Docstoc

C38 S1 20111201 All

Document Sample
C38 S1 20111201 All Powered By Docstoc
					                                           Legislative Council
                                          Thursday, 1 December 2011


THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 10.00 am, and read prayers.
                                     DEMERSAL GILLNET FISHING
                                                    Petition
HON NIGEL HALLETT (South West) [10.02 am]: I present a petition containing 376 signatures couched in
the following terms —
        To the Honourable the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western
        Australia in Parliament assembled.
        We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia oppose the total ban on demersal gillnet fishing
        between Bunbury and Albany, proposed by the Save Our Fish Stocks (SOFS) group in its petition,
        because:
                    •    The information presented in the SOFS group’s petition that the demersal gillnet
                         fishery is causing ‘severe depletion of fish stocks’ is dishonest and contradicts the
                         Department of Fisheries’ advice that the fishery is sustainable and strictly managed;
                    •    That the proposed ban would dramatically reduce the availability and affordability of
                         local fish for those Western Australians who buy their seafood;
                    •    The impact of recreational fishing on demersal scalefish stocks on the south coast (East
                         of Black Point) is unknown because there is no recreational data available.
        Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the Legislative Council will:
                    •    Disregard the SOFS petition and support the continuation of sustainable demersal
                         gillnet fishing between Bunbury and Albany.
        Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your
        petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[See paper 4144.]
                                 LIMESTONE QUARRY — NOWERGUP
                                                    Petition
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [10.03 am]: I present a petition containing five signatures couched
in the following terms —
        To the Honourable the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western
        Australia in Parliament assembled.
        We the undersigned residents of Western Australia urgently seek a review to establish how Lot l,(2350)
        Wanneroo Rd, Nowergup(WA Limestone) and Lot 52 Nowergup Rd(Lime Industries) were identified
        and listed as a priority resource location in the State Planning Policy 2.4 Basic Raw Materials.
        The City of Wanneroo and the Department of Planning has failed to show how these sites came to be
        given such designation given that there is no evidence to show that the due and proper process of
        consultation was followed in order to be granted such status.
        The mapping was compiled from then current extractive industry tenements and licences. It has not
        been established that the Inventory for Extractive Industry Operations for the City of Wanneroo was
        updated as required to ensure only tenements with existing and approved licences were included.
        Furthermore the Resource Protection Working Plans in SPP2.4 include an “Environmental and
        Conservation Reference Chart” which is to assist in identifying possible environmental and
        conservation constraints to the extraction of basic raw materials. These have not been updated since
        2002 and do not include Neerabup National Park, Lake Nowergup Fauna Sanctuary or Bushforever Site
        383.
        The Nowergup Valley locality is facing continuing threats from extractive industry applications west of
        Gibbs Rd that are clearly not appropriate and are incompatible with current rural land uses, including
        tourism, rural residential, small businesses, nor with the future planning of the area as recommended by
        the Future of East Wanneroo 2007 prepared by the Western Australian Planning Commission.
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10263

         Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council initiate an inquiry into how these
         two specific sites were listed for inclusion in the SPP2.4 and to investigate the lawfulness of their
         listing. It is unacceptable for development applications to be considered and approved whilst our
         concerns remain unanswered.
         Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your
         petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[See paper 4145.]
                                               PAPERS TABLED
Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.
                                         DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS
                                                 Notice of Motion
1.       Town of Kwinana Extractive Industries Local Law 2011.
2.       Shire of Kalamunda Health Local Law 2011.
3.       Shire of Kellerberrin Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2011.
Notice of motions given by Hon Sally Talbot.
4.       Mining Amendment Regulations (No.5) 2011.
Notice of motion given by Hon Robin Chapple.
                          CLIMATE CHANGE — IMPACT ON COASTAL AREAS
                                                      Motion
HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [10.08 am] — without notice: I move —
         That the house —
         (a)        notes the steps that other Australian states have taken to plan for climate change in coastal
                    areas; and
         (b)        calls upon the Western Australian government to urgently update its planning rules for the
                    Western Australian coast to take account of the projected impacts of climate change.
Members may recall that a few weeks ago we debated a similar issue. Hon Sally Talbot moved a motion
condemning the government for entering its third year of office without delivering on its 2008 election promise
to introduce a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy. The motion was defeated, and instead Hon
Helen Morton moved an amendment, and the house passed a motion noting the progress in relation to the CCAM
strategy. I am sure I am not alone in remaining totally in the dark as to the nature and extent of the progress that
has taken place. This might be an opportunity for the government to put that progress on the record.
Those members who were present in the house on 9 November and heard the debate on the amendment to the
motion will recall that I argued for urgent action to address the projected impacts of climate change on planning
along our coast. The science is marching ahead of us and I have some updates for the house today. At that time, I
argued for modern and proactive strategies to guide the state’s planning regime for coastal areas. Coastal local
councils are on the frontline in confronting this task and have to deal with those impacts whether we like it or
not. Local councils are under-resourced to do so and lack certain powers to do what they need to do. To indicate
that help is required in that area, I would like to review what local councils are doing. I encouraged the
government at that time to take up the challenge in a systematic and pragmatic way. I listed five key points on
how to do that, which include adopting an integrated regional approach involving all levels of government,
including federal, state and local; encouraging community and stakeholder participation; and adopting the
precautionary principle in planning decisions since the avoidance of future risk is the most cost-effective
adaptation response.
I remind members that not that long ago the city of Byron Bay experienced a very difficult and prolonged legal
case involving a house right on the coast; the local government struggled to deal with that problem. I am trying
to avoid that in this case. I called for the government to set clear parameters around liability because that was the
key factor in that case in Byron Bay. Who was liable? Was it the local council that permitted the house to be
built there? Was it the state government that permitted zoning to include residential development in that area?
Perhaps it was the builders. Many people were involved in trying to determine who was liable. We can learn
from that experience and legislate to avoid it. I also argued that the government should properly resource
relevant authorities, which should then be required to implement the planning principles that provide for the
impacts of climate change. In Western Australia we already have a very creative local government sector that
10264                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

has worked diligently to try to manage these issues; it is worth reflecting on the work that they have already
done.
Today I want to make a detailed case on the need for urgent action in terms of the motion before the house. I
want to talk about two things in discussing the need for this action. Many of us will remember “No man is an
island” from our days of studying the poetry of John Donne. In the end he says to ask for whom the bell tolls,
and the bell tolls for you. We in Australia qualify. We are an island and dramatically impacted by coastal sea
level rise and by other impacts of climate change. However, it has been a constant refrain from Liberal
governments that there is no point in Australia taking action to address climate change unless the world leads the
way. Literally translated, that means that we do not have to take responsibility for our own actions because
anything we do will be insignificant in the global scheme of things. I argue that the climate change bell tolls for
all of us. With such a high proportion of our population in Australia living at or near the coast, we are among
those who will be most affected by its impacts.
Another reason for the need to address this issue is that the Southern Ocean is warming. Research from 40 peer-
reviewed publications was released only two days ago by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative
Research Centre. That research shows that the Southern Ocean is storing more heat than any other ocean; ice is
thinning and sliding off the continent, which causes the sea level to rise. The ocean helps to absorb the earth’s
excess heat and carbon dioxide, but there are side effects. Anyone who has been watching SBS lately will be
very much aware of the costs of the acidification of the ocean. The ocean helps to absorb the earth’s excess heat
and carbon dioxide, but when it becomes too warm to be an effective cooler, the chemistry of the water changes.
That chemistry can cause the outer layers of fish and the shells of sea creatures to dissolve. Eventually, a
threshold is reached at which time the sea becomes corrosive. Previously, it was thought that this threshold
would be crossed in 2050. Surprise, surprise; two days ago we learned that this has now moved to 2030. That is
not far away; that horizon is right in front of us.
Other risks to our environment have been calculated in terms of how many dollars will be affected. If people
want to look at the economic impact of these changes and the economic risk to the coast, they should look no
further than the assessment of the built environment along the coast. Nationally, we know that between 5 800
and 8 600 commercial buildings in coastal regions are exposed to the combined impact of inundation and
shoreline recession at a mean sea level rise of 1.1 metres. Western Australia is planning for a sea level rise of
0.9 metres, but it is fair enough to take a precautionary approach and look at the impact of a slightly greater sea
level rise. The value of these assets nationally has been calculated at between $58 billion and $81 billion. If we
look at Western Australia, between 1 500 and 2 100 commercial buildings are exposed to a sea level rise of 1.1
metres. Replacement values are estimated at $12 billion to $17 billion. If we look at light industrial buildings, we
see that between 3 700 and 6 200 are exposed to the combined impact of inundation and shoreline recession at a
sea level rise of 1.1 metres. The value of these assets is between $4.2 billion and $6.7 billion. In Western
Australia, if we look a bit more locally, 600 to 900 light industrial buildings are exposed. The replacement value
of those buildings has been set at $700 million to $1.1 billion.
Between 26 000 and 33 000 kilometres of roads are potentially at risk from the combined impacts of inundation
and shoreline recession. If we look Australia-wide, we see that Western Australia has the greatest length of
roadway at risk. Between 7 500 and 9 500 kilometres are exposed, at a replacement value of between $8.7 billion
and $11.3 billion. Much of the exposure is to unsealed roadway.
Finally, I want to look at the number of residential buildings along our coast. We know how much we love to
live on the coast. In Australia, between 187 000 and 274 000 residential buildings are in the area that will be
affected by a 1.1 metre sea level rise. The value of those assets is between $51 billion and $72 billion. In
Western Australia, approximately 20 000 to 30 000 residential homes are in that area, and replacement value of
those assets is approximately $5 billion to $8 billion. For these reasons, if we look at the economic impacts
alone, the time to act is now.
Other states are well ahead of us. I have suggested in this motion that we look at what other states have done.
Unlike other states, Western Australia has no coastal planning legislation. I provide a brief summary of the
recent action taken by Queensland, for example. Queensland enacted the Coastal Management and Protection
Act in 1995. In April 2011, the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management published
the “Queensland Coastal Processes and Climate Change” report, which describes the physical processes—the
waves, the tides and the tropical cyclones—that shape the Queensland coast and the impacts that can be expected
as a result of climate change. The document outlines the advantages and disadvantages of a range of
management options and some of the Queensland government initiatives that support better planning for the
impacts of climate change. What did Queensland do? Earlier this year, the new Queensland coastal plan,
representing the culmination of a three-year statutory review process of the existing state coastal management
plan from back in 2001, was introduced. That plan includes a new statement of planning policy and coastal
hazards guidelines. The guidelines assist in achieving relevant policy outcomes under the coastal plan and ensure
that coastal hazard areas are accurately identified to inform development decisions in those areas. Finally,
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                     10265

Queensland’s plan also includes coastal hazard maps to be used for planning purposes. The maps are drawn
using high-resolution digital elevation data, the latest aerial photography and precise local tidal information to
identify areas that are likely to be at increased risk. These maps demonstrate the potential impacts of climate
change and help inform disaster management planning. I know that Western Australia is some way down the
path of mapping the coastline, and I hope that the government uses this opportunity to bring us up to date on the
progress of the Western Australian coastal compartments mapping project, known as WA Coast. These are really
good examples of how the other states are taking an integrated approach. There is not enough time for a detailed
comparison with every state, but I will quickly mention New South Wales. The “New South Wales Sea Level
Rise Policy Statement” was released in October 2009. That statement adopts a projected increase relative to the
1990 mean sea level of 40 centimetres by 2050 and 90 centimetres by 2100, although it is acknowledged in the
2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that a higher rate of rising sea level is possible. That is
a similar projection to that which Western Australia made in its “Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.6”. I will go
into detail about that policy, which we have been waiting for now for some time and which was supposed to be
released by now.
I will now reflect on the general impacts of having a higher sea level. A higher sea level causes increased or
permanent tidal inundation of land by sea water. It also causes beaches, dune systems and, to a lesser extent,
cliffs and bluffs, to recede and changes the way the tide behaves within estuaries, even resulting in salt water
extending further upstream in estuaries. Rising sea levels cause higher saline watertables in coastal areas and
increased coastal flooding—that is obvious—due to the reduced ability to effectively drain low-lying coastal
areas. The New South Wales policy acknowledges that those physical changes will have an impact on not only
our coastal ecosystems, but also access to and use of public and private lands. In addition, those changes will
impact on historical and cultural heritage values, arable land used for agriculture—we depend heavily on that
food bowl to feed Australia—fresh water access, public and private infrastructure, and low-lying areas of coastal
land that are affected by flooding. A rise in the sea level will also cause coastal hazards such as beach erosion
during storms and coastal flooding. When the beach in Fremantle is eroded due to a storm, it takes quite some
time to recover, and sometimes an interventionist approach is required to restore the beach as a buffer zone
between the ocean and residences. The New South Wales government has a strong commitment to supporting
local governments and the community to adapt to a rising sea level. It promotes a risk-based approach to
managing the rising sea level and provides guidance to local councils to support their sea level rise adaptation
planning as well as encourages the appropriate development on land that is projected to be a risk. The New
South Wales government continues to provide emergency management support to coastal communities during
floods and storms and up-to-date information to the public about the rising sea level and its impact. These are all
things that Western Australia should be doing. South Australia also has moved forward. The South Australian
Coast Protection Board was the first Australian agency to discuss the impact of climate change on sea levels
following the very first release of greenhouse gas predictions by the US Environmental Protection Agency way
back in 1982, which is about the time I came to Australia. The South Australian Coast Protection Board created
South Australia’s planning policy in 1991, which is called “Policy on Coast Protection and New Coastal
Development”. That policy required future development to be safe from a rising sea level and is currently under
review, but at least South Australia has something to start with.
The actions taken by the other states highlight the importance of having a well thought out planning framework
that prepares for the impact of climate change on our coastal regions. In June 2003, the Western Australian
Planning Commission released and gazetted “Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.6”. The policy was amended in
2006 and is currently under review again. We know that the sea level rise factor was updated earlier this year to
0.9 of a metre. We were anticipating that the revised policy would be released for public consultation but there is
no sign of it on the horizon. In general, SPP 2.6 performed a useful job in the past, although there have been
some significant exceptions. The policy is now out of date and is inadequate to deal with the challenges
presented by the present and projected impacts of climate change on our coastal regions. I remind members that
more than 80 per cent of our population lives on the coastal areas. The policy is fundamentally hampered by its
status, because it is nothing more than a policy. For a start, the current SPP 2.6 refers to the coastal zone
management policy of Western Australia as providing a whole-of-government framework for setting strategies
and plans for the coast. However, the draft of the policy was released in 2001 for public comment but a final
version has never seen the light of day. As discussed at length in November, this government has failed to
honour its promise to introduce a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy, and so the state with the
longest coastline in Australia has a grab bag of planning control policies, development control policies and
guidelines for bits and pieces of the coast but no integrated planning framework or strategy for dealing with
development on our coastal zones. That is only going to put people at risk and create uncertainty for developers,
who will face an even bigger risk. We all know that developers want nothing more than certainty.
SPP 2.6 does not go far enough. I do not want to dwell much longer on it except to say that we look forward to
its successor with eager anticipation. The most important point is that it is just a policy; it is not a statutory
planning framework. It will take us some way toward addressing what developers and others need to know about
10266                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

protecting our valuable public resources, but it will not do enough. As members can see, the other states are
further down the road of doing more about this than Western Australia. Section 5 of SPP 2.6 sets out a number of
laudable policy measures, but they are not mandatory. A number of local governments, such as Busselton,
Cottesloe and Mandurah, have already undertaken comprehensive vulnerability studies of the coastal zones in
their jurisdiction. They have prepared plans for the management of those zones but there is no integrated and
consistent approach to coastal planning and management for the state. I put it to members that we can do better
than that. I am looking forward to hearing how the government intends to act on these matters. The science has
been updated, and it is clear that we have lagged behind taking the necessary action. Local governments are
getting funding from the federal government to do vulnerability studies, at great cost. The Town of Cottesloe, for
example, has spent tens of thousands of its own dollars to try to identify how vulnerable it is to the impacts of
coastal climate change. That is not good enough. The state government needs to support that council. We have a
beautiful coastline for people to live on, and it is our responsibility to ensure that people are safe from the
impacts of climate change and that the infrastructure that the public needs and that we provide, such as roads,
sewers and water, is protected from the effects of climate change. We need better planning rules that can deal
with that.
HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.28 am]: At the outset, I
indicate to members and those who look after the timer that, as Hon Helen Morton is away on urgent
parliamentary business, I will be the lead speaker for the government on this motion.
The government is a little surprised by the motion moved by Hon Lynn MacLaren because we have already
undertaken and are continuing to undertake action on climate change and its impact on coastal planning. Sadly,
these types of motions tend to come up every now and again in the house because those on the other side—both
Labor and the Greens (WA)—want to paint the picture that the government and its departments and agencies are
not doing anything to address climate change. That is simply untrue. Given that this motion relates to planning, I
will now outline the work that has been undertaken under the leadership of the Minister for Planning, Hon John
Day. It has been quite significant, despite what Hon Lynn MacLaren has suggested. First, the Western Australian
Planning Commission clearly demonstrated its commitment to addressing the impacts of climate change on the
coast in May 2010 when the commission adopted a revised standard sea-level rise value of 0.9 of a metre by
2110—up from 0.38 of a metre—for use in coastal planning policy. This was subsequently endorsed by cabinet.
I think Hon Lynn MacLaren did refer to that change, but she suggested that it occurred only this year; in fact, it
occurred last year in May 2010. I am sure that is just an error.
This updated sea-level rise value is in line with steps that have been taken by other Australian states to plan for
climate change, and that has been referred to in part of the motion. The policy revision was made in response to a
comprehensive review of work on sea-level rise by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Antarctic Climate Change and
Ecosystems Cooperatives Research Centre. Since the modification was made to the sea-level rise value, a
comprehensive review of the state coastal planning policy SPP2.6—again this has been referred to—has also
been undertaken to ensure the policy is accurate and based on best available up-to-date information on the
current status and trends of coastal policy and planning. For the benefit of Hon Lynn MacLaren, a final draft of
the policy is now ready for consideration by WAPC to release for a four-month public consultation period. I am
sure Hon Lynn MacLaren will make comment in that public consultation period.
Once gazetted, following advertising and finalisation, the revised policy will guide all decision making on use
and development of land on or adjacent to the coast of Western Australia. The reviewed policy includes,
amongst other things, new policy measures for water resources and management; coastal hazard risk
management and adaptation; infill development; coastal protection works; and the precautionary principle, to
which Hon Lynn MacLaren has already referred. It also includes modified policy measures for building height
limits; coastal foreshore reserves; public interest; coastal strategies and management plans; and guidelines for
determining the impacts of physical processes on the coastal types within Western Australia. Coastal planning
operational guidelines have also been formulated to provide detailed guidance for the application of the coastal
policy measures. These will replace the existing and now dated development control policy 6.1, which is the
country coastal planning policy, and provide clarification on and improvements to current practice.
For the benefit of the house, in the time available I will go through some further detail on the updated policy,
which I am sure will be of great interest to all members of the house. Under the policy, updated coastal hazard
risk management and adaptation planning will ensure that appropriate risk assessment and management for
coastal hazards is incorporated into state and local government decision making on the coast. The preference for
any development on the coast is to allow only consolidation of existing settlements while minimising the
development footprint on the coastline; in other words, avoiding any linear development on the coastline. This
policy measure is supported by other key planning instruments, such as state planning policy 3 on urban growth
and settlement and, of course, Directions 2031 and Beyond. The revised policy aims to prevent any
inappropriately located or designed development, which can significantly alter the way the coastal physical
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10267

