, to legislate for massive levels of control of local
government, which is wrong; and, secondly, to give local government a greater degree of self-control by
allowing it to drive its own agenda while having in place strong accountability mechanisms for audit purposes.
That would mean that everybody would have faith in the way that local government functions and it would be a
far better outcome. Unfortunately, an opportunity has been lost by the government’s not acting on that report,
and we may never have that opportunity again. That is a shame.
I turn to the committee’s current investigation, which is to investigate the provision of infrastructure, particularly
in rural and regional Western Australia. Again, this is an investigation that, if handled correctly, can contribute
to setting up this state’s long-term future. I would hate to see that investigation put on a shelf, which is what has
happened to the investigation into local government accountability. There is great potential for this state. The
Public Accounts Committee will develop a vision. Very little vision is exhibited in other committee processes,
but I am hoping that if this investigation does what I think it will do, it will present a vision for the future of the
state of Western Australia that people should look at very carefully. The provision of infrastructure that will
allow for the future development of this state will be the key component of this state’s future. That is the reason
that this is an important investigation. I hope it does not gather dust. It is an investigation that we should take
note of. That is where the committee rests. I urge members to give the next report of the committee serious
consideration when it is presented to the house.
The only occasion committee members travelled interstate was when some members visited Canberra to discuss
a number of issues. Interestingly, the issues of audit and accountability, which are of a dry and dusty nature and
probably not the most attractive or sexy of topics for parliamentarians to discuss, were discussed. In Canberra
these issues took centre stage. Many of the accountability issues that relate to Western Australia also relate to
other states. Across the nation annual reports have become glossy advertorials rather than strict financial reports.
It is a problem facing all Australian jurisdictions. I would like to see a restriction on the annual reporting process
so that we understand the positives and negatives of departments and so that annual reports are not simply a
glossy promotion of a department or government. It is something that needs to change. Annual reports used to
be relatively short and to the point and we could find out what we needed to know from them. Now they are
long, glossy, with lots of photographs, and they tell the readers what the leadership and the government of the
day want them to know. It is something that needs to be addressed.
Another issue that was discussed in Canberra was the emerging accounting standards and practices across the
country, and that is a continuing process. The merger of the generally accepted accounting principles and
Government Finance Statistics accounting systems will be integral to the way in which government departments
relate and report. It is something that the Public Accounts Committee will continue to monitor.
Another major role of the Public Accounts Committee is to monitor the activity of the Office of the Auditor
General. Generally, the committee monitors all the reports, seeks further information and makes sure that
government departments are addressing the issues that they need to address. Obviously the committee will
6434                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

release a report on that activity, and that report, which will be much larger than the annual report, will be
presented within the next few months. I have outlined the key work of the Public Accounts Committee.
MR P.B. WATSON (Albany - Parliamentary Secretary) [10.18 am]: I would like to comment on the Public
Accounts Committee’s seventh report. I congratulate the chairman of the committee, the member for Mindarie.
There is never a dull moment when he is in the chair. We have had very interesting debates over time. When
Mr Quigley gets up and goes on, I am sure the witnesses appearing at the hearings wonder where they are. I
have not been on many committees and I joined this committee only within the past 12 months. The one good
thing about the Public Accounts Committee is that all the people involved, irrespective of their political
persuasions, get on well.
On behalf of the committee, and I am sure all other members of Parliament, I offer condolences to Ben and Bev
on their recent tragedy.
Over the past 12 months the committee has had a turnover in staff. Liz Kerr, like Collingwood, has gone
onwards and upwards. We wish her the best of luck in her career. Julia Lawrinson has taken her position of
principal research officer. Nicole Burgess has left us and is heading in other directions and Dawn Dickinson is
our new research officer.
As the member for Capel said, the committee has travelled widely in the past 12 months, mainly throughout
Western Australia. It is very good that the members of the Public Accounts Committee see Western Australia.
Western Australia is a huge place and members often do not realise that until they travel with a committee and
find out what are the intricate problems throughout Western Australia. Our current inquiry is into the
infrastructure costs borne by the state government, mining companies and the federal government, although it
provides a very small portion of the cost. It is not until members actually get out and look at the problems facing
the mining community and local governments that they will get a good idea of what is happening throughout
Western Australia. Not only the state government but also local governments are facing pressures in the
provision of soft infrastructure.
The first Public Accounts Committee inquiry with which I was involved looked at the possibility of local
governments being audited by the Auditor General, and we travelled throughout Western Australia as part of that
inquiry. I remember travelling to Esperance, where we went to a lovely restaurant. What was the name of that
restaurant - the Happy Fiddler?
Dr G.G. Jacobs: No. The Loose Goose.
Mr P.B. WATSON: The Loose Goose - not quite the Happy Fiddler!
Mr C.J. Barnett: Icicles; did you go there?
Mr P.B. WATSON: No, we did not. However, we were very well looked after in Esperance. We even got to
see the member for Roe’s legs as he walked along the beach in the morning - we were not quite sure if it was a
seagull!
Dr S.C. Thomas: We are trying to block that bit out!
Mr P.B. WATSON: It was a great opportunity to see the issues facing both regional and metropolitan councils.
It is good to get out and see these things. The local councils were deadset against being audited by the Auditor
General, but they could understand the reasons we were looking at the issue.
I congratulate the other members of the committee. It has been a great experience working with the committee
and I am looking forward to continuing to inquire into infrastructure costs and the way they are shared between
the federal government, the state government, local governments and the mining community. I look forward to
my next twelve months on the committee.
MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [10.22 am]: I also rise as a member of the Public Accounts Committee to
speak on the “Annual Report 2006-07”. I do not propose to speak for any great length of time; I simply want to
reflect on the past 12 months. I wish to thank my fellow committee members: the chairman, the member for
Mindarie; the member for Capel; the member for Stirling; and the member for Albany. I also wish to thank our
staff. Liz Kerr and Nicole Burgess have both moved on, and Dr Julia Lawrinson and Dawn Dickinson now
provide extremely professional and able research services to the committee.
Other members of the Public Accounts Committee have already indicated that the past 12 months have been
dominated by three particular matters, one of which was the report on our investigation into local government
accountability in Western Australia. We have also engaged in the general ongoing activities of the Public
Accounts Committee with regard to the Auditor General; namely, the review of the Auditor General’s reports,
and the follow-up of particular recommendations made by the Auditor General for government departments and
agencies. That is one role that, in my brief time on the committee, has enabled me to learn a significant amount
about the operation of government. I thank Colin Murphy and the staff at the Office of the Auditor General.
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                       6435

They provide Western Australia with an extremely efficient and effective and quite brilliant service. As a new
backbench member of Parliament, I thoroughly enjoyed the information and expertise that they provide not only
to the Public Accounts Committee, but also to me on a personal basis.
I was appointed to the committee after the inquiry into local government accountability in Western Australia had
already started. The inquiry focused on local government accountability and the role of the Auditor General, and
caused some concern among local governments. All members on the committee received letters from concerned
members of the public. However, it is important to note that the purpose of that Public Accounts Committee
inquiry was also to empower local governments. I do not think that there is a member of Parliament who would
not agree that the current structure of local government is no longer adequate and is no longer delivering the
services that the citizens of Western Australia expect and, indeed, demand. Many reports have been published
that recommend local government reform. I certainly think reform is well past due. Taking a long-term view,
the issues that we see today in the Pilbara and Kimberley regions cannot be permanently resolved without
significant reform at local government level. While that Public Accounts Committee report may on the face of it
seem dry and concerned only with the accounting and transparency of local government, it clearly deals with
issues of much greater concern, including the provision of services and the effective delivery of public policy,
and goes beyond simply dealing with how the books are kept.
The committee is conducting a rather timely inquiry into “Funding Arrangements for Western Australian
Infrastructure Projects”. The committee has set itself a little over a year to look into that issue. Over the past ten
years, public awareness of the importance of the provision of infrastructure has never been as high as it is today.
That is possibly due to the fact that this is a federal election year, and issues such as future funds and broadband
Internet access are being discussed. People are also seeing the problems that a shortage of infrastructure can
cause for both state and federal governments. There has certainly been a great deal of public debate on this
issue. Whilst the committee is yet to complete its inquiry, it has already identified many issues that both local
government and the private sector face when dealing with governments at all levels. One of those issues
includes what the public and private sectors expect of each other when it comes to providing both the small-
based and significant levels of infrastructure that will allow Australia and the state of Western Australia to
increase productivity and efficiencies.
This report will go a long way towards identifying the problems that currently exist, and will provide solutions
that will have an impact well into the future. If we are to respond effectively to the need to provide
infrastructure, all levels of government must pull their weight. The problems associated with the electoral cycle
and party politics will always be with us. We need to find a mechanism to remove them from the equation so
that we do not find ourselves in a position in which we must provide massive amounts of infrastructure projects
at times of great economic boom. As all members know, construction costs are high and it is very difficult to
deliver at such times. The inquiry is ongoing, and I am thoroughly enjoying it. One of the main reasons I
entered state Parliament was to look at the issues of state and regional development, and this inquiry goes to the
very heart of it.
I thank my fellow members on the Public Accounts Committee. Every member has taken this inquiry to heart
and has ensured he is fully briefed on all the issues. All members of Parliament will be aware that the Public
Accounts Committee is also continuing to develop its role to provide budget briefings to members of Parliament
to ensure that all members understand state government financial documents.
I do not want to speak long on my final point; it is perhaps something for a future time. As the member for
Albany identified, my wife and I recently suffered a significant loss, my son Hugo. I thank all members of the
Parliament for their support and thoughts during that time. Thank you.
                      FISH RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2006
                                                      Returned
Bill returned from the Council without amendment.
                                 PROSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
                                              Consideration in Detail
Resumed from 16 October.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In accordance with the suspension of standing orders that was passed yesterday, I move -
         That clauses 10 to 19 be taken as one question.
Question put and passed.
Clauses 10 to 19 -
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have never seen such a disgraceful show of arrogance by this government in moving
such a huge number of clauses in any important bill. This bill contains only 30-odd clauses. To move that we
6436                                [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

consider this number in one go is an absolute disregard for the democratic right of the members of this house to
be able to speak up for the people they represent in their electorates. Nothing surprises me with this government.
I do not know whether this is a move by the Attorney General or the Leader of the House. I would be very
interested to know. We will be fighting this particular move by the government vigorously. If it wants fun and
games, we will give it fun and games. I take it that we can talk on any clause between 10 and 19. Is that the
idea?
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): Yes.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We will be all over the shop until the Attorney General decides he has had enough and
moves the gag motion. Is that right?
Mr J.A. McGinty: You should be addressing yourself to the clauses.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Which one?
Mr C.J. Barnett: Clause 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19? Which one are you dealing with? What a
joke! What a disgrace! Where are the Labor women?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cottesloe, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I simply wanted to elicit what sort of time I had to speak on the huge number of clauses
before the house at the moment. The Attorney General remains silent. He normally has plenty to say for himself
but today he is silent. This is an absolute disgrace.
I will address clause 10. I will go through this bill, as is the tradition in this house, clause by clause.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No-one in the Chair.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We are not putting anybody in that Chair. We will decide when we want to.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Let’s see the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker in the Chair.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Absolutely. Clause 10, entitled “Section 8 replaced by sections 8 and 8A”, deals with
minimum risk of acquiring or transmitting prescribed infections or viruses. This causes me grave concern
because I do not think it goes far enough. At the end of the day, we are not just looking at these dreadful
diseases that can be passed on through the act of prostitution. We are not just talking about female prostitutes
being infected, carrying that infection and passing it on to other people. We are talking about homosexual males.
The only way they can have intercourse is up the anus. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about
anal intercourse between one depraved homosexual male and another. This government has reduced to 16 the
minimum age at which males can engage in those activities. We are looking at young boys who could be
infected by older males with these dreadful infectious diseases. Prostitution is not only in the female sphere; it is
now becoming more and more likely to occur in the male sphere. When I say “male”, I mean an excuse for a
male, a homosexual male, who engages in these decrepit and depraved activities, which are against nature.
I do not think for one moment that the penalties in this clause are sufficient. We know that the Attorney General
has a penchant for these sorts of social activities. He has proved that by the bills he has introduced into
Parliament and the stance he has taken. Once again, he is soft on crime. This is a serious crime. To knowingly
pass on an infectious disease, whether it be through vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse or oral intercourse is
aggravated assault.
Ms S.E. Walker: It is attempted murder.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It can be. At the very least, it would be aggravated assault.
Ms S.E. Walker: Or grievous bodily harm.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Exactly. If it goes any further, we could have the consequence of somebody dying,
which would be murder. It could even be wilful murder. If persons commit these sorts of crimes knowing that
they have these infectious diseases, that would be wilful murder. Yet what is the punishment? A fine of $6 000.
Is that all the Attorney General thinks a life is worth? Is that all he thinks the health of somebody is worth?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Last night when we debated this standing order, we were given a clear undertaking from
the Leader of the House that he would not abuse this, beyond the motion itself. A motion has been passed today
to deal with clauses 10 to 19 as one question. What an absolutely abhorrent action by members, particularly
female members opposite.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Don’t start that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: At least the member for Girrawheen is here. Clause 10 talks about the risk of acquiring or
transmitting prescribed infections or viruses. I would have thought that a women’s health issue like that would
be of some significance. The government is not even going to worry about that. It does not care about what
sorts of diseases might be sexually transmitted to women and maybe even to so-called clients of brothels and
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6437

prostitutes. It is not even willing to debate that or raise concerns about a significant public health issue. Clause
10 goes on to talk about prohibiting certain commercial sexual acts if infected. The government is not going to
pursue that. Clause 13 talks about advertising. What might this advertising be? Might the advertising, even if
women are not working in a brothel, include photographs and depictions of very young girls, perhaps children, to
lure paedophiles? Are we concerned about that? Will the advertising be an accurate reflection of what occurs in
these places? I bet we will get various images and various wording used in advertisements that appeals to the
deviants in our community. But the Labor women do not care about that. They are too busy. It is Thursday.
They probably have a luncheon appointment. They probably have a luncheon in the dining room. They
probably have guests coming in.
                                                  Point of Order
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Mr Acting Speaker, the question before the house is that clauses 10 to 19 be agreed to.
The question of relevance needs to be raised with respect to the speech being made by the member for Cottesloe.
The ACTING SPEAKER: It is quite simple. The member for Cottesloe is supposed to be talking to clauses 10
to 19. I urge him to come back to clauses 10 to 19.
                                                 Debate Resumed
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Clause 13, which falls somewhere between clauses 10
and 19, relates to restrictions on advertising commercial sexual acts.
Mr J.A. McGinty: There’s nothing about having lunch, which is what you were just talking about.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Who knows how they tout for business? Who knows what form of advertising it might
be? Maybe it involves turning up to local men’s organisations, maybe the golf club, maybe the local pub, maybe
the TAB, showing little dirty photographs. Who knows what form the advertising might take? The Labor
women do not care. Clause 13 is right in the middle. How difficult will it be to chair this session when we are
dealing with nine or 10 clauses at once? We will be all over the place, presumably, as is this government.
Proposed section 13A is titled “Refusal to take part in commercial sexual act”. I will not buy into that debate.
Certainly, the Labor women will not be buying into it because they are not interested in this legislation; they are
not interested in women; they are not interested in the trafficking of women; they are not interested in the
exploitation of women - they are more interested in what they are doing for lunch! That is what they are
interested in - not to be seen to be believed. We will see how many turn up, because I want to place on record
that the opposition has called off pairs indefinitely. I also place on the record that no opposition member will
take the position of Acting Chair - indefinitely. We want to see Labor members in here; we want to see them all
entering into this debate. We are going to tell every local government and media in Labor members’ electorates
where they are on this issue - every single member. They will know where members are on this issue as we go
on.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): Member, back to the clauses, please.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: We have a wide range here, Mr Acting Speaker. What about proposed section 13B,
“Refusal to work as sex worker does not affect entitlements”. What entitlements? Can members opposite
inform me? What entitlements is the member for Swan Hills concerned about for sex workers? Sorry, lunch is
only an hour and a half away; let us not worry about it because time is too close!
Proposed section 21A is titled “Obligations of those who operate sexual service business in relation to children”.
Hang on, where is the Minister for Communities, who has the responsibility for the protection of children?
Ms M.M. Quirk: She is in the other house.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Okay. Fair comment; a point to the minister. Who represents her here? I am talking
about the space next to the minister - the vacant, open area. Is it the Minister for Corrective Services?
Ms M.M. Quirk: No.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: At least she is here.
Ms M.M. Quirk: It is the Minister for the Environment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Minister for the Environment? That champion of women and children! Where is he?
Bring him in. Has anyone seen him; where is he? He will not be here. What a farce this is.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I would like to ask women on the other side about the protection of women under this
legislation, because we now have a repealing of section 8.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to address her questions to the Attorney General and she
needs to address the clauses.
6438                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Ms S.E. WALKER: Can members look at the fact that section 8 is to be repealed under this bill? Section 8 of
the act contains the following -
         Prophylactic to be used
         It is an offence for a person to engage in an act of prostitution without using a prophylactic that is
         appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to another.
At the moment it is an offence for a person to engage in an act of prostitution without using a prophylactic. That
is being repealed. Clause 10 of the bill proposes a new section 8 to be placed in the act. Proposed section 8(1)
states -
         A person must not take part in a commercial sexual act unless he or she has taken all reasonable
         steps . . .
Why are we softening the provision? Why are we now saying that as long as a person has taken all reasonable
steps it is not an offence? I say to women members on the other side of the house, particularly the member for
Girrawheen: why are they doing this to women? Why is it now that when a “client” comes along it is not an
offence if he does not use a prophylactic? It will not be an offence provided a person takes all reasonable steps.
Why are women on the other side of the house not protecting the “sex workers” - for want of a better term,
because this is what they are being called? I do note that in the new section 8 there is no reference to a “sex
worker” or a “client”. The reference is to “a person”. That is because either party has to use a prophylactic, I
presume. Why is it that it is now an offence if a person does not use a prophylactic but, under this bill, a person
will be allowed to not use a prophylactic provided he has taken all reasonable steps? What does that mean?
Does that mean a person can look in his coat pocket and say that he thought he put one there, but it is not there?
Does that mean a person can say, “Oops, sorry, I’ve got AIDS, but I have taken all reasonable steps, and I asked
around to see if there was one in the room”? I am asking why we are going backwards. I have already said that
this is a regressive bill. Why are we going backwards on this?
I ask the Attorney General why proposed section 8 refers just to “a person” -
         A person must not take part in a commercial sexual act . . .
Is that the client and the sex worker?
Mr G.M. Castrilli interjected.
Ms S.E. WALKER: The member referred to proposed section 8(3) -
         A person who takes part in a commercial sexual act must take all other reasonable steps to minimise the
         risk of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus.
I would like to know how this provision will work. At the moment, a person cannot engage in an act of
prostitution - a “commercial sexual act” under the new rules - unless a prophylactic is used. I will sit down now
but I will come back to the other clauses. I would like to know from the Attorney General.
Mr R.F. Johnson: He won’t get up and give you an answer.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Members are trying to seek the call. I call the member for Avon.
Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I am actually off to the York Cup today. I would not normally say that in the house
but I am hopeful that the Minister for Racing and Gaming may do something for the York community in the next
few weeks that will significantly help that community. As such, I will not be here for the rest of the debate,
which I think the Attorney General will be greatly aggrieved about!
I was disappointed about something yesterday. The Attorney General and I have a rapport and I think I was half
getting a message through to him about how local government will not be able to handle some of these issues.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I understood the point you were making.
Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: The issue before the Chair is that we are going to have policing problems. The
whole sales pitch of this bill was about taking authority away from the prostitution containment policy so that
there would be a new regime looking after prostitution.
I am one of those people - I think the Premier may have said this - who is not in favour of shutting down brothels
all over the place. I think that 10 000 years of human history show that they have a place in the community. The
question is how we govern that. It is like the argument about tobacco. Everybody rants and raves about tobacco
but I have never heard anyone in this place move that tobacco be banned. The United States tried to ban alcohol
and we all know what the outcome of the ban on alcohol in the United States was. I am not a person who says
that these institutions should be shut down. I question the Attorney General about how the management will
occur. Concerning these clauses, how will the management of the health issues occur?
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                      6439

Currently, health workers go into unauthorised and illegal brothels - use whatever term - and one of the great
things about the industry is that there has been a very cooperative attitude to health testing and those sorts of
issues. That is particularly so if we look back over the past 20 years at the terrible scare that HIV-AIDS caused
and the predictions of what was going to happen, and the role of the sex industry in spreading HIV-AIDS. It
does not matter where we stand on this debate but all of us in this house have to concede that the claims and
predictions made when AIDS first appeared have not been met. A big part of the reason those predictions have
not been met is because the women in the industry - and I guess these days that one has to say the men in the
industry as well - have, to a large degree, been responsible for their own health and their presentation to their
clients, if that is what we are to call them. However, there will always be down-and-out people in the industry.
There have been recent cases in which people have been pursued because they have not done the right thing in
this area. The reality is that there will not be a policeman standing at the end of the bed and there will not be a
health worker standing at the end of the bed. I would have thought that a better process would be to describe in
the second reading speech or the bill itself how the interaction between the sex workers is going to work.
Particularly in the case of women - or persons, but I think they are overwhelmingly women - who are operating
in the suburbs and are doing it because they have drug habits, how can we be sure that those people are
complying? The Attorney General should not tell me - after debate yesterday and the day before, I think he will
not tell me anything - that the local government health worker will go and have a word with such women,
because that will not happen. Who will be talking to the drug-dependent woman who has decided that the best
way to get money to support her dependency is to operate as an individual sex worker in my suburb or town?
Who will police her? It will not be the policeman or the health inspector from the local authority. If the
individual herself is not voluntarily involved in the process, then we have a problem.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I am very disappointed that the Attorney General has moved these clauses en masse. I
am also very disappointed with the Labor women, apart from the member for Wanneroo, the Deputy Speaker.
She spoke very well on this issue. I suggested to the Attorney General that he should take this bill off the table
and form a committee to consider it. Such a committee should be chaired by the member for Wanneroo. I
should be on the committee, and the member for Nedlands has also requested to be included. The member for
Wanneroo is the only Labor woman in this house who has stood up for women’s rights. The member for
Kimberley has not spoken on this issue, which certainly affects her community. The member for Armadale has
not stood up for women’s rights, and neither have the members for Midland, Kingsley, Kenwick, Swan Hills,
Girrawheen -
                                                  Point of Order
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We are working under a slightly different arrangement from standing orders, so that the
clauses can be taken together. The main argument I used for moving the suspension of standing orders to allow
that to happen was that members were simply not debating the matter before the house. With more clauses
under consideration at the one time, there is more opportunity to range more widely. However, what the member
is currently saying has nothing to do with any of clauses 10 to 19, now before the house.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: On that point of order, if the Leader of the House has a problem with the chairing of this
session or this bill, that is a matter for the Speaker and his deputies. The member is perfectly entitled to raise
any issue in the context of these 10 clauses, and indeed the voting behaviour and performance of members
opposite, as she will no doubt continue to do. I will support her right to do so.
The SPEAKER: Despite the contribution of the member for Cottesloe, members in consideration in detail will
consider the actual clauses of the bill. I urge members to stick to those clauses.
                                                 Debate Resumed
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The Attorney General is grouping together clauses, including a provision under which
a prophylactic does not now have to be used, although previously the legislation required prophylactics to be
used. I remind the Attorney General of a quote in relation to this matter that I used on Tuesday. It states -
         UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked across international borders each year. Most
         of these are trafficked for the purposes of prostitution. According to Save the Children India, clients
         now prefer 10- to 12-year-old girls. The soaring number of prostitutes believed to have contracted HIV
         in India’s brothels has helped give India the second-largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in
         the world,
This is very relevant to what will happen here, after this amendment to the legislation. From talking to
prostitutes in the brothels now we know that they are paid bonuses if they agree not to use condoms. Why are
we considering this bill? We are supposed to be here as members of Parliament protecting the community;
bringing in legislation that will help the community. Yesterday I said to the Premier that more women were
being abused and trafficked, and he said that there was absolutely no evidence for that in the world. That was
untrue. I would like to say it was a lie, but I know that I am not allowed to say that, so I withdraw that and say it
was an untruth. The Premier should not have said that yesterday in the house, because we have the facts. For
6440                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

the past few days I have presented the facts to this house showing that the number of prostituted women who are
being abused is absolutely terrible. Most prostituted women are being abused. The figures I gave yesterday
indicated that some 70 per cent are routinely abused, and those who are not physically abused end up with
psychological stress. The Premier misled Parliament yesterday when he responded. That is why I try to
encourage Labor members of the house to join this debate. I asked the Premier to give the members a
conscience vote because if he did, this bill would not pass. We do not have the opportunity to consider one
clause very carefully and then move on to another. This bill is the worst piece of legislation ever to come into
this Parliament. The damage it will do will result in more women being abused and trafficked than at present. I
have already said that caseworkers are working in our community now with women who have been trafficked.
The Attorney General has now introduced a bill that will result in more women being violently abused, and more
prostituted women becoming victims. There are already brothels, but now instead of trying to help the
prostitutes get out of those brothels, the Attorney General will introduce more legal and illegal brothels.
Mr P.D. OMODEI: Can I have an indication from you, Mr Speaker, of how you intend to chair this debate on
clauses 10 to 19? Do you intend to allow members to range back and forward across those clauses? Can I also
have an indication from the Attorney General as to whether he will respond to any queries?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I will respond.
Mr P.D. OMODEI: At the end?
Mr J.A. McGinty: No, during the debate.
Mr P.D. OMODEI: That is okay, but so far we have not heard any response from the Attorney General. Will
these clauses be dealt with in order?
The SPEAKER: They will be dealt with as one question.
Mr P.D. OMODEI: As one total question?
The SPEAKER: The only exception will be that any amendments will have to be dealt with in order.
Otherwise, we will deal with the clauses as one question and members can range over all of them.
Mr P.D. OMODEI: Therein lies the problem. Where members on this side of the house may agree to some of
the clauses in that range, but oppose others, that will leave the opposition with no alternative but to oppose the
whole range of clauses. It appears that the government wants to ram this legislation through, given the
disgraceful gagging of debate yesterday. Even debate on the gagging motion was gagged. It was absolutely
unprecedented in the house. In all the years that I have been here, I have never seen such a situation. In the past,
whole sections have been considered when time was short, but at least the opposition was given a timetable of
events. Bills have been guillotined, but in those cases it was up to the opposition to make up its mind how it
managed the time. However, in this case, we are being asked to consider a range of clauses that are quite
different from one another. Clause 8 of the blue bill refers to minimising the risk of acquiring or transmitting a
prescribed infection or virus. Proposed subsection (1) reads in part -
         A person must not take part in a commercial sexual act unless he or she has taken all reasonable
         steps . . .
It provides no definition of those reasonable steps. It refers to “he or she”. Who will be held at fault when it
comes to imposing the fine of $6 000; will it be the prostitute or the sex worker now defined in this legislation by
the Labor Party, or will it be the client? The bill does not indicate who will be fined. Will it be the male or the
female, or both males, if they are involved in a sex act? It beggars belief that, although under existing legislation
it is mandatory to use a prophylactic, this bill is seeking to change that and make it necessary to “take all
reasonable steps”. I want the minister to explain what those reasonable steps are and who will be held liable for
the fine of $6 000. Proposed section 8A is headed “Prohibition on certain commercial sexual acts if infected”.
The fine for a first offence is $6 000 and for a second or subsequent offence the penalty is imprisonment for one
year. If someone deliberately infects a person with HIV-AIDS, will the person receive only a one-year jail term
or a $6 000 fine? I put it to members opposite that if a person contracted HIV-AIDS, it would be, in effect, a
death sentence for that person. We need some clarification and some commonsense in debating what is a very
delicate and vexatious issue in the community.
Large sections of the community in Western Australia do not realise that this legislation is being forced through
the Parliament today. It is an absolute disgrace. It would have been far better for the government to have held a
broad-ranging inquiry into prostitution in Western Australia and developed legislation out of that rather than ram
through legislation just to make a hero of itself in certain sections of organised crime. That is all the Attorney
General is doing - assisting organised crime in Western Australia.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to clause 10 at page 8, line 7, to delete the
word “person” and insert instead “sex worker user and sex worker”.
The SPEAKER: Do you have a copy?
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6441