processes occur. The policy considers the placement and design of future development in light of the potential
risks of coastal hazards and the possible economic, social and environmental costs of those risks being realised.
By carefully considering the placement and design of future development and ensuring clear regard is given to
the vulnerability of development to coastal physical processes, the policy provides a framework whereby coastal
hazard impacts can be considered and addressed. The policy will also strengthen the requirement for an adequate
coastal foreshore reserve to be identified to include an area beyond that necessary to accommodate possible
coastal degradation. This will ensure that a foreshore reserve is maintained over time, even if the potential worst-
case scenario physical impacts are realised over the planning time frame. The policy requirement also
strengthens coastal hazard risk management and adaptation by maintaining flexibility in long-term decision
making and not diminishing the range of possible future risk management options.
The recent Australian government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency report “Climate
Change Risks to Australia’s Coast: A First Pass National Assessment” advocates the adoption of the
precautionary principle, with avoidance of actions that will make it more difficult to cope with climate risks in
the future. Indeed, Hon Lynn MacLaren referred to the precautionary principle. I advise the house that the
precautionary principle or approach was already incorporated in the state coastal planning policy but will be
strengthened in the revised policy to which I have already referred. Decision makers are required to act in regard
to the best available science, knowledge and understanding of the consequences of decisions, and, in the context
of increasing uncertainty, to make decisions that minimise adverse impacts on current and future generations and
the environment.
The policy has also been updated to reflect a report commissioned by the Department of Transport in 2010 titled
“Selection of Design Cyclones for Coastal Development Approval Assessments”, indicating, obviously, that
there is a broad range of consultation and dialogue between agencies and departments within the government.
The revised policy requirements for cyclones in this instance view them as an event with particular
characteristics determined by the location on the WA coastline. The area at risk of inundation from a storm event
can then be identified against a particular coastal type, which will inform decision making on the related risk
management to be implemented, including decisions on where development should be permitted to be located.
This approach is considered to enable a more pragmatic application of the policy requirements, with particular
regard to the complexities of development decision making in the northern parts of our state.
Finally, to improve knowledge of the current condition of the WA coastline and to better anticipate future
changes to our coast, a comprehensive mapping project has been undertaken jointly by the Departments of
Planning, Transport and Environment and Conservation to classify the WA coast into coastal compartments
based on coastal landform, geology, and geomorphology. This work has informed the policy review and has led
to improved definitions of the different coastal types specified in the policy. I am sure that Hon Lynn MacLaren
would agree that that is a very important piece of work.
Hon Lynn MacLaren: Yes.
Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I see that she is nodding in agreement; so, that is fantastic.
Hon Lynn MacLaren: Good work!
Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Six coastal types have been defined, and these are considered to better reflect the
actual features along WA’s coastline than the typology contained in the existing policy. The required allowance
for physical coastal processes is closely dependent on the shoreline type. For example, the allowance on a sandy
shore needs to be greater than that on a rocky shore. As a result of the mapping project and the new knowledge
that has been gained of coastal type, each coastal type identified in the revised policy now has a different
methodology for determining the coastal processes allowance in comparison with the relatively standard
methodology used in the existing policy, which of course is a very good thing and certainly very appropriate.
With all of that in mind, I just say to Hon Lynn MacLaren that this government is doing something significant in
this area. We are doing significant things to address climate change. I appreciate that this motion has been
moved, perhaps, to indicate or paint a picture that work is not being undertaken in the planning area. I would like
to think that after going through some of the issues in the new policy that will be released for public comment—
no doubt Hon Lynn MacLaren will put in a comprehensive submission, which of course is invited as it is from
anyone else who wants to put in a submission in that period—it will be obvious that we actually do have a very
strong commitment to addressing the impacts of climate change on our coast.
HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [10.39 am]: It is nice to see Hon Donna Faragher getting a little dry run
at her new job, although I must say that anybody who thinks that Hon Donna Faragher is the answer is probably,
I think, asking the wrong kind of question about what the problem is that the government faces. It was all very
interesting to hear the list of things that Hon Donna Faragher just read out, but the fundamental problem is not
being addressed. The fundamental problem is not about the work that is going on in the background.
10268                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

I was very pleased to hear that the City of Mandurah has already been mentioned in this debate in very
complimentary terms, along with a few other local government authorities, because, as I have indicated in this
house before, the City of Mandurah has done some genuinely groundbreaking work in the area of planning for
the effects of climate change, particularly in coastal regions. However, the fundamental problem is that we have
all this work going on in the background, both in local government and in the bureaucracy, and some excellent
brains are engaged with this serious issue, but the problem, as in so many other areas, is that absolutely no
leadership is coming from this government. Frankly, the community of Western Australia now understands that
in another 50 years Hon Donna Faragher will still be standing up and reading out the same sort of speech, which
is basically devoid of any kind of action plan to implement these measures. The terrible thing is that by that time,
as we edge towards 2070, or whatever it will be in 50 years, it will all be too late, and that is troubling more and
more members of the Western Australian community as they realise that in this area of mitigating climate
change, as in so many other areas, this government is, frankly, not up to the job.
The nature of the challenge has been on the public record now for years. It does not need me to enumerate what
those challenges are. It is about the identification of greenhouse gases as a human product of industrialisation
and modernisation; it is about the use of certain types of fuel, certain types of land use changes and other sorts of
industrial contributions to climate change; it is about the fact that human activity is without any doubt the
activity that runs the risk of pushing us over the brink; and it is about the effect of climate change on the types of
events that will very, very seriously impact ordinary Western Australians and prevent them going about their
day-to-day lives.
We all saw with horror the pictures that came from Thailand recently of the effect of the inundation of one of its
central city areas. Although not a scientist in the world is prepared to say that an individual weather event is
directly caused by climate change, the number and the extent of these events are clearly increasing. I thought that
the recent reports by News Ltd media that seemed to suggest that there was no link between these extreme
weather events and climate change were completely disingenuous. In fact, anybody who took the trouble to read
the articles quickly saw that the attention-grabbing headlines were completely divorced from the substance of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings.
However, I want to address directly the motion under discussion today, and I want to take a slightly different
approach from that of other speakers. Rather than talk about the facts and figures, which I think bear repetition
but are now there for everybody to see, I want to talk about the question of the narrative and the story that we are
telling ourselves about how we can mitigate some of these risks, because I think it is at this core level that the
government is showing itself to be so totally devoid of ideas and understanding. That is what I want to focus on
in my contribution.
Nowhere are people in Western Australia more aware of these risks, Mr Deputy President —
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Col Holt): Order, members! The member on her feet has the call. Perhaps
she can keep addressing the Chair and we will be right.
Hon SALLY TALBOT: Indeed, I will, Mr Deputy President, as you noticed I was exactly doing so then. A
more astute member of this place would have noticed that I am not taking interjections. I know that Hon Donna
Faragher is getting terribly excited, but she is just going to have to contain that excitement for about another
week.
Hon Donna Faragher: Can I tell you that I do not get excited by listening to you.
Hon Kate Doust: Oh, that’s not terribly charitable.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! The member on her feet started off pretty scratchily on
addressing the motion, but she is moving into it now, and I suggest we stick to the content of the motion.
Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
As I was saying, nowhere are people more aware of the risks and the effects of climate change than in the
Mandurah region, where, as I have noted before in similar debates, something like seven out of 10 values that
people articulate about their lifestyle in the Peel region relate to things to do with the water and the marine
environment. Of course, that is where we are most at risk in areas such as the Peel. This is because of things such
as the large-scale clearing of vegetation needed for agriculture. I think the Murray region is likely to become one
of the food bowls of the twenty-first century, at least for WA. We have had a timber industry and we have the
mining industry, as you well know, Mr Deputy President. Of course, the City of Mandurah has grown over the
last 20 to 25 years from an agricultural–fishing village to what is virtually a thriving metropolis.
Going along with all that development, we have seen various changes in the shape of things such as drains, dams
and river diversions to accommodate people’s wishes about how they live and where they live. Of course, the
biggest engineering event there has been the construction of the Dawesville Channel, which has had a
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                       10269

considerable positive effect, at least on the Peel–Harvey Inlet, although, of course, there are theories that it has
simply pushed the problems further upstream. And, of course, we have also seen the canal estates. I am told that
many people who own properties on the canals are already experiencing the effect of rising sea levels. But it is
not just the people in the canal estates who have focused local governments such as the City of Mandurah onto
coming up with really effective strategies for mitigating climate change.
In the Peel region and other areas of Western Australia, we admit that climate change is heavily influenced by
human development and human behaviour. It is that behaviour and that way of reacting to events that we have to
change if we are to really make progress, and that is what the government is not doing. My proposition is that we
need to build a narrative around resilience. The government still talks in those old-fashioned terms about
mitigating the effects of climate change. So the government is still focused, to the extent that it is doing
anything, on things such as reducing individual footprints. I do not suggest for one moment that those strategies
do not have a role to play in our climate change strategy, but when it comes to learning to live with climate
change, we have to help people understand the nature of their very engagement with our marine and our
estuarine environment. While we focus only on reducing our individual carbon footprints, we are missing the
bigger story.
I listened very carefully to the list of Western Australian Planning Commission initiatives that Hon Donna
Faragher just read into the Hansard. It is interesting, and obviously people with a considerable amount of
expertise are working on developing these policies. But the problem, as I see it, is that we are still locked into a
mentality that says that the answer to things such as rising sea levels is to seek higher ground. We heard Hon
Donna Faragher say that there would be no linear development down the coast. We are talking about a retreat.
That will not wash with the Western Australian community. More importantly, it is an entirely inadequate way
of dealing with the science of climate change. These are very, very big issues; they cannot be addressed in an
hour’s debate in the house. This is something that we need the government to engage in if it is ever going to be
able to show us that leadership, confidence and forward thinking that governments are supposed to provide.
HON PHILIP GARDINER (Agricultural) [10.49 am]: As most members know, I have spoken in this chamber
before about the science of global warming and the implications—albeit they are much harder to work out—of
climate change. As with some other members of this chamber, my position is that I accept the science of global
warming but I also recognise the risk involved in ignoring climate change; to do so is to run a great risk.
Therefore, we should not be ignoring it, as both Hon Lynn MacLaren and Hon Donna Faragher have said. Hon
Donna Faragher enlightened us to the fact that the cabinet of this government also recognises the implications of
anthropogenic climate change and, in doing so, stated that planning implications are being acted upon.
The only issue we have here is the issue of timing. The issue of timing is always so very hard when it comes to
government action. It is so easy to make policy and decide on policy; it does not mean putting in hard dollars or
resources or a lot of other things. It is just a decision to say, “Yes, we will do something”, but the “will” is
meaningless unless things are done. Hon Donna Faragher said, and I already know, that a number of local
councils are not only doing the “will” part; they are actually doing the “doing” part which, of course, is what
state government has to be about in each of the functions we carry out and for which we are responsible as a
chamber. We need to be doing things if we are to make a difference and bring about the necessary changes.
The great issue around this motion in relation to planning is time. Time is the crucial determinant of what action
needs to take place. In one way, climate change might be considered to be insidious. It is insidious because the
discussions around climate change, not just in this state but in the whole country, come up against the
insidiousness of not being able to see what might be happening. What might happen may already be happening,
and in a manner that will be harder and harder to unwind the longer it goes on without capturing the attention of
the entire community.
As we all know, the federal government has passed legislation in this area because it feels that it has seen the
change and it has introduced legislation to try to arrest the change. But it is a difficult area to persuade people
about—me included—because it is very difficult to see. Scientists say, “I, as a scientist, see it, but I can’t get
people to see it the same way.” Therefore, the temptation is to either become extreme or follow the more risk-
averse ways of drawing attention to the issue by saying, “This is so bad; we’ve got to do it, and do it quickly.”
Therefore, we talk about excessive rises in sea levels or whatever.
The time factor for climate change in this equation should be looked at in the context of one of the other big
difficulties we have with planning in this state. It is not necessarily to do with sea levels; it is acutely there for
our bushfire planning and the issue of where residences are built. If they are built in risk-prone areas, how should
they be built? What other fire protections should they be built with? If we put time into the equation of risk, that
time is today. It should be part of the equation that we should be doing things right now. We should have done
things previously because we know that all those in the Darling Range are at risk. We have also seen that all
those in the Margaret River area are at risk. The risk to those living in the Wheatbelt or in certain areas of the
agricultural regions of Western Australia has always been there, but it is not as acute as in places where trees
10270                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

grow around houses in a manner with which we are very familiar from the Darling Range and Margaret River. In
these areas, once fires begin, they are very difficult to put out. They are not put out by firebreaks, I can promise
members. I have fought fires in the Wheatbelt region and I know the dangers. Despite not having fought fires in
the Darling Range or Margaret River, it is not difficult to see how the escalation of danger is magnified.
If we are trying to create an equation for what we should be doing in the coastal plain of Western Australia, it is
an area where things are more difficult to predict. The “T” in the equation—time—is of much lesser value, if we
like, but we need to plan ahead because, if we build there, in 20 years it will hit us. That is why the T is equally
relevant for planning in these areas. The government is aware of this and is doing things, and we have been
updated on that by Hon Donna Faragher’s speech on this issue. How intense it should be and how quickly we
should do it needs to be balanced with what we should be doing with other climate-affected areas. That is not to
do with climate change, necessarily, because bushfires in this state happen no matter what the climate change is.
The fuel is always there to be burnt.
If I can use this analogy, it is a little like an equation I am very familiar with from the wool industry called the
team equation. It is about how the characteristics of the wool fibre affect its processing ability. It is the same
concept. Just as what we do affects our climate, what we do with our wool affects how well it performs in
processing, but it took years for the industry to pick that up and accept that it is important. They said, “We think
we can feel it all; we know all this because we’re skilled with our own human qualities to make judgements
about how well the fibre processes,” but that was not true. That is the thing. The reality of science proved that
we, as woolgrowers, were wrong. I know that there are some woolgrowers in this chamber, and I am sure that
they would agree with me. We had to grow different wool to get it to process in a way that improved the
productivity performance of that industry.
The same thing comes back to what we are talking about today. We should have an equation similar to that in the
example I gave about the characteristics of wool fibre. If we could say that the equation for climate change was
equivalent to man-made behaviour in a way that included T for time, and if we could be sure about what is going
to happen in 30 or 40 years, it would be much easier for us to actually identify how urgent it was to do the things
that we may need to do, from a risk point of view, to protect people who are relatively vulnerable as a result of
building homes in areas where they maybe should not have. The trouble is that the surety is not there at the
current time; therefore, the equation is not there.
HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [11.00 am] — in reply: I rise to reply to the very interesting
speeches of the members who have commented on this motion in the house so far and to reply to the
government’s response. I note with interest that the former Minister for Environment, Hon Donna Faragher, has
advised us that state planning policy 2.6 is still in the planning phase and due to be released for public comment.
However, that has been the case for some time. The point is: when will that occur? I say that it should occur
urgently. I believe that Hon Phil Gardiner also made a case for urgent action, albeit most poignantly in relation to
preparedness for the impact of climate change and the high risk of bushfires. I agree with what Hon Phil
Gardiner said 100 per cent. This is an issue of timing. That is why the motion before us calls for urgent action.
He also noted that local councils are taking steps to prepare for climate change but that there is much more to be
done. I agree wholeheartedly with that.
Climate change readiness will involve more than establishing planning rules. We should have completed this
task some time ago because other urgent tasks are before us, such as securing our water supply long term into the
future, securing available land for agriculture and food, and ensuring that we have fuel supplies that will take us
long into the future. Other urgent actions need to be taken. In relation to planning, today there is inadequate
guidance and people can potentially put themselves at risk by building too close to the coast. We do not know
who will be liable if these homes are lost as a result of severe storms or if sea levels rise, which, as I have stated,
is likely to be sooner than first thought.
I welcome the comments by Hon Sally Talbot and, in particular, the fact that she raised the approach that one
should take towards climate change. She said that resilience is a key factor in preparedness for these types of
changes, which are unpredictable. Resilience is a skill that is very necessary in our local councils when dealing
with this because they have to act without the guidance of state planning rules. They are going by the advice of
the federal government. They are getting federal government grant moneys to prepare vulnerability assessments.
It is an ad hoc approach. We have seen a coordinated approach in Mandurah with some surrounding councils in
the Peel region but other than that, Cottesloe had to act. It started its coastal vulnerability study in 2008 because
it could see that vital infrastructure was potentially at risk. It is irresponsible for us as a state government to
watch these things occur knowing that other assistance could be provided for them in the framework of our
planning.
I agree with Hon Sally Talbot that building resilience will be a key factor in approaching this issue and that truly
effective strategies are necessary. I also agree that the government has not yet really demonstrated that those
strategies and plans will be implemented. I welcome the comments made by Hon Donna Faragher today because
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10271

it has fleshed out some of the detail around what SPP 2.6 will do, but fundamental questions remain: Is it going
to be mandatory or optional? Will it be statutory or just a policy that is referred to? To what degree will that
policy really make a difference in whether development occurs along the coast? How will it make developers
and local councils clear about what liability they face? Someone said that we will look at geomorphology and
whether we are likely to see sandy shores or rocky shores and that will be taken into account in planning rules.
That is really important. However, there still seems to be this notion of 100 metres setback from a certain point. I
think that is almost meaningless when we take into account the variations of geology along the coast. In some
low-lying areas, such as up north in the Kimberley where the tides are really long, the notion of 100 metres will
not provide much protection or much guidance. We will have to set up maps. In most areas of this state maps
establish the coastal compartments and the sediment zones. That is a really important piece of work and I
commend the government for getting it done. It needs to be completed for the entire coastline. Those maps have
to be used as statutory documents that inform our planning framework.
I also ask whether local governments will be resourced to carry out the risk assessments that Hon Donna
Faragher has mentioned. Yes, it is important to have appropriate risk assessments of infrastructure that may be at
risk, and local governments are best placed to do that, but will they be resourced to do that? If we are going to
require them to do it, they have to be resourced to do it. Either the state government needs to take on that role or,
if it hands it off to local governments, it should ensure that they are adequately resourced to complete the task,
and urgently. I would expect to see something in next year’s budget to complete our coastal vulnerability
assessment.
I really welcomed the words of Hon Donna Faragher when she said that we are going to have a strengthened
precautionary principle. That is a great move forward. We plan for a 100-year time frame. Our planning
authorities look at that. We need to take a precautionary approach because things are going to change over that
time frame. The science is being updated every five years and the knowledge of what the impacts will be is
updated. We need to take some kind of precautionary approach to give us that flexibility and resilience to cope
with the changes that will occur.
When I look at the motion before the house and take into account the support from the members who have
spoken so far, I am heartened that the Parliament assembled is mindful of the urgent need for planning action on
climate change and that the government believes that it is moving in the right direction and moving with some
haste towards that. However, I have not heard when that will occur, and that is the devil in the detail. When will
we establish or accept SPP 2.6? We were expecting it this month; I believe it was announced that it would be
ready in November. First it was expected in April and then it was expected in November. Maybe it will be
announced any day now, and that will be great because we will have that four-month period in which to
comment, but we still do not exactly know what final policy will be adopted. Fundamentally, the weakness is
that it is just a policy. We need to see how that policy will be implemented and whether it will give us strong,
reliable, consistent planning frameworks to help us cope and be resilient in the face of climate change.
I welcome members’ contributions today. I look forward to further urgent action on this issue and to hear when
we can get SPP 2.6 out of the machine and make some comments on it.
Motion lapsed, pursuant to temporary orders.
                  OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 2010
                Discharge of Order and Referral to Standing Committee on Legislation — Motion
Resumed from 7 April on the following motion moved by Hon Jon Ford —
         (1)      The Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Bill 2010 be discharged and referred to the
                  Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration and report.
         (2)      The committee is to inquire into and report on the policy of the bill.
HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Commerce) [11.09 am]: When we last
considered this matter on 7 April, some interesting contributions were made, not the least of which was by Hon
Jon Ford, who discussed a range of safety issues from those dim, dark days and indicated a couple of things. He
indicated that the ALP was not prone to supporting this bill. In refreshing my memory of the debate, I noticed at
page 2547 of the Council’s Hansard of Thursday, 7 April 2011, he said in part —
         My concern, given the bill’s current draft, is that the only people who will make anything out of this
         will be the lawyers, who will make a lot of money. In the meantime, the workers will still be exposed.
         The focus will be about backside covering rather than about ensuring the safe operation of a plant.
He had a lot of other things to say besides that. If the government can see the weaknesses in this bill, and they
are many and serious, and if the opposition can see the weaknesses in this bill, I do not really think there is much
case for the house to consider it. I made some detailed remarks on 7 April about some of the proposals contained
in the bill, and they are really quite alarming. In addition to trying to insert a few provisions into the Western
10272                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

Australian Occupational Safety and Health Act, which were proposed at a national level, even though they were
rejected by Western Australia, Hon Alison Xamon’s Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Bill wants to
do a few other things that go quite beyond the pale. I discussed these issues on 7 April, and I do not intend to
revisit them, except to summarise them.
Apart from the other things we as a government have already rejected in national proposals, this bill proposes to
build in the ability for interested persons to bring prosecutions—a recipe for mayhem, if ever there was one. It
proposes a new offence of industrial manslaughter, which, for the reasons given, is rejected. The bill itself does
not deserve to be supported. But Hon Jon Ford has proposed instead that it be referred to the Standing
Committee on Legislation for examination and report. Why? When we have a piece of legislation that is so ill
conceived that it will not pass, what on earth is the point of referring it to a legislation committee for further
examination? The weaknesses have already been made apparent and have been discussed. A lot of nonsense is
spoken and a lot of chest thumping goes on in the public domain about OH&S issues, with people occasionally
trying to score political points. In all the hurly-burly there has been a bit of that lately.
Hon Kate Doust: People actually take this issue very seriously.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Here we go again.
Hon Kate Doust: It is not about point scoring; it is about dealing with the issues.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member should go back to whatever she is doing. She has not been following the
debate; she does not know what she is talking about; she demonstrated that when she raised that in a debate in
this place.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Hon Kate Doust: You’re beating your chest now.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: What is the point of referring a flawed bill to a legislation committee? Absolutely none
whatsoever. But I do note that this matter has not been revisited in non-government business since 7 April. That
shows the sort of priority it has. It was brought on as an afterthought on today’s notice paper, and there are only
a few minutes left.
Hon Ken Travers: Do you want us to make some amendments to the standing orders to allow more non-
government time?
Hon Alison Xamon: Hear, hear!
Hon Ken Travers: Is that what you’re inviting, minister?
The PRESIDENT: Order! Let us not get distracted from the main part of this debate.
Hon Ken Travers: Cheap points.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am sorry to wake up Hon Ken Travers if it was me who did it. I am sorry to disturb
him and break his concentration. He should go back to reading his The Phantom comic or whatever else he was
doing, because that was a very silly interjection.
Hon Ken Travers: You’re absolutely right; I am reading about phantom issues.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It has just been confirmed by interjection that it is The Phantom comic.
Hon Ken Travers: I said it was a document about phantom issues.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: While we are on the subject of phantom issues, there are some phantom issues around
in connection with occupational safety and health. They concern the lack of progress achieved with the national
harmonised package which is proposed by the federal government and to which this state and others have signed
up. The lack of progress on that package of bills, which is a debate for another day, demonstrates just how
complex these matters are. Hon Kate Doust has now received a briefing, and I am glad she has, about where we
are at with this. In a previous recent debate when an attempt was made to browbeat the government into getting
on with passing legislation prematurely, I was able to point out some of the shortcomings of the federal
government’s approach. Basically, in summary, some of the shortcomings were these: the federal government
guaranteed that it would provide us with the model bill, and that did not arrive until about 18 months after it was
proposed. I think we got it in about June this year. The mining regulations, of course, were not provided to
regulators just for comment until 6 October this year, while the general draft regulations for review were
received about mid-September. They were hopelessly late to then allow a package of legislation to go through all
processes in our Parliament, including reference to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes
Review and have a system passed for 1 January. It gets worse. Also under the package are some model codes of
practice that provide a further stratum of subsidiary legislation under the regulations to underpin it. Eleven model
codes of practice will be released in four stages; the first stage has actually been released, which is fairly
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10273

desirable, one would think. If one is about to sign up to this package, one would like to know what is in them.
The second-stage codes, of 15 sets, are currently in the consultation process, which closes this month, December,
and we are supposed to have passed legislation already. The third and fourth-stage codes, of which there are 35
industry codes of conduct, are still under development and will be released for public comment at some stage in
2012. This is the ramshackle approach being followed by those who are meant to be introducing this harmonised
system. There is no doubt that Victoria and Western Australia have good reason to question publicly whether the
federal government is serious about having us legislate on this incomplete package.
Other states have also got the collywobbles. New South Wales, which would have introduced legislation, has
now introduced an amending bill to delay commencement. Apparently in Tasmania there is a delay in the
implementation until March next year. It is against this backdrop that we now have the honourable member
sponsoring this bill saying, “Hang on, Western Australia, you’ve got it wrong! The feds must be right! Let’s put
in those things which we’ve previously seen cause to disagree with and which the other jurisdictions are quite
happy for us to take exception to.” In addition, the honourable member wants to add some other provisions that
are so loopy that even the crowd who have done this federally sponsored package would not touch it. It is so
loopy that the ALP in this house—the official opposition—will not support the bill. This then leaves us with the
question of whether we should refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Legislation. I think it would be an
absolute waste of time to do that. The best thing we can do is to reject the motion to refer the bill, which is the
immediate question before the house, and then we should reject the second reading of this bill. It has no future
and it does not seem to have much enthusiasm shown for it even amongst those who have brought it forward,
because it appears the last 18 minutes of the debate is being resumed on the last day of sitting for the year, and
the last time they brought on the debate was on 7 April earlier this year. This bill has no future.
Hon Alison Xamon: You were promising that harmonised laws would be in by now.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I think I have just —
Hon Alison Xamon: I heard what you said.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I think it is best to ignore the interjection and for the Minister for Commerce to
continue with his remarks.
Hon Alison Xamon: Sure; you can ignore it, but back in April that is what you were saying.
The PRESIDENT: And I would think it is best to stop the interjections.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Mr President, I will get away from the dopey interjection and return to planet Earth.
Several members interjected.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Hon Ken Travers should tell that to the miserable piece of work sitting next to him.
Hon Alison Xamon: That is nasty. You take a different tone when you do not have your notes in front of you,
don’t you?
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Mr President, I had to sit here and listen to this sort bitchiness earlier today.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I think I have said before that I try to make a judgement from the chair when the tone
of the debate crosses the line and drifts away from the content of whatever the question is before the house to
personal issues. I think we need to get back to the content of the motion before the house.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Thank you, Mr President; you are quite right of course, although I regret the tone that
was set right from the start of non-government business when some quite extraordinarily stupid and disparaging
remarks were directed at Hon Donna Faragher. But I must not allow myself, in my anger and irritation, to
emulate that sort of pathetic behaviour and I will not do so.
Hon Ken Travers: You have, but we acknowledge that you are not going to any more.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The interjection by Hon Alison Xamon just now shows that the Greens (WA) are so
disinterested that this matter could not be brought on; that the Greens are so disinterested in this matter that when
they do get the chance to bring it on, they do not give it any sort of prominence; that the Greens ignore the reality
of how the harmonised system has been let down by the very federal government that is promoting it; and, that
the proponents are incapable of recognising all the evidence that has already been put into the public domain
about how that is happening. Given all that, the honourable member even comes up with some silly remark
saying, “You said you would have harmonised legislation in.” You have no understanding —
Hon Alison Xamon: Why? It was not brought on. What absolute rot!
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Hon Alison Xamon has no understanding of how the legislature works and she has no
understanding of how the occupational health and safety system works.
10274                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

Hon Alison Xamon: I’ve got a far more comprehensive understanding than you, sunshine!
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Look at the sort of standards of legislation that the honourable member would propose
with this bill; it is even rejected by her mates in the ALP, who will not support it.
Hon Alison Xamon: You take a very different tone when you don’t have your ministerial notes, don’t you? You
take a very different tone when you don’t have the Department of Commerce giving you your written comments.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: What are you talking about?
Hon Alison Xamon: I’m talking about that tone you’re choosing to take now as opposed to the tone you chose
to take back in April. Read the Hansard.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like to talk about the motion before the house, which is that a particular bill
will be read a second time.
Hon Ken Travers: Aye!
The PRESIDENT: It was not a question, but that is the question before the house!
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I agree that we ought to get on with this. There is plenty more I could say about this
issue, but I will not hold things up any more. I want to get to see Hon Ken Travers cross the floor on this bill. He
has already indicated that he wants to vote aye to it, whereas the lead speaker for the Labor Party, Hon Jon Ford,
has indicated that the opposition opposes the bill.
Hon Ken Travers: I tell you what, if you sit down now, I might just give you your pleasure of seeing me cross
the floor! If you sit down now!
Hon Nick Goiran: Oh yeah! All talk and no action.
Hon Ken Travers: I might just do that for you, minister. If I don’t have to listen to any more of this rubbish, I
might even do it.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Mr President, there is too much unruly interjection, so I will sit down now. The
government opposes the bill and we oppose the immediate question of referring this bill to the legislation
committee.
HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [11.27 am]: Mr President, if I can quickly get your guidance —
The PRESIDENT: Hang on.
Hon Simon O’Brien: No; she has not spoken on this motion to refer.
Hon ALISON XAMON: No, I have not. Can I quickly get the President’s guidance. I obviously wish to reply to
the second reading debate, but if I rise now to speak on the referral motion, do I also need to do my entire reply
to the second reading debate now or can I speak to the referral and then speak to the second reading debate later?
Hon Simon O’Brien: See, I told you you didn’t know anything about how the legislature works.
The PRESIDENT: No, Hon Alison Xamon, you are only speaking on the referral if you elect to speak now.
Hon ALISON XAMON: In that case I say that the Greens (WA) are happy to see this bill referred to the
Standing Committee on Legislation. I think there have been some really interesting comments made, particularly
about industrial manslaughter. I would like to say that I have also sought legal advice and the legal advice on this
is actually quite mixed; therefore, I think the idea of being able to have hearings and to look into that issue in
particular would be quite useful. I know there have been calls for the offence of industrial manslaughter in the
past and I think it would be useful issue for us to be able to look at in particular.
                                                  Point of Order
Hon NICK GOIRAN: I seek a point of clarification, if I could, Mr President. Hon Alison Xamon indicates that
she will support this particular motion, but I note that she is actually a member of the Standing Committee on
Legislation.
Hon Alison Xamon: I am a member of that committee.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Hon NICK GOIRAN: If I could finish the point of order, Mr President —
The PRESIDENT: Yes; finish the point of order.
Hon NICK GOIRAN: I just need clarification about whether the member would be a member of the committee,
given that she has conduct of the bill. That is the only point of clarification I seek.
Hon Kate Doust interjected.
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10275

The PRESIDENT: The clarification of that point is: yes, Hon Alison Xamon would still be a member of that
committee, and that has happened on many occasions in the house.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to temporary orders.
          SHIRE OF DERBY/WEST KIMBERLEY WASTE SERVICES LOCAL LAW 2011 —
                                  DISALLOWANCE
                                                      Motion
Pursuant to standing order 152(b), the following motion by Hon Sally Talbot was moved pro forma on
24 November —
         That, pursuant to recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Shire
         of Derby/West Kimberley Waste Services Local Law 2011 published in the Government Gazette on
         13 September 2011 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 20 September 2011 under the Local
         Government Act 1995, be and is hereby disallowed.
HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [11.30 am]: By way of explanation for bringing on this motion some
days before the days remaining for it to sit on the notice paper, honourable members will perhaps recall that on
the Thursday of the last week that we sat, the house voted on a disallowance motion on a report of the Joint
Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation that covered two matters—the City of Gosnells Waste Local Law
2011 and the Shire of Derby/West Kimberley Waste Services Local Law 2011. We had to debate it on that day
because the City of Gosnells disallowance motion had to be dealt with then. I now move this disallowance
motion and ask for the support of the house to disallow on exactly the same grounds that we gave for disallowing
the City of Gosnells local waste laws. I covered the issues relating to the Shire of Derby–West Kimberley in that
debate on the last Thursday that we sat.
HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West — Minister for Child Protection) [11.32 am]: The government
believes that the committee’s recommendations should be followed and that the Shire of Derby/West Kimberley
Waste Services Local Law 2011 should be disallowed.
Question put and passed.
                  SHIRE OF KALAMUNDA KEEPING AND CONTROL OF ANIMALS
                      AND NUISANCE LOCAL LAW 2011 — DISALLOWANCE
                                               Discharge of Order
Hon Sally Talbot reported that the concerns of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation had been
satisfied, and on her motion without notice it was resolved —
         That order of the day 2, Shire of Kalamunda Keeping and Control of Animals and Nuisance Local Law
         2011 — Disallowance, be discharged from the notice paper.
               CRIMINAL APPEALS AMENDMENT (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) BILL 2011
                                                   Third Reading
HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [11.33 am]: I move —
         That the bill be now read a third time.
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [11.33 am]: I need to make a few comments on the Criminal
Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 to indicate the position that the Greens (WA) will take. I
indicated during the second reading stage of this bill that depending on whether the committee decided that there
should be any amendments, we would vote accordingly in the third reading stage. I want to raise the issues that
we have concerns about.
We are happy that the bill now has a review clause. That was supported by the whole house. It is certainly a big
improvement because we are dealing with a significant area of law whereby people are charged with some very
serious offences with potentially high rates of imprisonment.
One issue that I raised applies to the threshold for serious offences. The bill applies to serious offences when the
penalty is 14-plus years. The Council of Australian Governments principles envisaged that the fresh and
compelling evidence exception would apply only to the most serious offences; tainted acquittals exceptions to
offences with penalties of 15-plus years; and the administration of justice exception to all indictable offences.
This bill does not retain the distinction and both Legal Aid (WA) and the Law Society of Western Australia are
unhappy with this aspect of the bill. Legal Aid wants the fresh and compelling evidence exception to apply only
to the most serious offences as COAG envisaged and the threshold to be raised to offences with penalties of
10276                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

more than 20 years. The parliamentary secretary addressed this issue. He responded that WA has high-end
penalties of 14 years, 18 years, 20 years and life, but none of 15 years. In effect, he argued that 14 years is
consistent with WA law. That is probably a fair enough comment regarding the tainted acquittals exception, but
for fresh and compelling evidence exceptions there is no getting away from the fact that this differs from
COAG’s approach. For that reason, we are still unhappy with this bill.
The second issue is whether the bill applies to children. Indeed, the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation
and Statutes Review wanted clarification on whether the bill applies to people aged under 18 years; and, if so,
the rationale. The committee also queried how the law would apply to a person aged under 18 years when the
offence was committed but who was an adult at the time of retrial. The parliamentary secretary said in his reply
to the second reading debate that the bill will apply to both children and adults. The usual process will apply to
determine in which court the person is tried; that is, unless the law changes, a trial will be in the Children’s Court
unless there is an exception under the Children’s Court of Western Australia Act—for example, if a person elects
to be tried on indictment by the Supreme Court or District Court or a co-accused adult is being dealt with in a
court other than the Children’s Court and the proceedings are being kept together, or if the Children’s Court
orders the matter to be dealt with by the Magistrates Court after considering various matters listed in the
Children’s Court of Western Australia Act. Our concern that the bill will apply to children remains, not least
because, as children are not part of the workforce, they will almost certainly depend on someone else to pay for
their defence or go without.
The issue of retrospectivity was also raised in this debate. The standing committee asked for clarification on
retrospectivity. The parliamentary secretary said that Tasmania is also a code state like WA and Queensland and
that its version of these laws applies to acquittals before the double jeopardy exception came in. He conceded
that the Tasmanian code is a peculiar one. He denied that the bill is retrospective and drew a distinction between
removing a protection and creating a new offence. He said that the bill simply provides a new avenue for appeal
or review of the court’s decision and that the bill requires the court to be satisfied of various matters before that
can happen. I am not satisfied with that first point. WA’s criminal law has most in common with Queensland. On
the second point, he may be technically right, but it is a policy question. As the Greens oppose retrospectivity,
we still have a problem with this bill.
The final point I want to make concerns the number of times a person can be retried. The standing committee
report asked for clarity on how many trials can be based on tainted acquittals and how many can be based on
fresh compelling evidence. The parliamentary secretary said that if there is a tainted acquittal but for some
reason there cannot be a re-prosecution of the original charge despite this bill—for example, if the witness is
dead or key evidence has been destroyed—the person could be retried for an administration of justice offence if
that were available. If the accused committed perjury in the original trial and was acquitted of that but fresh
compelling evidence arose, there could be a retrial. However, there is a very remote chance of that happening. It
is unlikely that the Court of Appeal would grant leave for a third trial. The parliamentary secretary also said that
there can be only one retrial on the grounds of fresh and compelling evidence. We still retain our concerns with
this bill and our opposition to it because it departs significantly from the principles agreed to by the Council of
Australian Governments. The legislation applies to children and has a retrospective application, and for those
reasons the Greens will oppose the bill.
Question put and a division taken with the following result —
                                                      Ayes (26)

Hon Liz Behjat               Hon Wendy Duncan              Hon Nigel Hallett            Hon Linda Savage
Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm      Hon Phil Edman                Hon Alyssa Hayden            Hon Sally Talbot
Hon Jim Chown                Hon Brian Ellis               Hon Col Holt                 Hon Ken Travers
Hon Peter Collier            Hon Donna Faragher            Hon Robyn McSweeney          Hon Max Trenorden
Hon Mia Davies               Hon Jon Ford                  Hon Norman Moore             Hon Ken Baston (Teller)
Hon Ed Dermer                Hon Philip Gardiner           Hon Simon O’Brien
Hon Kate Doust               Hon Nick Goiran               Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich
                                                       Noes (4)

Hon Robin Chapple            Hon Lynn MacLaren            Hon Giz Watson                Hon Alison Xamon (Teller)

Question thus passed.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Assembly.