Ms S.E. WALKER: I have a copy, yes.
The SPEAKER: I am sorry; I thought the member had moved it.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I have signed a copy. The member for Hillarys is seeking to determine whether my
moving it now will stop other members from debating the whole clause.
The SPEAKER: If an amendment appears numerically before the member for Nedlands’ amendment, the other
amendment cannot be moved. Amendments must be in order but, overall, the clause is dealt with as one.
Members can debate any point in a clause, but that is not so with amendments.
                                                  Point of Order
Mr C.J. BARNETT: If the government, for example, were to move an amendment to clause 19 and vote on it,
would that preclude any other debate taking place?
The SPEAKER: In essence, that is right, as I understand it. If an amendment were made late in the block, no
amendment could be considered for earlier sections of the block.
Mr C.J. Barnett: So it makes it a pointless debate.
                                                 Debate Resumed
Ms S.E. WALKER: I am pretty safe here because I am seeking to amend the second word in the first clause.
The SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I was going to foreshadow an amendment to increase the penalty. Knowingly infecting
another person is, at the very least, grievous bodily harm and should attract a sentence of imprisonment for
10 years. I understand - I hope so - the member for Hillarys will move an amendment. I want to replace the
word “person” with “sex worker and sex worker user” because “person” is very convenient, is it not. Section 4
of the act defines “client” as a person who receives sexual stimulation in the act of prostitution. This bill
renames “prostitute” to “sex worker” but “client” is not renamed “sex worker user”. This falls into sharp focus
in proposed section 8 because both people suddenly become “person”. We can see straightaway the
discriminatory nature of the terms “client” and “sex worker”. Basically, women provide the sexual stimulation
and men provide the money or other forms of payment. My amendment could have sought to rename “person”
to “client and sex worker”, but that is not what the Liberal Party feels should be the appropriate term. The
Attorney General has responsibility for the Equal Opportunity Commission. He should be including in his bills
non-discriminatory terminology. He is quick enough to take out reference to the Crown in all his bills but he
cannot get right the basic concept of equality. I feel quite strongly that, as Attorney General, he should be using
terminology that is appropriate, rather than giving respectability to the client and not to the woman. Why not
make them equal? He is not seeking to do that. As I said, this bill is the most regressive piece of legislation we
have seen in this place.
I put on record that I admire the passion that has been displayed by the member for Alfred Cove in this debate.
Some members opposite - I will not name them - think it is funny when they hear her speaking passionately. I
am sorry that more people do not stand up - I do not see anyone opposite do so - and talk passionately in this
place about what this bill will do to women in this state. I move -
         Page 8, line 7 - To delete the word “person” and insert -
                  sex worker user and sex worker
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The amendment moved by the member for Nedlands is a very logical amendment to
proposed section 8. The Attorney General does not want the words “prostitute” or “prostitution” mentioned
anywhere in this bill. He has referred to prostitutes as sex workers, yet this is another deficient clause in which
the Attorney General is calling a sex worker a “person”. Of course, it is a person; we know that. At the end of
the day we need to distinguish quite clearly the person who is involved in these sorts of acts. Unfortunately, we
are dealing with the Prostitution Amendment Bill. As I have said already, a “person” can be male or female, so
it seems rather a nonsense to be referring to a “person” rather than a “sex worker” or perhaps a “sex worker
user”, because that is what we are talking about. This clause is referring to any person in the world, and I do not
think that truly reflects what is meant in this bill. It could be anyone; it could be Father Christmas. However, at
the end of the day we are talking about a sex worker and a sex worker user. We are not talking about decent
human beings who conduct their lives in a moral way. We are talking in particular about those unfortunate
women who must turn to that type of occupation because of the dire straits in which they find themselves,
whether it be because of drug addiction or because they are single parents and are unable to get a normal job. It
affects also the people in the sex trade who do it purely to earn big money. We must state clearly in this bill that
we are talking about a sex worker and/or a sex worker user. The Attorney General wants this provision to affect
anybody who involves himself or herself in this activity, whether it is the prostitute or the user of a prostitute -
the one who pays the money. We might need to move an amendment to the member for Nedlands’ amendment.
6442                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Ms S.E. Walker: I have “sex worker” and “sex worker user” in the amendment.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member has that in the amendment?
Ms S.E. Walker: Yes.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Sorry; I have not seen the amendment. Well, that is good.
Mr A.D. McRae: Keep up.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am keeping up, my friend. When will the member for Riverton speak on this bill, so
that we can target his electorate with his valuable contribution to this disgraceful bill? We will do that, I can
assure members. We will target each and every member opposite. The member for Riverton interjects on me at
his own peril. He makes a fool of himself every time he does it. Even members on his side think, “Oh, blimey,
McRae’s doing it again.”
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I was not aware that those words were in the member for Nedlands’ amendment because I
did not hear her read the whole amendment when she moved it. I cannot see for one moment why the Attorney
General would not accept this amendment.
Ms S.E. Walker: He can’t because his friends won’t let him.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That may be the reason.
Mr C.J. Barnett: His principal adviser has turned up.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: His principal adviser has turned up - the member for Perth. The expat from Thailand.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Message from Thailand.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is coming over loud and clear.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Postcard from Thailand.
The SPEAKER: Take a seat. I know that some members think their interjections and the like are very clever,
but they take the debate nowhere. I urge the member for Hillarys to address the amendment.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will certainly address the amendment. This is the first time I have seen the amendment
in black and white. I agree with it wholeheartedly. I asked the Attorney General why he would not accept the
amendment. Will he actually say something during this debate? We have heard very little from him. This is a
very important amendment. Perhaps when I sit down the Attorney General will get on his feet and tell the house
whether he is prepared to accept the amendment. It makes commonsense to me and other members on this side
of the house. We know that the Attorney General is trying to make this vile trade look glamorous and have some
respectability. This amendment puts back the truth, because the people who take part in this trade are sex
workers - they are prostitutes - and the people who pay for that trade are sex worker users, or prostitute users.
Dr E. CONSTABLE: I support this amendment. When I first read the clause, I had to read it more than once to
make sure that I understood who the person referred to was. It would be much clearer if that were spelled out.
The member for Nedlands made a very strong point. This legislation must be absolutely clear about what it
means. I do not think on either the first or second reading of this clause that one can know that it refers to both
the prostitute - the sex worker - and the client - the person who uses the prostitute. It is very important to have
that spelt out because of this health issue. I urge the Attorney General to take on board those comments and
support this amendment. He might not like the words that are in the amendment, but he can use his own words
to spell it out so that it is absolutely clear. The users of prostitutes need to know that they have certain health
obligations. It is a very important issue that we should not let slip by. The clause is not clear.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The government will not agree with the amendment that has been moved by the member
for Nedlands for a very simple reason; that is, the language is inconsistent with the language in the bill. The
member for Nedlands tried to move an amendment on Tuesday this week to insert in the legislation the
definition of a sex worker user, and that was defeated by the house. She is now trying to do it in a way that
would make the terminology of the legislation inconsistent. For that reason, I will not support it.
I say to the member for Churchlands that the meaning of the words “a person must not take part in a commercial
sex act” is very clear. It means anyone who participates in a commercial sexual act. There will be no doubt
about its interpretation. It applies to the sex worker and to the client. There is no doubt about that. If there is
thought to be any doubt, what I have just said will place it beyond any doubt.
Dr E. Constable: The general thrust of the legislation is about sex workers or prostitutes or whatever term you
want to use. It is not about the client or the user of the prostitute. I think we should have something here that
says to the client or the user of the prostitute, “You have a health obligation.”
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6443

Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think it says exactly that.
Dr E. Constable: I don’t think it’s strong enough. I don’t think it brings it home strongly enough.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Only one interpretation could be placed on the use of the words “a person”, and that is
either the sex worker or the client.
Dr E. Constable: I agree with that, but I also think we should emphasise the obligations on the client.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I understand the member. I simply make the point that that is unnecessary. There is no
doubt about what the legal effect of this would be.
While I am on my feet, I will deal with the question raised by the member for Nedlands about penalties for
sexually transmitted infections, or blood-borne virus transmissions, which is the subject matter of the particular
issue that we are now debating.
Mr R.F. Johnson: The issue we are debating at the moment is the amendment that the member for Nedlands
has put before the house. We are not dealing with the penalties.
The SPEAKER: Technically, what the member for Hillarys says makes some sense. However, the member for
Nedlands specifically raised those issues with the Attorney General in her address on the amendment.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The comparable penalties for this issue in the other jurisdictions are fines of $2 000 in the
Northern Territory, $50 000 in Tasmania, $5 500 in Victoria, $9 000 in Queensland, $5 500 in New South
Wales, $10 000 in the ACT, and $2 000 in New Zealand.
Dr E. Constable: What was the highest one?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is $50 000.
Dr E. Constable: Where’s that?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Tasmania.
Dr E. Constable: WA is almost the lowest; $5 500 was the lowest.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: We are ahead of the Northern Territory, Victoria, New South Wales and New Zealand.
That is an explanation of the penalties.
The next issue the member for Nedlands raised was that the current legislation makes it mandatory to use a
prophylactic. That appears to be watered down in the legislation to provide that all reasonable steps must be
taken to use a prophylactic. The origins of that are found in the report of the Prostitution Law Reform Working
Group. Page 27 of its report states -
         It is presently a requirement of s.8 of the Prostitution Act 2000 that persons engaged in acts of
         prostitution use a prophylactic appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one
         person to another. The above provisions, based on the NZ Act, are considered by the Working Group to
         more comprehensively address risks to public health from the transmission of STIs or BBVs.
That is essentially what is incorporated in here. I agree with the member for Nedlands that this provision needs
to be toughened up, and I foreshadow now my intention to move an amendment to that effect. Finally, the
question raised by the member for Avon was: how will this be enforced? The answer to that question is: by the
police.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is refreshing to know that the Attorney General is prepared to accept some sort of
common sense from this side of the house; it is very rare. However, I am interested to know exactly what the
Attorney General’s amendment will be, because the chances are that it will not be the same as the member for
Nedlands’ amendment, which I think is a very good amendment.
The member for Nedlands’ amendment would replace “person” with “sex worker user and sex worker”. What is
the implication for the situation in which, I am told, some brothels have more than two prostitutes who give
some sexual deviations to a person who pays money for it - a user. There could be three of them; it is not just an
individual prostitute or an individual user. I am told that these brothels are happy to accommodate whatever
fantasies some of these depraved users look for -
Dr J.M. Woollard: They’re not happy to; they’re forced to!
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No, the brothels are happy to, but the prostitutes are not particularly happy to do so, I
accept that.
I am told, in realistic terms, that a person can pay extra to have two prostitutes at the same time. What happens
if one of the prostitutes does not take all the reasonable steps to ensure a prophylactic sheath or other barrier is
used and the other one does? What happens in the case of what I call “orgies”, when there might be more than
two prostitutes or more than two clients? They might want some sort of orgy going on -
6444                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

The SPEAKER: Take a seat, member for Hillarys. I am having a little difficulty, given the member for
Hillarys’ response to the Attorney General’s answer, about whether he is still talking to the amendment?
Mr R.F. Johnson: Yes.
The SPEAKER: It escapes me how the member for Hillarys is talking to the amendment as moved by the
member for Nedlands.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Can I explain, Mr Speaker?
The SPEAKER: I direct that the member for Hillarys speak to the amendment and not to the section of the act
that may result from the amendment.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am certainly trying to speak to the amendment. The
amendment uses the term “sex worker user and sex worker”. However, there might be more than one sex worker
and there might be more than one sex worker user; it could be the plural rather than the singular. Attorney
General, how would this amendment work not only in principle, but also in practice, once this clause is
amended? The Attorney General has obviously accepted that there is some logical common sense in the member
for Nedlands’ amendment. He already said that in his response, at least that is what I believe he said, he
accepted some of that. Am I right in saying that?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Not the amendment.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Not at all?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Not the member for Nedlands’ amendment, but the second issue she raised in debating
clause 10; that is, about making it mandatory to use a prophylactic sheath, which is the provision in section 8 of
the current act. I think we should go back to that current provision.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for Nedlands has not said that in the amendment.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Not in the amendment, no.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The amendment deals very specifically -
Mr J.A. McGinty: I said I am opposed to the amendment for the reasons I gave.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: So, the Attorney General will oppose this amendment. For a minute I thought there was a
glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel; I thought the Attorney General would listen to common sense and
ensure that this legislation was at least consistent. I believe this amendment would provide consistency because
throughout this bill the Attorney General uses the term “sex worker” and various other descriptions of those
people who do this particular job. I do not think the term “sex worker user” is used anywhere in the bill, so I
support the member for Nedlands’ amendment because it introduces, in real terms, a description of that person in
this clause. The amendment clearly delineates that; therefore, I am disappointed that the Attorney General will
not support the amendment. I think it is a terrible shame because it shows common sense to me.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I believe from what the Attorney General has said through his interjections that
although he will not support the member for Nedlands’ amendment; that is, to delete the word “person” and
insert “sex worker user and sex worker”, he will possibly delete this clause and return to section 8 in the current
act named “Prophylactic to be used”. Is that correct?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I will certainly support the Attorney General in bringing back section 8 “Prophylactic
to be used” in clause 10; it might be the only clause in this bill that I will support him on. I will support the
Attorney General’s amendment because evidence shows the damage done throughout the world where
prophylactics have not been used, so I am very pleased that the Attorney General has listened to the debate on
this.
Again, I would like to remind the member for Nedlands that her amendment will not be passed, and that I think it
should have said “sex worker user and abuser and sex worker” because prostituted women are victims who are
abused repeatedly. I am not happy with the term “sex worker user” because we know the history of what
happens in these brothels throughout the world. In this bill, the Attorney General calls the people who go into
brothels and abuse people “clients”, rather than “sex worker users”. I think that the term “sex worker users” is
actually better than “clients”. We go and see people as clients, but with the violence that goes on in these
brothels, I certainly would not call them “clients”, those people who are violently abusing -
Ms S.E. Walker: Sexually abusing.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Violently abusing - sexually and in other ways - prostituted women. Although I did
not think the amendment was strong enough, I would have supported the member for Nedlands’ amendment.
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                           6445

Obviously her amendment will fail, but I look forward to the Attorney General re-inserting into clause 10 the
current section 8 of the act “Prophylactic to be used”, which states -
          It is an offence for a person to engage in an act of prostitution without using a prophylactic that is
          appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to another.
Therefore, I look forward to the Attorney General moving that amendment.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I just want to foreshadow to the Attorney General that I will move a further amendment
on clause 10 in relation to the penalty because I do not think the penalty is adequate. We will vote very shortly
on the amendment moved by the member for Nedlands, and that is fine; however, I want to know that we will
not go past the member for Nedlands’ amendment, because I will move an amendment in relation to the penalty
that is prescribed in the bill at the moment.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I do not mean to cut the member for Hillarys off, but I think that the amendment I have
foreshadowed should come first, then his subsequently.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Sorry, does the Attorney General’s amendment go past line 23?
Mr J.A. McGinty: No.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: So, the Attorney General’s amendment would come before line 23?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I do not want to cut you out, but I think the sequence is that I should move my amendment
next and then you move yours.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will accept that from the Attorney General. I would not accept it from the Leader of the
House because he is a tricky little devil.
Mr J.A. McGinty: That is the kindest thing anyone has said about me today.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Attorney General should make the most of it because it is probably the last good
thing he will hear about him from me today. I am quite happy for this amendment to go to the vote. We
strongly support the amendment moved by the member for Nedlands and we will be voting accordingly.
Amendment put and a division taken with the following result -
                                                       Ayes (19)

Mr C.J. Barnett               Mr J.H.D. Day                Mr J.E. McGrath                 Dr S.C. Thomas
Mr T.R. Buswell               Dr K.D. Hames                Mr P.D. Omodei                  Ms S.E. Walker
Mr G.M. Castrilli             Ms K. Hodson-Thomas          Mr D.T. Redman                  Dr J.M. Woollard
Dr E. Constable               Dr G.G. Jacobs               Mr A.J. Simpson                 Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller)
Mr M.J. Cowper                Mr R.F. Johnson              Mr G. Snook


                                                       Noes (28)

Mr P.W. Andrews               Mr J.C. Kobelke              Mr A.D. McRae                   Ms J.A. Radisich
Mr A.J. Carpenter             Mr R.C. Kucera               Mrs C.A. Martin                 Mrs M.H. Roberts
Mr J.B. D’Orazio              Mr F.M. Logan                Mr M.P. Murray                  Mr T.G. Stephens
Dr J.M. Edwards               Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan         Mr A.P. O’Gorman                Mr D.A. Templeman
Mrs D.J. Guise                Mr J.A. McGinty              Mr P. Papalia                   Mr P.B. Watson
Mrs J. Hughes                 Mr M. McGowan                Mr J.R. Quigley                 Mr M.P. Whitely
Mr J.N. Hyde                  Ms S.M. McHale               Ms M.M. Quirk                   Mr S.R. Hill (Teller)




                                                         Pairs

                              Mr T.K. Waldron                                 Mr E.S. Ripper
                              Mr G.A. Woodhams                                Mr B.S. Wyatt

Amendment thus negatived.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move -
          Page 8, lines 8 to 10 - To delete -
                    unless he or she has taken all reasonable steps to ensure a prophylactic sheath or other
                    appropriate barrier is used
          and substitute -
                    without using a prophylactic sheath or other appropriate barrier
6446                                [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

This will revert to the wording contained in the current legislation, which makes the use - to put it in simple
terms - of a condom a requirement rather than, as was proposed, its use by taking reasonable steps.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Why did you take the lighter option?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason is that I accept the view that has been put forward by the member for Nedlands
and other members that the existing provision is stronger. We want to revert to the existing provision, and this
amendment will achieve that end.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have not yet seen the amendment but I have heard what the Attorney General has said.
Once again, I think he is taking the light option. I think the Attorney General has accepted that the initial
wording was very light and that has been borne out by the amendment he has just moved. However, the
Attorney General does not for one second say that a person commits an offence. Where does he say that a
person commits an offence? He does not say it.
Mr J.A. McGinty: At the bottom of the clause it says that the penalty is a fine of $6 000, which has the effect
of making it an offence if a person does not comply with the provisions of that clause.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Most legislation that comes before the house says “a person commits an offence if he
does not do this or if he does this, that and the other”, but the Attorney General’s amendment does not say that.
Perhaps his amendment should say that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I do not think it needs to.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is the Attorney General’s opinion, but he is not a practising lawyer.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I am only a bush lawyer.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We know that. However, this legislation will be used by people in the state. I accept that
the Attorney General is not prepared to accept the words “sex worker”, and I accept that what he is saying in his
amendment strengthens the clause somewhat, but surely it would be even stronger if it were made quite clear to
anybody who takes part in these sexual acts without taking the appropriate precautions that he or she commits an
offence, because that is what is done in other legislation.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Not necessarily; the current way to express it is to simply impose an obligation and then
prescribe a penalty. For example, the next clauses are all in similar format of simply saying that someone shall
or shall not do certain things and that there is a penalty if that person does or does not do those things. There is
no need to call it a penalty as such.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is the Attorney General’s view, but I think there is a need. I think it should be made
quite clear to anybody who commits this type of act that they are committing an offence. It is quite simple. It
could be quite simply said that a person commits an offence unless he or she has taken all reasonable steps to
ensure a prophylactic sheath or other appropriate barrier is used. If the Attorney General wishes to make the
laws of this state sound as though people must adhere to them, he should tell them that they will commit an
offence if they do not do something. We use the term “offence” throughout the whole of our legislative process.
However, it is not used in the amendment. It is very simple. It should read “a person commits an offence unless
he or she”. Will the Attorney General accept an amendment to his amendment?
Mr J.A. McGinty: It is unnecessary; therefore, no. If it was necessary, I would happily agree to it.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I think it is necessary and most members on this side of the house think that it is
necessary. Over the years the member for Fremantle, as the Attorney General and the Minister for Health, has
introduced a lot of deficient legislation to which he has had to make amendments during consideration in detail.
He is doing that again today. I am pleased that he has moved this amendment, because it goes someway towards
reflecting the severity and irresponsibility of the offence. If a penalty is prescribed in legislation, it is prescribed
because an act is an offence. Acts of Parliament provide for a monetary penalty in situations in which an offence
is committed. However, this clause does not refer to a person committing an offence. I am delighted that the
Attorney General is taking time to look this up, because this is an important part of the clause. We know that the
government is legalising brothels, but it is not making it legal for a person to take part in a commercial sexual act
without using a prophylactic sheath. Unless a person takes the necessary precautions, he or she is committing an
offence. As the first officer of the law of this land, the Attorney General should ensure that the word “offence”
is included in this clause.
Ms S.E. WALKER: This amendment is inconsistent with proposed subsection (3), which reads -
         A person who takes part in a commercial sexual act must take all other reasonable steps to minimise the
         risk of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus.
How does that fit in with the new amendment? The Attorney General wants to delete “unless he or she has taken
all reasonable steps to ensure a prophylactic sheath or other appropriate barrier is used” and substitute it with
“without using a prophylactic sheath or other appropriate barrier”.
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                      6447

Section 8 of the Prostitution Act reads -
         . . . without using a prophylactic that is appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from
         one person to another.
What does the Attorney General mean by “other appropriate barrier”? A person may want to use a barrier that
he or she thinks is appropriate and that the client thinks is appropriate. However, a brothel madam or organised
crime figure may pressure that person into using the prophylactic barrier that he or she thinks is appropriate, so
the victim or sex worker uses it and then catches a sexually transmitted disease or AIDS. The bill does not
provide the definition of an “appropriate barrier”. Something may not be appropriate for the prevention -
Dr G.G. Jacobs interjected.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Perhaps the member for Roe can tell us. I do not know what other appropriate barriers
would be effective. These things may make some people squirm -
Dr G.G. Jacobs: You can use foam gels.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Has any research been done on what prevents the spread of the AIDS virus? Perhaps we
can learn from the member for Roe’s medical experience. We are talking about protecting women from catching
sexually transmitted diseases and about this legislation looking after them. This legislation does not look after
women at all. Hon Giz Watson, Hon Sue Ellery and the member for Perth released an abomination of a report
that is lightweight and tacky, and this bill is the end result. We are now finding on the run that they really did
not care. They were trying to helping the client. If a client wants to have unprotected sex, that will be allowed.
Some girls will let clients have unprotected sex and the government wants to change the law to reflect that that is
okay. The Attorney General is watering down this provision. If this amendment was suggested by the member
for Perth, then I understand. Currently, it is an offence for a person to engage in the act of prostitution without
using a prophylactic that is appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to
another. That is quite different. It must be an appropriate prophylactic for preventing the transmission of bodily
fluids from one person to another. If the Attorney General’s amendment is passed, a person will not be able to
take part in prostitution - I will use the same language - without using a prophylactic sheath or other appropriate
barrier if the act involves vaginal, anal or oral penetration or another activity with a similar or greater risk of
acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus. I do not think that that provision is strong enough.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I said that I was going to support the Attorney General and, I will, if he agrees to use
the wording in the act.
Mr J.A. McGinty: That is what is being done.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: No, it is not. The wording in the act is tighter than the wording in the bill and the
amendment. Section 8 of the Prostitution Act reads -
         . . . an act of prostitution without using a prophylactic that is appropriate for preventing the transmission
         of bodily fluid from one person to another.
If the Attorney General’s amendment is passed, the provision will read “A person must not take part in a
commercial sexual act without using a prophylactic sheath or other appropriate barrier if the act involves vaginal,
anal or oral penetration or another activity with a similar or greater risk of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed
infection or virus.” Section 8 of the act states that that is an offence. What does it mean when the bill refers to
“or another activity”? The wording in the act makes it clear that the person must use a prophylactic sheath to
prevent the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to another. What does the new wording mean? The
wording in proposed section 8(1) is much tighter than the wording contained in the Attorney General’s
amendment. When lawyers defend people, they look for loopholes in the law. When I read the bill, I wonder
what is meant by “or another activity with a similar or greater risk of acquiring or transmitting”. People will be
able to say that they did not realise that the activity could lead to problems. Given that I believe that the wording
in the act is tighter, I ask the Attorney General to describe what is meant by “or another activity with a similar or
greater risk of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus”. I do not think the wording is tight
enough.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The wording is definitely not tight enough. Section 8 in the blue bill reads -
         Prophylactic to be used
         It is an offence for a person to engage in an act of prostitution . . .
That provision has not been included in this bill. The government has deleted the fact that it is an offence to
engage in the act of prostitution without taking the necessary precautions. The Attorney General has sought to
further soften this provision with his amendment. The Attorney General wants to remove the image of it being
an offence. Prostitution has never been an offence, in itself, but at least proposed new section 8 requires a
prophylactic to be used and, if it is not, an offence is committed. I cannot understand the Attorney General’s
6448                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

reluctance to include that provision in his amendment. If the Attorney General amends his amendment, we will
accept it. I urge the Attorney General to do so for the reasons I have stated. I have only just noticed that the bill
proposes a new section 8 of the act and to increase the penalty by $1 000. The Prostitution Act has been in place
for quite a few years. Whether it has been used, I do not know, but the Attorney General’s amendment is not as
strong as the original legislation. Is that because that particular section of the act was brought in by a Liberal
government? I know that often those guys opposite hate anything we have done, and that if they can change it
and put their own tag on it, they will. That is obviously why the Attorney General has moved this amendment.
At least the Attorney General has partly come to his senses after comments made by opposition members about
these provisions in proposed section 8; however, the amendment does not go far enough. I suggest that the
Attorney General have a look at section 8 of the act; it is very simple. All he need do is add the words “it is an
offence”, which would have a flow-on effect. If somebody does not use the necessary preventive options that,
hopefully, prevent the transmission of dreadful diseases, viruses or whatever else that might in some cases result
in death, the bill should state that that person has committed an offence. I ask the Attorney General to consider
that in good faith. My suggestion is made in good faith. It is to simply amend the amendment to state that it is
an offence. Instead of stating that people must use this or do that, the proposed section should state that “it is an
offence” to not do it. Then the people of Western Australia will at least know they are committing an offence.
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General thinks - I do not know whether he does think this as the Attorney
General is pretty crafty - that at the moment people must wear a sheath to prevent the transmission of bodily
fluid from one person to another. The reason they must wear a sheath under the new provision is not for that
purpose; it is to reduce the greater risk of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus. My question
is whether it is possible to acquire or transmit a prescribed infection or virus by vaginal, anal or oral penetration
during which bodily fluid does not pass.
Mr J.A. McGinty: The answer to that is no.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Frankly, the Attorney General is not an expert. I will ask the member for Roe to give us a
little more health information. The Attorney General is sitting there telling us that, but he has not had the
decency to come up with a proper amendment. He has come up with this handwritten amendment today on the
run. Prior to moving the amendment, the member for Perth whispered in the Attorney General’s ear. I have not
looked in depth at the prostitution law reform working group paper. I have taken about five minutes to read it.
The standard of research is at a basic level. It is not research; it is just a group of people that have come together
with a preordained purpose. All that those people have said is that operators must adopt and promote safe sex
practices. They refer exactly to what is contained in this bill but they do not say why. At the moment people
must wear a sheath for any type of penetration to prevent the transmission of bodily fluid, but the working group,
instead of referring to bodily fluid, refers to prescribed infections or viruses. The Attorney General is not telling
us why there has been this change. He is not telling us the information he has that says prescribed infections or
viruses can pass without the transmission of bodily fluid. None of that research is before this chamber. No
woman government member has stood in support of prostituted women who will contract these infections and
viruses. Women members on the government side are not debating this legislation. Where are the members for
Kingsley, Swan Hills and Girrawheen? The member for Wanneroo has at least displayed some sort of
compassion towards these victims. Other women members on the government side are not standing up for these
victims. They are prepared to condemn most of them to a life of living hell but they will not stand and talk about
how they can be protected from infections or viruses. I want to know what the prescribed infections and viruses
are that they are required to be protected from.
Mr R.F. Johnson: The member for Roe will tell us.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I thank the member for Hillarys; the member for Roe will tell us.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I start by repeating my words to the member for Hillarys: the inclusion of the words “it is
an offence to” is unnecessary. I have been looking around for some simple examples and need go no further
than the existing Prostitution Act. If we look at the following few clauses of the bill that we will be amending,
which are contained in the existing act that was passed by this Parliament in 2000, section 9 of the act,
“Promoting employment in prostitution industry”, states that a person is not to publish a statement that is
intended to induce a person to seek employment as a sex worker, the penalty for which is a fine of $50 000.
Under the section “Prohibition of certain sponsorships” a person is not to sponsor a person or business, for which
the penalty is $50 000.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, members!
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Under the section “Hindering performance of functions” a person is not to delay, obstruct
and so on, for which the penalty is imprisonment for two years. It goes on and on. Nowhere, other than in this
proposed section, is there a need for the words to appear. If the suggestion of the member for Hillarys would
have any impact, I would happily include it, but there is no need for it. We want consistency in the wording so
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                    6449

that each matter I have referred to is regarded as an offence. Each action is proscribed and there is a penalty for
that proscribed action. That is what makes it an offence. We do not need to call the moon a moon for it to be a
moon; it is as simple as that.
Mr R.F. Johnson interjected.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I go on now to deal with the issue that was raised by the member for Nedlands. Firstly,
she suggested that there was some conflict between proposed new subsections 8(1) and (3) of the legislation.
Proposed subsection (3) states -
         A person who takes part in a commercial sexual act must take all other reasonable steps to minimise the
         risk of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus.
The key phrase there, of course, is “all other reasonable steps” in addition to those that are already laid out in
proposed subsection (1). There is therefore no conflict between those two provisions. Secondly, the issue is that
we want to include the mandatory requirement that a prophylactic sheath must be used if the act involves
penetration.
Ms S.E. Walker: For what purpose; to prevent the transmission of bodily fluid or prescribed infections and
viruses?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is a requirement, full stop; for fairly obvious public policy reasons.
If our amendment is accepted, the provision will then go on to include another activity with a similar or greater
risk of acquiring or transmitting an infection or virus. The combination of proposed subsections 8(1), (2) and (3)
is far more comprehensive in its protection than the existing section 8.
Ms S.E. Walker: No, it isn’t.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is when read with proposed new section 8A. For instance, there is no requirement in the
existing act as in proposed subsection (2), which reads -
         A person must not, for the purpose of taking part in a commercial sexual act, state or imply that a
         medical examination of that person means that he or she is not infected . . .
The existing legislation is silent on that. The member for Roe, more than anyone else, would appreciate -
Dr G.G. Jacobs: Are you saying you have had an examination when you haven’t?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I am saying a person has had an examination but, as the member knows, if a person is
given a clean bill of health, it does not mean that he or she is not infected. That is what that means. We cannot
hold that out. The existing legislation does not cover that situation. That picks up another area of the likely
spread of STIs.
Dr J.M. Woollard: Are you saying that the existing wording doesn’t cover it?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not think the existing legislation covers that situation. We can go on and look at
proposed section 8A. At the moment there is no prohibition on a person having sexual relations if he or she has
a prescribed infection or virus. We are now making that an offence. This whole amendment picks up significant
new limitations.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I have listened to what the Attorney General has just said. I actually think the addition
of proposed subsection (2) tightens things up.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think that’s right, and 8A as well.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I do not think 8A does. Going back to the current section 8, it states -
         It is an offence for a person to engage in an act of prostitution . . .
In some ways, the Attorney General has limited his definition of “an act of prostitution”. The Attorney General,
as have I, has spoken to some prostituted women and listened to their stories of the abuse that they have been
subject to as part of that act of prostitution. The current wording says “in an act of prostitution”. I believe that
encompasses all those other acts that the Attorney General has referred to. I certainly have not been subjected to
them and I hope the Attorney General’s wife has never been subjected to them. I believe that the current
wording, “engage in an act of prostitution”, covers all the acts of prostitution.
My concern with the Attorney General modifying section 8 by replacing it with new sections 8 and 8A is that he
is not covering all the abusive acts that these prostituted women are subjected to. I agree that someone should
not use the fact that they had a medical examination as an excuse. I think he is tightening things up in that
regard. I do not believe that proposed section 8(1) is as broad and covers the activities that are currently covered
by the current act. I request that this clause be left on the table so that the Attorney General could maybe
consider the different forms of abuse that prostituted women are subject to. If he is not willing to accept the
6450                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

current section, maybe he could tighten up the wording further. At the moment I cannot support that wording
because having listened to these women and then having explained to me the abusive acts that occur in the act of
prostitution, I do not believe it is covered by the wording in this section.
Dr G.G. JACOBS: I think the Attorney General is trying a con job.
Ms S.E. Walker: Is that a condom or a con job?
Dr G.G. JACOBS: No, not a condom; I said a “con job”. This is a serious matter. Although the Attorney
General talks about the other sections in this clause, I would like to address proposed subsection (1). He has
been caught out trying to soften the impact of this abhorrent practice that uses women.
Dr J.M. Woollard: Uses and abuses.
Dr G.G. JACOBS: It uses women, and subsequently abuses women. It is very important that we protect these
women. The Attorney General has been caught out with the first part of that proposed subsection, which says
“all reasonable steps”. We all know that that will create a loophole. Somebody could justify that they took all
reasonable steps by having a condom in their wallet in their back pocket. They actually did not get it out and use
it but they could make an argument with a very fancy lawyer that they took a reasonable step. The Attorney
General conceded that that was a softening and did not protect the use and abuse of women. He has now moved
an amendment to take out the words “all reasonable steps” and say “without using a prophylactic sheath”. I
concede that and support that.
There are a couple of other softeners that will allow this bill to become an act that does not stand up for the use
and abuse of women. The amendment talks about another “appropriate barrier”. I ask the Attorney General
what other appropriate barriers we are talking about. It is the same thing as “all reasonable steps”. There is
another loophole. I would like to hear from the Attorney General about the other appropriate barriers. We talk
about barriers to contraception but they will not be barriers to the transmission of HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C.
Let us clear up this issue because we are not talking about contraceptive barriers here; we are talking about
barriers to these insidious and damaging viruses. I want the Attorney General to tell this house about the other
appropriate barriers. When he tells me what the appropriate barriers are, I will be able to make a judgement as to
whether it is an adequate protection against the use and abuse of women. We want to be sure that if we must
have this abhorrent bill that endorses the use and abuse of women, this house needs to know and those women
members opposite should want to know whether women will be adequately protected. They do not seem to want
to know; all they do is put their heads down or disappear out of the chamber. It is their responsibility to know
whether these other barrier methods protect women. The Attorney General has that responsibility, members
opposite have that responsibility and we certainly have that responsibility. Is this not just another manoeuvre to
have a loophole so that what the Attorney General calls the “client” can say, “I used another barrier method”?
What could the client have used? Could he have used a spermicidal barrier, a contraceptive gel or foam? I
would like the Attorney General to tell us what other barrier methods protect against the transmission of HIV.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: To answer the question from the member for Roe, the condom is obviously the primary
form of a prophylactic sheath. The other forms of barrier might be a dental dam, which is not a prophylactic
sheath. It is prophylactic but not a sheath. I am told - I am learning about these matters - that a finger cot and a
latex glove are other forms of barriers.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: What are you stooping to here? That is not acceptable.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member asked me a question and I am giving the answer.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: That is tacky and hardly scientific.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: If the member does not want to hear the answer -
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): The member asked a question, and he is getting an answer.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is arguable that a surgical glove or a latex glove might be regarded as a sheath, but it is
also arguable that it is not. Therefore, depending on the nature of the activity engaged in, it could constitute an
appropriate barrier if the activity did not involve penetration. That is the answer to the question of the member
for Roe.
Dr G.G. JACOBS: If that is the answer, I am really concerned that it is not adequate, scientific or acceptable.
This is another loophole; it fails to stand up against the use and abuse of women and it fails to protect them
against infections of HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. This is another loophole. I, as the client - heaven forbid -
can say that I did not have a condom that was acceptable, so I used a bit of rubber glove. I cut one of the fingers
out of the rubber glove and stuck it on - excuse the expression. That is hardly an acceptable method.
Mr J.A. McGinty: That is not what we are talking about; that is not what I said.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I know this is a very difficult subject to talk about, but the member raised the
subject in his last contribution about the use of the glove and things like that. Can we get on with it a little bit,
please?
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6451

Dr G.G. JACOBS: Herein lies the problem. We have been dragged there; we did not actually want to go there.
However, unless we explicitly examine these things, we will not know what the Attorney General is talking
about, and he will not be sure what I am talking about. I understand the issue of a fingerstall that is used for
vaginal or clitoral stimulation. I do not particularly want to go there, but I need to know what the Attorney
General is talking about when he says “appropriate barrier methods”.
Mr J.A. McGinty: That is what I just tried to explain to you.
Dr G.G. JACOBS: I do not think that that was an acceptable explanation because it creates a loophole. In view
of the responsibility of the client - the Attorney General’s term - for not passing these particular infections of
HIV and hepatitis B and C to the sex worker - the Attorney General’s term again - we have to be very sure of
that. The protection of these women is paramount. If we are to endorse the use and abuse of women with this
prostitution bill, which the Attorney General now calls sex services acts, we have to be very sure what we are
talking about in referring to barrier methods. Those barrier methods must be accepted scientific methods for
prevention of the transmission of these viral infections. The Attorney General said that he talked about gloves
and fingerstalls and that I did not understand. I need to be sure that the client - again, the Attorney General’s
term - cannot say that he used a barrier method. That is tacky, unacceptable and unscientific as a defence.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I was following what the Attorney General was saying, because I have spoken to
prostitutes about what they are subjected to, which is why I think that section 8 as it exists is tighter because it
leaves open the act of prostitution. It applies to all such acts. The member for Roe has just brought in the
concept of scientific methods. We know that children are taught in schools how to use condoms. I congratulate
the Australian Medical Association on the Dr No program that it has taken around to Western Australian
schools. That model has now been taken up by other states.
Ms M.M. Quirk: It was launched in Western Australia by Governor-General Hollingsworth.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The minister must have supported that program, so I hope that later she will come on
board and give some support to the abused women, and the women who are trafficked into Western Australia. I
hope that she will be encouraging her party to give members a conscience vote, even though she may not have
that in this house.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Can the member get back to the clause, please?
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Sorry, Mr Acting Speaker. I should not have taken that interjection, because I got
sidetracked a bit. I was saying to the Attorney General that the member for Roe was talking about scientific
methods. People would find it hard to argue that a condom had not been used correctly, but there is nothing
about gloves in the bill. The proposed wording is not as tight as “an act of prostitution” because, if a person is
engaging in other acts that involve the transmission of bodily fluid, such a person might argue that he wore a
glove. However, wearing a glove is not the same as wearing a condom. During my second reading contribution,
I would not go into graphic detail about what some of these prostituted women are exposed to, but I did mention
an instance - I believe it was reported in The West Australian a few years ago - of a prostitute who was held up at
knifepoint or gunpoint while she was abused. Hopefully, the Attorney General’s staff will have done their
homework and he will know the abuse I am talking about. I do not believe that the proposed wording about
appropriate barriers will be sufficient to cover that type of activity if an infection is passed from a sexual user
and abuser to a sex worker, to use the Attorney General’s terminology. This will not be tight enough because, as
the member for Roe said, children are taught about condoms, but other people are not. It is not general
knowledge and certainly not general practice in some of the other assaults that these prostituted women are
subjected to. That is why I believe that leaving the wording as “an act of prostitution without using a
prophylactic” is much stronger than what is contained in proposed section 8(1). The current wording of section
8 is much better than that proposed in the bill.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Can I just ask you a question, if you do not mind, because there is only limited time left?
Why would you wear a condom if there is not going to be penetration?
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The existing wording is “without using a prophylactic that is appropriate”. For these
other forms of abuse, a condom would not be used; it would be an appropriate prophylactic.
Dr G.G. JACOBS: I rise to provide an opportunity for the member for Alfred Cove to continue her comments.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think she’d finished.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I do not know that I want to go much further into those comments, member for Roe. I
would rather describe this to the Attorney General outside the chamber.
Ms M.M. Quirk: You’re a nurse.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I am a nurse but my children might read Hansard. Other children will read Hansard.
Ms J.A. Radisich interjected.
6452                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

                                                  Point of Order
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The comments made by the member for Swan Hills are a disgraceful abuse of the
standing orders of this house. She has referred to the member for Alfred Cove’s children in a derogatory way
and that is totally inappropriate.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): There is no point of order.
                                                 Debate Resumed
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Alfred Cove can continue.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I am responding to the Attorney General, the member for Roe and the member for
Girrawheen. As I said in my second reading contribution -
Ms J.A. Radisich: You’re just a dirty old man.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: What was that, member for Swan Hills?
Ms J.A. Radisich: I was talking to the member for Hillarys; it needn’t concern you.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I wish when the member spoke she would stand up for abused women.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Can we return to the subject?
Ms J.A. Radisich interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Swan Hills!
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I do not believe it is appropriate to put on record -
Mr J.A. McGinty: I understand your point of view.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: However, I think that the current wording in the act is much tighter than it is in the
Attorney General’s proposed amendment. It covers those other activities that he and I both know occur in
brothels between clients - I call them sex users and abusers - and sex workers. The Attorney General knows I do
not like this legislation, full stop.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: However, I believe it should include something that protects prostituted women. The
Attorney General and I both know that some of these sex worker users and abusers are men with large bank
accounts who will be able to afford silks.
Mr P. Papalia: Some of them are disabled in wheelchairs and they are not users and abusers.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Do we have a comment from the member for Peel?
Mr P. Papalia: You are insisting that everyone who uses a prostitute is a user and abuser.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The member’s reference to disabled people and to use them as an excuse for this
legislation is absolutely disgusting.
Mr P. Papalia: It is a fact.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The member for Peel needs to go back and do his homework.
Mr P. Papalia: My brother is a carer, and it is a fact.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Peel!
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I have spoken to people who care for disabled people and they would be disgusted
with those comments.
The ACTING SPEAKER: The member for Alfred Cove should return to the amendment.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The Attorney General has not looked closely enough at this clause to ensure that it
covers all those other abusive activities that prostituted women are subjected to. I ask again, if the Attorney
General is not going to accept the current clause, that this clause remain on the table until we resume debate on
the bill this afternoon so that we have an opportunity to tighten the wording so that prostituted women are
protected. I cannot accept the present wording because I do not believe it will stand up in court against the
abusive activities the women will be exposed to.
Amendment (deletion of words) put and a division taken with the following result -
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                           6453

                                                        Ayes (30)

Mr P.W. Andrews               Mr J.N. Hyde                  Mrs C.A. Martin                Mr T.G. Stephens
Mr A.J. Carpenter             Mr J.C. Kobelke               Mr M.P. Murray                 Mr D.A. Templeman
Dr E. Constable               Mr R.C. Kucera                Mr A.P. O’Gorman               Ms S.E. Walker
Mr J.H.D. Day                 Mr F.M. Logan                 Mr P. Papalia                  Mr P.B. Watson
Mr J.B. D’Orazio              Mr J.A. McGinty               Mr J.R. Quigley                Mr M.P. Whitely
Dr J.M. Edwards               Mr M. McGowan                 Ms M.M. Quirk                  Mr S.R. Hill (Teller)
Mrs D.J. Guise                Ms S.M. McHale                Ms J.A. Radisich
Mrs J. Hughes                 Mr A.D. McRae                 Mrs M.H. Roberts

                                                        Noes (16)

Mr C.J. Barnett               Mr B.J. Grylls                Mr J.E. McGrath                Mr G. Snook
Mr T.R. Buswell               Ms K. Hodson-Thomas           Mr P.D. Omodei                 Dr S.C. Thomas
Mr G.M. Castrilli             Dr G.G. Jacobs                Mr D.T. Redman                 Dr J.M. Woollard
Mr M.J. Cowper                Mr R.F. Johnson               Mr A.J. Simpson                Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller)




                                                          Pairs

                              Mr E.S. Ripper                                    Mr T.K. Waldron
                              Mr B.S. Wyatt                                     Mr G.A. Woodhams
                              Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan                              Mr M.W. Trenorden

Amendment thus passed.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I wish to move an amendment to the words to be inserted and, therefore, move -
          To delete all words after “sheath” in the words to be inserted and substitute -
                    that is appropriate and safe for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to
                    another
I am basically putting back into the legislation the words that are currently in the Prostitution Act, in section 8.
There was some confusion in the voting. We wanted the Attorney General to vote on our side to delete the
words that have just been deleted. That is why I voted with the government.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I thought you had seen the light!
Ms S.E. WALKER: I am trying to get the Attorney General to see the light. I cannot see any light at the end of
the tunnel with the Attorney General, frankly. Members on our side wanted the words that were deleted to be
deleted, but we wanted the Attorney General to put back the words that are currently in section 8 of the
Prostitution Act. However, he has put in other words that we do not agree with because they do not cover bodily
fluids; they cover prescribed viruses. I am seeking to make an amendment to the amendment. I would like to
get a copy of my amendment, so that I can speak to it more clearly. Currently, section 8 states -
          It is an offence for a person to engage in an act of prostitution -
That is, for commercial sexual services -
          without using a prophylactic that is appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one
          person to another.
I will accept the medical advice and experience of the member for Roe over the Attorney General’s any day.
The member for Roe agrees that this amendment is appropriate to cover all situations so that prostitutes will not
be put at risk of contracting an infection. It is a sorry day when the female members on the other side do not
care.
Dr E. Constable: It is interesting also that the Attorney General is the Minister for Health. He should be
looking at this very carefully.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I am.
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General is not. He did not look at sections 190 or 191 of the Criminal Code.
I operate on my own and must do all my own research. The Attorney General has 350 lawyers to do all his
work, as well as health professionals and 150 departments.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Can I ask you a question about your amendment?
Ms S.E. WALKER: Yes.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Why are you leaving in the word “sheath”? That limits the amendment and does not
achieve what you are setting out to achieve.
6454                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Ms S.E. WALKER: Will the Attorney General agree with my amendment?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I am trying to figure out why the member has done that.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Did the Attorney General not say “prophylactic sheath”?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I did, but that was in the context of the existing clause. You are proposing to delete all the
words after “sheath”. If you were to delete the words after “prophylactic”, it would make more sense and
achieve your objective.
Ms S.E. WALKER: A prophylactic is a sheath, is it not?
Mr J.A. McGinty: No.
Ms S.E. WALKER: It is not?
Mr J.A. McGinty: A dental dam is a prophylactic but it is not a sheath.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Does the Attorney General want me to delete the word “sheath”?
Mr J.A. McGinty: If you were to go back to the words used in the existing clause, which is what members are
seeking, we might be able to accommodate them.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I am so happy that the Attorney General has said that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: The member’s amendment does not do that.
Ms S.E. WALKER: If the Attorney General would like to amend my amendment to delete the word “sheath”, I
am happy to do that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No, I do not. You are also inserting words that are not in the existing clause. If you are
going to go back to the existing clause -
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General can tell me what to do, and I will do it.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): The member must seek leave to withdraw her previous
amendment before she can move another amendment.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I will take the Attorney General’s word. I do not usually. I will seek leave to withdraw it
if he will allow me to put my other amendment.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Then you can stand and move another amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I move -
        To delete all the words after “prophylactic” in the works to be inserted and substitute -
                 that is appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to another
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: In view of the importance of this amendment, I would very much like to hear the member
for Nedlands complete her argument on this amendment.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I thank the member for Hillarys. I thank everyone in this place who helps me with some
of the procedures, and the member for Churchlands in particular. I thank also the conservative members on my
side of the house for looking after women in this state and I thank the Attorney General -
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I do not know why the member for Peel thinks that is funny. I did not see the member for
Peel moving this amendment. I have not seen him get up at all. If it were not for the collective expertise of
members on this side of the house, we would not have had this amendment. I am delighted that the words in this
amendment will be reinserted into this appalling bill. That is one little step. It would be something if it saves
even one prostitute from contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I believe that the clause will now read: “A person must not take part in a commercial
sexual act without using a prophylactic that is appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from
one person to another.” I am pleased that the Attorney General is going to accept this amendment. Will a
penalty apply for this?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: This is still an offence?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Although the words “an offence” are not in the clause -
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                      6455