                                 COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BILL 2011
                                                   Third Reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Simon O’Brien (Minister for Finance), and returned to the Assembly
with amendments.
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10277

IRON ORE AGREEMENTS LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT, TERMINATION AND REPEALS) BILL 2011
             IRON ORE AGREEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011
                                            Cognate Debate — Motion
On motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), resolved —
         That leave be granted for the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals)
         Bill 2011 and the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 to be dealt with cognately.
                                       Second Reading — Cognate Debate
Resumed from 23 November.
HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [11.45 am]: The opposition support the Iron Ore Agreements
Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals) Bill 2011 and the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation
Amendment Bill 2011. We support the main intention of the bills to apply a consistent royalty rate across the
iron ore sector. That is very good and will bring a significant monetary benefit to the state government if we can
avoid the federal government getting its hands on the money through the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
We also welcome the amendments to facilitate the third-party crossings of railways. The new tenure clauses,
with the minister’s consent, bring existing infrastructure tenure and applications under the state agreements, and
assist the further facilitation and operation of future expansion plans.
I make the point that during the briefings on the bills and in the second reading speech it was pointed out that
BHP Billiton is to make a significant investment in developing an outer port. Some tenure arrangements come
into play once the first stage is agreed to, after which the second stage can commence. I will touch very briefly
on the exclusive use of owner infrastructure. All members are very well aware that there has been some debate
about, and litigation in the courts over, what is commonly referred to as a junior miner accessing a major miner’s
existing railway infrastructure. The junior miners argue that they should have access to infrastructure classed as a
railway. I put on the record that I have some sympathy for the position of the majors because it is their
infrastructure and they planned their future around that infrastructure when they built it. Therefore, it is a
significant impost when someone else tries to forcibly gain access to the transport corridor. As I have said—I
will not get into an extensive debate on it—it is not a railway in a process sense; it is a means of delivering a
product to the customer. Accessing the rail forcibly through the courts is the equivalent of putting a valve in a
pipe and choking it off. Doing that limits the ability of the major to expand and control a business on that export
conveyer belt. I have no problem with the government, the proposed proponents and existing proponents
negotiating and agreeing to access the infrastructure or developing common-user infrastructure and coming up
with commercial agreements and designing the rail or port facility to allow the stakeholders to access that
infrastructure. However, I have a problem with people trying to force their way into existing infrastructure that
was designed for the benefit of the company that built it. The Department of Mines and Petroleum explained the
government’s position, but I believe that there would have been an opportunity to put in this legislation an
exclusive-use clause. I understand that the government does not want to engage in commercial law and leave it
up to the courts, but I think that there is a good, strong argument for giving exclusive use to a project where there
is existing infrastructure.
We are also disappointed—the government will not be surprised by this—at the requirement to prepare a local
participation plan and a community development plan, as we understand these plans will be secret between the
government and the company only, or their publication will be at the government’s discretion. I ask the minister
to respond to me whether that is the case. The reason we are disappointed is that we put smaller clauses into
agreement acts, for instance on local content, that had absolutely no impact on local content. The only way we
had any impact was when we insisted that Peter paid Paul—that is, the government wanted something and the
miners wanted something, so the government used its levers and forced the companies into delivering. Argyle
Diamonds is an example of where that lever was used. Now, of course, government and the public can put
pressure on companies, which gets people talking about it and the community ultimately puts pressure on and
companies feel that they have to perform. They say lots of nice things and talk about large amounts of money,
which seem large to normal, everyday, knock-around Western Australians. We have heard BHP Billiton talk
about it. For instance, a second reading speech I read recently mentioned that the community contribution from
BHP Billiton over the past five years had been $150 million. However, that must be put in context with the size
of and revenues from a project. The example I give is quoted in the same second reading speech of the proposed
outer harbour expansion at a cost of between $15 billion and $20 billion over the next eight years. All of a
sudden $150 million over five years does not sound that much. Having said that, I acknowledge that many
companies are great at philanthropy and indeed at delivering services that government is usually expected to
deliver. However, local content is about building capacity beyond what we are doing now. In the following 20-
plus years, who knows what the next big mineral find will be? However, we do need to build that capacity,
which can be very slow if governments do not use the levers they have available to put direct pressure on
companies. Even though these bills are about a big expansion to these projects, the problem now is that a lot of
10278                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

the projects we are talking about are on brownfields. Yes, the plans will apply to new fields, but they will not be
as effective if nobody knows what they are. This is like asbestos management plans that are kept secret: we do
not know how anybody in asbestos management is performing, only the government knows. Oppositions and the
media cannot be effective in doing their job, the public is kept in the dark and industry cannot see what it can or
cannot do to make things better or whether it is making things worse. All of those matters can be applied to
secret local content and community development plans.
One of the other reasons we want to have a look at the plans is that the company’s vision for how it foresees the
town in the future could be a complete mismatch to the community’s expectation. I understand that a motion was
moved in the other place to make these plans public but that motion was defeated. I do not intend to move a
similar motion in this place, as it would be just a charade or an exclamation mark on something that has already
been voted on in the other place, as we know the government’s position. However, I make that point.
I will give two examples to the house and then I will conclude my comments. Last week I visited the owner of a
local Western Australian company that remanufactures air conditioner compressors. It was a great visit. It
reminded me of a workshop I used to work at in the 1970s. It was nice to see that old fitter shops still exist,
particularly in Western Australia. The company pulls apart old compressors, rebuilds them and puts them back
out onto the market at about 40 per cent of the cost of new compressors; it is, therefore, good for the company. It
puts them out remanufactured, better than new with a longer warranty at 40 per cent of the price, and with only a
30 per cent greenhouse footprint. That is because nothing has to be melted, nothing has to be crushed and
nothing has to be refurnished and remoulded. It is all about internal remanufacturing: stripping the compressors
right back to their bare components, repairing and rebuilding them. Remanufacturing also gives apprentices and
tradesmen a chance to build something from scratch. I can tell the house that it is hard nowadays to find a fitter
who actually understands what is going on in a pump or a compressor that they have just changed. They have
gone to a disposal life where they go to the manual that says, “If this is playing up, replace it with a new one.”
So, they take out the compressor, go to the store, get a new one and whack that back in. The old one is either
taken to the tip or, as it turns out, to a company in Western Australia that remanufactures.
The owner of the company told me that if a company such as FMG—I use FMG as an example—gave him all its
business for compressors, air conditioners, gearboxes, pumps and a whole lot of other components, with that
amount of turnover it could deliver between 2 000 and 3 000 apprentices over four to five years. That apparently
is about FMG’s target of people to cover its skills shortage. That is the sort of compounding effect that his
company could have on future capacity building and that would meet environmental requirements. It is a good
Western Australian company that delivers a cheaper and an as good as new or better product to the end supplier.
The company has a whole lot of measures that it must overcome and the only way it can overcome them quickly
is with government intervention. If it had Network Connect—or whatever the machination of that is at the
moment—on the job, it could negotiate with project proponents and develop those relationships; and if these
plans were open, we could ask them why they were not doing it.
Interestingly enough, I think I am pretty well up to speed, but this guy at the company made me aware of a
company near the airport that, as we speak, is actually remanufacturing haul trucks from scratch. I have said in
this place before that there is no excuse for Western Australia not to be building haul trucks. The only thing we
cannot build at the moment is tyres. We do not have heat-treating facilities for large items such as the chassis,
but we could overcome that as well. The company at the airport is rebuilding haul trucks simply because people
cannot order brand-new ones quickly enough. The company is in partnership with an engine manufacturer, a
supplier and a builder, and they are remanufacturing haul trucks simply because people cannot get haul trucks on
the international supply chain quickly enough. It is the same deal as with the remanufacturing company: it has a
much smaller carbon footprint, it provides better apprenticeships for people who actually get to build and
construct things from scratch, and it provides local Western Australian jobs. More importantly, it is about
capacity building. I am glad that it has started, but it should be a lot bigger.
Finally, we need to be much more forthright in interceding for local content and taking every opportunity that we
can. The example I will give is one that I may have given once before, but I will give it again. A couple of weeks
out from our first liquefied natural gas loading we ran out of seals. Here we had a multibillion-dollar project,
with all the investors coming to see the first LNG shipment. It did not matter whether we had the ship there
because we could not load. The lead time was 180 days. It was a Geraldton company that got us out of trouble. It
made the seals for an absolute gnat’s breath of the cost that we were being charged by the overseas supplier. So
that company got us out of trouble and it got the contract. A few years later I went to do an audit—I had been
moved to another part of the company—and I had a look to see what was going on with that particular part of the
business. I saw that it had gone back to ordering from overseas. Why was that the case, even though we had a
Western Australian supplier? It was because a number of changes had been made within the supply chains in the
department, including system changes. On the download, it just defaulted to the original purchase orders, and the
original purchase orders said Japan. There is nothing wrong with Japan, but I would have much preferred the
jobs to be carried out in Geraldton.
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                        10279

If something was made public about those plans, we could see how the companies are performing, and there
could be some debate and pressure put on them—I am not talking about compulsory targets. If we can identify
where the shortfalls are, we can ask why and get on with it. Why can we not trust the government to do it? It is
because no matter how good a government is or how good its intent is, governments miss things. Many eyes pick
things up. I do not know how the Liberal Party campaigns, but when the Australian Labor Party is campaigning,
nothing goes out of an office until three sets of eyes have gone over it. That is in recognition of the fact that
people miss things. The same principle should apply to these community action plans. In my criticism of how
these plans are being managed, if it is indeed true that these plans are private or that it is at the government’s
discretion whether they are released, I am not saying that companies do not contribute, or make a major
contribution, to Western Australia and the Western Australian lifestyle, particularly in delivering amenity in the
north west, and also in delivering amenity in the city. These companies help with theatres and the arts. They are
major sponsors of the arts. They help sponsor sport. They are innovative with housing. Why the heck we do not
just follow their lead is beyond me, but that is a debate for another day.
Having said that, the main intent of the bill is to apply a consistent royalty rate across the iron ore sector. That is
a very good thing. We are glad that the government took the opportunity it was given to do that. For the state
overall, that is a great thing, and I congratulate the government on it. It is indeed a good deal for Western
Australia. With that, I commend the bills to the house.
HON WENDY DUNCAN (Mining and Pastoral — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.04 pm]: The Nationals
will also be supporting the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals) Bill 2011
and the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, believing that it is a good outcome for the state
to be able to see not only the royalty increases, but also, of course, as Hon Jon Ford noted, the consistency across
the sector. We are dealing with two bills cognately, and the bills deal with the state agreements for both BHP
Billiton and Rio Tinto. However, they contain some common clauses. I guess the major clause of interest is the
royalty increase—the variation of the agreements to allow increased royalties for iron ore fines on a staged basis,
and other amendments to facilitate BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto’s Pilbara operations and expansion programs.
The phased increase in royalty rates for fines ore will increase from 5.625 per cent to 6.5 per cent from July
2012, and to 7.5 per cent from 1 July 2013, to be the same as that for lump iron ore. These changes will also
bring royalties for fines ore into line with fines ore as per the proposed changes to the Mining Act 1978, which
are also being raised on a staged basis. The Treasury has calculated that these increases will increase net royalty
income across the iron ore industry by $1.9 billion over the next three years. That is a very timely increase in
funding for the state government, at a time when it is under pressure to build the infrastructure and provide
support in amenity and community services in those mining regions and in the state in general.
Another one of the common clauses between the two bills is the introduction of the requirement to prepare a
local participation plan and a community development plan. Both BHP and Rio largely do this anyway, and I
agree with Hon Jon Ford that both these companies make an enormous contribution, not only in the regions
where they are operating and their towns, but also in the city. Anyone who went to see the Canning Stock Route
exhibition recently will have seen an example of that. It was an amazing exhibition that would not have got off
the ground without the assistance of the major mining company concerned. The introduction of this requirement
into our state agreements is pretty important going forward. It is excellent that mining companies make a major
contribution, but some do so more than others. There are examples of mining companies perhaps using precious
resources, which then makes it very difficult for government to provide what is essential for the growing
communities in that area. So this provision certainly will help.
The third common cause is the strengthening of provisions to facilitate third-party crossings of railways built
under state agreements by providing for the minister to determine whether there is undue prejudice to and
interference with the company’s operations, subject to prior consultation with the state agreement company. This
is a necessary clause to ensure the timely development of some of these projects. It is fine for government to be
blamed at times for the slow approval process, but in many cases it is out of the hands of the state government to
expedite these approvals when there are disagreements between major companies over this key infrastructure
and how it interacts.
The fourth common clause contains amendments to enable the minister to waive a consent requirement under the
special railway licence provisions of the state agreement in circumstances in which it has not been possible to
reach agreement with an affected landholder who has a miscellaneous licence for railways, and when consents
have been obtained or a determination has been made under the Mining Act. That relates to the previous clause.
There are new tenure clauses to provide the company the ability, under special circumstances and with the
minister’s consent, to bring existing infrastructure tenure and applications under the state agreement and for the
company to apply for and, if necessary, have granted, tenure to be used for state agreement purposes before it
submits proposals. Those common clauses apply to both the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation Amendment Bill
2011 and the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals) Bill 2011.
10280                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

The Rio Tinto bill particularly relates to the Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement 1963; the Iron Ore
(Hamersley Range) Agreement 1968 (Paraburdoo); the Iron Ore (Robe River) Agreement 1964; the Iron Ore
(Mt Bruce) Agreement 1972; the Iron Ore (Yandicoogina) Agreement 1996; and the Iron Ore (Hope Downs)
Agreement 1992. These agreements are amended to enable Rio Tinto to undertake its announced
333 million tonne a year expansion program in the Pilbara, which is planned to be achieved by 2015 and which,
through an expansion of mines, port and rail, will be an investment of about $15 billion in that region. There are
some key amendments to assist with that expansion program.
In respect of BHP Billiton, the agreements in question are: the Iron Ore Beneficiation Agreement; the Iron Ore
(Mt Newman) Agreement 1964; the Iron Ore (Mt Goldsworthy) Agreement 1964; the Iron Ore (Goldsworthy-
Nimingarra) Agreement 1972; the Iron Ore (McCamey’s Monster) Agreement 1972; and the Iron Ore
(Marillana Creek) Agreement 1991. These changes will help facilitate BHP’s current expansion programs. It is
proposing to expand its Pilbara iron ore operations from the current capacity of 250 million tonnes per annum to
350 million tonnes per annum by 2020, including a new harbour at Port Hedland. Current estimates place the
value of the expansion requiring an investment of between $15 billion and $20 billion. There are clauses that
relate not only to the expansion of the company in its iron ore regions but also to Port Hedland, to facilitate the
port expansion.
The additional royalties are greatly welcomed in this state, but I cannot finish without noting the machinations
and gnashing of teeth at a federal level. Our Prime Minister has even written to Tony Windsor to talk about ways
of penalising states for increasing royalties because of its commitment to reimburse mining companies under the
fairly flawed minerals resource rent tax arrangements. Under the current arrangements, Western Australia may
well see an adverse impact on its GST share and in Infrastructure Australia grants. It is pretty interesting to note
that there was actually a motion in the other house, unanimously supported by all sides of our Western
Australian Parliament, calling for a floor in the GST of 75 per cent. That was debated and supported
unanimously in the other house. But when a very similar motion was put to the House of Representatives in
Canberra by Tony Crook, the Western Australian National Party member for O’Connor, where were our intrepid
Western Australian representatives? They were all sitting timidly on the “no” side of the house, doing the
bidding of their masters from Sydney and Melbourne. The Liberals voted with Labor, the Greens and the
Independents to allow this key source of income for states that are under pressure to provide infrastructure to
support mining demands to be available to be raided by the less productive states who dominate our federal
Parliament. I think there is a salutary lesson there for us all. We are elected to Parliament to represent our
constituencies, and Tony Crook has done that, courageously and fiercely, in the House of Representatives. He
put a motion, which the Western Australian Parliament had unanimously supported. I do not know if any
members saw a photograph of the House of Representatives on the day the motion was voted on, but Tony
Crook and Bob Katter were sitting on one side of the house, and all the other members of the House of
Representatives were on the other side—Labor and Liberal Western Australian members—failing to stand up for
their state.
I think that is something we need to continue to fight for from the Western Australian point of view. In the
meantime, the National Party supports these two bills.
HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [12.14 pm]: I rise to speak on the Iron Ore Agreements
Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals) Bill 2011 and the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation
Amendment Bill 2011, which will amend 11 state agreements. The Greens will support the passage of these
bills, but I flag to the Leader of the House that there are a couple of questions I want to ask to seek some advice,
and I do not necessarily want to go into Committee of the Whole.
I suppose it is well known that the Greens do not support the notion of state agreement acts, for a number of
reasons. More recently, it has been found that some elements of industry also have problems with state
agreement acts. First off, I want to thank the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the minister, Rio Tinto and
BHP Billiton for briefing my office on these bills to apprise us of what BHP and Rio are seeking in the outcomes
of the passage of these bills.
As has already been stated, royalties on fines ore will increase from 5.625 per cent to 6.5 per cent by July 2012,
and then increase again from 6.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent by 1 July 2013. This will bring it into line with the
current price of lump, so all the iron ore will be going out at that royalty rate. As far as the Greens are concerned,
there are a number of other minerals that need to be reviewed as well.
The fundamental problem we have always had with state agreement acts is that a lot of what goes on with
them—including water licences, a range of other issues and, as we have already heard, the processes to be
arranged under the local participation plan—takes place behind closed doors, with very little ability on the part
of the public or, indeed, the Parliament, to find out what is going on, because these are commercial-in-
confidence arrangements.
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                     10281

We have had enormous environmental problems in the past that have arisen from a number of major projects
operating under state agreement acts. I need only refer to the red mud debacle many years ago, when the
community was kept in the dark about the damage caused by those ponds through a lack of proper environmental
process until, eventually, the damage was glaringly obvious and consequently cost the state and industry a huge
amount of money in trying to fix up the problems. That happened because we were not able to find out what was
going on.
No Parliament in this day and age should consider entering into state agreement acts. The Greens do not believe
that they provide transparency or clarity to the community or the Parliament. Indeed, in many cases, an
expanding industry and a diversity of users are actually putting constraints in the way of development. A no
more poignant example is the recent incident in which FMG denied Roy Hill access across its rail line.
State agreement acts are an outdated method of attracting investment, and we have never had the full truth about
the implications of major state agreement acts in Western Australia. State agreement acts, by way of controlling
parts of the bureaucracy and process, almost keep the empires running; however, not many other countries have
systematic methods for assisting individual proponents and major projects as we do in Western Australia.
In 2002–03 the Michael Keating report recommended to the then government that the state cease using state
agreement acts, for a range of reasons, including the fact that sectors of the industry were complaining about
state agreement acts.
I now want to touch on what the two bills that we are considering deal with. One of the things that they deal with
that most probably arises out of our concern is the termination of the beneficiation agreements. In its attempt to
build the hot briquetted iron ore plant, BHP Billiton complied with the intent of the state agreement acts. I
understand that some aspects of the beneficiation agreements are still to be established in a couple of Rio Tinto’s
developments. I understand that that is an ongoing process. It will repeal three processing acts and ratify
termination agreements. There are six common clauses across BHP’s and Rio’s state agreement acts.
One of the issues that we will come to in a moment that I really want to ask some further questions on relates to
the minister’s determination of undue prejudice and interference regarding the crossings over railways, the
special railway licence consent waiver and general tenure clauses. Also, the bills deal with matters that relate to
rating provisions. Some amendments have already been made to the newer state agreement acts. No amendments
have been made to these state agreement acts but a working group is now looking at the rating provisions. In
discussions with the companies, it became apparent that the rating provisions that were being looked at were for
fixed buildings. In trying to tease out from the corporations what these were going to be, it was determined that
if the development was a fixed development—that is, a workshop—it could be rated, but if it was a crusher
building, say, at Port Hedland or down on East Intercourse Island near Dampier, they were considered to be
movable yet they are about four times the size of a loco workshop or any other building. When it comes to the
jetty system and the dolphins associated with the Rio development, we understand that they would not be
included in those rating provisions. I hope that the working group looking at these rating proposals—I
understand there will be a three-year pilot—will take on board the concerns of local governments and, indeed,
the broader community that for many years companies have been absolved from paying rates to local
communities under state agreement acts. I am reminded of some of the deep, dark distant days when I was a Port
Hedland town councillor. As part of the council we wrote to the then Mt Newman Mining seeking rates. We got
a response somewhere along the lines of, “How many more peppercorns do you want?” That was the nature of
the iron ore industry under the original state agreement acts many years ago. It really did thumb its nose at local
government. I would be really interested to see how this working group looks at this development. I will be
trying to seek from the minister some further understanding of what has been proposed and how that will come
about.
When it comes to the minister stepping into play without any undue prejudice or interference, that has clearly
arisen as a result of the FMG Roy Hill debacle, which, from my understanding, cost the developers of Roy Hill
about an extra $140 million as a result of having to go around the FMG rail line because they could not cross it.
I now want to touch briefly on the clause in the Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act that relates to the
special rail licences. Under subclause (3) of the SRL provisions, which is consistent with the SRL state
agreement provisions, developers must liaise with all affected titleholders and obtain their unconditional and
irrevocable consent before they can be granted a special licence. This creates a problem because a small
corporation, a small interest, may not negotiate. Notwithstanding the fact that the minister may determine undue
prejudice and interference, it appears that it would be far better if the arguments in this area were dealt with by
the Mining Warden as opposed to this other system. The current SRL provision effectively allows third party
landholders, no matter how small their interests, to delay or prevent the issue of an SRL and to seek leverage for
unrelated commercial outcomes from the state agreement party seeking the special rail licence. Potentially, these
commercial outcomes could take the form of money, unrelated contractual concessions or demands for
infrastructure assessment. This is true when the state agreement acts proponent seeking an SRL offers adequate
10282                               [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

compensation for prudential or injurious impact. Under the current provisions the only available recourse is
either to concede to the demands of the landholders or seek political support from the state to facilitate consent.
However, as the state has no legal power to force the consent, facilitation by the state is largely political in nature
and has not proved especially effective in cases when it has been sought. I would really like the minister to give
us an idea of whether these areas will be looked at at some stage.
The lack of legal power of the state to oblige landholders to provide consent in appropriate circumstances has the
potential to work unreasonably against the state’s interests in a number of ways. The entire Western Australian
mining regime and industry policy under the iron ore state agreement acts is predicated on the principle of third
party land access for infrastructure purposes; that is, rail, road, and the rest. The ability to refuse consent without
having to meet at least some form of threshold test to establish prejudice or damage should be viewed as
inconsistent with the spirit of the mining regime in the state or the Mining Act. This occurs because we are
operating in a state agreement environment. If we were operating under the Mining Act, we would immediately
take it to the Mining Warden’s court, which can make a determination quickly, judiciously and in the best
interests of the state and the parties concerned, and can rule out vexatious or less than genuine impedance to their
development. The ability to refuse consent to land access via a special rail licence should be seen as an
unacceptable form of land banking. As the minister will know, I have long held the view that mines that land
bank or hold land tenure for a long period should operate on the use-it-or-lose-it principle. I note in discussions
with Rio Tinto that we talked about the land tenure issues that arose from the Cazaly issue. I inquired whether
Rio was still sitting on those tenements and seeking exemptions from expenditure, to which they very quickly
said, “No; we’ve just changed. We are actually now putting in expenditure provisions and moving on with the
development of those parcels of land.” I think that is a good thing. But for many years Rio sat on that land and
warehoused it.
The ability of one landholder to withhold consent can result in significant financial damage to the state itself in
the form of lost royalties, and to third parties, by refusing to provide consent to a non-exclusive form of tenure
such as a special rail licence without requirements to justify the refusal to consent. Cooperation between
landholders in the Pilbara iron ore province is a legitimate expectation of the community to derive wealth and
development for the benefit of the state if landholders are allowed access to land for infrastructure arbitrarily,
without consent. The orderly and planned development of the Pilbara will not be possible without consequential
loss to the state of development and royalty opportunities. I still think, from my understanding of the original
Hamersley Iron state agreement act, that the provisions in the act and, possibly, some of the early BHP acts, need
to be amended to stop vexatious or inappropriate use of land banking, which causes the state agreement acts a
significant problem.
I hope the gridlock of infrastructure development in the Pilbara that can occur from this is something that the
government will be looking at in the future. The companies have raised this with the Department of State
Development in their negotiations around this and it has not been dealt with. It also tends to highlight to me
again the problems associated with state agreement acts. When they were initially established between one or
two major corporations and the state, it was fine. As competition has grown, we are now seeing the anti-
competitive nature of state agreement acts in being able to work against the interests of other proponents and,
indeed, the interests of the state. It highlights to us, again, our belief that state agreement acts are not in the best
interests of the state, not in the best interests of most of the corporations, not in the best interests of transparency,
not in the best interests of the environment and/or not in the best interests of social development within the
Pilbara.
It was also interesting, as an aside, in catching up with the two major corporations, that even the mining boom is
having an effect on state development. One of the things that I think was always acknowledged was that when
Des Kelly, Jim Limerick, Noel Ashcroft and many other people worked for the Department of State
Development, an incredible source of knowledge was contained within those people. As they have gone and
others have moved out of State Development into the mining industry, a sort of general comment has come from
industry that the history of many of the state developments is not as well understood now within the department
as it would have been a few years ago.
I think we also need to touch on the fact that when it comes to the Rio agreement acts, part of the issues being
looked at to fulfil the downstream processing requirements is the use of Marandoo water, dewatering being re-
injected into the South Fortescue bore field and the potential for Bungaroo to connect into the Millstream
headworks and provide water into that area for the general community as an offset. I have long held the view that
in the Pilbara, especially the central Pilbara, there is an issue of wasting significant state resources in dewatered
mine water. There is nothing more pertinent than the water that is currently flowing down the Weeli Wolli Creek
as a result of the dewatering of Hope Downs and mining area C. I hope, again, that the government will look at
that in terms of a requirement of the state agreement partners to not waste a valuable resource. Until recently, we
were considering building more desalination plants on the coast. If we tapped into that wasted water, we would
have the surplus water we need. In Port Hedland it is difficult to establish housing because there is not enough
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                       10283

available water in terms of the provision of licences for the new houses being developed in that town. Better
water management across the Pilbara would be beneficial to all parties. But the issue really is that when those
companies operate under state agreement acts, it is very difficult for the state to impose a new direction in
agreements that can be amended only by the acceptance of both parties. I understand that Rio is negotiating an
extension of the four-term extension for downstream processing at Yandi as a result of that. I am not sure what
stage that is at, but it might be worthwhile if the minister is able to advise the house where that negotiation is at.
That is part of the agreement that will offset the need for the further downstream processing as outlined in the
state agreement acts.
When it comes to Yandi, I believe there is a real need for both corporations, BHP and Rio, to be able to work
more collaboratively. I do not know what ability the state has through its state agreement acts to look at long-
term mine planning for the Yandi-confined iron ore deposit, because two corporations are working in Yandi
under two separate state agreement acts. At the end of the day, we will have two management plans and two end-
of-life mine plans for ostensibly the same ore body. Obviously, when Rio and BHP looked at some of their
amalgamation issues and went off around the world to the various nations to look at the competitive nature of
that, they lost hundreds of millions in investment looking at those programs. Unfortunately, Yandi is one of the
areas where the ability of those two corporations to work in cohort and consent would breach the competition
law, and I do not know how we can get around that. But I think if we could get those two corporations, which
quite clearly, in my view, understand the need to work together on that ore body but are constrained by
competition law, it would be interesting to note what the government, through its state agreement provisions, can
negotiate to assist an orderly development of that ore body.
That is about it from me. I think that when we look at some of the prospecting companies out there that are now
getting in the way of SRL developments, there needs to be a better way. I believe the Warden’s Court needs to
come into play in that. I am aware of one particular corporation that is being particularly vexatious and holding
up developments of special rail licences. Under the state agreement acts there is no appeals or arbitration place at
the moment and I think there must be some method under either a ministerial directive or the state agreement
acts themselves to prevent land banking, or there could be the provision that state agreement act companies can
actually take these vexatious issues to the Warden’s Court, because the Warden’s Court sorts these out real quick
for the mining industry. On that, thank you very much indeed. The Greens (WA) will support the elements of
these amendments and I again put on the record that the day this state gets out of state agreement acts will, I
think, be a great day for the state, a great day for industry and the way to go for the future.
HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [12.42 pm] — in reply: I thank
members who have spoken for their support for the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation (Amendment, Termination
and Repeals) Bill 2011 and the Iron Ore Agreements Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Quite obviously, the
fundamental benefit to the state of Western Australia is a significant increase in royalties and that will be of great
benefit to the Treasury of Western Australia as we go about seeking to deliver the goods and services that the
people of Western Australia require from their government. I will come to the issues raised by Hon Wendy
Duncan later on as I get to those comments I wish to make, because there are some issues surrounding the GST
redistribution that could come into play with decisions such as the one we are making now. However, I will not
suggest that the National Party might have a vested interest in this legislation going through, because that would
not be nice! Therefore, I will not suggest that that is the case at all.
As has been mentioned, the royalty rates relate to iron ore fines. This time last year we passed some legislation
to increase royalties on iron ore fines and we are having a second go at this time of year. I do not quite know
why it is that state agreement acts always seem to turn up on the last sitting day of Parliament, but it seems to be
a historical fact, not just with this government, but with previous governments as well. I guess the view seems to
be that because we cannot amend them, we might as well just knock them off in a hurry at the finish of a session.
But they are important legislation and they relate to very significant future investments by the two major iron ore
companies, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. Both companies have very significant investment programs going
forward and this is a good time for the government to deal with the issue of the concession on royalty rates that
has been in place for many years in relation to fines. These bills provide for a phased increase in the royalty rates
for fines from 5.625 per cent to 6.5 per cent from 1 July 2012 and from 6.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent from 1 July
2013. That staged increase, if I can put it that way, of royalties on iron ore fines will take place over that period.
It needs to be made very clear, particularly to some federal politicians, that in a sense this does not necessarily
represent an increase in royalties; it is in fact a removal of a concession. If we go back in history and look at the
iron ore agreements that began in the 1960s, there was at that time no demand for iron ore fines and so there was
a concessional rate, from a royalty perspective, for iron ore fines, and that reflected the situation at the time. I
agree with the sentiment that some people have expressed about the fact that state agreement acts require both
sides to agree to a variation because what has happened, of course, is that in order to raise the royalty rates from
the concessional rates that were in place from the past, it has been necessary to reach agreement with the
companies; the government cannot simply arbitrarily make a decision to increase royalty rates. It could legislate,
10284                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

but it would be a very significant sovereign risk issue if a state government chose, through its Parliament, to
unilaterally amend an agreement between the government and a company. Therefore, what has been required is
for the government to negotiate with the state agreement act companies in order to reach agreement about any
variations. Quite obviously, the companies are not that fussed about paying more royalties and therefore it is
necessary, as these state agreement variations attest, for the government to agree to certain requests from those
companies in order for them to agree to the increase in the royalty rate. The bill before the house will be of
significant benefit to the state financially, but will also provide some benefits for the companies as they go into
this period of significant expansion.
Hon Jon Ford raised the issue of third party access and mentioned—I think I have got his words correct—that he
has some sympathy for the majors, and I have to say I agree with him. I have had some sympathy for the majors
on this as well, just from the very simplistic point of view that if a company develops the infrastructure that those
major companies have developed and someone else comes along and wants to use it, it can have a significant
impact on those companies’ capacities to operate their projects. But the bottom line is that when the state
agreement acts were brought in to effect in the 1960s, a clause was put in most of them that required third party
access to railway and ports subject to the economic effect of a third party using those railway lines or ports. Hon
Jon Ford is quite right in saying that there has been a lot of litigation over the years about this and it continues,
and it is interesting the way some of the players are currently operating in the world of the courts about third
party access. Fortescue Metals Group is very actively seeking to get third party access to Rio infrastructure. At
the same time, I think there are probably people taking action against FMG to have third party access to its
facilities. Therefore, it is quite interesting how companies have taken different points of view on this matter
depending on the circumstances at the time. The state agreement act variations that we are discussing today do
not really affect third party access. It is not something that is happening here other than with the issue about
where railway lines cross over and giving the minister greater authority to deal with those problems.
Fundamentally, the issue of third party access is contained in the state agreement acts and it is really, in my view,
for the courts to decide how those particular provisions will play out on the ground.
While Hon Jon Ford spoke I wrote a note to myself that reads “Are you seeking further amendments?” I do not
know whether he was suggesting that we should make some amendments to state agreement acts to give the
majors more certainty about keeping third party proponents away, or whether he was suggesting that we should
recognise the current situation.
Hon Jon Ford: I raised the issue with the department but that was not the case; it is a policy to not get involved
in issues that are dealt with through, I think, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I think that is a sensible approach from the state government’s point of view. Much
of the commercial issues surrounding competition between companies is dealt with by federal law. Bearing in
mind that the state agreement acts were written in the 1960s, it is probably necessary for the legal processes to
play out. But there have been some slight changes in recent times. I think the Goldsworthy line is now available
for third party access and is still part of the BHP operations. Some progress is being made. I would have thought
that with Rio Tinto’s and BHP Billiton’s significant expansion in the Pilbara, there is probably no room on their
railway lines or ports to let anybody in anyway even if they wanted to.
Hon Jon Ford: It does not stop people from trying, though.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Of course. The proviso has to always remain that third party access can be allowed
only if it does not adversely affect the economics and viability of the company that built it in the first place. Of
course, there has to be a proper charge for the use of those facilities that reflects the commercial realities of
having two operators using the same facilities. It is interesting, however, that we will finish up with five or six
different rail systems in the Pilbara—possibly even more than that—because most companies feel much more
comfortable in having complete control of their own mining operations, railway systems and port infrastructure.
When we looked at the amalgamation of BHP and Rio, we discovered that, interestingly, both companies had
different rail system operations and they could not share because they had different size ore wagons; they were
not compatible from a technical point of view. There are all sorts of questions in respect of that.
Hon Jon Ford’s main comments related to this issue of local participation plans. The inclusion of provisions for
local participation plans in the state agreement acts is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough,
according to Hon Jon Ford. I understand where he is coming from in respect of that. It is now a requirement for
these companies to sit down and have local participation in their activities. Companies are to inform the
government of the contents of their local participation plans, just as they are required to provide the government
with information on their community development plans. Having those provisions in the state agreement acts is a
step forward because it focuses companies’ attention on what it is necessary, from the government’s point of
view, for them to do with local participation. As described in the explanatory memorandum, clause 7E of the
Iron Ore Agreements Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals) Bill 2011 requires —
                                    [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                 10285

        … the Company to prepare a plan which describes proposed strategies the Company will use, and
        require a third party supplier to use, to maximise the uses and procurement of materials and services
        within Western Australia.
        This plan is to include detailed information on the procurement practices the Company will adopt in
        calling for tenders and letting contracts and how such practices will provide fair and reasonable
        opportunity for suitably qualified Western Australian suppliers, manufacturers and contractors to tender
        for works, materials, plant, equipment and supplies.
        This plan is also to include details of the communication strategies the Company will use to alert
        Western Australian suppliers, manufacturers and contractors to services opportunities and procurement
        opportunities
        At least 6 months before the anticipated submission of proposals relating to a proposed development,
        the Company must give to the Minister information about the implementation of this plan in relation to
        the proposed development
        Provision is also made for amendment of the Local Participation Plan or adoption of a new plan as
        requested by either the Minister or the Company.
The companies are obligated to provide that information to the government. Hon Jon Ford asked whether we can
trust the government. Sometimes we really have to, because governments make lots of decisions —
Hon Jon Ford: I did qualify that.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I understand that; it was a rhetorical question. Just as a quick aside—Hon Jon Ford
will be aware of this—when it comes to the Department of Fisheries defending the sustainability of its fisheries,
the non-government organisations who want marine parks everywhere say, “We can’t trust the government
because the fisheries department is part of the government and that’s what they would say, wouldn’t they?”
However, the department has expertise and we should accept their expertise.
Our government has the same determination as the opposition to ensure that local industry can participate in the
mining industry. We do not have a different view at all. We do not believe in mandatory requirements, in any
legislation, for all goods and services to be accessed from within Western Australia. We do not believe that it
should be mandatory and nor does the Labor Party, to my knowledge. Indeed, the federal Labor Party has the
same view. I have heard Martin Ferguson speak on this issue on a few occasions and he does not think that it
should be mandatory.
Requiring companies to produce these plans and provide them to the government forces companies to give
serious consideration to what they are doing and gives the government the capacity to do something about it if
they are not doing what the government thinks is appropriate. It does not mean that the government can make
companies do anything; as we said, we are not into mandatory requirements. However, the government can use
its influence in many, many ways to convince companies that they may not be doing the right thing in respect of
local participation.
Let us gain some understanding of what these companies have been doing to facilitate local participation in
Western Australia. If we look at BHP’s contribution to local content, we see that last year BHP Billiton Iron
Ore’s reported local content contributions to Australian businesses for goods and services was $7.4 billion,
which was around 88 per cent of its total operations and gross spend. The contribution to Western Australian
businesses was in the order of $6.6 billion, which was 78 per cent of its total spending. BHP Billiton employs
175 apprentices and trainees. That is not a bad contribution to the state’s industries and businesses as they
operate within the state. It is fair to say that the iron ore companies—I will talk about Rio in a minute—access
local content far more than some of the oil and gas companies operating off the coast. Last year, Rio Tinto Iron
Ore reported that its local content contribution to Australian businesses for goods and services was
around 92 per cent of its total $6.7 billion operations and gross spend. Its contribution to Western Australian
businesses was $5.6 billion, which was 84 per cent of its total spending. Rio employs 298 apprentices and 499
trainees. They are not bad figures when we think about it and that is something we should acknowledge and
recognise. I will come back to the community development plan in a moment.
Hon Jon Ford asked why these local participation plans will not be made public. The Premier said in the other
house that he was prepared, with the agreement of the companies, to give reports on the implementation of these
plans to Parliament from time to time. That is a sensible approach when we bear in mind that much of what will
be contained in these plans will be highly sensitive from a commercial point of view. The requirement to make
public the agreements may significantly disadvantage some companies. The Premier’s commitment to work with
the companies to make information available as we are able to, and at the same time avoid commercial-in-
confidence problems, is the way to go. It should be recognised that having provisions for local participation
plans within the state agreement acts to require companies to inform the government is a move in the right
10286                               [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