Mr J.A. McGinty: It remains an offence punishable bylaw.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In which case, we will amend the clause so that section 8 of the act will provide
greater protection for prostituted women who are forced to be subject to abusive acts from what the Attorney
General calls clients and who I call sex worker users and abusers. I will support this amendment. I thank the
Attorney General for accepting the amendment.
Dr G.G. JACOBS: I also support this amendment and I congratulate the Attorney General for his foreshadowed
support of it. The wording “preventing the transmission of bodily fluids from one person to another” is the
appropriate prophylaxis that will allow us to protect women. If we must have this bill, which endorses the use
and abuse of women, we have a responsibility to protect those women from serious viral infections, particularly
HIV and AIDS. That allows us to not get into the intricacies of how the explicit acts that are the kinky and
weirdo ways of the sex industry. I think the clause says it all. It covers it well, if members will excuse the pun.
It is appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluids. This shows that there is some value in going
through bills such as this. It may appear to the Attorney General to be laborious and difficult, and he may say
that we are filibustering.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think we could be a lot more to the point.
Dr G.G. JACOBS: That may be, but it shows the value of debate clause by clause rather than accepting a bill
on a blanket basis and the Attorney General believing that we are filibustering and that he must move clauses en
bloc to railroad legislation through. It is important to make a bill work better, and this is an example of that. I
congratulate the member for Nedlands. I also congratulate the Attorney General for his apparent foreshadowed
support of this amendment.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): The question is to delete the words from the words to be
inserted.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Just very quickly, I would like some clarification on what we are actually deleting
now.
Mr J.A. McGinty: We are deleting from my amendment all the words after “prophylactic”.
Ms S.E. Walker: We will then substitute my words.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: We are deleting words in the Attorney General’s amendment.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes. I hope that is clear.
The ACTING SPEAKER: We must delete the words from the Attorney General’s words to be inserted, as
moved by the member for Nedlands.
Amendment on the amendment (deletion of words) put and passed.
The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is the words to be inserted be inserted, and they are “that is
appropriate for preventing the transmission of bodily fluid from one person to another”.
Amendment on the amendment (insertion of words) put and passed.
The ACTING SPEAKER: We are now dealing with the words to be inserted, as originally moved by the
Attorney General, but amended by the member for Nedlands.
Amendment (insertion of words, as amended) put and passed.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: By way of clarification, could I take particularly the member for Nedlands to the point
that there are still some words in the amended clause that the member for Nedlands does not want. I think the
effect of what we have done so far is to insert her amendment after the word “prophylactic”, but we still have the
remaining words.
Ms S.E. Walker: They are “if the act involves vaginal” etc.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Yes, the member wishes to have those words deleted. In which case I move -
         Page 8, lines 10 to 13 - To delete all words after “used”.
That has the desired effect.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Does the Attorney General want to move that the words to be deleted are from “is
used” to “or virus”?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think the answer to your question, while it is being sorted out by the Acting Speaker and
the Clerks, is to delete the words from “if the act involves vaginal, anal or oral penetration” through to the end of
that subclause, because that is still there, and it was the intention of the member for Nedlands to delete that.
The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is that on page 8, lines 10 to 13, to delete the words after “used”.
Amendment put and passed.
6456                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): The question is that clause 10, as amended, and clauses 11 to 19
be agreed to.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Mr Acting Speaker, I was trying to get the call.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I was just outlining what we are dealing with. There is no need to panic. I give the
call to the member for Alfred Cove.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I want to bring to the Attorney General’s attention -
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
[Continued on page 6469.]
                                 BUNBURY SENIORS COMPUTER CLUB
                                       Statement by Member for Bunbury
MR G.M. CASTRILLI (Bunbury) [12.50 pm]: I wish to bring to the attention of the Parliament a good news
story as we get ready to celebrate BankWest Seniors Week from 28 October to 4 November. The Bunbury
Seniors Computer Club is a great example of how proactive and innovative seniors can be. The club’s success
has shown how a few seniors can lead the way by implementing programs in their community to reduce the
feeling of isolation and present a positive image of ageing.
The Bunbury Seniors Computer Club was founded two years ago by Janice Crosby and Fay Busketts with the
help of a dedicated committee of volunteers. Today it is thriving. Last month it reached a major milestone with
the signing of its 200th financial member. The wonders of technology are being explored by a booming number
of savvy Bunbury seniors, with iPods, digital imaging and complex computer software all being mastered. As
technology fast replaces the traditional forms of communication between families that are separated by vast
distances, these seniors are learning how helpful technology can be in reducing the feeling of isolation. Janice
Crosby experienced difficulties when she tried to enter new social circles and become involved in new activities
after the loss of her husband. Through this initiative she is now helping others who are in the same boat.
During its two years of operation, the club has welcomed more than 1 600 participants through its doors and with
200 financial members, this burgeoning hobby looks to be the way of the future for our inspirational seniors.
My congratulations go to the club’s founders, volunteers and members.
                                TOM BATEMAN RESERVE CLUBROOMS
                                    Statement by Member for Southern River
MR P.W. ANDREWS (Southern River) [12.52 pm]: Last week I attended the official opening of the
wonderful new clubrooms at Tom Bateman Reserve, to which the state government has committed more than
$618 000. These facilities will allow Gaelic football to be based in my electorate, which I welcome. It will also
be used by the Canning Vale Junior Football Club and the Gosnells Hawks Baseball Club, whose membership
numbers some 130 people.
I acknowledge some of the players from that club, including Jordan Courcha, Nathan Vagg from the under 14s,
Timothy Leitch from the under 16s and Timothy Milson from the under 18s. I also acknowledge senior players
Derek Cowdroy, Daniel Floyd and Tyler Binnington, senior coach Aaron Ottaway and life member and veteran
player Gary Rayment. With our assistance, this is the first time that these players have had a home of their own.
I wish David Leitch, the seniors president, and all the members of the Gosnells Hawks Baseball Club every
success in the future.
I also acknowledge the Thornlie Swimming Club, which was founded in 1968. Tireless work is carried out by
committee members Jenny Sebbens, Vanessa Sykes, Fiona Kingdon and Cheryl Higgins. The Thornlie
Swimming Club has several life members, including three people from the one family. Congratulations to Peter
and Kerry Anderson and their daughter Lisa who have been so honoured. Club captains Matt Esslemont and Kat
Sebbens provide a terrific contribution to the club. Thornlie has produced some world-class swimmers,
including Matthew Glucina and Jennifer Reilly. At the recent Breakers Pentathlon, seven youngsters excelled,
most of them by recording personal bests. Congratulations to Tori, Tim and Kat Sebbens, Tyler Mitchell, Bree
Higgins and Sarah Schulz. Sarah managed five personal bests. Congratulations also to the entire Thornlie
Swimming Club.
                                   TIDY TOWNS REGIONAL AWARDS
                                        Statement by Member for Stirling
MR D.T. REDMAN (Stirling) [12.54 pm]: The small south west community of Walpole has been chosen as
the venue for this year’s Tidy Towns Sustainable Communities regional awards presentation, which will be held
on 26 October. Not only does Walpole have an abundance of great natural beauty with its national parks and
                                  [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6457

pristine marine environment, it also has wonderful community members who reflect in their actions the very
qualities that are visible in Walpole’s surrounds. Nowhere is this more evident than in the approach the
community has taken to its own backyard. As a winner of the South West Region Tidy Towns award last year,
the community is well on the path to success in the Tidy Towns Sustainable Communities regional awards.
Walpole residents have made notable efforts with respect to their links with the surrounding environment. This
is evident in the school community where students regularly engage in education programs that not only educate
them as custodians of the environment but also ensure they contribute to practices that support a sustainable
approach to living in such an environment. With the ensuing pressures of growth in such an attractive regional
town, the community is well aware of the challenges ahead in meeting growth demands while preserving the
integrity of the natural beauty surrounding the town. I wish Walpole all the best in the presentation of the Tidy
Towns Sustainable Communities regional awards next week. Win or lose, the people of Walpole should be
proud of the approach they are taking to ensure a sustainable future for their kids and the environment in which
they live.
                        PILKINGTON FAMILY - WOODVALE HOME DAMAGE
                                       Statement by Member for Kingsley
MRS J. HUGHES (Kingsley) [12.55 pm]: I am pleased to make a short statement regarding the final stage for
the Pilkington family since the development of the sinkhole in the backyard of their family home in Woodvale
several months ago. I acknowledge the work of the ministers involved, Minister Logan and Minister
MacTiernan, and their continuing assistance during this very difficult time for the Pilkington family and other
families that have also been affected. I also thank the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for her sincerity
and understanding of the situation. I convey that an offer and acceptance was signed on Wednesday, 10 October.
Valuations from both the Valuer-General’s office and a private valuer were required to ensure the process was
transparent, and both valuers visited the Pilkington’s home as part of the valuation process. With input from
Mr and Mrs Pilkington, a written valuation ensued and an offer followed shortly after. Settlement is due on
8 November. Mike and Sonja were happy with the speed with which the business was able to be conducted and
are happy to be moving on with their lives. Mike and Sonja have found a new home close by and I hope that
they will find happiness there. It has been a difficult time for them, as there has been no previous instance of
such an occurrence. I also thank Jay and Ross Anderson and their team from the Western Australian
Speleological Group for their volunteered services and their initial report, which has been passed on to the
minister. I look forward to them continuing to assist in their investigations and providing professional assistance
and advice in finding solutions to remedy the effects of this natural hazard.
                MOTOR NEURONE DISEASE AWARENESS - PERTH-ALBANY HIKE
                                       Statement by Member for Murdoch
MR T.R. SPRIGG (Murdoch) [12.56 pm]: Today is day seven of the 22-day, 700-kilometre hike between
Perth and Albany labelled “Kerro’s Crusade” with the slogan “Never Give Up” to honour a former East
Fremantle Football Club team mate of mine, Kerry Coates, who passed away just a month ago from motor
neurone disease, after being diagnosed with the disease some 18 months ago. Some Western Australian
celebrities are taking part in this hike, and I believe the walkers are currently somewhere between Bunbury and
Capel. The ambassador for motor neurone disease, Ken Judge, is leading the walk, but other people are
participating, including Dennis Lillee, Alan Border, Kim Hughes, Justin Langer and Danny Green, to name just a
few. Many functions are taking place along the way, some of which will be attended by the Deputy Leader of
the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, particularly the one in Busselton tomorrow evening at the
Esplanade Hotel, which should raise significant funds. Until now, some $250 000 has been raised for research
into motor neurone disease, which is a debilitating disease. The target is $400 000. I extend a big thankyou to
all the sponsors, especially to Jim Kidd Sports, which, as the major sponsor of the event, contributed $100 000.
The idea of the hike is to create awareness of motor neurone disease and to raise some money for research. My
congratulations to all concerned. I hope they do not have too many blisters by the time they arrive in the
member for Albany’s electorate.
                            WIGNALLS WINES - INTERNATIONAL AWARD
                                        Statement by Member for Albany
MR P.B. WATSON (Albany - Parliamentary Secretary) [12.58 pm]: I take this opportunity to congratulate
Robert and Claire Wignall on Wignalls Wines’ 2006 vintage pinot noir winning a gold medal at the international
Japan Wine Challenge. This same wine also won a gold medal at the Royal Melbourne Wine Show this year.
With around 1 700 wines from 20 different countries, the Japan Wine Challenge is now firmly established as
Asia’s most prestigious wine competition. Japanese consumers have an increasing thirst for premium boutique
wines from around the world, and a wine with a Japan Wine Challenge medal confirms to Japanese consumers
that it is an appropriate choice of wine to buy. Wignalls Wines was established at King River in 1982 by
veterinarian Bill Wignall and his wife, Pat, with pinot noir and chardonnay vines being the first planted. Three
6458                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

years later they won their first gold medal for pinot noir wine. Bill had done a lot of meteorological research and
found that Dijon in the Burgundy wine-growing region of France had a similar climate to that of Albany. This
and the localised conditions - or terroir - are the main reason for the numerous successes that have flowed from
those beginnings, along with a sophisticated trellis system to maximise sunlight and air circulation. Since 1988
Wignalls has had a strict policy of not spraying pesticides and of using a permaculture system of working with,
not against, the environment. In 2004 Bill’s son Rob and Rob’s wife, Claire, took over the operation, as mum
and dad took the opportunity to retire. Rob has maintained the attention to detail that is needed to produce good
quality fruit, and Wignalls Wines is now recognised as a leader in the field of producing excellent award-
winning pinot noir wine. Since Wignalls’ small start, it has developed into 22 hectares of vines and a modern
winery, and is home to the Vintage Blues Music Festival, which attracts visitors from Perth and the eastern states
each year. Congratulations to Rob and Claire Wignall and the winemaking team at Wignalls Wines on showing
the world that a small vineyard in Albany can produce great pinot noir wine.
                                      Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm
                                       QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
                     INFORMATION COMMISSIONER - POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS
591.     Mr P.D. OMODEI to the Attorney General:
Given that independent agencies, such as the freedom of information commissioner, were put in place as a result
of the findings of the WA Inc royal commission into the corrupt Labor government, and given the Attorney
General’s comments in Parliament yesterday that “Darryl Wookey is a permanent public servant”, I refer to
advice received by the opposition from Darryl Wookey that states that she is not now, and never has been, a
permanent public servant.
(1)      Why did the Attorney General mislead Parliament yesterday and what was he trying to cover up?
(2)      Why are the Attorney General and the Premier attempting to place political appointments into
         independent agencies and how is this different from what Brian Burke did during the WA Inc days?
(3)      Does the Attorney General recognise that his attempts to parachute in a public servant from the
         Department of the Premier and Cabinet as FOI commissioner will totally undermine the independence
         of this vital watchdog, because this position will require that person to have direct oversight of both the
         Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Attorney General?
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied:
(1)-(3) I was aware that Darryl Wookey is a very long-term public servant. From memory, she has something
        in the teens of years as a public servant. I presumed that she was a permanent public servant because
        she has been there for so long. If that is not technically the case, I apologise. To the best of my
        knowledge and understanding, she was. I do not know on what basis she could be employed
        continuously in a full-time capacity at a senior level in the public service if she is not a public servant. I
        do not understand that. I would like to take the opportunity to clarify that matter. To the best of my
        knowledge, going back to the early 1990s, she has been a public servant all that time. There was no
        attempt to cover anything up. My understanding is that she is a public servant on a permanent basis.
        Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion that she is not very much surprises me.
Mr T. Buswell: It is not her view.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Well, it is mine. I will double-check that. There may be some technical issue.
Mr T. Buswell: I think she might know about her status.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is making the allegation. Opposition members have
got it wrong before, which is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did yesterday. There is nothing sinister
in that.
The next issue the Leader of the Opposition raised relates to the independence of those positions. When Darryl
Wookey was appointed, the then Liberal opposition was highly critical of her appointment. It said that it was a
bad appointment and that her appointment would undermine the independence of the position. It is a call it is
now repeating. As her contract has come to an end by the effluxion of time, the Freedom of Information Act
enables the appointment of an acting person for 12 months. She has been reappointed on a number of occasions
to make up that totality of four years, which is permissible. An acting appointment cannot be for more than
12 months. Her appointment instrument means that if we did nothing, her employment would cease with effect
from 30 October this year. She would not remain in that position. It is important to note that when she was
appointed she knew that she would not be the long-term Information Commissioner, and she said as much in the
letters that were tabled as part of her annual report yesterday. It was also reported in the media at the time she
was appointed on an acting basis that her appointment would cease to exist. There was no basis upon which she
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                      6459

could continue on an ongoing basis in that position. The independence of the position is important, and I will
fight to uphold that independence. It is important that we have someone in that position who can fearlessly carry
out the duties of that position. She had a difference of opinion with me, which is well documented, over some of
the provisions of government policy. That was fine. She expressed those opinions. I expressed a counter point
of view. I met with her and had a very cordial meeting at Parliament House immediately prior to the legislation
being discussed in order to appreciate the full import of her concerns about the legislation that she was asked to
comment on. We modified the legislation to take into account some of those concerns that had been raised in a
most cordial way. It is important that we have independence in that position and that we have somebody who is
as fearless as, in fact, Darryl Wookey has been, notwithstanding the view expressed by the then Leader of the
Opposition, the member for Cottesloe, that she would not be seen to be independent in the exercise of her duties.
[See statement on page 6469.]

                     INFORMATION COMMISSIONER - POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS
592.     Mr P.D. OMODEI to the Attorney General:
I have a supplementary question. The Attorney General did not answer the last question about the parachuting
into the FOI position of somebody out of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet when that person would
have oversight of both the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Attorney General. Can the Attorney
General not see that that is a conflict?
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied:
No. Ms Wookey’s substantive position is in the Ombudsman’s office. She had oversight of a range of things in
that position. Professional people are more than capable of doing the job that is required of them. We needed to
make sure that the person we were proposing was a permanent public servant. I understand that he was in the
Premier’s office in the days of Richard Court. That is what we have in mind. I do not see that there is any
possible conflict of interest.

                      HOWARD GOVERNMENT - SNUB TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA
593.     Ms J.A. RADISICH to the Premier:
Can the Premier advise of the latest Howard government snub to Western Australia?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied:
I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. Yes, I can. Today in our office we received a copy of the
Prime Minister’s much vaunted “Guide to the Teaching of Australian History in Years 9 and 10”, from which he
has sought to make much political capital. We in Western Australia do a very good job of teaching history in
our schools and have done for a long time. History is taught through primary school and into years 8, 9 and 10.
It becomes optional after year 10 and that has always been the case. However, there are always ways to
improve.
Looking at this, though, the Prime Minister’s “Guide to the Teaching of Australian History in Years 9 and 10” -
John Howard’s history of Australia - I cannot help noting that Western Australia seems to be overlooked in large
part. Almost the entire history of Dutch navigation and contact with Western Australia seems to have been
overlooked, although there is a passing reference to Dirk Hartog. However, there is no reference in the section
“Early encounters” to the placement of a plate in his honour on Dirk Hartog Island. He discovered the western
half of Australia. If that is not a milestone event, what is? Again, under the section “Early encounters” no
reference is made to Willem de Vlamingh, who charted most of the coast into the Swan River. There is
reference to James Cook on the east coast. One of the entries that I find particularly interesting is that under the
“Early encounters” section there is reference to Pedro Fernandez de Quiros. He was a navigator. I know
something about Pedro Fernandez de Quiros because a writer friend of mine, who lives in Madrid, has written
what I understand to be a still unpublished novel based on the travels of Pedro Fernandez de Quiros, who was a
Portuguese navigator who sailed under the Spanish flag in the first decade of the seventeenth century; that is,
1600. Along with numerous other Spanish or Portuguese navigators, he explored in the Pacific. He set out on a
quest to find the great southern land. He did not, although he thought he did. He actually made landfall in
Vanuatu and declared it the continent that had been searched for for so long and that all lands and peoples south
thereof, under God, were recognised as being subjects of Philip III of Spain. He had no encounter with
Australia. It became interesting in Australia in the nineteenth century when, for religious reasons, the then
Bishop of Sydney - I think it was Archbishop Moran - determined that the Protestant James Cook did not
discover the east coast of Australia; it was in fact the Catholic Pedro Fernandez de Quiros. He had that “fact”
taught in schools. During the latter part of the nineteenth century and the earlier part of the twentieth century the
Catholic schools taught that Australia was discovered by Pedro Fernandez de Quiros.
Mr P.D. Omodei: This is amazing!
6460                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is. It is amazing to me that the reference to this heroic navigator and Christian
crusader finds its way, when so many others are excluded, into the Prime Minister’s guide to the teaching of
history in Australia under the entry “Early encounters”. He never came anywhere near Australia. He never
landed in Australia; he got as close as Vanuatu. He made no landfall on Australian soil. Remnants of some
fundamentalist Christian groups still assert that Pedro Fernandez de Quiros played a significant role in
Australia’s development and Christian heritage. I wonder why it is that in the Prime Minister’s guide to teaching
history this particular reference to Pedro Fernandez de Quiros is made. It is amazing that the Prime Minister of
this country would be complaining about the quality of the teaching of history in our schools - Australian, not
Melanesian or Polynesian history - when his own guide to teaching Australian history includes Pedro Fernandez
de Quiros.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Who discovered Australia?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It certainly was not Pedro Fernandez de Quiros. I am afraid that the member
demonstrates a mindset that was probably shaped in the 1950s and 1960s when he asks, “Who discovered
Australia?” Australia was already occupied when the first Europeans attended. I can provide the member for
Cottesloe with a detailed list of all the European contacts with Australia dating back to 1606. I wonder why
Pedro Fernandez de Quiros’ mistaken view and that view propagated by religious groups thereafter is included in
this. It makes something of a mockery of the Prime Minister’s assertion that we have to get the teaching of
history right. I think it is his version of history.
        DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND RESOURCES - KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
594.    Mr T. BUSWELL to the Premier:
I have to wake myself up after that! I refer to the key performance indicators reported in the Department of
Industry and Resources annual report.
(1)     Why has investor satisfaction with the department’s resources development facilitation services
        plummeted from 84 per cent in 2001-02 to just 60 per cent today?
(2)     Why has the perception of the department’s ability to encourage a climate conducive to ongoing
        resource development in Western Australia plummeted from 94 per cent to just 62 per cent today?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied:
(1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. He is the member who sits in the car park of
        Parliament House and colludes. He is the would-be Leader of the Liberal Party who sits in the car park
        of Parliament House -
Mr T. Buswell: You told me I was going to jail!
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: That is where the member should be.
Mr T. Buswell: Is that right? On what charge?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He colluded with the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission investigation
about the evidence he might give when questioned the following day, although, if one actually reads the
transcript, the member initially denied that he had discussed the subject of the inquiry with Noel Crichton-
Browne.
Mr T. Buswell: Have you read the report?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I have read the report. If it is correct, the report says that the member for Vasse
should be given some credit for revealing to councillors in Busselton that he had been threatened by Noel
Crichton-Browne - but he denied that he had been threatened.
Mr T. Buswell: It doesn’t say that.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member denied he had been threatened - so who has he lied to? What is the
truth?
In relation to the Department of Industry and Resources and the Western Australian economy -
Mr T. Buswell: You have run out of steam on that one, haven’t you?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: No. There has never been a less credible person sitting in the Parliament.
Mr T. Buswell: Is that right? Where’s Norm? I did not go down there and lie.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Norm knew how to take instruction. When the issues were revealed, he did the right
thing - unlike the member.
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                       6461

Western Australia is going through an amazing period of economic growth. We are very well served by our
public sector. One of the issues we confront in our public sector is that, because of the volume of material that is
being presented for approval or processing, there are difficulties. That is true.
Mr T. Buswell: “Dysfunction” is the term.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The sheer weight of evidence and statistics demonstrates that the Western Australian
public sector, given the circumstances, is doing an excellent job. No government in Australia, and I include in
that the incompetent federal government, is doing a better job in dealing with the volume of material and
applications for approval.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order, when he stops speaking! I also
call to order the member for Roe and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I contrast that performance with the performance of the state’s economy under the
stewardship of the previous government when, in fact, the state’s economy was in decline. It is probably
because of our performance that executives such as Don Voelte of Woodside are moved to make public
statements congratulating the state government on its approvals process on the biggest single initial investment
project ever undertaken in the nation, which went from zero to full approval within two years. That is
unprecedented efficiency. Rather than the approach or attitude that appears to be taken by the member for
Vasse, departments in the Western Australian government should be given credit for the enormous workload
they are undertaking in the nation’s interest.
        DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND RESOURCES - KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
595.     Mr T. BUSWELL to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. With the situation likely to worsen following the imminent departure of the
highly respected head of the Department of Industry and Resources, what is the Premier doing to reverse this
worrying decline in the standard of one of the government’s most crucial departments?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied:
I think I have already addressed that in large part. If the member is talking about Dr Limerick, yes, he is a man
of great ability, character and substance. He will be sorely missed. He will be difficult to replace; that is true.
Mr T. Buswell interjected.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member is unbelievable. He is like a badly behaved schoolboy.
Mr T. Buswell: Did I pass history or fail?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member for Vasse shows a complete lack of maturity; he has no respect for the
institution of which he is a part.
Mr T. Buswell: Is that right?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member for Vasse has no support among his colleagues, he has no credibility, and
he sits there like a wound-up toy unable to stop. Running off at the mouth is hard-wired into the member for
Vasse, and it gets him into trouble because often his first instinct is to mislead, and then he gets caught out later -
Mr T. Buswell: Have you started the recruitment process yet?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: He is still at it now and he cannot stop.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, members!
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Dr Limerick intends to retire, but he has served, and continues to serve, this state
outstandingly well, and he will be difficult to replace.
          NURSING RECRUITMENT - FEDERAL LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION’S PROPOSAL
596.     Mr M.P. WHITELY to the Minister for Health:
Can the minister tell the house what the impact will be of Kevin Rudd’s proposal to increase the number of
places at universities for nursing students and to provide cash incentives to attract nurses back into the health
system?
6462                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr J.A. McGINTY replied:
I thank the member for Bassendean for the question. Yesterday, we saw an announcement from Kevin Rudd that
he would do something significant about making more nurses available to be employed in the public hospital
system around the country, and this will have a particularly beneficial effect here in Western Australia. We have
been very successful over the past six or seven years that we have been in government in increasing the number
of nurses working in our public hospital system. The relevant figures are that in 2001 there were 7 977 full-time
equivalent nurses working in the public hospital system; today, there are 10 122. That is an increase of some
2 200 nurses or 27 per cent over that time.
What we find is that we are now reaching, I think, something approaching the limit of the available workforce
when it comes to the recruitment of nurses in our public hospital system. The major areas of shortage are in
aged care, mental health, neonatal, intensive care, critical care, rural and remote, emergency, and paediatrics.
This problem will only get worse in the years ahead. After 2011, workforce modelling within the health
department shows that the ageing workforce will create very significant workforce shortages so far as nurses are
concerned - more so than we are currently experiencing. We expect the gap or the imbalance between the supply
of nurses and public sector requirements to grow significantly. That is why the announcement made yesterday
by Kevin Rudd is very much welcomed by the health system here in Western Australia.
There was a national commitment of $81 million for an extra 9 250 nurses throughout Australia. This involved
very innovative approaches. Cash bonuses of $6 000 will be provided to nurses who have been out of the health
workforce for more than a year to attract them back - this is designed to be available to 7 750 nurses over the
five-year period - and then $1 000 a nurse will be paid to hospitals for the cost associated with the retraining of
those nurses to enable them to re-enter the workforce. In addition, we obviously need to attract our young bright
students into nursing. There will be 500 new university places next year - that is, 2008 - and an extra
1 000 places every year from 2009. That will have a very significant impact on our capacity to provide nurses.
That $6 000 bonus will give us an extra 772 nurses, and the $1 000 bonus for hospitals will give us an extra
$772 000 for our hospitals to train those new nurses. Fifty new university places in 2008 and an extra 100 places
in every year after that will be very much welcomed by the health system here in Western Australia. I am
delighted that we are seeing someone put up new innovative approaches that will give us a hope of being able to
meet the nursing requirements in the years ahead.
                        INDIGENOUS ACCOMMODATION - KIMBERLEY TOWNS
597.     Mr B.J. GRYLLS to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs:
I refer to the Premier’s statement in this house on Tuesday that there has never been a state government that has
done more for regional Western Australia than the one that is in power now.
(1)      How is it that The West Australian can publish this picture I am holding up of the intolerable living
         conditions in Kununurra?
(2)      How is it that overcrowding can continue to be so unacceptably high in the Kimberley towns like Halls
         Creek, Fitzroy Crossing and Kununurra?
(3)      How is it that the government has failed to construct any short-term accommodation for Indigenous
         families in Halls Creek or Fitzroy Crossing or Kununurra, which exacerbates the overcrowding problem
         in these communities?
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied:
(1)-(3) The answer, of course, to how this could have occurred is that it has occurred because of the inaction of
        the previous Liberal coalition government and because of 11 long years of the Howard government
        during which it ignored the plight of Aboriginal people and it did nothing more than abolish the
        Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and say that it was no good. What did the federal
        government replace ATSIC with when it abolished it a few years ago when it withdrew funds from
        ATSIC and funds were withdrawn from all of the communities? Absolutely nothing! Then the Howard
        government rediscovered Aboriginals just a few months ago with its intervention in the Northern
        Territory.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Premier was of course quite correct in his assertion that no government had done
more, but, yes, there is an awful lot of catch-up to be done. The fact of the matter is that it was our government
that commissioned the Gordon report, that decided to open the window into Aboriginal communities and
concerns, and that was not prepared to turn a blind eye to what was going on in the Swan Valley Nyungah camp
and other places, as members opposite had done for years.
                                  [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                    6463

Ms S.E. Walker: Did you go up there and have a look? No.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Dry your eyes, member for Nedlands!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We not only commissioned the Gordon inquiry, but also allocated some $75 million to
address the issues there.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: In addition -
Ms S.E. Walker interjected.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Nedlands to order for the first time.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We commissioned an action plan. We commissioned a $75 million report. We sought
assistance from the commonwealth government, and it was not forthcoming. Former Premier Geoff Gallop
asked for assistance in providing relief to communities in the north of the state, and it was denied. In fact, Mal
Brough has acknowledged that our government launched the most successful initiative of any of the
governments that have large proportions of Indigenous people in regional areas - that was the multifunction
police stations, something which I was proud to be associated with because they really have made a difference. I
ask members opposite this: with the three-month intervention, or four months it may have been now, in the
Northern Territory, how many people have been arrested for child abuse or interfering with children in the
Northern Territory in the past four months? Can anyone tell me?
Several members interjected.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Absolutely none! Absolutely none, because -
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, members!
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: - that type of short-term quick fix, “We’ve been here for 11 years and done -
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time.
Mr M.J. Cowper interjected.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Murray to order for the first time.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: That kind of last-minute dying days of the Howard government action is not what
works. A long-term commitment and a long-term presence on the ground are needed, and that is exactly what
we provided.
Several members interjected.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Yes, dozens of people have been charged, particularly in the East Kimberley of this
state, and it is no coincidence that that has occurred in places where we have put in place a police presence. I
know people opposite are squealing because they are embarrassed at their total neglect. The fact of the matter is
that a policing presence and a proper government presence was needed in those communities a long time ago.
There is no quick fix; if there was a quick fix, John Howard would have done it in the past few months and it
would have worked already. The fact is that there are problems that are generational, and some of those
problems will take a generation to fix. That does not mean we do not do anything here and now - of course we
do something. That is why we allocated that $75 million. That is why we allocated over $45 million for
additional works at Halls Creek more than a year ago. That is why we opened the hostel for the younger kiddies
in Halls Creek, and why another one is due to open in January. That is why we have a commitment to a capital
works program of new schools, police stations, hospitals and the like for the East Kimberley that this state has
not seen the like of before. That is the kind of commitment that the Carpenter and Gallop Labor governments
have made to those communities. No, the problems have not all been fixed, but the government has committed
enormous amounts of money and resources to the problems. The government has put in place at Halls Creek a
community reference group that is working well in the circumstances. Fitzroy Crossing is getting a new hospital
for the first time as a result of the Fitzroy Futures town plan. New schools and police stations are being
constructed in these communities, and it has made a difference. Yes, dozens of people have been charged with
even more offences. It has occurred because the government has put a police presence on the ground and dared
to open the door and look inside these communities.
6464                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

                        INDIGENOUS ACCOMMODATION - KIMBERLEY TOWNS
598.     Mr B.J. GRYLLS to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs:
I have a supplementary question. What is the minister’s immediate response to images published in The West
Australian of Indigenous people living in substandard housing in the north west?
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied:
That is a supplementary question. The member can talk about the north west as one global thing. It is not one
global thing; there is also the Pilbara, the Kimberley, remote Aboriginal communities and towns such as Halls
Creek and Fitzroy Crossing. The government is doing so much in this area that it would probably take me
several hours to go through what we are doing to improve housing in the north west. I am happy to provide the
member with a briefing.
                                            BROADBAND ACCESS
599.     Mr T.G. STEPHENS to the Minister for Industry and Enterprise:
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I will interject on my question to congratulate the Minister for Indigenous Affairs for the
solid work she is doing in her portfolio and to express my appreciation for the effort and focus she has brought to
it on behalf of the government.
Can the Minister for Industry and Enterprise please inform the house of the latest developments in the federal
government’s broadband plan?
Mr F.M. LOGAN replied:
I thank the member for his commitment to getting broadband in those underserved areas of regional Western
Australia. Before I answer his question, I acknowledge the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of the principals,
associate principals, school leaders, head boys and head girls of Balga Senior High School, Mirrabooka Senior
High School and Mt Lawley Senior High School, all of whom are guests of the member for Yokine.
Members have heard me speak at length about broadband; the state broadband network; the government’s
billion-dollar, 10-year program to roll out super fast fibre-optic broadband across Western Australia; and the
response to this from the federal government. In fact, members might remember that I have put on record
previously that the response from Senator Helen Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information
Technology and the Arts, has been enthusiastic. She welcomed the government’s state broadband network
proposal and encouraged its development at a meeting of ministers, and even said as much in a letter to me.
When Helen Coonan was set to announce the Connect Australia program to provide broadband to underserved
areas of Western Australia, the state government put it to the minister that she ensure that the state broadband
network be integrated into the national program. We had a response from her in writing that that would be the
case. Has it occurred so far? No, it has not occurred. Federal Parliament has been prorogued, we are in the
middle of a federal election campaign, and it still has not occurred. What has occurred so far? The minister has
announced that the $958 million Connect Australia contract has gone to the Optus-Elders consortium under the
name of a new company called Opel. As recently as last Saturday, an article appeared in The Australian that
revealed that Opel has yet to work out the spectrum to be used, the equipment, the placement and approvals for
hundreds of base stations, the location of the new company headquarters, and who will be the chief executive
officer. This is another shining example of the way in which the federal government has bumbled, fumbled and
stuffed up telecommunications over the past 11 years. It has awarded a contract worth nearly $1 billion of
taxpayers’ money to a company that does not have a CEO. It is an absolute disgrace. It has not carried out the
commitment it gave to ensure that Western Australia would get a super fast fibre-optic network. In Western
Australia, $90 billion oil and gas infrastructure hubs are on the cards in the north west, which will probably be
built in the Kimberley; the North West Shelf gas project is to be expanded; and there will possibly be a hub in
Onslow. All those will require super fast fibre-optic connections. This has been completely overlooked by a
federal Liberal government that is eastern states-centric and does not really care what happens in Western
Australia. It is willing to take money from the resources boom and expand its budget, but is it willing to put any
money into infrastructure to make those industries more efficient and to grow the resource base? It is not.
I have several times met with and spoken to the federal shadow Minister for Communications and Information
Technology, Senator Stephen Conroy, about Labor’s plan for telecommunications, and I am very pleased with
his response and the enthusiasm he has for Western Australia’s state broadband network and how it will fit with
the federal Labor Party’s plan for telecommunications. I can only say to all the people and businesses in
Western Australia who want a super fast broadband network - vote Labor, because that is the only way they will
get it.
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                      6465

       WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF TEACHING - DEREGISTRATION OF TEACHERS
600.     Mr T.R. SPRIGG to the Minister for Education and Training:
Yesterday the minister arrogantly refused to answer a simple question regarding the latest Western Australian
College of Teaching debacle, and in light of tomorrow’s deadline for principals to notify the Department of
Education and Training about the number of teachers who may be deregistered, I ask again -
(1)      As of today, how many teachers have still failed to pay their WACOT fees?
(2)      Will the minister still terminate the contracts of employment of unregistered teachers on 26 October,
         World Teachers Day, if they refuse to pay their fees?
                                                  Point of Order
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I ask the Speaker to consider whether the question is in keeping with standing orders.
The attribution of particular characteristics to someone else as part of a question falls outside the standing orders
and I ask the Speaker to consider that.
The SPEAKER: I did not hear anything unparliamentary.
                                        Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr M. McGOWAN replied:
The member for Murdoch -
Mr T.R. Sprigg interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Murdoch!
Mr M. McGOWAN: The member for Murdoch asked me a similar question yesterday, and in fact the
opposition devoted its rather incompetently organised matter of public interest towards this issue.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, members!
Mr M. McGOWAN: I answered the question at length yesterday in relation to those matters. Despite the
opposition’s protection of paedophiles through its pursuit of WACOT, I urge members to have confidence that
this matter will be resolved with a degree of commonsense.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Cottesloe to order.
                                                  CANE TOADS
601.     Mrs C.A. MARTIN to the Minister for the Environment:
Can the minister advise the house what the state government is doing to step up the fight against cane toads?
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied:
I thank the member for Kimberley for her ongoing advocacy and passionate stance against what is a grave threat
to Western Australia. Of course, I am very pleased to highlight to the house that earlier this month, the
Carpenter government, through the Premier, announced further funding towards the fight against this insidious
creature that is the cane toad. This will add to the $11 million - making a total of $12 million - that this
government has invested in the struggle against this insidious creature. Part of the $1 million additional funding
that was announced earlier this month by the Premier includes an amount of $500 000 towards groundbreaking
research led by Professor Grant Morahan from the Western Australian Institute for Medical Research. His work
will be focused particularly on what biological and genetic weapons can be developed against this insidious
creature that threatens the ecology and biodiversity of Western Australia. That funding includes money that has
been allocated to the wonderful work that is being done by the many volunteers in the Kimberley area. That
includes Kimberley Toad Busters, which over a long period of time has been fighting a hands-on attack against
this insidious creature that threatens our state. That group deserves congratulations. It includes volunteers in the
Kimberley, who have been working diligently over many months collecting cane toads inside the Northern
Territory border. Additional moneys have also been provided to the Stop The Toad Foundation to assist in its
toad muster. We also have included in that announcement an amount of S150 000 -
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Members opposite do not care one iota about the biota of this state! They do not
care! All they can do is carp and have a go. They did nothing to stop cane toads when they were in power.
6466                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

They did not acknowledge, or understand, that this is a major threat to Western Australia. We need only look to
Canberra. We have been asking Canberra to see this as a national imperative. We have been asking the federal
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to accept the fact that this is something that we should be
tackling across the states, because this is an insidious creature that will cause huge problems if it comes into this
state. However, when we asked the federal environment minister for a response, we got nothing from him. If
cane toads were marching into the seat of Wentworth in New South Wales, we would soon get a response from
the federal environment minister. We get nothing from those other states. The fact is that the alternative federal
government already acknowledges and understands the threat. Yesterday, the alternative federal environment
minister, if a Rudd government is elected in November, announced $2 million in funding. However, there has
been nothing from the federal government in Canberra towards a national strategy to attack cane toads.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, members!
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: This government has a very strong record, with its investment of over $12 million, in
tackling this problem. It is sad that we have no acknowledgment of this problem in a national context from the
national government. However, we do have that acknowledgment from the alternative federal government,
through the opposition environment spokesman. This government will continue to support the communities in
the Kimberley, and the efforts of the volunteers, to ensure that the cane toad is tackled, and that everything
possible is done to stop its intrusion into our great state through the Kimberley region.
                                  PROSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
602.     Mr R.F. JOHNSON to the Premier:
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Mr Speaker -
Several members interjected.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I was overcome by the cane toads!
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hillarys, the question.
Several members interjected.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, I am having a difficult job hearing my own voice!
The SPEAKER: Order! If the member speaks, I will hear him. Speak.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier overrule the Leader of the House and
allow full parliamentary debate on his contentious prostitution legislation; and, if not, why?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied:
This issue has been debated at length. This issue is very important for the people of Western Australia. I agree
with that. I think that overwhelmingly the ordinary people of Western Australia would recognise that, at last,
there is a state government that has been able to grapple with this issue, which has vexed governments of both
political persuasions for decades. The debate has proceeded for I do not know how many hours so far -
Mr J.C. Kobelke: Well over 20.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Speeches made during the second reading debate! Every member has the right to make a
speech during the second reading debate in this house, Premier, or don’t you think that should be the case?
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hillarys!
Mr J.A. McGinty: It would have to be one of the worst debates I have ever listened to in this place! It was
drivel!
Mr R.F. Johnson: We’re not interested in your views!
The SPEAKER: Order! I am sure it was the Premier’s views the member was seeking, not those of the Leader
of the House, or the Attorney General. I urge the member not to make an outburst of that magnitude.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: We have had more than 20 hours of debate. I have been listening to the
contributions - should we call them - of some of the members. They are startling, or at least they would be
startling to a novice - to a person who had not heard parliamentary debates before. Some of the contributions
that have been made by members on the opposite side on this issue are startling. For those of us who have been
in this chamber for a while and have listened to the same people make comments about a range of issues, nothing
surprises us. I just ask members to refer to some of the ludicrous commentary that the member who has asked
this question has made on a range of issues, generally social issues, over his time in the Parliament. He had
made those ludicrous, and from time to time highly offensive, remarks. That does not seem to worry him
whatsoever. I believe that 20 hours of debate would be considered by most people to be a fair examination and
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                     6467

ventilation of the issue. I suspect - I might be wrong - that the general person in the community of Western
Australia would want us to get on with it, and make the change, which has been so long coming, and which will -
Dr G.G. Jacobs interjected.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: What was that? What did the member say?
Dr G.G. Jacobs: They do not want to see the use and abuse of women!
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I have listened to that sort of contribution. The member makes the assertion that all
women have a particular point of view on this issue, and that they are somehow being denied the opportunity to
express that view. I think that says more about the member and the way his mind works -
Several members interjected.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I think that says more about the member and his mindset than it does about anybody
else in the chamber. The manager of government business in the house does a very good job, and he will
continue to do it, with my support.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murdoch and the member for Roe to order.
                                  PROSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
603.     Mr R.F. JOHNSON to the Premier:
I ask a supplementary question. Why is the Premier’s government attempting to subvert the role of this
Parliament and gag debate on legislation with such significant ramifications for our local communities?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied:
I hesitate to say this, but I think I must. The assertion that the member makes is completely false.
Mr R.F. Johnson: What - that you are not gagging the debate?
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: That we are subverting the Parliament.
Mr R.F. Johnson: You are!
Mr M. McGowan: You were the ones who were gagging the debate!
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member is making a completely false assertion. I thank the member for
Rockingham for reminding me that when he and I started our parliamentary careers 11 years ago, we spent the
first four years in opposition, when it was a regular occurrence - a routine occurrence, because it became so
regular - for debate to be gagged or guillotined. It was routine. Ultimately -
Mr P.D. Omodei interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Mr P.D. Omodei interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! Take a seat, Premier. I call the member to Perth to order for the first time.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Ultimately, the people of the state, the voters of the state, will be able to make a
judgement on whether we have done the right thing, both in the nature of the legislation and in the process. I
would not mind betting that they will think we have done the right thing.
               NEW METRORAIL - NEW PERTH UNDERGROUND RAILWAY STATIONS
604.     Mrs D.J. GUISE to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure:
Can the minister please advise the house of the response from commuters to the opening of Perth’s two new rail
stations?
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied:
I thank the member for the question. I know she has been a strong supporter of this project. I am well aware
that the communities in her electorate will be great beneficiaries of the rail stations. There has been very
positive use in the three days that the new stations have been operating. There has been almost a five per cent
increase in patronage. That is not compared with the school holiday period; that is compared with the
mainstream non-school holiday period. Boardings have increased from about 63 000 a day to 66 000 a day.
Interestingly, the majority of those increases are in cash tickets, which indicates that a lot of new people are
coming onto the system to look at it and try it out. We think that this part of the project alone will see a revived
interest in public transport, as more and more people see the first-class public transport infrastructure now on
6468                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

offer in Western Australia. Certainly, all members on this side of the house have had very positive feedback
from the public about this infrastructure. I place on record a tribute to all the engineers, tradesmen and workers
who delivered that magnificent project.
                                   TEACHERS - REMOTE AREA HOUSING
605.     Mr J.H.D. DAY to the Minister for Education and Training:
I refer to the minister’s previous statements that accommodation would be provided in remote communities for
teachers coming to this state from elsewhere, and to the situation that was highlighted yesterday of a teacher
from Victoria who was expected to live with his wife and six-week-old son in a squalid government-supplied
house in the Wingellina community, which has resulted in significant stress for him and his family and has left
him seriously reassessing his position of continuing to live in Western Australia.
(1)      Does the minister accept that situations such as this are a big turn-off for any teachers thinking about
         moving to this state?
(2)      How does he expect to attract teachers to Western Australia to work in remote areas when they cannot
         even be provided with basic human necessities such as decent accommodation?
(3)      What action will he take to provide appropriate housing for this teacher and others in similar situations?
(4)      Does he concede that he is grossly misleading new teachers who are coming to Western Australia from
         other states?
Mr M. McGOWAN replied:
(1)-(4) First, I heard the wife of the teacher in question on the radio this morning. I heard her obvious anguish
        and I have some sympathy for what has happened to her and her family. I am sorry about what has
        happened to that family. To put it into a bit of perspective, the community of Wingellina is
        1 100 kilometres north of Kalgoorlie. It is roughly 10 kilometres from the tri-state border in the middle
        of the Great Victoria Desert. It is one of the most remote places on the planet. It is a very remote
        community to deliver services to. The teacher in question moved from Warburton to the community of
        Wingellina at the start of term 4 to take up a position there. I think he had to travel 160 or so
        kilometres. The house that he was occupying was the former principal’s house, and when he arrived
        there were some problems with the house. The air conditioner was not working, and a work order was
        issued to get it fixed. There was also a problem with the septic system, which was not identified, I
        think, until such time as he arrived -
Mr P.D. Omodei interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN: Sorry; it was known that there was a problem. A plumber was on his way. When the
plumber arrived, it was discovered that the problem was such that it was believed that a vehicle had been driven
over the septic system -
Mr P.D. Omodei interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Mr P.D. Omodei interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Mr M. McGOWAN: The septic system was -
Mr P.D. Omodei interjected.
The SPEAKER: I do not need the Leader of the Opposition’s advice to run question time. If he interjects
incessantly, I will call him to order. Whether or not he likes the answer, the answer that the minister is giving is
what he is getting.
Mr M. McGOWAN: There was a problem with the septic system and a plumber was on his way from Alice
Springs. However, the plumber was due to leave Alice Springs, but he experienced a medical problem and had
to go to hospital for some medical attention. When he arrived and identified that the problem with the septic
system was caused by a vehicle driving over it, which made it worse than he expected, he found that it would
take a lot longer to repair than was first thought. The teacher returned to Warburton, where he has a standing
offer of a cabin at the roadhouse. It is the only available rentable accommodation on offer to him. I understand
that he has declined that offer and is living with a friend in that community. It is an unfortunate situation. I
inform the house and the family that I have a lot of sympathy for their situation. They have a little baby and it is
obviously quite unpleasant for them. It is a difficult location for a family with a young child that has moved
from Victoria.
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                        6469

The member asked me whether I would recommend that people not come to Western Australia. I would never
recommend that; I would recommend to people that they come to Western Australia. It is a wonderful state. I
will not engage in running down Western Australia as part of some political ploy. Some locations are more
difficult for some people to live in than others. A lot of people would find the location in question to be an
amazing and very interesting place. That is the nature of Western Australia; it is a big place.
                                     QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE 591
                                            Supplementary Information
MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Attorney General) [2.56 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 82A, I provide
additional information. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the employment status of Darryl Wookey.
Since 1991-92 she has been employed in a variety of public sector agencies on an ongoing full-time basis. They
have included the Information Commissioner’s office, the Ombudsman’s office and ministerial offices. Her
status is not that of a permanent public servant, but that of a fixed-term contract employee on an ongoing basis.
At the end of her term as the Acting Information Commissioner next week, she will return to her substantive
position in the Ombudsman’s office.
                                  PROSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
                                                Consideration in Detail
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
Clauses 10 to 19 -
Debate was interrupted after clause 10 had been amended.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: My question relates to proposed section 10A, which deals with the advertising of a
commercial sexual act. I believe that when the report was released, there were 38 known brothels in Western
Australia. I understand that the police have a database of prostituted women in the state, but I am not quite sure
what they will do with that database. During the inquiry by the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime
Commission into the trafficking of women for sexual servitude, Senator Greig said to a Western Australian
police detective superintendent who appeared before the committee as a witness -
         You said in your opening statement that your review of advertisements in Western Australian
         newspapers showed that some 13 per cent of prostitution services advertised were Asian females. You
         went on to say that in the Western Australia Police Service’s view many of those would fit the
         description of women who may have been trafficked or working under sexual servitude conditions.
         What are the descriptors or parameters which lead you to the belief that these women may have been
         trafficked? What is it that gives you confidence in that assessment?
The detective replied -
         In a number of lines of assessment that we looked at, and with the checking of the intelligence of the
         telephone numbers, we were able to establish a link between a number of people behind the scenes who
         were the owners of the premises that they were advertising from and the eastern states and similar
         operations over there. They were basically only operating and promoting Asian females for clients.
He went on to say -
         One of the things believed was that they moved people not just in and around Western Australia but
         between the states. . . . It is the issue of the mobility of people like that that gives us concern, because a
         lot of other girls that are working in the industry will spend a reasonable period of time working for one
         agency and not continually swapping around like some of these ones were.
Proposed section 10A states -
         (1)      A person must not advertise . . .
                  ...
                           (ii)      in a prescribed manner (if any);
What will happen to the police database? Will it be maintained? How is the database currently used by the
Western Australia Police? Although I am very unhappy about this bill, I want to see how the government will
try to use it to detect trafficking, so that we can perhaps stop the exploitation of women in this industry.
Dr E. CONSTABLE: I have been sitting very patiently all day waiting to make a couple of comments. I was
really disappointed at being denied an opportunity to make a comment yesterday about the collapsing of the
debate by running a number of clauses together. I have always felt that it does not really matter if it takes an
extra week or two to get through a bill. We are meant to go through bills clause by clause so that they are
explained on the record. When the other mob was in power and the guillotine was used all the time, the Attorney
6470                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