direction. The provision of that information publicly, when it is agreed that it can be made public, is the way
forward. I will come back to the community development plans.
                                       Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I was responding to some of the comments that Hon Jon Ford made during his
speech. I was talking about the local participation plans and the issue of local content. Hon Jon Ford raised a
number of issues that relate to companies that he has been involved with. I have great sympathy for the
arguments that he put forward, because it makes a lot of sense if we remanufacture a whole range of mechanical
equipment and so on in Western Australia. I hope that the comments he has made will be taken on board by
companies that are seeking to purchase equipment such as, in that case, air-conditioning compressors and haul
trucks, and that we seek to develop within Western Australia an industry surrounding the refurbishment, if you
like, of equipment. That seems to make a lot of sense. He was perfectly right when he said that we live in a
disposable world. It is tragic to think that if anything goes wrong with someone’s car, a big part is just taken out
and thrown on the tip and another part is put in, as opposed to trying to fix it. I guess it saves on labour, but it is a
serious waste of resources.
I am not sure whether I should say “you” or “Hon Jon Ford”, as you are the same person, Mr Deputy President.
How do I do that? You would reckon I would know by now!
Hon Kate Doust: You’ve been here long enough; you should know.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I know.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Jon Ford): Order, members! I am the Deputy President.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Hon Jon Ford was saying that remanufacturing is a good thing. I was just reminded
of a factory that I opened in Welshpool in the eastern suburbs. The company remanufactures shovel teeth for
mechanical shovels. It is a very highly specialised business. As members will be aware, these big shovels are
used to dig up iron ore and the teeth wear off quickly. In order to weld them back on again, I think it requires
seven welding processes per tooth to attach them. This particular company has a big stack of these shovels out
the back waiting to be remanufactured, if you like. It is a real niche market. This company is going well; it was
employing nearly 40 people and looking to employ another 40. If we start looking around, we can find a lot of
those little companies in Hazelmere and Welshpool, and they are all riding on the back of the resource sector.
Although we are perhaps not getting the amount of manufacturing or the fabrication that some people might
want, a huge amount of activity is going on in those suburbs to provide services to the resource industry. A lot of
little niche businesses are developing that are doing extraordinarily well at present. It is not all doom and gloom.
In fact, it is very encouraging to look at a company such as Ausdrill Ltd, for example, which is in Canning Vale.
Ausdrill started as a small company in Kalgoorlie and is now a huge international company, employing many
thousands of people and employing absolutely state-of-the-art technology for drilling equipment. Anybody who
wants to hear some really good news ought to visit Ausdrill in Canning Vale, because it does a marvellous job.
That will probably do me on the issue of local participation plans, other than to say that I think these state
agreement act variations will take us a step forward in understanding better what the companies are doing about
local participation.
The other issue that is new is the community development plan. I have to take a bit of exception to the comments
made by Hon Robin Chapple about the history of the iron ore companies and how they said, “How many
peppercorns do you want?” or something like that. Back in the 1960s—I remember it well—these companies
began from absolutely nothing, with not one skerrick of infrastructure in place —
Hon Sue Ellery: I was born in 1962.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am pleased to hear that; I think that is very encouraging.
I was around in 1965 or thereabouts when these companies began; at the time they were Hamersley Iron and the
Mt Newman Mining Co Pty Ltd. I know what Port Hedland looked like before work began on the Mt Newman
railway line. I also know that there was no such thing as Dampier or Karratha. I know about Karratha station
because I launched a book about the history of Karratha station pre-Hamersley Iron. It is a fascinating story. We
had Wittenoom and Roebourne, and that was about it. There was no infrastructure whatsoever. The iron ore
agreements that we are talking about today that will be amended were put in place by the then government to
give these companies the security of tenure they needed to extract and export the iron ore, and in return they paid
for all the infrastructure. They built the towns, the houses, the hospitals, the schools, the roads, the power
stations and the water supplies. They built everything out of their own resources. In exchange for that, they did
not pay local government rates, which was a pretty fair deal for the local government and for the state, because
everything was provided and, ultimately, when the towns were no longer private company towns, all the assets
were given to the state or the local authority.
                                     [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                          10287

I now turn to what those companies are doing now. They continue to put money into those communities. Rio
Tinto’s contribution to the local community last year was $74 million. That includes contributions to a range of
medical, educational, recreational and community infrastructure. It is a significant employer of Aboriginal
people, with nine per cent of its workforce being Aboriginal people. Last year Rio awarded goods and services
contracts worth $180 million to Western Australian Indigenous businesses. I keep making the point that the
mining industry, which is much maligned by some sections of our community, is in fact probably the biggest
employer of Aboriginal people in this state and is providing real and meaningful employment. Mining
companies are doing that not because they want to make some sort of statement from a political perspective, but
because they believe it is in their best interests and in the interests of those communities. I give a lot of credit to
the mining companies for the work they do with Aboriginal people and for the amount of money they are
spending in local communities. BHP Billiton, on the other hand, has contributed about $150 million over the past
five years. Its major infrastructure investments include childcare centres, recreation facilities and the upgrade of
two education facilities. Last year BHP Billiton awarded contracts for goods and services worth about
$115 million to Indigenous businesses. It employs around 650 Aboriginal people.
Again, these companies are making, and will continue to make, a significant contribution to the communities in
which they operate, but with these new agreements, they will be required to develop a community development
plan and make that available to the minister. That is a step in the right direction. To a certain extent it basically
formalises the situation that exists in the Pilbara.
Hon Wendy Duncan indicated that the National Party supports the bills. She talked about the various common
provisions of the legislation. I will not go through those again. She mentioned an interesting political situation
that exists in Canberra at the present time and the fact that the minerals resource rent tax will reimburse
companies for their state royalties, which has caused the federal Treasurer some serious consternation. I would
have thought that if he was smart enough to be the federal Treasurer he would have been smart enough to realise
that if the government put into the MRRT a provision that state royalties will be reimbursed, that that is an
invitation to the states to raise royalty rates. In effect it is a transfer of dollars from the commonwealth to the
states, which would make a nice change, I might add. But for the Treasurer to now say to the states that they will
be penalised through GST distribution or through the infrastructure fund if they do that is an outrageous
proposition. The federal Treasurer is saying, “We as a federal government want to raise $9 billion a year”, or
whatever it is, “through a new tax, but if the states dare to raise their royalties at all, they will be penalised.” It
cannot have both. Why is it good enough for the federal government to raise its taxes and then seek to penalise
the states for raising their royalties? It is bizarre. It is also bizarre that the MRRT, for all its faults, relates to the
profitability of companies. Royalties do not relate to profitability at all. Every company operating in Western
Australia pays royalties for the resources they exploit. They pay whether they make any profit or not. That is the
payment they make to the citizens of Western Australia, who own the resources, for the use of those resources. It
is a cost of doing business. It is like running a restaurant. The owner pays for the meat that comes in to make the
hamburgers. The owner does not only pay for the meat once a profit has been made; the meat is paid for because
that is the cost of doing business.
For the federal government—through the Treasurer, Minister Martin Ferguson and Ken Henry—to say that
royalties are an inefficient tax is a complete lack of understanding of what a royalty is. It is not a tax; it is a
charge. It is a cost of doing business. The whole federal debate about the MRRT and its predecessor, the super
profits tax, demonstrates once and for all the absolute ignorance of the people who run federal Treasury about
how the resource sector works in Western Australia. They have a complete lack of understanding. That is an
appalling state of affairs. It is an appalling state of affairs when the federal Treasurer says he will take away
some of our infrastructure funding in Western Australia because we had the audacity to do what we are doing
today; that is, to remove a concession from the royalty rates that apply to our state agreement act. I hope that
does not come to fruition.
Hon Ken Travers: I think we should start to think of royalties as a sale of a capital asset. We should be having
an argument on a national scale about how we treat them—whether they are actually a sale of a capital asset and
treat them in the books, at the state level, completely differently. There is a strong argument about that.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: When Mr Travers is in government, he can sort it all out. I suspect he has lots of
things to sort out in due course!
Hon Ken Travers: It was a genuine comment. If you want to treat it flippantly, that is fine.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Fair enough if you think there is change afoot. It is good that people are thinking
about these things.
The bottom line is, though, this is the price we pay for the minerals that belong to the state of Western
Australia—not to the people of Australia, the people of Western Australia. I find it absolutely appalling that the
federal Treasurer does not understand that one simple constitutional fact, and continues to misunderstand it. It
has to be a deliberate misunderstanding.
10288                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

I do not know whether members understand how the royalty system works in respect to the Commonwealth
Grants Commission. It is an extraordinarily complex system. Fundamentally, the Commonwealth Grants
Commission seeks to ensure that every citizen of every state receives the same quality of government services. If
one state is doing extraordinarily well in respect to revenue raising, that is distributed amongst the other states so
that one state does not do better than the others. It is done by the way in which the Commonwealth Grants
Commission ensures that the GST is redistributed to the states. There are two bands of royalty rates. Where the
mineral fits into the royalty band depends on whether a state receives a credit or a debit for what it is doing. The
concern I have with this particular proposal today is that when we take fines royalty rates up to 7.5 per cent, they
go into the higher band. If the rate is less than the average, then we actually could get penalised. It is not out of
the question we will get penalised for making this decision today, but that is a challenge for the federal
government to extract the proverbial and do something about fixing this ridiculous situation that exists in
Australia.
To give the Prime Minister her due, she has agreed to a review of the way in which the GST is redistributed.
Also to give the Prime Minister her due, the Prime Minister made the point that the current system is a
disincentive to states to take political decisions. If it requires political decisions to have a development that
generates royalties, and there is hard political decisions attached to it, why would a state government do it if it
knows that the royalties it will receive will be distributed to the other states where people are sitting on their
backsides doing nothing; not taking any political decisions? I name Tasmania as a particular example. It is an
abomination of a system and it needs to be fixed.
In my view there is a very simple solution. I am not as generous as the Premier and others—I think we should
keep 100 per cent of the GST that is generated in Western Australia and we should keep 100 per cent of our
royalties. Let the other states get moving to do something about their own economies, instead of, as the
Tasmanian minister said to me, “We like the way in which money is transferred in Australia.” It is a one-way
transfer!
Hon Wendy Duncan: Then they oppose everything.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: When somebody said to me, “You’re a secessionist”, I made the point, “Australia
should secede from Tasmania.” There are exports coming out of Tasmania that are causing all sorts of trouble for
the federal government, and have done for a long time—Brian Harradine, for example; but there have been
others since him. One of these days, when Tasmania is a separate nation, we might be able to afford to do the
things we need to do in Western Australia, but that is enough of that.
Hon Wendy Duncan gave federal members for Western Australia who are not Nationals a slap around because
they did not vote for his motion. I will provide another analogy. If the National Party of Western Australia sat
down at a meeting and the leader said, “I want all the royalties for regions money to be spent in my electorate of
Merredin”, or whatever it is now called —
Hon Kate Doust: Is that not where it is being spent anyway?
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Don’t be facetious.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Jon Ford): Order, members!
Hon NORMAN MOORE: It is called the Central Wheatbelt.
Hon Wendy Duncan: You’re doing the talking, minister!
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I just wanted to know the name of the electorate—it is Central Wheatbelt. The rest
of the National Party membership would say, “No; that is not fair. It has to be spent in the regions of Western
Australia.” When a Western Australian member goes to Canberra and says they want all the money spent in
Western Australia, all the other members say, “What about us?” As they belong to a party collectively, they
come to a collective judgement and make a decision. I do not think Hon Brendon Grylls would be terribly happy,
if he wanted all the royalties to go to Merredin, if the rest of the National Party agrees it should not. It is a silly
analogy, but one that needs to be borne in mind. Members of the Liberal Party, as a national party, make
decisions collectively. Obviously its view was that the current system of redistributing wealth ought to continue,
albeit an inquiry is being undertaken at the present time. I would much rather the National Party put its hand up
and voted for the motion, just as I would always hope that the member for O’Connor will always vote with the
conservative side of politics in Canberra, which has not been the case since he has been there. But then that is
just an opinion that I happen to have about these things.
Hon Robin Chapple does not support state agreement acts. We know that. We have been told that on many,
many occasions. The Greens (WA) do not support them. I have a very simple view: state agreement acts have
been very successful in Western Australia as they enable companies to get quickly through the approvals
processes and they give governments a chance to have a collective decision-making process to create an
agreement between the government and a company, avoiding some of the unnecessary duplication that going
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                        10289

through normal acts of Parliament would create. The member said that state agreement acts are not transparent.
They are the most transparent agreements in the country because they come to Parliament. Hon Robin Chapple
can read every clause of every state agreement act and know exactly what it means. He knows that every time a
state agreement act is amended, it has to come to Parliament. That is extraordinarily transparent. The member
might not like what is in it, but that is another argument. The fact is that agreement acts are available for every
citizen of this state to see what is provided in the contracts. If, on the other hand, a company developed an iron
ore mine under the Mining Act, we would have no idea what the contract involved because it would be a private
commercial contract. This suggestion that somehow or other state agreement acts are not transparent is not
correct.
The member raised the issue of rating for local government. I did mention that briefly earlier. The government
did announce, in fact on Wednesday, 30 November, a new arrangement for the rating of mining company
properties for local government purposes. Is the member aware of that now?
Hon Robin Chapple: Yes, absolutely.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I do not intend to go through that to save a little bit of time today, other than to say
that a press release was put out by the Premier and the Minister for Local Government outlining that a
fundamental trial process is being put in place. Under that process, the buildings will be rated but the plant will
not be, fundamentally. I agree with that. I am just trying to imagine what would happen if, for instance, the Shire
of Roebourne was able to rate the LNG plants on the Burrup Peninsula. They are worth billions of dollars. The
local authority has some say in the rate in the dollar. We could finish up with local government extracting vast
sums of money out of these companies and that being a total disincentive to development.
Hon Wendy Duncan: That could well help them to be more sustainable.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: The member cannot have it both ways. The local governments cannot extract
money, which stops people investing, and then expect to be sustainable. We have to get the right balance. The
balance of this proposition is that they can rate the normal buildings—office buildings, sheds and all the rest as
they would normally with other people in the local authority area—but they cannot rate the actual plant that
generates the wealth. A policy has been developed between the industry, the government and local government
authorities. Hopefully it will just give us a chance to see if there is a better way of doing it than has been the case
in the past. I make the point again that most of the infrastructure in these towns was provided by the mining
companies anyway. It is good to see that is changing a little as some of the royalties now go back into those
communities.
The honourable member mentioned Fortescue Metals Group’s Roy Hill railway dispute. This particular state
agreement act provision provides for the minister to get involved in trying to resolve those issues. I think that is a
positive step forward. Hopefully, it will make that work properly.
I will come back to the issues in relation to small title holders and special railway licences in a moment. I will
just deal with a couple of other issues the member mentioned. He talked about the Cazaly Resources issue,
which is part of the iron ore policy that is in place. It was put in place initially when these companies were taking
very big risks and were given some security of tenure in terms of the future resources they could develop. Cazaly
was part of that iron ore policy situation.
The member also mentioned that the mining boom was having a consequential effect on the Department of State
Development because all of the good people were going into the mining industry. I do not think the Department
of State Development agrees with that in total. But the member is right; one issue the government has to concern
itself with—I have made this point to the mining industry on many occasions—is that if the mining industry
takes away the good staff that the government employs, the capacity of government to respond to industry needs
is diminished. That relates particularly to corporate knowledge, which is just so important. The gentlemen the
member mentioned who had a long involvement in state agreement acts are no longer there. They are being
succeeded by new people coming through, and that is good. But industry needs to understand that if they take
away our best environmental scientists, our best tenement operators and our best safety people, they diminish our
possibility as a government to deliver the services they want.
The honourable member mentioned water and that it is a waste. I agree with him absolutely—without question.
Rio has for some time wanted to use some of the water from the central Pilbara to create a pastoral industry to do
feedlotting and so on. The irony of that is that they have had extraordinary difficulty in getting approvals through
the environmental agencies. I think some progress is being made on that now. Hopefully we will see that come to
fruition sometime down the track. It just provides a use for the water. Given the amount of water that is involved
in dewatering in those mines, if it could be harnessed somehow or other—I am not suggesting pipelines to Perth
or anything—it would certainly provide a far more reliable water source for the Pilbara. I agree with the member
absolutely.
10290                               [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

I refer now to the subject of small title holders and the issue of them unreasonably withholding their consent to
the grant of a special railway licence. If we are talking about titleholders who are not state agreement act
companies, the member has suggested that they should be able to go to a Warden’s Court or a similar type of
process to decide issues that cannot be resolved. It is the view of the government and the companies themselves
that the Warden’s Court process can in fact be very long and drawn out and, indeed, can allow a whole raft of
people to become involved in the process, which could actually extend it for a long period. Clause 10N(9) of the
Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963 allows the state to compulsorily acquire land of the titleholder
if the titleholder is acting unreasonably, but it is an option of last resort. It is the view that we should allow
commercial processes to take place between the titleholder and the applicant for the special railway licence. On
most occasions commercial arrangements can be reached. In the unlikely event that a commercial agreement
cannot be reached, there is provision for the land to be compulsorily acquired by the state.
Hon Robin Chapple: How has that happened to date? My understanding is that the FMG, Roy Hill, BHP and
Rio agreement acts all have this extra clause—I think it was brought in in 2010—which enables the special rail
licences to cover a wider area. But because they have to go through this negotiation process, it is a bit of a
moving feast—it is a long, drawn-out process—whereas if it was another state agreement act, the minister would
step in and deal with it.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: My understanding is that there has been perhaps one compulsory acquisition under
this provision. I think the bottom line is that commercial processes can take their place. I am not an expert on
this. If the member wants to continue to raise issues about this we could go into Committee of the Whole House
and I could help; alternatively, I could arrange for an additional briefing for the member to deal with that matter
and if the member wishes the information to be provided in writing, that is fine. I am happy to provide
information about any past examples of this and how they were resolved; I just do not have that information with
me now.
Hon Robin Chapple: We do have an issue with “right” at the moment doing some blocking in the bill. But
again, it is a new issue that has cropped up.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: We can certainly provide advice in respect of that.
The issue about waiver of consent relates to the limited operation of new clause 10N(3)(d) of the Iron Ore
(Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963. The minister’s capacity to waive the need for the titleholder to give
consent is limited to the situation in which the titleholder’s title is already subject to a miscellaneous licence for a
railway held by a state agreement act company. If the company has already sorted out a miscellaneous licence
for a railway and it is the intention of the company to apply for a special railway licence over the same area of
land, we cannot renegotiate what has already been negotiated for the miscellaneous licence. The new clause is
basically to avoid a second unreasonable bite of the cherry by objecting to the grant of a special railway licence
to the state agreement act company when an agreement has already been negotiated for the miscellaneous
licence.
Hon Robin Chapple: I think that has sorted out a major problem.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I have just been handed some information in respect of compulsory acquisitions.
There is only one example—that of Mulga Downs—under the FMG state agreement act. In respect of rights, it is
a confidential matter but it is understood that it will be resolved shortly. I can get some advice on that for the
member in due course.
I refer to the Yandicoogina state agreement processing obligations and note that Rio Tinto has satisfied two-
thirds of its processing obligations under the Yandi state agreement through the construction of the HIsmelt
plant. As part of the negotiations for the Bungaroo water project, the state has agreed to a 10-year deferral of its
obligations. The HIsmelt plant has been closed because it was considered uneconomic. I have to say, with all due
respect to Rio, that I never thought it would be economic. That was just an opinion that I had with no
justification whatsoever for it, but it seems that it has been the case. There may have been some good outcomes
in terms of the technology that has been acquired as a result of that project but when we think about it, it is a
disappointment that the DRI plant in Port Hedland closed and that the HIsmelt plant in Kwinana closed, when
they were, if we look at it carefully, the only value-adding that we have had in the iron ore industry apart from
the pellet plants in the 1970s and, perhaps, the magnetite iron ore industry that is coming up, which is in fact a
processing system that creates concentrate and is in fact value-adding. We have not done very well out of the
downstream processing obligations in state agreement acts, but we have been able to trade off some of those
obligations in exchange for significantly increased royalties.
As a result of today’s legislation, the state will be, I think, $1.9 billion better off over the next four years, which
is a significant amount of money. But as I was saying earlier, when the Commonwealth Grants Commission gets
hold of it this will not be a great benefit to Western Australia, but it will be a significant benefit to the other
states as they will get a fair share of it.
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                    10291