General was one of the most forceful members to argue against the use of the guillotine. Gags and a version of
the guillotine have been proposed for this bill. That is really disappointing. It is not a Labor Party or a Liberal
Party view but a government view. If a party is in government, it can do whatever it likes, and if a party is in
opposition, it objects to what the government is doing. It is a great pity, because this is a very important bill.
Having said that, I have some specific questions to ask about these clauses. How many infections or viruses are
on the prescribed list, and what are those infections or viruses? I would be very interested to know that. My
second question relates to proposed section 10A(1)(b), which states -
         The computer network known as the internet in a prescribed manner . . .
This outlines that the Internet could be used for advertising.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Dr E. CONSTABLE: I want to know whether I will be bombarded with advertisements for brothels or
individual sex workers every time I turn on my computer. I would like the Attorney General to explain what he
believes will happen with advertising on the Internet. It could be open slather, although at the end of
paragraph (b) it states “(if any)”. What does the Attorney General envisage will happen with advertising on the
Internet? We need to bear in mind that children have the opportunity to view advertisements on the Internet.
Many members would think that it would be quite unwise for children to view such blatant advertising.
The other issue I want to get back to is the use of the term “a person”. This term is used again in clause 14.
Under proposed section 13A, “a person” is used to refer to both sex workers and clients.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Dr E. CONSTABLE: It is used in that way in both proposed subsections (1) and (2). However, it is not used in
that way in proposed section 13B. I tried to make the point earlier that I felt that this legislation should be clear,
so that anyone reading it will understand their obligations. However, under proposed section 13B(1), the term “a
person” could refer only to a sex worker. A client will not be entitled to workers’ compensation. In my view,
the use of the term “a person” is not absolutely clear, despite what the Attorney General has suggested. It is
confusing. When one reads through the bill, as I did originally, it is not clear how the term is used.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I suggest that the term “a person” under proposed section 13B could well refer to someone
who is not a sex worker. I will give a hypothetical example. A person may be capable of working as a sex
worker and may be told to go back to work. A person cannot be compelled to go back to work as a sex worker
as a condition of getting workers’ compensation in the same way that -
Dr E. CONSTABLE: Proposed section 13B(1) states -
         A person’s entitlements under the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 -
That was meant to refer to a sex worker.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No. For example, a person could have a bad back. Quite often people are told that they are
fit enough to work in a certain capacity and, therefore, are required to take up that work if they want to continue
receiving partial payments. This proposed subsection states that someone cannot be directed to work as a sex
worker as a condition of continuing to receive those payments. It could be someone who is not necessarily a sex
worker. It might well be someone who is a sex worker, but it is not confined exclusively to sex workers.
Dr E. CONSTABLE: I think the Attorney General is agreeing with me that it could well be confusing, because
the term means different things throughout the bill.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I rise to support the member for Churchlands. The Attorney General’s response confirmed
what she was saying, because the Attorney General had to refer to a sex worker. The Attorney General said that
a person who is a sex worker cannot be forced to go back and do that work if she has a bad back.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No, that is not what I said. Nobody can be required to work as a sex worker as a condition
of receiving workers’ compensation payments. They could be fit to do it. My knowledge of this matter is
somewhat dated. It used to be the case, and I presume it still is, that a person who might be fit for light duties
could be put into a clerical position even though that person was not a clerk.
Ms S.E. WALKER: That is right.
Mr J.A. McGinty: It might well be that somebody, because of the nature of his or her injury, is capable of
working as a sex worker - I can’t think of an example - even though that person is not normally a sex worker. A
person cannot be told that he or she is fit to do that work and so must do that work or face losing weekly
workers’ compensation payments in the same way that a person can be told to work as a clerk.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Maybe it is just too tawdry to say, “You can’t have intercourse but you can masturbate.”
That is what this legislation is about. It is tawdry and despicable to women. The Attorney General has made it
impossible because of the type of work that it is. This is what it is all about. This is how abominable this bill is.
                                  [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                    6471

Whoever put the bill together thought, “What about the workers’ compensation act? We can’t have them say,
“Well, you can’t do all the basic sexual things but you could just do a bit of light work.” That is what this is
about. A few members are nodding their heads. That is how disgusting this bill is to women. It is why I say
that the Attorney General should hang his head in shame. The member for Churchlands is right. It is because
these are degrading acts for women that the Attorney General cannot have women taken before a tribunal and
told, “Well, you can’t do sexual intercourse but you could do other sorts of sexual stimulation as defined under
section 4 of the Prostitution Act.” That is what this is about.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: To answer the member for Churchlands’ question about STIs -
Dr E. Constable: No, I didn’t say STIs. I used the words in the bill. I said “prescribed infections or viruses”. I
want to know whether there are any others other than STIs. Give me the whole list.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have a list of those that will fit under the definition in this bill: cancroid, donovanosis,
genital chlamydia, gonorrhoea, HIV-AIDS, infectious syphilis and infectious hepatitis B.
To answer the member’s question about Internet advertising, proposed section 10A will impose a restriction on
where advertising is permitted. For example, the billboard advertisements such as seen in Victoria - I have not
seen them, but I have had them described to me - would not be allowed in Western Australia. Advertising will
be limited to the classified advertisement section of a newspaper or a periodical and to the Internet.
Dr E. Constable: That is what I want to know about - the Internet. Will children have access to such
advertisements there?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The member will appreciate that the real problem with the Internet is the inability to
control something posted outside of a jurisdiction. That is an issue that runs through defamation law and so
many other aspects of the law. We all appreciate the practical limitation of prohibiting material that appears on
the Internet and we have therefore sought to have in the bill a prescribed manner clause that says that if the
advertising relates to a local business, there will be a prescribed manner attempting some standard of decency,
which I think will, to a degree, be automatically imposed by the newspapers when they consider what they are
prepared to advertise in their classified sections. I may be wrong in assuming that a measure of self-control is
exercised by newspapers. However, we are trying to have at least some control over what appears on the
Internet, although I do not believe we will ever be totally successful.
Dr E. Constable: Do you think it will in fact be open slather on the net?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I do not know, but we are seeking here to try to impose some measure of control.
Dr E. Constable: On local advertising on the net; on local businesses?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It depends. This will give us the capacity to respond if we see an abuse emerging, but I do
not know whether we will be successful.
Dr E. Constable: Give me an example of what you think an abuse might be?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It might be something that is regarded as offensive or far too graphic; the sort of thing that
we would not allow to appear, for example, in the classified section of a newspaper.
Dr E. Constable: But it is possible that children will easily see these advertisements on -
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Children can access what is on the net. I do not see this as being any different from what
is currently on the net.
Ms S.E. Walker: Attorney General, are you trying to change the nature of the ads that are in the papers at the
moment?
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. This does not presume that there will be a change. There is a power to prescribe the
form if that need arises. However, as it stands at the moment, nothing has been drawn to my attention. They are
not something that I regularly read, so I am not all that familiar with their content.
Ms S.E. Walker: I am just wondering whether you are trying to clean up the pages with this.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: That is not intended at this stage, but I am not saying that it would not be done in the
future. However, we do not have any present intention to do so.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: What the Attorney General finds offensive and what I find offensive are probably worlds
apart. I am much more sensitive than he, as, I am sure, are most Western Australians. However, I wish to
comment on advertising and this clause. I am still trying to work through this bill in the normal progressive way
and I do not want to lose the opportunity to move the amendment that I have been talking about.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Well, can you move it and move along, please?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am going to move it now. I cannot dictate what other people do in this chamber,
Attorney General; however, as the shadow police minister and shadow justice minister with the lead role on this
particular bill, it is only fair that I have the opportunity to move any amendment that I feel is necessary.
6472                                 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

I move -
           Page 8, line 23 - To delete “$6 000” and substitute -
                    $25 000 or 10 years imprisonment or both
I am happy to speak to the amendment.
Mr J.A. McGinty: It is a bit short compared with what I expected. I expected capital punishment!
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am a very reasonable person and I always go for what I think I have some sort of chance
of getting. The penalty that the Attorney General has in the bill is absolutely and totally inadequate. This clause
deals with not only sexually transmitted diseases such as venereal diseases like gonorrhoea and the rather
unpleasant things that people who indulge in this type of activity are very prone to get, but also the more serious
ones such as HIV-AIDS - most people who contract HIV die of that particular disease - hepatitis B and all the
various types of diseases about which my very good friend and colleague the member for Roe - a doctor - has
elucidated in this house.
If somebody knowingly infects someone, they act against the law of this land. We know how weak this
government is about punishing the perpetrators of crime, but if someone who knows he has a disease does not
take the precautions outlined in this bill and goes ahead and has vaginal, anal or oral sex with another person, I
believe he or she, at the very least, commits aggravated assault and, at the very worst, attempted murder. People
with the knowledge that they carry a deadly disease should be fully aware of the ramifications of their actions.
Does the Attorney General honestly think that a monetary fine of $6 000 is an adequate penalty for somebody
who commits an offence of aggravated assault on another human being knowing full well the damage that it can
do? They are not just having violent sex with somebody; they are passing on something that might kill the other
person. I do not think this legislation is adequate. We may very well do a deal on this, but I know that the
government does not like accepting my amendments, even though I have not come into the chamber with a
penalty of hanging or flogging but with something far less severe. However, if the Attorney General does not
think that someone who purposefully carries out such an act - in the full knowledge of having the disease -
should be subject to the penalties that I have just outlined, I would like to know how he excuses it.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: A provision in the Criminal Code deals with infecting somebody with a disease, such as
those we have spoken about, and I refer members to section 294, “Acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm
or prevent arrest”. “Prevent arrest” is obviously not relevant. It reads -
           Any person who, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some grievous bodily
           harm to any person, or to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person -
           ...
                    (8)      does any act that is likely to result in a person having a serious disease;
           is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.
I think that covers where that occurs.
Mr R.F. Johnson: It will not cover it within the legalised brothels. The Attorney General is saying that if
somebody has sex with another human and does not pay for it - for example, a girl is picked up by a man in a
nightclub and she is sweet-talked and maybe given too many drinks and they go home and he gives her not only
violent sex -
Mr J.A. McGINTY: You seem to know a lot about this method of operation.
Mr R.F. Johnson: I have been reading a lot about it. I am devastated at what happens to young girls in society.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I make the point that this would apply to anybody who knowingly infects another person.
If somebody has acquired immune deficiency syndrome and has unprotected sex, this section would come into
play. That is what it is specifically aimed at. It would not matter whether it occurred in the circumstances the
member is describing - a consensual arrangement or a paid arrangement - because the worst evil that the member
is envisaging is already covered by the Criminal Code. We are talking about action that does not have those
consequences.
Mr R.F. Johnson: The Attorney General is giving the criminal lawyers an option to fight against that by using
this legislation if the act is done within a brothel and the sex is paid for.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. It comes back to the question of what a person is charged with. Frankly, it would not
matter whether it was a sex worker or somebody else. If they were infected and knowingly had unprotected sex
and transmitted that disease, they would be charged by the police under the existing provisions of the Criminal
Code. We are talking about a lesser offence of having unprotected sex in a brothel. The member’s proposal of
10 years is light on.
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                   6473

Mr R.F. Johnson: I am happy for you to up the ante. I am happy to reflect what is in the Criminal Code.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is already 20 years, so the member would not want to reduce it.
Mr R.F. Johnson: No, I do not. I did not think in a fit you would go for 20 years. I thought 10 years might be
reasonable.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: If there are serious consequences and somebody becomes infected, then the more
substantial provision of the Criminal Code could be brought into play. This is very serious and we are proposing
to increase the fine from $5 000, which is currently in the law, to $6 000. I guess there would be some scope
within reasonable limits of that. It is necessary to keep a degree of proportionality with penalties that are
generally prescribed for what I regard to be criminal acts, and I think this would be one, to ensure that they are
proportionate to what is being created as an offence. The member’s proposal is aimed at the higher level of
offence, which is already covered by the Criminal Code.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I cannot agree with the Attorney General because he is minimising the actions of people
who go into a brothel or who work in a brothel. It may not be the user; it could be the prostitute. It could be
anybody who is prepared to accept money or pay money and ends up having sex, in whatever form of sexual
intercourse that may be, and that is just as serious, if not more serious, than somebody - either a man or woman -
who has casual sex knowing that they carry a deadly disease. The fact they are going to a brothel and paying
money and the person might be working in the brothel and accepting the money, compounds the offence. I
cannot see how the Attorney General can justify it by saying this is a lesser offence. This part of the clause
relates to people who know that they have a transmittable disease.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No, it relates only to not using a condom, to put it in simple terms. It is a different thing if
somebody knows they have a sexually transmitted infection, which is covered under proposed section 8A.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I see that and I have a similar amendment to proposed section 8A, for no other reason
than I would like some consistency. The original bill considers it an offence for a person to engage in an act of
prostitution and that is where the penalty of $5 000 applied. The Attorney General’s amendment increases that
by $1 000, which is not enough. If the Attorney General thinks that $6 000 is in any way suitable punishment
for somebody -
Mr J.A. McGinty: No, you did seven years ago when you introduced the bill. You were a minister - you were
in the government that approved that.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes, I was, but I was not the police minister and I certainly would not have gone along
with this. We made mistakes when we were in government.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Not many.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I agree, not many, and I accept that. The Labor Party made loads of mistakes when it was
in government last time and mistakes are being made today. Whatever happens today will affect the Western
Australian public for many years to come. I cannot see anybody coming along and amending this bill in the
future. It might be repealed and a Swedish system may be put in place by a respectable government at some
stage; that is, when we try to lift the morals and standing of the Western Australian government, but that is
another matter.
Proposed section 8(3) covers the situation. It reads -
         A person who takes part in a commercial sexual act must take all other reasonable steps to minimise the
         risk of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus.
I accept they have to take reasonable steps. If they do not take reasonable steps, they are just as guilty as that
person who goes out and does not take reasonable steps and passes on a deadly disease to another human being.
There is such a disparity between the Criminal Code and 20 years’ imprisonment, and I accept that. If somebody
is given a short life sentence by knowingly passing on a deadly virus, that person should get 20 years. They
probably would not last 20 years because they would die before then. It is equally important and responsible to
ensure that if people do not abide by the law, they should be justifiably punished. The Attorney General said he
would be happy to come to an arrangement. What is the highest bid I can get out of the Attorney General?
Mr J.A. McGinty: It is $6 000.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Is that the highest? The Attorney General said he was prepared to go up a bit. This is the
final part of the bidding war. The Attorney General said earlier that he would look at something higher. What
does he agree to?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I cannot agree with what you are proposing.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: What should be the most severe penalty?
6474                              [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr J.A. McGinty: The provision of $6 000 is appropriate when we look at the Criminal Code and this
provision together.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I support the member for Hillarys and I will move an amendment to increase it to 20 years
because I was looking at section 294 of the Criminal Code, “Acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm or
prevent arrest.” The reason that it is important is: who will police this provision of the bill?
Mr J.A. McGinty: The police.
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General says that about a lot of things but the working paper does not
indicate that the police will police much.
Mr J.A. McGinty: The police will perform traditional policing functions.
Ms S.E. WALKER: No, they will not - the working paper indicates that will change. My point is that the
Attorney General is saying that if they do not wear a prophylactic sheath when they should, the offence will be
$6 000.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Under what circumstances would that happen? Who is going to tell anyone? What is the
sex worker going to do? How will it happen? If a client comes in and says that he is not going to wear a
prophylactic, the sex worker will say no and that will be the end of it - we think. I am trying to work through
what happens because I think it is important. I really cannot see how it can happen unless the sex worker agrees.
Mr J.A. McGinty: It is no different from any other crime or offence. Sometimes they are not detected by the
authorities.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I am getting to the point - and those members in this place who think can help me - that if
the sex worker does contract AIDS and it was intentional, how would it happen?
Mr J.A. McGinty: There are criminal prosecutions under those circumstances at the moment. The member
would be aware of that.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Yes; however, I do not think the Attorney General understands what I am saying. I am
getting down to the act of prostitution. How does it get to the situation in which the sex worker would not know
that a prophylactic was not being used? Does the Attorney General see what I mean? He does not see what I
mean, does he?
Mr J.A. McGinty: It is a question of fact; either one was or was not.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I know. If she has consented to one not being used and she contracts AIDS -
Mr J.A. McGinty: As you know, you cannot consent to an assault.
Ms S.E. WALKER: A person cannot consent to an assault. Okay. If she agrees for a prophylactic to not be
used and she contracts AIDS, the client would be charged under the Prostitution Act.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I would not have thought so. I would have thought that was under the Criminal Code.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Under what circumstances would a client ever be charged the $6 000 fine? Can the
Attorney General give me an example?
Mr J.A. McGinty: It is an offence to not use a prophylactic.
Ms S.E. WALKER: All right, but if they both agree to not use one they are both committing an offence?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Ms S.E. WALKER: When we think about it, in reality, they both have to agree to not use one because
otherwise she would not allow it.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I have not turned my mind to all the various combinations and circumstances in which
prophylactics may or may not be worn.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I know that; the Attorney General does not have to. I am not trying to get it to that level. I
am talking about the circumstances in which, generally, one would not be used. The sex worker would normally
insist on one. If she did not, they would both be agreeing. This is important and we have to work it through. It
is important to protect women from this sort of thing. I think there would be some difficulty, given the number
of clients a woman may have, in identifying who it might be. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to move an
amendment to the amendment of the member for Hillarys to make the penalty 20 years’ imprisonment so it will
reflect the Criminal Code.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I also think that the penalty at the moment is insufficient, particularly after hearing
yesterday an ex-madam tell a group of people outside Parliament House that she has had what the Attorney
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                      6475

General would call “clients” - I call them sex users and abusers - come into a brothel and offer to pay $10 000
for a child. She told the people who were there that she would tell such people to go away. If people are going
to brothels and offering to pay $10 000 for a child, then having a penalty of $5 000 would mean nothing to those
people. It is appropriate that the penalty be increased. The member for Hillarys and the Attorney General are
looking at these penalties and what they may be increased to. Proposed section 8(1) proposes a fine for a person
not using a prophylactic. However, we also need to consider proposed section 8(3) because someone can, if he
has HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C, pass it on through his saliva as part of a commercial sexual act. I am not
quite sure what the Attorney General is considering concerning proposed section 8(3) but I think he was
probably thinking about HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C when he included the penalty. I think the penalty is
insufficient. If the penalty for proposed section 8 is to be increased, which I agree should be increased, the
penalty in proposed section 8(3) in which a person can knowingly have HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C and pass
it on through his saliva to the prostitution woman should be increased too. I ask that, while we are looking at the
fines, we look at both those areas.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I seek leave to withdraw my amendment so I can replace it with another. As such, I wish
to change the penalty to $10 000 only.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move -
         Page 8, line 23 - To delete “$6 000” and substitute -
                  $10 000
Amendment (deletion of figure) put and passed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the figure to be inserted be inserted.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I do not agree with this. I think the member for Hillarys is going a bit soft here in his old
age.
Mr R.F. Johnson: I am not.
Ms S.E. WALKER: What has happened, member for Hillarys? I am a bit worried. The point is that by not
wearing a prophylactic the person is exposed. That is the danger. I think that should be reflected in some way.
The Criminal Code refers to acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm. Section 294 states -
         Any person who, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some grievous bodily
         harm to any person . . .
         ...
         is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.
This is grievous bodily harm and we can up the ante to murder. If a person knows that he has AIDS or some
disease that could result in a premature death and he has sexual intercourse or knows that through an act of
prostitution that it will cause grievous bodily harm, the person is liable under the Criminal Code but is not liable
under the Prostitution Act. Nobody is listening to me!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think they are attempting to, member for Nedlands.
Ms S.E. WALKER: No, they are not. There is no point in having a fine. Once it is done, it is too late to have a
fine. The purpose is to prevent it and to say, “Whoa!” and put our hands up. If we are going to do this, it is very
dangerous. It is like saying that if a person stabs someone, we will fine that person $6 000, but if the other
person dies, we will look at a term of imprisonment. It is similar to that. Perhaps that is not a very good
analogy. What I am saying is that the danger point is during the act of prostitution. When a person does
grievous bodily harm to someone - it is reflected in this Parliament already - we say it is so serious that under the
Criminal Code the penalty is 20 years. However, it is funny; the bodies of these prostituted women are not really
important. That is what this is about; they are not really important. That is why the figure of $6 000 is paltry,
and I do not agree with the Liberal Party’s raising it to just $10 000.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I apologised before, Attorney General. I am not used to having a blue bill.
Mr J.A. McGinty: It’s handy, isn’t it?
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I have to get used to using the blue bill. I keep looking at the act and the bill.
However, I appreciate now that in fact the member for Hillarys’ amendment covers proposed new section 8 in
the bill. I was looking at section 8 in the act. I am pleased that the amendment will cover a person who may get
HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C from kissing, as well as, under proposed section 8(1), a person who may contract
a disease because the sex worker user and abuser has not used a prophylactic. I listened to what the member for
6476                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Nedlands just said. Section 294 of the Criminal Code, “Acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm or prevent
arrest”, states -
         Any person who, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some grievous bodily
         harm to any person, or to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person . . .
It goes on to deal with a person who unlawfully wounds or does any grievous bodily harm to another, which I
think is the provision that fits with this legislation. Subsection (1) states -
         Unlawfully wounds or does any grievous bodily harm to any person by any means whatever;
I think that that is what this is, Attorney General. If a sex worker user and abuser engages in activities with a
prostituted woman and, as a result, the woman contracts HIV or another disease, I believe that sex worker user
and abuser has done grievous bodily harm, and I believe that the community would see it as grievous bodily
harm, because prostituted women are victims. I believe we need to keep that in our minds at all times. Because
of that, I agree with the member for Nedlands that we should not have a minor penalty in whatever this
legislation is called eventually. I know that it will no longer be called the prostitution reform act. I cannot
remember now what this legislation will be called. I know that it will not be called the sex worker user and
abuser act. However, whatever it will be called, I do not think this legislation should contain a minor penalty -
                                                  Point of Order
Mr J.A. McGINTY: My point of order is about relevance. The question before the Chair is a very simple
amendment that relates to dollars.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I think the Attorney General has a point. I did allow a bit of latitude, but I ask
the member to come back to the motion before the house.
                                                 Debate Resumed
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I believed I was addressing the motion when I referred to a person minimising the risk
of acquiring or transmitting a prescribed infection or virus. If a person does transmit a prescribed infection or
virus, that person is causing another person grievous bodily harm. Therefore, I believe that the penalty under
this legislation should be the same as the penalty under the Criminal Code, which states -
         Any person who unlawfully does grievous bodily harm to another is guilty of a crime, and is liable to
         imprisonment for 10 years.
                                                 Question to be Put
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I move -
         That the question be now put.
Question put and passed.
                                                 Debate Resumed
Amendment (insertion of figure) put and passed.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I want to move an amendment to the amendment we just dealt with. I am not quite sure
how I should do this, because there have been so many amendments. I move -
         To insert after “$10 000” the words -
                  and is liable to imprisonment for 20 years under s. 294 of the Criminal Code
As I said, I feel very strongly that the point at which the grievous bodily harm will be done to the person in terms
of a serious and possibly deadly disease or infection is the point at which the sex worker user penetrates the sex
worker or passes infected bodily fluids to the sex worker. I would like to see that reflected in the legislation. I
think it is very poor of the Attorney General to not recognise that.
I am trying to find my copy of the working paper. This very poor, and light, report by the working group
indicates which agencies are responsible for what. Under the heading “Role of Agencies”, the report states -
         Under the model recommended by the Working Group, it is proposed that the following bodies would
         have the following roles:
         ...
         WA Police
                  •    Active participation in certification with right to be consulted and provide information
                       relevant to applicants for certificates.
That simply involves consultation with local government -
                  •   Right to access register of certificated operators and approved managers.
                                    [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                 6477

I understand that; I have had a look at that -
                  •    Power to enter premises to verify that certificates on display and being conducted by
                       certificated operator and approved manager.
                  •    Investigation and enforcement of breaches of the criminal law.
This is not criminal law, but my amendment will ensure that police can investigate and police breaches of the
criminal law, because this is in the Criminal Code. I am happy with that amendment and am happy to support it.
                                                 Question to be put
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move -
         That the question be now put.
Question put and passed.
                                                  Debate resumed
Amendment put and negatived.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I seek leave to move two amendments to proposed section 8A, which states -
         A person must not take part in a commercial sexual act involving vaginal, anal or oral penetration,
         including cunnilingus, if he or she has a prescribed infection or virus.
My amendments relate to page 8, line 31 and page 9, line 2. The person referred to in this proposed section has a
prescribed infection or virus. “Prescribed” normally means that a doctor has diagnosed the infection or virus and
the person in question is taking some sort of medication. That is the assumption I make about this clause.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Attorney General might have a different view, but that is the view I take. If someone
has a prescribed infection, a simple $6 000 fine is not enough. Similarly, imprisonment for one year is not an
adequate penalty for a second offence, for the reasons I have already put forward.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Can we agree on the increased figure, or not?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The increased figure of what?
Dr J.M. Woollard: I think the Attorney General would accept $10 000 for proposed section 8A. Is that right,
Attorney General?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: What would the Attorney General be prepared to accept?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I’d be prepared to accept $20 000.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes, $20 000; or could we have three years’ imprisonment, or both?
Mr J.A. McGinty: No.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The courts could then decide whether it is 10 grand or three years.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No. I’m prepared to go to that and I am prepared to go to three years in paragraph (b). If
you’re prepared to move that, I’ll support it. I cannot go any higher than that. That is a big increase on what’s
currently there.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Attorney General should be a car salesman!
Mr J.A. McGinty: Did I succeed in selling it to you, though?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Attorney General is prepared to go for three years?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I want to try to achieve something here.
Mr J.A. McGinty: You have, if you put that up.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have, and I have signed it. I move -
         Page 8, line 31 - To delete “$6 000” and substitute -
                  $20 000
         Page 9, line 2 - To delete “one year” and substitute -
                  3 years
This goes a little way towards what I believe to be just punishment.
6478                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr J.A. McGinty: I know it doesn’t bring back capital punishment, which would be your utopia!
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I cannot even flog them, can I?
Mr J.A. McGinty: That may not be an appropriate penalty for this sort of offence!
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is aggravated assault and a potential death sentence for other people.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I will only support it if you sit down!
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Hang on a minute - the Attorney General has just committed an offence, I think! I am
happy to sit down, but the Deputy Speaker said the amendments have to be circulated.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think they have been.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will not speak to the amendments; I am happy to go to the vote.
Amendments put and passed.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The Attorney General responded to some but not all of the questions about
advertisements. As the government seems to be under the impression that this bill will not result in an increase
in brothels and prostitutes in Western Australia, and because we know that the police have a database of
information on the number of prostitutes and brothels in Western Australia, I would like the Attorney General to
put those figures on record, so that in two years, when the bill is reviewed by the health department under
proposed section 60, people will actually see whether there has been an increase in the numbers of prostitutes
and brothels. Proposed section 10A states -
         Restrictions on advertising commercial sexual acts
                  (1)       A person must not advertise a commercial sexual act or authorise the advertising of a
                            commercial sexual act other than through -
                  (a)       a newspaper or periodical -
                            ...
                            (ii)     in a prescribed manner . . .
I ask about the phrase “in a prescribed manner” because we have signed a protocol that has come into force
entitled “Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children,
Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime”. That protocol came
into force in Australia on 14 October 2005. Article 3 of that protocol, which deals with trafficking, states that
“exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation”. That is very relevant to this issue of advertising. The Attorney General may not have with him
information about the number of prostitutes, and brothels, in Western Australia. However, fortunately the
Minister for Police is in the house. I am sure he could pass those numbers to the Attorney General, because the
police do have a database on the number of prostitutes, and brothels, in Western Australia. Those numbers
should be put on record in this house. I ask the Attorney General to explain to me also what is meant by the
words “in a prescribed manner” in clause 13, section 10A inserted. I also ask the Attorney General, if this clause
does not address the issue of trafficking, which parts of this bill do address the issue of trafficking? I am happy
to leave that until later, if I have asked these questions at the wrong time, but I want to know where this bill deals
with that issue.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I have answered that question in my response to the member for Nedlands.
Dr J.M. Woollard: Did I miss that?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I have explained what “in a prescribed form” means.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I thank the Attorney General for interjecting to explain that. Will the Attorney General
put on record the number of prostitutes, and brothels, in Western Australia?
Mr J.A. McGinty: What we know of is contained in the report of the prostitution working group, which has
been tabled. I know nothing in addition to that.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The police have those figures. I believe there are 38 brothels, but I do not have, from
the police records, the number of prostitutes. I will have another look at that report, and as the Attorney General
does not have those figures with him now, I will put that in as a question to the Minister for Police.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Proposed section 10A deals with restrictions on advertising commercial sexual acts. I
seek some clarification. If this bill is passed, then obviously the businesses that are established under this act
will be lawful businesses. Therefore, any signage to advertise those businesses will be lawful, subject to
approval by the local government under the local government signage policy.
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                       6479

Proposed subsection (3) states -
         “advertise” means advertise by any words, or any pictorial or other representation, used to notify the
                 availability of, or promote the provision of, a commercial sexual act, either generally or
                 specifically.
Therefore, if a business goes to the local government to get its business name ticked off and that business name
is “Joe Blow’s Brothel House” -
Mr J.A. McGinty: That would most probably be an inappropriate name to call it!
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I know, but I just thought I would throw that in! If the business name is “ABC Brothel
House”, that business is advertising the fact that particular activities are available at those premises. How will
proposed new section 10A prevent that?
Mr J.A. McGinty: To give a quick example, if the business name is Langtrees - which we all know of - it is not
advertising a commercial sexual act. It is okay to use a name. The brothel that is near my house in South
Fremantle is called Aida Rose. That name is not advertising a commercial sexual act. However, if a business
wanted to incorporate in its name the words “cheap quickies”, or something like that, that might be something -
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Under the current legislation, there are no regulations to prevent that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: But there may well be under the new town planning guidelines that will cover these sorts of
issues.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: So this will come under the regulations, will it?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Well -
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Can the Attorney General guarantee that this will be dealt with under the regulations?
I am also talking about the one and two-person operations.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I can answer that generically. If the name of the place describes what goes on in the place, I
think it will be caught by this provision. By virtue of this provision, a business will be prohibited from using a
business name that advertises a commercial sexual act.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: So, the Attorney General will guarantee that if a business name included the word
“brothel” or any other word associated with that -
Mr J.A. McGinty: I do not know that the word “brothel” would be prohibited, but certainly if the name
included some description of a commercial sexual act, it would be prohibited.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: If the word “brothel” was part of the business name that was displayed at the front of
the premises, and that had been approved under the local government signage policy, that would still denote the
fact that that business was conducting all the activities that are associated with a brothel. It is not illegal to use
the word “brothel”, to my knowledge.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Therefore, I am wondering how we will be able to restrict that under proposed
section 10A(1), (2) and (3).
Mr J.A. McGinty: All that we are seeking to limit is the ability to advertise a commercial sexual act. We are
confining that form of advertising to the classified ad pages in the newspaper. There is also some potential
restriction on the use of the Internet. These businesses will be prohibited from advertising in any other way,
such as on a billboard, or by putting flyers in people’s letterboxes, and things of that nature.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I just wanted to confirm that, because I think the Attorney General has mentioned that
in the actual name on the business premises -
Mr J.A. McGinty: The test there is quite straightforward.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I think the Attorney General has said that the word “brothel” is not a word that would
be prohibited.
Mr J.A. McGinty: No, I do not think it would be prohibited, because it does not describe a commercial sexual
act. It describes the nature of the business.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: But everyone understands what a brothel is, surely.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think everyone understands what Langtrees is, too, but that would not offend this
provision.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Okay.
6480                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move -
         Page 10, line 7 - To insert after “representation”, the following -
                  (including display of objects or persons so they are visible from a public place)
I understand the concerns of my colleagues the members for Bunbury and Alfred Cove. I have moved this
amendment in an effort to try to progress this debate, because I believe it is a step forward. The reason I have
moved this amendment is that it concerns me that even though a business may not have a big advertising sign on
it, it may still have the name “Langtrees”, or some other name. I would prefer that a street number was the only
visible sign on a business that was operating as a brothel. This amendment would preclude any of the streets in
our towns becoming like the red light district of Amsterdam. In the red light district of Amsterdam, there is no
advertising. There may be just a rather scantily dressed woman, sitting in a beautiful chair in the window. She
is not committing a sexual act. She is just sitting there, looking perhaps very sexy, and wearing a minimal
amount of clothing. Has the Attorney General ever been to Amsterdam?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Has the Attorney General ever been to the red light district?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes, my word.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: So have I. So, the Attorney General would know exactly what I am talking about. I have
seen what these women look like. These women do not actually advertise, at least not in the strict sense, but
they show their wares, if I can put it that way, by sitting in a chair in the window. They are all beautifully
dressed - or beautifully underdressed, should I say. Most people know what is going on. Most people know
what they are going to get when they go through that door. I do not want that to happen in Western Australia. I
think it would be dreadful for our towns and cities in Western Australia. I think that my amendment would
preclude the situation in which a scantily clad woman could just sit there. She could be on the telephone,
smoking a cigarette or batting her eyelids. She would not be advertising any sexual activity in the strict or legal
sense of the word. She would just be there. I am concerned that the people involved in this seedy business will
do everything they can to encourage people to come into their brothel. They could change the women every
half-hour or whatever and that would not be considered to be advertising. I do not know whether the Attorney
General accepts that. It would not be classed as advertising under this legislation. I do not want there to be any
sexual objects. There could be a massive vibrator or penis or some type of polystyrene object indicating to the
people outside exactly what goes on inside, but it would not be classed as advertising. Under the definitions in
this bill, that would not be classed as advertising. I honestly believed that the Attorney General would agree to
my amendment.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I do not think it adds anything to the definition of “advertise” in the bill, frankly.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I think it does. I think it definitely does. I have lost my amendment now.
Mr J.A. McGinty: The reference to “pictorial or other representation” seems to cover the point that you are
raising.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I think I have given away my only copy of the amendment. The reference to “pictorial”
does not cover persons.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think “other representation” does.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I would just like the Attorney General to include it so that it is quite positive and definite.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I was going to point out to the member for Hillarys that I will be satisfied if the
Attorney General puts on the record that the reference to “pictorial or other representation” will prevent the
display of objects or persons so that they are visible from a public place. The Attorney General said that that
included a display of objects or persons, but he did not give the member for Hillarys the full wording. If he put
on the record the full expression that is covered by this provision, the member might feel comfortable. If he does
not feel comfortable, I will support his amendment.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The reason I am saying this is that the bill just refers to advertising. What is in the
Attorney General’s mind relates to pictorial advertising. He is allowing advertisements in the newspapers and in
other forms, but he is not covering the actual premises.
Mr J.A. McGinty: You cannot advertise on the premises.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Exactly. The Attorney General is not talking about displays. Displays may not be
advertising. There is a legal argument about whether a person sitting on a chair in a window is advertising.
Some people might say that that is not advertising; they might say that the person was having a tea-break, which
would be taking it to the extreme. We would have a job charging someone with advertising if that person were
                                     [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                         6481

just sitting in a window. My amendment enhances what I believe the Attorney General is trying to achieve in
this provision. It will ensure that we do not get the red-light district of Amsterdam in WA.
Mr J.A. McGinty: You’ve already got it in Kalgoorlie, my friend.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is the problem.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Okay; amend it to make it in Kalgoorlie only, because if your amendment has the effect of
meaning that sex workers cannot stand in a doorway, that will have an effect there.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not care if it does.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I’m not going to support it anyway.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Attorney General is not going to support it. I think that is rather foolish of him. I
will not waste any more time.
Amendment put and a division taken with the following result -
                                                        Ayes (17)

Mr C.J. Barnett               Dr K.D. Hames                 Mr P.D. Omodei                Dr J.M. Woollard
Mr T.R. Buswell               Ms K. Hodson-Thomas           Mr G. Snook                   Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller)
Mr G.M. Castrilli             Dr G.G. Jacobs                Dr S.C. Thomas
Mr M.J. Cowper                Mr R.F. Johnson               Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr J.H.D. Day                 Mr J.E. McGrath               Ms S.E. Walker


                                                        Noes (26)

Mr P.W. Andrews               Mr F.M. Logan                 Mr M.P. Murray                Mr T.G. Stephens
Mr A.J. Carpenter             Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan          Mr A.P. O’Gorman              Mr D.A. Templeman
Dr J.M. Edwards               Mr J.A. McGinty               Mr P. Papalia                 Mr P.B. Watson
Mrs D.J. Guise                Mr M. McGowan                 Mr J.R. Quigley               Mr M.P. Whitely
Mr J.N. Hyde                  Ms S.M. McHale                Ms M.M. Quirk                 Mr S.R. Hill (Teller)
Mr J.C. Kobelke               Mr A.D. McRae                 Ms J.A. Radisich
Mr R.C. Kucera                Mrs C.A. Martin               Mrs M.H. Roberts




                                                          Pairs

                              Mr M.W. Trenorden                                Mr E.S. Ripper
                              Mr G.A. Woodhams                                 Mr B.S. Wyatt
                                                     Independent Pair
                                                     Dr E. Constable

Amendment thus negatived.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I move -
          Page 11, after line 12 - To insert -
                    13C.     Sexual service business prohibited in residential areas
                             No sexual service business may be conducted in an area zoned for residential
                             purposes.
This is a very simple amendment. A concern of most people in Western Australia - it is certainly a concern to
members on this side of the house - is that there is a real danger and prospect that brothels, both legalised and not
legalised, will proliferate in the suburbs and towns of Western Australia. Most people would recognise that
prostitution is not new. They recognise that brothels exist. Mention has been made of the Kalgoorlie brothels.
People are aware of brothels, perhaps in the central business district, the Northbridge area, Fremantle and so on.
Although most people do not approve of prostitution or of people using the services of prostitutes - or sex
workers as they are now called - they would nevertheless probably acknowledge that prostitution takes place.
What they are most concerned about is that they do not want brothels or prostitution in their suburbs or towns.
They do not want to be confronted by it, and rightly so, nor do they want their wives, daughters or friends to be
accosted by people who are perhaps prowling around or searching for prostitutes or brothels. While I do not
condone the rest of the legislation, I think that this amendment, simple as it is, would give some statutory
protection to people who live in the suburbs and towns of Western Australia. It is a very simple amendment that
would provide that licences would not be granted for brothels to operate in residential areas. I hope that the
government will agree to this amendment. If the Attorney General wants to consider the wording of the
amendment or its implications a little more carefully, I do not have any difficulty with that. My intent is
6482                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

straightforward and simple; that is, if the government is going to insist on legalising brothels, those brothels
should certainly not be situated in residential areas. People should not walk down their streets and be confronted
by a brothel.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Would this include mixed zoning, which would include residential?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: People should not walk to their local shopping centre and be confronted by a brothel. The
Attorney General may wish to consider the planning laws in more detail. I accept that. My view is that the
people of Kalgoorlie probably accept the existence of brothels in Hay Street - they have been there 100 years.
The people of Perth probably accept the existence of brothels, albeit reluctantly, in the Northbridge
entertainment area. The Attorney General is the member for Fremantle. Maybe he and his constituents accept
the reality of a brothel in the business district of Fremantle.
Mr J.A. McGinty: You may be aware that there is a brothel in South Terrace in Fremantle, which I understand
is a mixed commercial-residential area.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not know the area. I would regard that as an a priori matter. I would regard that as
inappropriate.
Mr J.A. McGinty: It has been there forever.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It may well have been. Maybe it is part of the character of Fremantle. I do not know. If
brothels are to be legalised, which I do not agree with, they should be kept separate from residential areas. They
should not be located in the streets of our suburbs, residential areas, local shopping centres and the like.
Reference has been made in this debate and the second reading speech to the sorts of guidelines that might be
set. Let us make it clear that brothels will not be allowed in residential areas. We should legislate accordingly.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I think there is a fair bit of sympathy for the notion that brothels would be inappropriate in
what would be regarded as residential areas, such as in your electorate, Madam Acting Speaker (Mrs J. Hughes).
That is something that the government intends to cover in the planning commission guidelines, which will lay
down the criteria to be applied to brothels, including the areas in which brothels can be located. I do not know
the zoning of Hay Street in Kalgoorlie. I doubt whether it would exclude residential from its zoning.
Mr J.N. Hyde: There is residential in Hay Street.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The Ada Rose brothel in South Fremantle has been there forever. The zoning of that area
is mixed commercial-residential-industrial. That establishment has worked well for years. In my 17 years as the
member for Fremantle, I have never heard a complaint against it. There could be some unintended impact of the
amendment moved by the member for Cottesloe. I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of what he has suggested.
I think that the opening of an establishment in a purely residential area would be covered by the planning
guidelines, which will dictate a host of restrictions on the location of brothels in the future. I cannot support this
amendment.
Dr J.M. Woollard interjected.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: We start getting into all those sorts of issues. The point has been well made by the
member for Cottesloe. It is not an amendment that the government can accept, because I think we will cover the
thrust of what the member for Cottesloe wants in the guidelines.

                                                    Question to be Put
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move -
          That the question be now put.
Question put and a division taken with the following result -

                                                         Ayes (26)

Mr P.W. Andrews              Mr F.M. Logan                   Mr M.P. Murray             Mr T.G. Stephens
Mr A.J. Carpenter            Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan            Mr A.P. O’Gorman           Mr D.A. Templeman
Dr J.M. Edwards              Mr J.A. McGinty                 Mr P. Papalia              Mr P.B. Watson
Mrs D.J. Guise               Mr M. McGowan                   Mr J.R. Quigley            Mr M.P. Whitely
Mr J.N. Hyde                 Ms S.M. McHale                  Ms M.M. Quirk              Mr S.R. Hill (Teller)
Mr J.C. Kobelke              Mr A.D. McRae                   Ms J.A. Radisich
Mr R.C. Kucera               Mrs C.A. Martin                 Mrs M.H. Roberts
                                  [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                            6483

                                                       Noes (18)

Mr C.J. Barnett             Mr B.J. Grylls                 Mr J.E. McGrath                Ms S.E. Walker
Mr T.R. Buswell             Dr K.D. Hames                  Mr P.D. Omodei                 Dr J.M. Woollard
Mr G.M. Castrilli           Ms K. Hodson-Thomas            Mr G. Snook                    Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller)
Mr M.J. Cowper              Dr G.G. Jacobs                 Dr S.C. Thomas
Mr J.H.D. Day               Mr R.F. Johnson                Mr T.K. Waldron




                                                         Pairs

                            Mr E.S. Ripper                                    Mr M.W. Trenorden
                            Mr B.S. Wyatt                                     Mr G.A. Woodhams
                                                    Independent Pair
                                                    Dr E. Constable

Question thus passed.
                                                   Debate Resumed
Amendment put and a division taken with the following result -
                                                       Ayes (18)

Mr C.J. Barnett             Mr B.J. Grylls                 Mr J.E. McGrath                Ms S.E. Walker
Mr T.R. Buswell             Dr K.D. Hames                  Mr P.D. Omodei                 Dr J.M. Woollard
Mr G.M. Castrilli           Ms K. Hodson-Thomas            Mr G. Snook                    Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller)
Mr M.J. Cowper              Dr G.G. Jacobs                 Dr S.C. Thomas
Mr J.H.D. Day               Mr R.F. Johnson                Mr T.K. Waldron


                                                       Noes (26)

Mr P.W. Andrews             Mr F.M. Logan                  Mr M.P. Murray                 Mr T.G. Stephens
Mr A.J. Carpenter           Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan           Mr A.P. O’Gorman               Mr D.A. Templeman
Dr J.M. Edwards             Mr J.A. McGinty                Mr P. Papalia                  Mr P.B. Watson
Mrs D.J. Guise              Mr M. McGowan                  Mr J.R. Quigley                Mr M.P. Whitely
Mr J.N. Hyde                Ms S.M. McHale                 Ms M.M. Quirk                  Mr S.R. Hill (Teller)
Mr J.C. Kobelke             Mr A.D. McRae                  Ms J.A. Radisich
Mr R.C. Kucera              Mrs C.A. Martin                Mrs M.H. Roberts




                                                         Pairs

                            Mr M.W. Trenorden                                  Mr E.S. Ripper
                            Mr G.A. Woodhams                                   Mr B.S. Wyatt
                                                    Independent Pair
                                                    Dr E. Constable

Amendment thus negatived.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I wanted to ask this question earlier, but the member for Cottesloe jumped in very
quickly. I will ask it now rather than find another place in the debate when I can ask the question. In clause 14,
proposed section 13A deals with the refusal to take part in a commercial sexual act. If someone refuses to take
part in a commercial sexual act, would any consequences count as an assault? I believe that is what the Attorney
General said earlier.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes, or it would be a sexual assault; there would be no consent.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I refer to proposed section 13B(1). I read out earlier what has happened in Germany
with the legalisation of brothels. Women are being forced to work in brothels by unemployment agencies. I
believe from what the Attorney General said earlier that that would not be the case in Western Australia, that
Centrelink could not insist that a person take a job in an area in a brothel and that brothels will not count as a
usual workplace for someone.
Mr J.A. McGinty: That is right; for workers’ compensation and for any other reason.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Therefore, a person who is unemployed would not be forced to work in a brothel to
receive unemployment payments.
6484                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr J.A. McGinty: I think that would be the net effect of it. Of course, we cannot regulate commonwealth law.
Workers’ compensation is a state law. We have expressly said that a person cannot be required to work in a
brothel, and that if someone refuses to consent to an act, that person cannot be required to do that act. It is
another way of covering the same issue. The whole purpose of this clause is to ensure that nobody can be
compelled to work in the sex industry.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Proposed section 13A, “Refusal to take part in commercial sexual act”, basically says
that if somebody says that she has had enough and wants to get out of here, she can do so despite the fact that she
has entered into a contract. Therefore, proposed sections 13A and 13B override any contract law or whatever.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Therefore, this proposed section would take precedence over all that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Absolutely.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: How will this work in practice? If somebody says that she has had enough, and a bikie
gang or organised crime syndicate is running the operation, would that person go up to the owners and say,
“Gee, I’ve had enough, now I want to get out of here”? I can see that happening - “Yeah, right, off you go”!
The screws would come out pretty quick - whack! - and the owners would say to the person, “You’re not going
anywhere”. How practical will this proposed section be? It is fair enough to put it in writing. I understand that
the intent of clause 14 is that if people have had enough and want to get out, they should be able to just walk
away, irrespective of whether they have a contract. However, in practical terms, how the hell will any woman,
or any guy for that matter, who works for an operation run by organised crime and bikie gangs practically and
physically stand up and say to those people, “Oh, I’m going to quit now”? I can tell the Attorney General that if
people did that, they would not last long. What in this legislation actually protects those people? I know the
Attorney General will say that the law will protect them and all that, but, in practical terms, they would not be
protected. I reckon that they would be that scared and frightened for their lives - there is also drug dependency
and all that - that they would find it very difficult, in practical terms, to get away from the situation. Therefore,
how the hell will we protect women and men, but mostly women, in that situation so that they can just walk
away without being intimidated?
Mr J.A. McGinty: While the member for Bunbury is on his feet, I will say that what we seek to do with these
two proposed sections is enshrine the fundamental right of a sex worker to say no and to refuse to participate in
sex acts, and have no ramifications in terms of workers’ compensation or other matters within state law. The
question the member for Bunbury asks is: how can we ensure that there is, in reality, a true exercise of choice
when there might be other pressures in play? We can do no more than to lay down in the law that a sex worker
has this right. If there are forces at play that break the law, it is really up to the sex worker whether it is
enforced; that is, whether she wants to lay a complaint if the evidence is there. It is no different in that sense
from any other law. It will hopefully give these people more power than they currently have because, while
brothels are unlawful, it is hard to report these sorts of activities.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I understand where the Attorney General is coming from technically; I understand that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: But I understand your point that it may not work in an imperfect world.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: We both know that that will not happen. I put it to the Attorney General that, in
practical terms, if a bikie gang or organised crime syndicate runs the organisation, despite all the good intentions,
there would be very few cases in which somebody would be able to just walk away. I cannot “tell” the Attorney
General that, but I assume very strongly that they will not be able to do that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: All we can do is to provide the legal framework to allow that to happen.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I realise that, but it will not happen. That is what I put to the Attorney General; that is
my take on it.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs J. Hughes): The question is that clause 10, as amended, and clauses 11 to 19
be agreed to.
Clauses put and a division taken with the following result -
                                  [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                          6485

                                                      Ayes (26)

Mr P.W. Andrews             Mr F.M. Logan                 Mr M.P. Murray                Mr T.G. Stephens
Mr A.J. Carpenter           Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan          Mr A.P. O’Gorman              Mr D.A. Templeman
Dr J.M. Edwards             Mr J.A. McGinty               Mr P. Papalia                 Mr P.B. Watson
Mrs D.J. Guise              Mr M. McGowan                 Mr J.R. Quigley               Mr M.P. Whitely
Mr J.N. Hyde                Ms S.M. McHale                Ms M.M. Quirk                 Mr S.R. Hill (Teller)
Mr J.C. Kobelke             Mr A.D. McRae                 Ms J.A. Radisich
Mr R.C. Kucera              Mrs C.A. Martin               Mrs M.H. Roberts


                                                      Noes (16)

Mr C.J. Barnett             Mr J.H.D. Day                 Mr R.F. Johnson               Dr S.C. Thomas
Mr T.R. Buswell             Dr K.D. Hames                 Mr J.E. McGrath               Ms S.E. Walker
Mr G.M. Castrilli           Ms K. Hodson-Thomas           Mr P.D. Omodei                Dr J.M. Woollard
Mr M.J. Cowper              Dr G.G. Jacobs                Mr G. Snook                   Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller)




                                                        Pairs

                            Mr E.S. Ripper                                   Mr M.W. Trenorden
                            Mr B.S. Wyatt                                    Mr G.A. Woodhams
                                                   Independent Pair
                                                   Dr E. Constable