Hon Robin Chapple: By way of a question: when it comes to the commonwealth grants system evaluating that
$1.9 billion, what do you think we will be left with?
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I would not like to make even a guess, because it will depend on where the federal
minister decides the 7.5 per cent royalty rate fits in respect of the royalty bands. When we changed the royalty
rate this time last year, the federal minister ruled that the new rate was in the lower band and was above the
average and therefore we kept it. If he determines ultimately that this is in the higher band and is below the
average, we may in fact not just lose a very significant amount of it, we may indeed incur a penalty on top of
that.
Hon Robin Chapple: That is what I was getting to, because suddenly you are into that higher band, so although
we generate extra royalties, because the whole royalty is now subject to assessment, we might in fact be in the
negative.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Exactly right. Just on that: the present formula that applies to the allocation of GST
revenue to the states results in 68 per cent of GST revenue coming back to Western Australia. This formula is
expected to continue to apply until 2014. In this case, as result of these amendments to royalty calculations, the
state is expecting no impact on royalty income in the next two years, but a $95 million reduction in 2014–15. In
the meantime, hopefully somebody will come along and sort out the mess.
I thank members for their support of these bills. They are very important bills and will go a long way towards
creating an iron ore industry that will continually benefit Western Australians and Australians by increased
royalties, at the same time as providing some benefits to these companies to assist them in what is a period of
very, very significant growth for them. We wish them both well.
Questions put and passed.
Bills read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading.
                                                  Third Reading
Bills read a third time, on motions by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), and passed.
             STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS
                 Thirty-fifth Report — “Inquiry into Western Australian Tourism Commission’s
                                Involvement in Major Tourism Events” — Tabling
Hon Giz Watson presented the thirty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial
Operations titled “Inquiry into Western Australian Tourism Commission’s Involvement in Major Tourism
Events”, and on her motion it was resolved —
         That the report do lie upon the table and be printed.
[See paper 4146.]
                                            Statement by Chairperson
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [2.38 pm] — by leave: This is the thirty-fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations and it is titled “Inquiry into Western Australian
Tourism Commission’s Involvement in Major Tourism Events”. The committee found that although the Western
Australian taxpayer received value for money from Tourism WA’s sponsorship of the One Movement Music
Festival because it achieved an independently measured positive tourism return on investment, One Movement
Pty Ltd suffered unsustainable financial losses in staging the event; therefore, the value of the festival to the
Western Australian economy as a whole is open to question.
Therefore, the committee made the following recommendations for major tourism events: that due to the high
financial risk of many major tourism events, Tourism WA produces, as a matter of urgency, a policy that sets out
the minimum standards required for due diligence; that Tourism WA reviews its methodology of calculating
economic value to the state from visitor numbers; that Tourism WA seeks stronger safeguards in matching the
timing of milestone payments with the timing of the contractual performance delivery of the event; and that, in
future, Tourism WA ensures that all material supporting agreements are consistent throughout, formally
executed, and give proper effect to the main contract.
In relation to value for money, the report also found the following: that the public tourism-related benefits were
reasonably close to those forecast for the event; that although event attendances were poor, there were some
positive artistic benefits from staging the event; and that the most significant adverse outcome of the One
Movement for Music Festival was the financial loss incurred by One Movement Pty Ltd in establishing,
promoting and staging the One Movement for Music Festival in 2009 and 2010.
10292                            [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

I note that the committee undertook this inquiry as a result of dissatisfaction with answers provided by Tourism
WA in the budget estimates hearings. But I also note that since the inquiry started, Tourism WA has cooperated
fully and improved its approach to accountability.
I commend the report to the house.
                         RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT BILL 2011
                                              Assembly’s Message
Message from the Assembly received and read notifying that it had agreed to the amendments made by the
Council.
                    STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES
Twenty-second Report — “Review of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council” — Amendment to Motion
Resumed from 30 November on the following motion moved by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House) —
        That the twenty-second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges in relation to the
        review of the standing orders of the Legislative Council do lie upon the table and be printed and
        adopted and agreed to.
to which the following amendment was moved by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House) —
        To delete all words after “That” and substitute —
                 (1)      the report do lie upon the table and be printed;
                 (2)      in relation to the proposed standing orders tabled in the house by the Standing
                          Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the house adopts proposed standing orders 1
                          to 4, 6, 8 to 14, 16, 18 to 20, 22, 24 to 36, 38 to 50, 52, 54 to 76, 78 to 91, 94 to 99,
                          101 to 106, 108, 109, 111 to 124, 126, 128 to 173, 175 to 178, 181 to 186, 188 to 239,
                          schedule 1 parts 1 to 4 and 7 and 8, and schedules 2 to 4;
                 (3)      in relation to the proposed standing orders tabled in the house by the Standing
                          Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the house adopts —
                          (a)        proposed standing order 5;
                          (b)        proposed standing order 7;
                          (c)        proposed standing order 15;
                          (d)        proposed standing order 17;
                          (e)        proposed standing order 21;
                          (f)        proposed standing order 23;
                          (g)        proposed standing order 37;
                          (h)        proposed standing order 51;
                          (i)        proposed standing order 53;
                          (j)        proposed standing order 77;
                          (k)        proposed standing order 92;
                          (I)        proposed standing order 93;
                          (m)        proposed standing order 100;
                          (n)        proposed standing order 107;
                          (o)        proposed standing order 110;
                          (p)        proposed standing order 125;
                          (q)        proposed standing order 127;
                          (r)        proposed standing order 174;
                          (s)        proposed standing order 179;
                          (t)        proposed standing order 180;
                          (u)        proposed standing order 187;
                          (v)        proposed schedule 1 part 5 — Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation
                                     and Statutes Review; and
                          (w)        proposed schedule 1 part 6 — Joint Standing Committee on Delegated
                                     Legislation;
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                     10293

                  (4)      the current standing orders be repealed and replaced by the proposed standing orders
                           adopted by the house, effective from the first sitting day in 2012;
                  (5)      the Clerk be authorised to make clerical amendments to the proposed standing orders
                           adopted by the house;
                           and
                  (6)      the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges conducts an inquiry into the
                           operation of the new standing orders and reports to the house during the spring
                           sittings in 2012.
                                                    Committee
The President (Hon Barry House) in the chair.
Committee was interrupted after amendment (3)(v) had been partly considered.
The PRESIDENT: Members, I just reiterate that we are working from the proposed standing orders that were
tabled in the Legislative Council a little time ago. In addition to all the other information that was mentioned
yesterday, we have some proposed amendments contained in a little booklet that I think most members have on
their desks. Yesterday, we were at the stage of considering proposed schedule 1, part 5, “Uniform Legislation
and Statutes Review Committee”, and we had dealt with one proposed amendment. I believe there is now
another amendment on notice. The question before the house is that proposed schedule 1, part 5 stand as printed.
Hon SUE ELLERY: Before the Committee was interrupted yesterday, I had indicated that I wanted to speak to
section 5.4. There is an amendment in the name of Hon Adele Farina. I do not know whether it will confuse
things if I move that amendment, or if I just make some comments and Hon Adele Farina then moves the
amendment. I am relaxed; I will move it, then, if that will help things. I move —
         To delete section 5.4.
What I want to do in the first instance is outline to the house the changes that have been made to the Standing
Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. Those changes appear not just in the schedule that we
are debating now but also in proposed standing order 125, which we have already dealt with. So that members
can get the total picture, I want to identify the changes that in total will apply to the uniform legislation
committee, and I want to then explain why I have moved the amendment. Essentially, I want to go back to what I
might describe as the old standing order 230A, and then to new standing order 125. Standing order 230A
reads —
         (1)      This order applies to a Bill that —
                  (a)      ratifies or gives effect to a bilateral or multilateral intergovernmental agreement to
                           which the Government of the State is a party; or
                  (b)      by reason of its subject matter, introduces a uniform scheme or uniform laws
                           throughout the Commonwealth.
         (2)      The second reading stage of a Bill is not to be resumed where SO 230(1) applies, within 30
                  days of the date of the adjournment … or before it has been reported from a committee,
                  whichever is the later.
         (3)      Unless otherwise ordered, a Bill stands referred … at the conclusion of the second reading
                  speech …
There has been some contention at various points in the last couple of years about who should determine whether
a bill is to be referred to the uniform legislation committee. One argument put was that it should be the Clerks
who make the decision about whether a bill meets the definition of attracting the provisions of standing order
230A. The other argument put was that given the complexity of the intergovernmental arrangements that are in
place in Australia in 2011, it is a pretty onerous task to ask the Clerks to make that decision, and the government
of the day would have much better access to information about Council of Australian Governments agreements
and the like. There was some contention about that for a time. What the Procedure and Privileges Committee
tried to do, in proposed standing order 125(1), was say it is the government’s responsibility to notify the house,
using the resources of government, whether a bill is or is not a uniform legislation bill. The chamber amended
that standing order yesterday so that at the time the member in charge of the bill advises the house whether a bill
is or is not a uniform legislation bill, the member is to state the reasons why a bill does or does not meet the
provisions that are set out in proposed standing order 125(2). Those provisions are essentially the same as I have
read out in standing order 230A(1)(a) and (b). The new part of that arrangement is that it is the member in charge
of the bill who is to advise the house.
10294                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

Notwithstanding that it is the member in charge of the bill who is to advise the house, there is a new subsection
(3) in proposed standing order 125, which states —
         The Council may order that a Bill is a Uniform Legislation Bill notwithstanding contrary advice from
         the Member in charge of the Bill.
Therefore, once the bill comes before the house, the member in charge of the bill will advise the house whether,
in the member’s view, the bill meets the tests that are set out in subsection (2)(a) and (b), and give the reasons
for that. The house may then move a motion, if it is a Council bill, within two weeks, and, if it is an Assembly
bill, within one week, in accordance with new standing order 125(3), without notice, upon resumption of the
second reading debate to challenge the proposition that has been put by the member in charge of the bill as to
whether it is or is not a standing order 230A bill.
A change to the referral period has also been made, by way of the temporary sessional order, from 30 days to 45
days; although I do note that the committee had previously requested 60 days. The other change in proposed
standing order 125 is that the member in charge of the bill is to ensure that all documentation required by the
committee is provided to the committee within three working days after the referral under subsection (4). There
has been some debate, I guess, from some members of the committee who were concerned about their capacity
to enforce that; nevertheless, it was put in because one of the things the committee raised with us was that part of
its difficulty in meeting the time frames was getting the information it needed from government to test the things
it needed to test. Hon Liz Behjat is looking a bit confused about something I am saying—no? Those were the
changes in respect of proposed standing order 125.
In respect of the schedule before us, one of the changes is that we have removed the committee’s capacity to
consider matters of its own motion. So, the only way the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and
Statutes Review can consider matters is on reference from the house. The things it can consider on reference
from the house are the development and formulation of any proposal or agreement, the implementation of which
would require the enactment of legislation made subject to proposed standing order 125. The question of the
treaties has already been dealt with. In addition, there is the same provision that existed before; that is, to review
the form and content of the statute book, and to consider and report on any matter referred by the house.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges considered the question of the own-motion provision. I
cannot remember whether I asked for this advice from the Clerk, we actually got it separately to the committee
or we got it through the committee process; either way, the advice provided is that the own-motion component
has not been used in this Parliament—although I understand an own-motion matter might come before us. It has
previously been used in, I think, 2005 and 2006. So, it is not a term of reference that has been relied upon to any
great extent by the committee in this parliamentary session.
We have taken away the own reference and made changes to who determines in the first instance whether a bill
is uniform or not. There is a capacity to challenge that, but it will ultimately be determined by the numbers in the
house. Section 5.4 narrows the scope further, and that is why we want to move to delete section 5.4. We think
the changes I have outlined that have been made already, on balance, are enough, and that to go beyond that by
virtue of what is in section 5.4 is to narrow the scope of that committee’s capacity to deal with legislation a step
too far, if members like. The proposition before the house is to consider all the changes made to the uniform
legislation standing order—some of which we made in proposed standing order 125, some of which we are
making in the schedule before the house—and to conclude that section 5.4, which relates to how the uniform
legislation committee does its business and states that it is to confine any inquiry and report to an investigation as
to whether a bill, proposal or agreement may impact upon the sovereignty and law-making powers of the
Parliament of Western Australia, is narrowing it a step too far. Accordingly, we say that section 5.4 ought to be
deleted, and that the rest of the changes in total made in proposed standing order 125 and the rest of schedule 1,
part 5 meet the objectives we set out to meet when we sought to change the standing orders to reflect practice,
modernise provisions, and reflect what the uniform legislation committee was set up to do, and that the total of
the package, without section 5.4, is enough. The proposition we put to the house is that section 5.4 is a step too
far.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I listened with interest to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments on this, and I
agree with about 90 per cent of what she said. We have in fact made some changes to the way the uniform
legislation committee receives the bills referred to it, which is proposed standing order 125, and there have been
some modifications to that. Subsection (2)(b) states —
         by reason of its subject matter, introduces a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the
         Commonwealth.
I think the issue of what the subject matter is, is sometimes one of the reasons we have some difference of
opinion with the Clerk and Deputy Clerk about whether or not it is a uniform legislation bill. There have been
occasions when the subject matter of a bill may have been referred to or discussed in a ministerial council
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                        10295

10 years ago, and it has been interpreted that that, in fact, may well be a uniform legislation bill. That has been a
bit of an issue, and I think the fact that the house can now decide for itself whether it is a uniform legislation bill
is a step forward, as opposed to the house just automatically sending it on the basis of the President’s ruling that
it is a standing order 230A, or standing order 125 now, bill.
Proposed standing order 125 determines how a bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform
Legislation and Statutes Review; it is the mechanism for getting there, and it describes the sorts of bills that
ought to go to it. But it does not then tell the committee what it is supposed to do with them when it gets them.
This has been an issue I have had for some little while, because it is my opinion that the uniform legislation
committee, by not having any direction about what it ought to do when it gets the legislation, has in fact become
a de facto Standing Committee on Legislation. I do not care if the house wants to have legislation committees
when it already has one; it is for the house to decide if it wants to have more than that. But we set up a Standing
Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review to look at specific sorts of legislation—that is,
legislation that relates to uniform legislation. Why would we do that? What is the purpose of having a committee
that looks at uniform legislation but no other legislation? It is because uniform legislation has the capacity to
impact upon the sovereignty of the state or the decision-making power of this Parliament. That is why we send
these bills to that committee. If we want to send a bill to a committee for other reasons, we can send it to the
legislation committee, which has a broader remit in terms of its role. I sought to come to some understanding and
resolution of the situation that has arisen out of lots of bills now going to the uniform legislation committee
because there is a whole range of new legislation coming out of the Council of Australian Governments process
and the harmonisation system that is going on in Australia. That has meant that there has been a significant
increase in the number of bills going to that committee, and its workload has increased significantly. I recognised
that by providing additional funding for extra staff for the committee. Some people did not give me any credit
for that, but I will wear that as a fact of life in politics! I sought to make life easier for that committee by giving
it additional support. But as I read its reports —
Hon Liz Behjat: We were too busy looking at treaties—sorry.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Well, seeing as the committee has not done that, it has only done half of its job, has
it not? And perhaps I could say, what about the statutes review function; has the committee done any of that?
No? So the committee has done one-third of its job on the basis of current standing orders. I do not know how
many staff the committee would need to do its whole job, but I have made the point that I sought to improve the
committee’s circumstances by begging the Treasurer to give the upper house more money, which has happened.
But when I read uniform legislation committee reports, they are generally very, very good, because it deals with
all the clauses of the bill and tells us what it thinks about them, in the same way that members would expect the
legislation committee to provide advice to the house about the contents of a bill. It is not constrained in any way
under the current standing orders to investigate a bill with any particular purpose in mind.
I have been around here long enough to know why this committee was set up in the first place. It was set up as a
result of a situation in which we began to get uniform legislation coming into this Parliament without this house
knowing what the effect would be because it just came straight into the house, was dealt with and passed
through. Indeed, if my memory serves me right—I have used this example many times—we were recalled
between Christmas and new year on one occasion to pass a bill that was not even here in print to adopt a law of
another state. That provoked the then members of the Legislative Council to say that any bill that gives effect to
uniform legislation cannot be passed within 180 days of it being received. For quite some time, there was this
180-day period before we could even deal with the bill. The purpose of that was to allow members to go away
and find out whether it affected our sovereignty. We needed to ask: what were the consequences of the bill to our
capacity to make laws in this house? That was whittled away over time and a uniform legislation committee was
set up to carry out the task of looking at uniform legislation bills with a view to assessing whether those bills had
an adverse effect on our ability to make laws in this state. That is what I think this committee’s job is. If we were
to take out section 5.4 now, I am interested to know what members think the committee’s task is because the
standing orders would not state anywhere what the committee is supposed to do. Standing order 125 simply
states what a uniform legislation bill is, that it can be referred to the committee and that the committee shall
report in 45 days. If we remove section 5.4 from schedule 1, the standing orders of the committee simply state
what the committee does and not what the committee’s purpose is. If section 5.4 is removed, there is no
provision for any demonstration that this house sees this committee as having a particular function or a particular
role.
Hon Sue Ellery: To be fair, there isn’t one there now.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I know. This section was put in to try to resolve that problem so that the Standing
Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review does not just act as a legislation committee; it has a
particular function. If it is the will of the house that the uniform legislation committee becomes a legislation
committee, take out the word “uniform” and simply send bills to it and ask it what it thinks of them from any
10296                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