Clauses thus passed.
Clause 20: Section 21A and Part 3A inserted -
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Attorney General has an amendment on the notice paper to clause 20.
Mr J.A. McGinty: It is at page 17.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: If the Attorney General moves his amendment, we would not be able to deal with any
part of the clause before page 17, line 15.
Mr J.A. McGinty: That is right. If you have issues before that, they should be raised now.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I would like clarification on some areas. Proposed section 21A, “Obligations of those
who operate sexual service business in relation to children”, will be inserted before part 4 of the act. Obviously
the opposition will not oppose any clause that in any way protects children. We would support it.
We have concerns about the single and double operator operations that the government seems keen to go with.
Who will police those types of operations? I can understand larger brothels, to which the police will have the
right of entry, but only if there is suspicion of a certain criminal act taking place. Will council officers be
expected to go in and see whether children are on those premises?
Mr J.A. McGinty: The police are the only enforcing authority.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: They can go in there only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being
committed on the premises.
Mr J.A. McGinty: They can go in there to inspect in respect of the certificate issues and if they receive a
complaint.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is the point I am making: Somebody has to complain to them that a child - by
“child” I mean anyone under the age of 18 - is on those premises. It is highly unlikely that somebody will
complain. Some of the deviants who go into brothels would prefer a young girl under the age of 18 working
there. They prefer the younger girls and that is why we have so much paedophilia occurring now.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I recollect charges being laid against people for allowing young people to be on the premises
of brothels. It might have been outside this state, but it has occurred.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: In the past 20 years I have not seen anything about a person being charged with that
offence.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I will look it up and come back to you on that.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I would be very interested to know.
My concern is about those people who can hold a certificate and the application for the certificate. I am
concerned that the people who will go into this business or will expand their already existing illegal business are
the crime gangs - the bikies and the ponytail brigade who strut around Northbridge, Perth and other places - will
6486                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

have a bigger foothold in this sort of business. It worries me that it is proposed in this bill that the Department of
Racing, Gaming and Liquor have the absolute authority to issue an operator’s licence, which is operating a
brothel, and a manager’s licence, which is managing on behalf of that operator. There is no delineation between
ministers, the government and the authority that will deal with that sort of thing. In the past the police have had
all the authority in relation to brothels. If they were carrying out their duty they would go in and close the
brothels down. I am told one was closed in Bunbury in the not too distant past.
It worries me that public servants are responsible to a minister. The minister might decide that he or she wants
to help out a friend by trying to get permission for that person to open a brothel. It is not so farfetched
considering what we have seen with some of the Attorney General’s colleagues in the past 12 to 24 months. It is
possible that a minister could use undue influence over, and put pressure on, a public servant to grant approval.
That is the reason I have a problem with this part of the clause.
The police have a clear delineation of duties and responsibilities. Ministers of the Crown cannot interfere in
operational matters of the police, but they can interfere in operational matters in any other government
department. This is where I have a problem.
Dr S.C. THOMAS: I was enjoying the member for Hillarys’ address and I would like to hear him continue.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I want to finish making my point on this because it is very important. There is no
separation of powers between a minister and a government department. However, there is between a minister
and the police force. That is my concern. We have public servants who very often owe their jobs and their
promotions to the minister of the day and who gain support or non-support to progress through the public
service. It worries me silly that corruption will appear. In the past we have heard that the reason people have
wanted to take this responsibility away from the police and give it to some other government department is
because people are afraid of the opportunity for corruption within the police. Of course there is. However, I
suggest that today there is far more scrutiny of the police than there is of many public servants. We have seen
that through the Corruption and Crime Commission very recently. It does worry me that we could get this. If
we look back to the 1980s and early 1990s, we know that some crooked businessmen got special favours from a
previous Labor government - they got bailed out. Rothwells and Laurie Connell is a classic case. There are
others. They got special treatment, which was corrupt. There is no question about that. Those people were big
donors to the Labor Party.
The organised crime gangs have stacks of money. The Attorney General is giving them an avenue to launder
their dirty money - their drug money - through legalised brothels. They will want to open as many brothels as
possible.
Ms M.M. Quirk: The same thing can happen with a standard video shop.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: A standard what?
Ms M.M. Quirk: A standard video or DVD shop. There is no difference.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I think they get a bigger return on human flesh, particularly women’s flesh, than they do
on a DVD or video. There is a much bigger turnover.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Any cash business.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I know it is true for any cash business but we are talking about huge cash businesses. The
minister must have a rough idea of how much money is made in the prostitution industry because she has seen
the reports that have come out. It is millions and millions of dollars. A little video store will not be making that
sort of money. In fact, most video stores are going out of business these days. We are talking about brothels and
I am talking about the possibility of organised crime being more involved in this area, which it will be. We will
see it all come out over the next few years. The Attorney General is giving the opportunity for organised crime
to influence ministers. How many members of the Labor Party or ministers have connections with known
organised criminals?
Mr A.P. O’Gorman: How many members of the Liberal Party have connections?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: None. We have not got any on our side.
Several members interjected.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Tell me one. We do not have cups of coffee down in Northbridge with known criminals.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Who did Anthony Fels buy his business off?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Buy his business off?
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs J. Hughes): Members! Can we attend to the clause please?
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                    6487

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: What I am trying to say is that there is a lot of danger in this clause. There is a lot of
danger in allowing the chief executive officer, who is responsible to the minister - there is no separation of
powers - or the person who is delegated the job of approving certificates, managers or operators to come under
pressure either by way of bribes or by way of intimidation, whereas criminals would have a job intimidating the
police. They might be able to bribe one or two but they would have a job intimidating them. I take this further
because the clause also encompasses local government. If the Attorney General is worried about corruption in
the police in relation to the sex industry, if we stop and think about the corruption we have seen in local
government over many years, which is still going on, what does the Attorney General think is going to happen?
It is much easier to bribe a councillor or a planning officer in a council than it is to bribe a police officer.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I was looking in the blue bill to find whether it stated the qualifications for the person
who operates a sexual service business. The reason I ask is that there is a big concern that people involved in the
drug industry will be involved.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I refer the member to proposed section 21G on page 17 of the white bill. I think that covers
the point the member is referring to.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I will sit down and study that.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I refer to proposed section 21A(4) and 21A(4)(a). I am not entirely happy with the
documentation. As such, I will move an amendment to clause 20. I move -
         Page 13, line 20 - To insert after “passport” the following -
                  including where relevant a current valid visa
Proposed section 21A(4) states -
         A person who operates a sexual service business must not employ or engage a person . . . or otherwise
         that the person has reached 18 years of age . . .
A person with a current passport could have a foreign passport. I want to include the provision of having a valid
visa so that the person is validly in Australia. Although the amendment may not have the total effect of stopping
the trafficking in women, it could assist in stopping the trafficking of women if a foreign passport has a valid
visa.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I do not know whether the member is making the amendment in the right section.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Maybe I am not.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I understand the point you are raising and I think it is quite a valid one. This relates
basically to proof of age to make sure that nobody under the age of 18 is employed. That can be seen from the
heading of proposed section 21A, “Obligations of those who operate sexual service business in relation to
children”. I think the member wants to make sure that if there are foreign workers the appropriate visa status is
observed. That is, everyone is aware of the issue.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Yes. First of all I agree that people must be 18 years of age or older. That is why I
have looked at inserting the amendment into the proposed section. A person with a foreign passport must be
assessed as being 18 years or older and have a current valid visa. Can the Attorney General point me to the
correct provision where my amendment could be valid?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I am not sure where it goes. I will look to see whether I can find a place.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I do not want to go past this point before the Attorney General finds it. The Attorney
General can understand where I am coming from.
Mrs D.J. Guise: Member for Bunbury, why would you be encouraging women to come here and work on a visa
anyway?
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I am not. I am trying to prevent it because someone could come here with a foreign
passport and not have a valid visa. I know that does not stop people from doing it because a person can come in
on a tourist visa and still end up working as a sex worker. I am trying to reduce the incidence of people being
illegally in Australia. If a woman has a valid visa, she is here for a particular reason - a valid reason. That is
where I am coming from.
Mrs D.J. Guise interjected.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: If someone is going to come here and work as a sex worker, there will not be a valid
visa, will there? If the government gave such a person a valid visa, it should be shot. That is what I am talking
about.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Which part of the Constitution gives us jurisdiction over immigration?
6488                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: The federal government has jurisdiction over immigration.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes, that’s right.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: It is the one that issues visas. However, when we are assessing valid documentation,
we are assessing a valid visa that is issued by the federal government, and that is part of the documentation that
is used to identify that the person is in Australia validly.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think there is some capacity for the member for Bunbury to insert that amendment in the
later provisions relating to duties of managers.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Whereabouts, Attorney General?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Round about proposed section 21O. It is not a perfect fit, but it is round about that -
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: If the Attorney General is happy to entertain that before he moves his amendment -
Mr J.A. McGinty: It will come after my amendment. I was intending to get up to my amendment, which is on
page 17.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Yes. I will seek leave to withdraw my amendment, bearing in mind that the Attorney
General has given me the option to look at inserting the amendment in a later clause.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I think it would be more appropriate to place it in a later clause. I am not saying that we will
necessarily agree with it, although I am sympathetic to it.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: That is fair enough, as long as I have the option to move it at a later time.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Today we will not get beyond the point at which you can move it.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I think it is good that the Attorney General has something in this clause about trying to
stop children being employed in the industry. I am concerned about the trafficking issue. Therefore, I wonder
whether it should or should not be a current Australian passport, because not everyone who is in this country has
taken up Australian citizenship. I have not had time to examine this. I have been thinking that this is the type of
provision that I would like to see somewhere else in the legislation to prevent people from being trafficked.
Mr J.A. McGinty: That is the point that the member for Bunbury just raised. You are both saying the same
thing. This is not the appropriate clause at which to move it, because this provision relates to children and proof
of age. What you are really arguing about here is not people under the age of 18 years; you are arguing about
making sure that people who are here on a visa are properly identified in terms of their visa class, which goes to
the issue that you are now raising. That is something that I think we can look at.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Under which clause, Attorney General?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Under duties of managers and things like that. It could appear in that part of the bill. That
is a possibility. However, it is not a perfect fit. For the member’s benefit, can I say that I was hoping tonight to
get up to my amendment, which is on page 17, and then adjourn the debate. There is capacity to move the sort
of amendment that you and the member for Bunbury are talking about after page 17.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Therefore, the Attorney General will accept an amendment along those lines after that.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I am happy to have you move an amendment along those lines after that.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I know that the Attorney General does not see trafficking as an issue. I do. Therefore,
I would like something to be moved to -
Mr J.A. McGinty: You might even like to liaise with the member for Bunbury and talk about how it can best
be put together.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I think we are dealing with clause 20.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs J. Hughes): Correct.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I move -
         Page 13, line 2 - To delete “5” and substitute -
                  up to 20
Members might think that that is a big jump. Members might think, as the Attorney General said, that this is just
about children in the workplace. No. This is about brothel owners allowing children to participate in acts of
prostitution in a brothel. That is exactly what this is about. It is totally outrageous that the penalty is
                                   [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                            6489

imprisonment for five years. In regard to the protection of children against sexual offences, we in the Parliament
have already set down in the Criminal Code that the sexual penetration of a child is one of the worst offences of
the criminal calendar; yet all we have in this provision is five years. Member for Hillarys, this is quite serious,
and I would like the Attorney’s attention, because I think the Attorney might agree to this. I have suggested in
my amendment that it be up to 20 years. I appreciate that under the Criminal Code a variety of sexual offences
may occur and that not all of them carry a sentence of imprisonment for 20 years. However, in this case, a
person has been given a licence. That person has a child on the premises and has the care, control and
supervision of that child. Under this legislation, I do not even know that the matter would get to court, and I
have concerns about that. The fact is that the containment policy under sections 190 and 194 of the Criminal
Code was abandoned. For years, the penalty under the code for running a brothel has been three years’
imprisonment. A child may participate in acts of prostitution with physically mature men in a brothel, and under
this provision the penalty is imprisonment for five years. It is just not on. Proposed section 21A(1) states -
          A person who operates a sexual service business must ensure that a child is not employed or engaged as
          a sex worker . . .
The child could be a 14-year-old. Legally, how old does a person have to be to work in a brothel, Attorney
General? Is it 16?
Mr J.A. McGinty: Eighteen.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Why is it not 16? Where does it say 16? In the act?
Mr J.A. McGinty: The general definition of a child is anyone under the age of 18.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Does this bill define a child? How old does a person have to be to work in a brothel? A
person can have sex at 16 years of age.
Mr J.A. McGinty: On page 2 of the blue bill, it states -
          “child” means a person whose age is less than 18 years;
Ms S.E. WALKER: All right. A young woman might look 18. There was a case in Western Australia not long
ago in which there was a child in a brothel and the brothel madam got off. I think people will turn a blind eye to
it. There will be so many of them that people will turn a blind eye to it. I just do not think that five years is good
enough. We keep catering to the brothel owners. Why are we doing this? I want that upped to 20 years. I want
the court, if a matter is brought before it, to have the ability to impose a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
That is why I have moved my amendment.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Members on this side of the house will support the amendment moved by the member for
Nedlands, and we are quite happy for it to go to the vote.
Amendment put and a division taken with the following result -
                                                       Ayes (17)

Mr C.J. Barnett              Dr K.D. Hames                 Mr P.D. Omodei                  Dr J.M. Woollard
Mr T.R. Buswell              Ms K. Hodson-Thomas           Mr G. Snook                     Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller)
Mr G.M. Castrilli            Dr G.G. Jacobs                Dr S.C. Thomas
Mr M.J. Cowper               Mr R.F. Johnson               Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr J.H.D. Day                Mr J.E. McGrath               Ms S.E. Walker


                                                       Noes (26)

Mr P.W. Andrews              Mr F.M. Logan                 Mr M.P. Murray                  Mr T.G. Stephens
Mr A.J. Carpenter            Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan          Mr A.P. O’Gorman                Mr D.A. Templeman
Dr J.M. Edwards              Mr J.A. McGinty               Mr P. Papalia                   Mr P.B. Watson
Mrs J. Hughes                Mr M. McGowan                 Mr J.R. Quigley                 Mr M.P. Whitely
Mr J.N. Hyde                 Ms S.M. McHale                Ms M.M. Quirk                   Mr S.R. Hill (Teller)
Mr J.C. Kobelke              Mr A.D. McRae                 Ms J.A. Radisich
Mr R.C. Kucera               Mrs C.A. Martin               Mrs M.H. Roberts




                                                         Pairs

                             Mr M.W. Trenorden                                Mr E.S. Ripper
                             Mr G.A. Woodhams                                 Mr B.S. Wyatt
                                                    Independent Pair
                                                    Dr E. Constable

Amendment thus negatived.
6490                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

Mr J.A. McGINTY: I move -
         Page 17, lines 15 and 16 - To delete “offence alleged to have been committed in this State” and
         substitute -
                 alleged offence under the law of this State, the Commonwealth, another State or a Territory
This amendment deals with a matter raised by Madam Deputy Speaker. It will ensure that any charges faced by
a person not only in Western Australia, but also in other jurisdictions, will be taken into account and will act as a
prohibition when determining the appropriateness of a person holding a licence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. This is a very fine amendment!
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Is there something in this bill that deals with a situation in which people put a business
in another person’s name? Proposed new section 21G restricts who can have a certificate. Does this bill allow a
penalty to be imposed if we discover that someone has taken a business out in another person’s name? Can both
parties be charged? What happens when someone’s name is put forward for a certificate because they are 18,
have no record and no schedule 2 restrictions apply, and at a later date we find that the person is there in name
only and the person who is actually operating the brothel is someone who has a record or restriction? How is
that situation covered by this bill?
Ms S.E. WALKER: I understand that the Attorney General has moved an amendment to page 17 of the bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correct.
Ms S.E. WALKER: We have not dealt with clause 21 yet, and I would like to move an amendment.
Mr J.A. McGinty: This is clause 20.
Ms S.E. WALKER: We are still considering clause 20. I want to go back to page 15 of the bill and move an
amendment. The rules state that if the Attorney General moves his amendment, we cannot go back to move an
amendment to an earlier provision.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been moved. We have to deal with the amendment before the house. We do
not have the capacity to go back.
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General could withdraw the amendment. Otherwise he is not playing fair.
The Attorney General has skipped a few pages. We have done an amendment on page 12 of the bill and now he
has moved forward five pages to page 17. I expect things like that from the Attorney General, but -
Mr R.F. Johnson: I have got to take some blame for that. I was not aware of any amendment you had on the
paper. We agreed -
Ms S.E. WALKER: I wish the member for Hillarys had let this side know, but I would like the amendment to
be withdrawn. The Attorney General cannot just go skipping five pages. Is the Attorney General going to
withdraw the amendment?
Mr J.A. McGinty: I am trying to find the answer to the question asked by the member for Alfred Cove.
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General skipped the application, the requirement for a certificate -
Mr P.D. Omodei: Which is vital to the bill.
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General has skipped five pages.
Mr J.A. McGinty: I will find the answer to that question -
Ms S.E. WALKER: The Attorney General has agreed to do that with the member for Hillarys, but has not told
other members on this side of the house.
Dr J.M. Woollard: Can we find the answer? Can the chamber come back and talk about that?
Ms S.E. WALKER: I do not want to prolong the debate; I would like to go home, but there are some things that
are important in this bill.
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I thank the Attorney General, who has just put on record that he will look into the
question I asked. If that is not currently addressed in the bill, the chamber can come back and look at that.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I asked the Attorney General whether he will allow this side of the chamber to debate five
pages of the bill that we have just skipped over.
Mr R.F. Johnson: We can move that it can be recommitted -
Mr J.A. McGinty: Then the member can debate them.
Ms S.E. WALKER: Can I move an amendment?
                                 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                               6491

Mr J.A. McGinty: No.
Ms S.E. WALKER: No? I hope the member for Hillarys will let us on this side know if he is going to make
these agreements, because the rules are -
Mr J.A. McGinty: I have moved my amendment because nobody else got the call.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I know the Attorney General has - because he gagged it!
Several members interjected.
Ms S.E. WALKER: I was not asleep at all; I got up.
                                            Question to be Put
Mr A.D. McRAE: I move -
        That the question be now put.
Question put and passed.
                                             Debate Resumed
Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I would like to know exactly where we are with this clause.
Mr J.A. McGinty: We are dealing with my amendment on page 13 of the notice paper.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now before the house is that the words to be inserted be inserted.
Amendment put and passed.
                                          Adjournment of Debate
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move -
        That the debate be adjourned.
Mr J.A. McGinty: Are you trying to take control of the house out of my hands?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No, because I do not want the question to be put that clause 20 as amended be agreed to;
otherwise, the whole clause is gone.
Ms S.E. Walker: That is right.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We have got to keep the clause before the chamber. The agreement was that when -
Mr D.A. Templeman: Are you gagging the debate?
Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No, I am not gagging the debate at all; I am moving that the debate be adjourned now.
Question put and passed.
                                        House adjourned at 5.17 pm
                                               __________
6492                             [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]


                                         QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

                               Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

                                          AIR POLLUTION, PERTH
2711.   Dr J.M. Woollard to the Minister for the Environment
The 2007 State of the Environment Report mentions that levels of measured atmosphere pollutants occasionally
fail to meet national guidelines - mostly photochemical smog and haze in Perth and particulates in some regional
areas - and I ask the Minister:
        (a)      how is the air quality of Perth monitored;
        (b)      to what extent do the following activities contribute to Perth’s air pollution problems:
                 (i)      smoky vehicles;
                 (ii)     wood-fired stoves; and
                 (iii)    prescribed burn offs; and
        (c)      what is the Minister doing to reduce air quality problems caused by:
                 (i)      smoky vehicles;
                 (ii)     wood-fired stoves; and
                 (iii)    prescribed burn offs?
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied:
(a)     The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has operated an ambient air monitoring
        network throughout the Perth metropolitan region since the mid-1990s. The network currently consists
        of 10 fixed sites. Data are collected for ozone, particles[i] (as PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide
        (CO), nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Monitoring data are assessed against national air quality
        standards established by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council.
        This routine monitoring is augmented by special studies carried out by DEC in targeted areas, where
        substances such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, fluoride, ammonia and
        polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may be monitored.
(b)     (i)      No data are specifically available for smoky motor vehicles. However, emissions from the
                 whole motor vehicle fleet are estimated. The National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) data
                 for 1998-99, estimated that the motor vehicle fleet contributed the following emissions in the
                 Perth region:
                          - around 20% of PM10 emissions,
                          - around 45% of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions,
                          - around 80% of CO emissions, and
                          - around 45% of total VOC emissions.
                 An update of estimates of emissions from diffuse sources in Perth for 2004/05 is currently
                 being prepared, but is not yet available.
        (ii)     NPI data for Perth (for 1998-99) indicate that residential wood smoke (which includes wood-
                 fired stoves and open fireplaces) contributes 23% of anthropogenic particle emissions over a
                 whole year or 86% of winter particle emissions. With estimates of natural source contributions
                 included, residential wood smoke was estimated to contribute 66% of total PM10 in winter
                 months. The most recent data suggest that wood heaters now contribute 31% of winter
                 particles emitted through human activities or 25% of all particles emitted. This reduction is
                 largely attributed to the Government's haze reduction initiatives.
                 Residential wood burning also contributes:
                          - around 0.5% of NOx emissions,
                          - around 10% of CO emissions, and
                          - around 20% of total VOC emissions.
        (iii)    Smoke from forest fires and prescribed burns occasionally affects the Perth metropolitan
                 area. However, the frequency of events when National Environment Protection Measure
                                 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]                                       6493

                (NEPM) standards for PM10 or PM2.5 have been exceeded has fallen significantly over the
                past five years to one to three events per year. This reduction is a result of proactive initiatives
                by DEC to improve planning and implementation of prescribed burn programs.
                Prescribed burning contributes:
                         - around 6 % of PM10 emissions,
                         - around 0.1 % of NOx emissions,
                         - around 2 % of CO emissions, and
                         - around 0.5 % of total VOC emissions.
                (based on NPI data for 1998-99)
(c)     The Perth Air Quality Management Plan, launched in 2000, contains specific initiatives to address each
        of these issues. The plan is a 30-year strategy intended to ensure that clean air is achieved and
        maintained in the metropolitan region. The plan aims to reduce the emission of pollutants that cause
        occasional episodes of poor air quality, and to prevent the development of future air quality problems.
        (i)     Emissions from motor vehicles are being addressed by a combination of approaches including
                fuel quality regulations, emissions testing, education, and smoky vehicle reporting and repair.
                Alternative fuel and technology options such as the use of liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas,
                biofuels, ultralight vehicles and fuel cell and hybrid drive systems are also being investigated
                and tested. Investments in vehicle emission control programs total more than $2 million over
                the past 3 years.
                More broadly, emissions from the transportation sector are being reduced by the Government's
                land use planning and transport planning programs (such as Network City and Travelsmart)
                that aim to reduce the kilometres travelled by motor vehicles.
        (ii)    Emissions from wood heaters have been specifically targeted under the Perth Air Quality
                Management Plan. Under State legislation, sales of new wood heaters must meet
                AS/NZS standards for efficiency and emissions, and firewood must meet acceptable moisture
                standards.
                Two wood heater surveys have been conducted in recent years, one by the previous
                Department of Environment (now DEC) in 2004 and one by the Australian Bureau of Statistics
                in 2005. The results suggest there has been a significant move away from wood heaters in
                Perth, accelerated by DEC's Haze Reduction Initiative that commenced in 2002.
                DEC organised replacement programs for wood heaters in 2004, 2006 and 2007. Financial
                incentives were offered to users of wood heaters to scrap them and replace them with more
                efficient and much less polluting gas-fired units. More than 1000 wood heaters have been
                removed from use as a result of these programs.
                On 23 May 2007 DEC released a wood heater policy options paper to inform stakeholders and
                the broader community of the environmental and health issues associated with wood smoke. A
                series of recommendations for action over the next five years was presented for consideration.
                Initiatives include monetary incentives for people to surrender second-hand wood heaters or to
                convert to alternative heating systems and a proposal to require the removal of a non-compliant
                wood heater when a house is sold.
        (iii)   Air quality considerations are incorporated into established smoke management guidelines
                used by DEC to schedule prescribed burns. Decisions on whether to burn incorporate input
                from weather forecast models. These models are run daily in advance of any burning
                activity. Burns do not proceed if smoke is predicted to cause PM10 particulate levels to exceed
                the NEPM standard in the metropolitan area.
        [i] PM10 are particles which have an aerodynamic diameter less than 10µm. PM2.5 are particles which
        have an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5µm.
                              PERTH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
2713.   Dr J.M. Woollard to the Minister for the Environment
Since 2002 an Annual Report on the Implementation of the Perth Air Quality Management Plan has been
released to the public, and I ask the Minister:
        (a)     why hasn’t the 2005–2006 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Perth Air Quality
                Management Plan been released to the public;
6494                               [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]

        (b)      when did the Air Quality Coordinating Committee last meet;
        (c)      if it has not met this year, why not and when is it likely to meet next;
        (d)      does the Minister intend to compile a 2006–2007 Annual Report on the Implementation of the
                 Perth Air Quality Management Plan; and
        (e)      if so, when will it be released to the public; and
        (f)      does the Government intend to terminate the Perth Air Quality Management Plan following the
                 current review?
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied:
(a)     The progress report for 2005-2006 for the Perth Air Quality Management Plan is still in
        preparation. The report is expected to be finalised and ready for release within the next two months.
(b)     The Air Quality Coordinating Committee (AQCC) last met on 4 December 2006. The Vehicle
        Emissions Reduction Working Group (a subcommittee of the AQCC) met on 24 April 2007.
(c)     The position of chair of the committee has been vacant since January 2007. Following the recent
        appointment of an officer to oversee the implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan for the
        Department of Environment and Conservation, the AQCC is scheduled to meet before the end of this
        year.
(d)     Yes.
(e)     The report will be released once it has been endorsed by the AQCC. This is not expected to occur until
        early 2008.
(f)     No. The recommendations in the review report are expected to provide useful guidance for the ongoing
        implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan.
                                 IMPLEMENTATION OF ALCOHOL ACCORD
2715.   Dr J.M. Woollard to the Minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming
(1)     What steps has the Government taken to encourage the implementation of an alcohol accord in
        conjunction with indigenous groups, community groups, liquor outlets and local police at each of the
        following areas:
        (a)      Fitzroy Crossing;
        (b)      Halls Creek;
        (c)      Kununurra;
        (d)      Kalgoorlie; and
        (e)      other regional areas with alcohol problems?
(2)     If none, why hasn’t the accord currently in place at Newman been used as a guide for alcohol service
        restrictions in other regions?
(3)     What statistics are available that show a decrease in alcohol-related offences such as domestic violence,
        drunkenness and assaults as a result of an alcohol accord being in place?
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied:
(1)-(2) Approximately 30 Accords (including local agreements) are in place across Western Australia,
        including:
                 - Halls Creek
                 - Kununurra
                 - Kalgoorlie
        Action has been instigated to re-establish the accord in Fitzroy crossing.
        The Western Australian Police Service, Drug and Alcohol Office and Department of Racing, Gaming
        and Liquor are collaborating to support the development of accords.
        An Accord Co-ordinator is to be appointed to support the development/management of accords over the
        next 12 months.
(3)     Relevant statistics are not available. Liquor Accords are voluntary, non-binding agreements negotiated
        and managed at community level.
                                                   __________
[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 18 October 2007]   6495

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:1/1/2012
language:
pages:73