perspective that it likes. Fundamentally, it is the Standing Committee on Legislation’s job to do that. I confess
that that committee has not been overwhelmed in the past couple of years and it is probably time it was.
Hon Sue Ellery: I welcome your comments on the legislation committee.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I think that because most of the legislation we bring in does not need any further
investigation —
Several members interjected.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I cannot remember too many times when the previous government was enthusiastic
about it either, but it did not have the numbers so it wore it anyway. But governments generally do not like their
bills being scrutinised, which is a fact of life—it does not matter which side members are on. Sometimes the
numbers mean that some people are scrutinised more than others, and that is the nature of the house. I agree that
the legislation committee needs some more work to do. I will endeavour to find a fair bit for it next year, which I
am sure its members are delighted to know.
The point I am trying to make is that there is a committee that is specifically set up to investigate bills from any
perspective. There is no narrowing of its objectives or purpose. If a bill goes to the committee before the second
reading vote, it can look at the policy and all the issues surrounding the bill. If a bill goes to the committee after
the second reading, it can look at all the clauses and make recommendations based on any criteria the committee
wishes. That is what the legislation committee is for. If we want the uniform legislation committee to be a
legislation committee, take out the word “uniform”, take out the provision to send bills that are of a uniform
nature to that committee and just give it any bill that the house decides it wants to go to it.
I come back to the purpose of this committee and why it is called the Standing Committee on Uniform
Legislation and Statutes Review—that is, it deals with uniform legislation. Standing order 125 tells us what that
is. The committee’s job is to deal with that legislation from the perspective of the consequences that legislation
has on our ability to make laws for the state of Western Australia. Members know that when governments enter
into bilateral or multilateral intergovernmental agreements, adopt legislation from other Parliaments or refer
powers to the federal Parliament, it has an effect on our capacity as a Parliament to make laws for Western
Australians. The purpose of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review is to tell us
what effect that legislation has so that the house can then judge whether the effect is worth the house rejecting
the legislation or accepting that we lose some sovereignty and do so knowingly. That is the committee’s job, in
my opinion. I very strongly support section 5.4 because it states that the uniform legislation committee receives
these bills and that is the purpose of that committee when it reviews that legislation. The committee then comes
back to the house and says either not to worry because we do not lose too much authority or power or, on the
other hand, says, “Do you realise that this bill takes away your ability to make laws in respect of a particular
function that we currently believe to be our responsibility?” Therefore, I strongly argue against deleting
section 5.4 for all those reasons.
Hon WENDY DUNCAN: The Nationals have considered this proposal as well and we have listened to the
arguments of both sides of the house. We also will not support the deletion of section 5.4. The compelling
argument for us is that standing order 125, in which referral of the bills is mentioned, has no specification about
what the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review is required to do when bills go to it,
so that needs to be well defined in section 5 of schedule 1.
Section 5 is specific about what the committee needs to do if a treaty is referred, and that it is to look at the
formulation and development of the proposal. Without section 5.4, the key reason for the committee’s existence
is removed from that committee’s terms of reference. We are convinced by the argument that if there needs to be
broader consideration of the legislation before the house—if matters broader than the issue of sovereignty and
impinging on the law-making powers of the state are to be considered—the proper committee to give that
consideration to is the Standing Committee on Legislation. We have looked at this and have heard the arguments
from both sides of the chamber. We really feel that section 5.4 is needed to give the uniform legislation
committee good direction about what its role is. I think, too, that the committee itself acknowledged that the
tasks it has been given by the house—namely, the consideration of treaties, the form and content of the statute
book and uniform legislation—are already more than enough for it to deal with on a daily basis, given the
increasing amount of uniform legislation. A lot of work is being done through the Council of Australian
Governments to try to standardise much of the legislation throughout our nation, so I imagine that this sort of
work will only increase as time goes on. Therefore, the committee needs to be very focused on what it is looking
at and to give the house the guidance that it needs about whether this legislation will impinge on the state’s
sovereignty and our law-making powers. That is what we require from that committee. If there is a broader
question or apprehension about bills on a broader basis, the legislation committee is the right committee to deal
with that.
Hon ADELE FARINA: I would like to start by setting the record straight on the recent history of uniform
legislation. When Labor was elected to government in the thirty-sixth Parliament, the legislation committee was
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                       10297

charged with inquiring into bills referred to it by order of the house, together with uniform bills referred to it
pursuant to standing order 238. There was no separate uniform legislation committee. I was a member of the
legislation committee. The committee inquired into bills, whether they were uniform or not, using the
fundamental scrutiny principles. The committee did not restrict its inquiry into uniform bills to matters of state
sovereignty only. It treated uniform bills in the same way as ordinary bills. The legislation committee was often
not able to complete a full inquiry into uniform bills because of its massive workload, the priority of other bills
and the 30-day reporting, which made it impossible. Members of the Liberal Party, when sitting on the
opposition benches, strongly endorsed the referral of bills to the legislation committee for inquiry. In fact they
supported full detailed inquiries with distant reporting dates. I recall the one vote, one value bill when the
Liberals insisted that the committee travel throughout regional Australia to hold public hearings to hear from the
people. Not surprisingly, the public hearing comprised mainly Liberal Party and National Party members and
supporters. I note that now that the Liberals sit on the government benches, their views about the committee’s
inquiries have changed significantly.
Due to the legislation committee being swamped with bills, a solution was required and two options were
considered. The first was to establish two legislation committees. The second was to establish a separate and
specialised uniform legislation committee. The latter option was preferred. With the establishment of the
Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and General Purposes, there was never any intent or any discussion
about restricting the committee’s scrutiny function to matters of parliamentary sovereignty only. It was always
intended that the committee would inquire into the whole bill and would continue to apply the fundamental
legislative scrutiny principles.
Having been involved in the whole process of the establishment of the committee and having been its first chair
on its separation from the legislation committee, I was very clear on the rationale for the establishment of the
committee, its scrutiny function and its terms of reference. In fact the fundamental scrutiny principles have been
used by former incarnations of the uniform legislation committee, including when it was a committee of the
other place.
In the thirty-seventh Parliament, the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and General Purposes became
the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. However, there was no change to the
scrutiny function and no limitation of this function to matters of parliamentary sovereignty only. In fact, the
committee’s scrutiny function has only become an issue now that Hon Norman Moore sits on the government
benches. When he sat on the opposition benches, he actively encouraged and supported referrals of bills to
committees. In fact he then repeatedly praised the work of committees and how important this work was in
assisting the Parliament in its consideration of bills. Now that he sits on the government benches, despite the
Liberals promising to be transparent, open and accountable in government, Hon Norman Moore has used the
government numbers in this place to block bills being referred to the legislation committee. Now he is seeking to
restrict the inquiry function of the uniform legislation committee.
In a number of Australian jurisdictions, New Zealand and a number of overseas jurisdictions, the Parliaments
have a number of subject committees, based largely on portfolios, to which all bills are automatically referred.
These committees also have the power to inquire into the policy of the bill. These are evolved Parliaments that
believe they have a responsibility to be current, and its members believe they have a responsibility to perform the
work that they were elected to do—that is, to review bills and know that the committee system is the best and
most efficient way of doing so. In fact some overseas Parliaments have a pre-legislative scrutiny function, and
some are exploring many post-legislative scrutiny functions for their committees. These are progressive,
transparent and accountable Parliaments and governments. At this point I also note that under the existing
standing orders our committee has a pre-legislative scrutiny function, which is also being removed through the
new standing orders, on which no member has commented to date.
When speaking to members in other jurisdictions, be they other Australian jurisdictions or overseas jurisdictions,
they are shocked and amazed to learn that in our Parliament, bills are not automatically referred to a committee
for inquiry and that our committees cannot inquire into the policy of a bill. One member from an overseas
jurisdiction even sought confirmation that WA was still a democracy when he learnt this to be so. Other
Australian jurisdictions do not have a specific uniform legislation committee. All the bills, whether they are
uniform or not, are automatically referred to a relevant subject committee. The subject committees conduct the
same scrutiny of uniform bills they do of ordinary bills.
What members opposite have been fed by Hon Norman Moore about the inquiry of uniform bills, in particular
that the inquiry should be restricted into parliamentary sovereignty only, is utter nonsense and a fabrication by
Hon Norman Moore. Limiting the inquiry of uniform bills to parliamentary sovereignty does not occur in any
Australian jurisdiction and has never applied in this jurisdiction. In order to inquire into the impact of the bill on
parliamentary sovereignty, the committee needs to examine each of the clauses of the bill. It makes sense that if
the committee identifies drafting errors or clauses that are so ambiguous that they do not make sense or will
10298                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

cause confusion, the committee should bring this to the attention of the house. Proposed new schedule 1, part
5.3(c), will prevent the committee from doing this.
For every drafting error and ambiguous clause the committee has identified and made recommendations to
amend, the government has conceded that they needed correction. In most cases, the government has adopted the
committee’s proposed amendments, and in other cases the government has proposed an alternative amendment
in keeping with the issues identified by the committee. As a result, we have passed good laws. It makes no good
sense to prevent the committee from undertaking this work. It has to examine all the clauses of the bill, in any
event, so it may as well inform the house of drafting errors. The proposed new standing orders may even prevent
the committee from commenting on skeletal legislation. We all know how much mileage Hon Simon O’Brien
has made out of that. Why would the Parliament and the government want to prevent a committee inquiring into
skeletal aspects of the bill? The committee may not even be able to inquire as to whether the uniform bill
actually complies with the intergovernmental agreement under the new standing orders. Again, that makes
absolutely no sense at all.
Members, this is a house of review. The people elected us to represent them, to closely scrutinise bills and to
pass good laws, and we swore an oath to do so faithfully. Yesterday, despite all the evidence before members,
members opposite threw commonsense and reason out the window and voted down the amendment to delete
schedule 1, part 5.3(b). It was not a proud moment for the Council. A number of members spoke to me after the
division and said that they had been persuaded by the arguments that they had made and apologised for not being
able to support the amendment. It is not I who needs apologies from members. As appreciated as they were, it
makes no difference to me personally. I may have lost the vote —
The PRESIDENT: Order! Could I just caution the member that there is a standing order that still currently
exists and will exist in the future about reflecting on a vote the house has already taken. It is a cautionary
observation.
Hon ADELE FARINA: In my view, it is not to me that members need to apologise, it is to their constituents
and themselves. They have allowed themselves to be bullied by Hon Norman Moore in this silly, pointless,
point-scoring, ego-driven mission.
                                                  Point of Order
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Despite the gentle warning that the President has given, it appears the member is
persisting in reflecting on a vote of the house.
The PRESIDENT: The caution was there because standing orders have seen a good reason to have that
provision over a long period of time. I ask the member to confine her remarks particularly to the proposition
before the house at the moment, that the words proposed to be deleted be deleted.
                                               Committee Resumed
Hon ADELE FARINA: Thank you, Mr President.
Support for Hon Sue Ellery’s amendment will enable the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and
Statutes Review to continue to do what all scrutiny committees do, and should do—to undertake the full and
proper scrutiny of a bill, with the exception of examining the policy of the bill. It will also illustrate to
constituents the respect that members have for the role of this house as a house of review and the role of
committees in assisting the Parliament with that function. It will also mean that members have confidence in
their government to introduce good laws and to expose them to review and scrutiny. If members do have
confidence in that, I do not understand their concern about exposing those laws to some scrutiny. It just makes
no sense at all. Importantly, it will enable us to honour the oath that we took as members of Parliament to
perform our functions faithfully. Our function in a house of review is to review legislation.
If this amendment is voted down, it will not hurt me. For those members who might view this as some sort of
victory, it will be a hollow victory, as a lot of my time will be freed up to scrutinise other bills that do not come
before the committee, and members can be assured that I will do that. I commend this amendment to members.
The reality is that this committee is not doing anything that any uniform legislation committee in the past has not
done or that committees in other jurisdictions do not do. It makes absolutely no sense.
In relation to the comment that somehow we need to define some further purpose for the work of this committee,
I further point out to members that, with the exception of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, no
other committee has its inquiries limited in any way. In that case, section 3.4 of schedule 1, “Public
Administration Committee”, states that that committee cannot inquire into a whole host of things. With the
exception of that committee, no other committee is directed on how it undertakes an inquiry, so why would we
do that for the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, which came about because of
legislation? That committee exists only because of the legislative workload at the time. When the committee was
established, the intention and understanding was that it would continue to scrutinise the whole bill in the way it
                                    [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                        10299

did when those bills went to the Standing Committee on Legislation. The arguments that have so far been
proffered in support of the proposed standing order are simply factually wrong. I commend the amendment to
members.
Hon NICK GOIRAN: I have been listening with keen interest on this matter. I find myself in a position that I
do not envy. In particular, I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with not only the Leader of the
Opposition, but also the Leader of the House. But the contribution that I do not agree with this afternoon is that
of the Leader of the Nationals in this place. The reason I say that is that, if I understand correctly the discourse
this afternoon, the issue around section 5.4 is to what extent it restricts the ability of the Standing Committee on
Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review to inquire into anything other than matters pertaining to the
sovereignty and law-making powers of the Parliament of Western Australia. I have found it instructive to
consider report 22 of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which you
chaired, Mr President. In particular, I want to refer to page 16 of that report. I think that paragraph 6.22.2 is very
instructive, and so I quote it as follows —
         The Subcommittee proposes several amendments to the terms of reference for the SCULSR. The
         Subcommittee considers that the primary focus of the SCULSR should be to advise the House regarding
         matters that impact upon the sovereignty and law-making powers of the Parliament of Western
         Australia. Accordingly, the proposed terms of reference provide that focus.
What concerns me is that I agree wholeheartedly with that paragraph of the report when it says that this
committee’s primary focus ought to be on matters pertaining to the sovereignty and law-making powers of the
Parliament of Western Australia. From what I have heard this afternoon, everybody is saying that. That should
be the primary focus. But it is one thing to say that a committee should have that as its primary focus and another
to say that it needs to confine its inquiry in that respect. I have great difficulty with section 5.4, because, with the
greatest of respect, I believe that it is contrary to paragraph 6.22.2 of the subcommittee’s report. I think that the
subcommittee’s report explains the intention and the spirit—that is, that the primary focus is to look at this
narrow area. However, it is the primary focus; it is not the only focus. In my view, that makes an incredible
amount of sense. I have never been on the uniform legislation committee; however, I can imagine that those
members of the committee invest a lot of time fulfilling their functions as members of that committee.
What I have been unable to understand—I do not think anybody has addressed it this afternoon, and certainly not
to my satisfaction—is why this chamber would ask four members of this place to spend an inordinate amount of
time looking at bills but then say to them, “You might have views about a particular area but we do not want to
hear from you in that regard. We want to hear from you only about whether the matter pertains to the sovereignty
and law-making powers of the Parliament of Western Australia.” People would never run a business in that way;
they would try to make it as efficient as possible. If we had four honourable members, and research officers and
advisory officers, sitting around a table and looking at a bill, we would get them to provide to the chamber the
fullest extent of that experience, analysis and discourse. That is why I say that it is absolutely correct, in my
view, for the subcommittee to have said that this should be the primary focus. I note that the subcommittee, in
authoring this report, could have said that it should be the only focus. I can only assume—I was not a member of
the subcommittee—that it was very intentional that it did not say that it should be the only focus. It said that it
should be the primary focus.
I find myself in a difficult position this afternoon. I wonder whether it is the use of the word “confine” in section
5.4 that is causing trouble for Hon Sue Ellery and her colleagues and other members of this place and whether
another word other than “confine” might address the problem. I do not propose to move an amendment, but I can
understand why, if someone was inclined to replace the word “confine” with “focus”, that would be incredibly
consistent with the report of the subcommittee, which spent, as has been explained to me on numerous
occasions, an incredible amount of time over the past two and a half years reviewing the standing orders. I am
reluctant to in some way pass a section in the standing orders that is inconsistent with what the subcommittee
clearly wanted to do—that is, to say that the uniform legislation committee should ensure that it is the primary
focus, not the only focus, of the committee’s activities. I indicated to my colleagues a few days ago that I would
make a brief contribution on this matter. As I say, I do not propose to move an amendment, but I can understand
why members might want to do that if they are so inclined.
Hon GIZ WATSON: This is an interesting point. At the outset, I indicate that the Greens (WA) will support the
amendment moved by Hon Sue Ellery, but, as the debate on this particular section has evolved, some interesting
additional points should be made. First of all, I want to say on behalf of the Greens (WA), who have fewer
numbers in this place, that the benefit we get from reports of standing committees is enormous. We rely very
heavily on reports that deal with bills, to assist us in our decisions about whether to support legislation. I
commend the Standing Committee on Uniform and Statutes Review for its excellent reports. I would also like to
point out, as I have understood from debating bills that have been subject to inquiry by that standing committee,
it is not as clear-cut to say a particular bill is all about uniform matters. There are occasions when parts of the bill
are not. That creates a dilemma if we pursue proposed section 5.4 as currently written. I listened to the point
10300                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

Hon Wendy Duncan made about the relationship between proposed section 125, which is the referral part, and
the requirements of the Standing Committee on Legislation. The point was made that if we do not have
something at section 5.4, the committee does not know what it has to do. I suggest the words that currently sit at
section 4.3 for the Standing Committee on Legislation would equally apply to the uniform legislation committee;
namely —
         The functions of the Committee are to consider and report on any Bill referred by the House.
The only thing we would need to add is “or by the Member in charge of the Bill”. That serves the same purpose
in outlining the committee’s functions, but it does not restrict it to dealing with questions of sovereignty and
impacts on the law-making powers of the Parliament of Western Australia.
I am also attracted to Hon Nick Goiran’s proposition, which is to amend proposed section 5.4 to not refine or
restrict, but to read “to focus on” or “particularly focus on” particular aspects. I appreciate the history that
Hon Adele Farina provided to the house about this standing committee. I concur that that is correct; it was
certainly never the intention that this standing committee be constrained in this way. I am not sure how to do
this. I understand we are currently debating that proposed section 5.4 be deleted. I indicate we would support the
deletion. I am happy to move a new proposed section 5.4—I am foreshadowing it for members to consider. It
would in effect do what section 4.3 does in the standing orders of the legislation committee. I think that resolves
the National Party’s concerns that the committee should not be bereft of direction as to what to do. I assume we
will deal with the deletion first and then go from there.
The PRESIDENT: I point out to Hon Giz Watson at this juncture that the words mentioned in section 4.3 in
relation to the legislation committee are already included, in effect, in section 5.3(a) of the uniform legislation
and statutes review committee’s standing orders. I am not sure whether that clarifies anything in your comments.
Hon GIZ WATSON: That is probably not the way to fix it then. Perhaps the way Hon Nick Goiran suggested is
a better way to resolve the situation.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I will be very brief. I was described as a devil incarnate by a member from the other
side, and the proposition was put that somehow or other this is here because I decided it should be here. The
report we are considering now is the result of the deliberations and decisions of all members on the committee,
some of whom now have a different point of view, which they are entitled to. I am just saying to Hon Adele
Farina: do not blame me. I have put the position that the committee agreed to take, as it sat down for two and a
half years debating these standing orders, and I am defending the decision collectively made by all members of
that committee. The member has come in here and poured a bucket of water on me as if somehow or other I am
the only person who has a different point of view from her. The facts of the matter are that is not correct.
However, people are entitled to change their mind—I have not. If others have, that is their business.
Hon SUE ELLERY: I am not sure who, at various points in the conversations about these standing orders, has
been described more as the devil incarnate, Leader of the House—you or me! So that everybody understands the
process, and to take a little bit of heat out of it: the process was that we agreed to what we thought was the best
proposition to put before the house, knowing we would then go to our respective caucuses and party rooms, and
out of that would come a collective decision for each group. That is what happened. There is nothing untoward
or sneaky, or in some way unexpected about that. We all knew that it would be taken back to our respective
groups, and they may or may not agree with us. I am perfectly relaxed about that. I would be interested in
hearing from the Leader of the House whether he is interested at all in the proposition put before us by Hon Nick
Goiran. If we need to deal with my motion before the house to delete, so be it, and if we need to consider the
amendment, so be it, but I am interested in whether the Leader of the House would be at all amenable to the
proposition put by Hon Nick Goiran.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: If I may, I only have one vote in this place. There was some sort of suggestion made
earlier that I had inveigled people into voting the way I wanted them to.
Hon Sue Ellery: I have not suggested that.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am talking about the previous conversation. The chamber will make its own
judgements. I have not seen an amendment moved by Hon Nick Goiran at all. If he has been thinking about it for
some time, maybe he could have developed an amendment so that we could have had something to consider.
Hon Liz Behjat has indicated to me a potential amendment. However, let me make this point: if we want this
committee to be a legislation committee, let us just make it one and say, “Do whatever you like when you get a
bill.” Let me also make a second point: these days committees are adopting, in their consideration of legislation,
the fundamental legislative scrutiny principles, which have never, to my knowledge, been adopted by this
chamber, but just picked up by committees to use as they work their way through legislation. It contains all sorts
of interesting issues that do not have the vaguest relationship to uniform legislation—not the vaguest
relationship. But the committees have taken it upon themselves to consider all those different aspects of
legislation—15 of them—and, to me, that is the reason they have difficulty in doing all the work they think they
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                       10301

have been given to do, and continue to require more staff. However, if somebody wants to move an amendment
to what is on the paper, the chamber can make its own judgement. In my own view I intend to vote against this
section.
Hon MAX TRENORDEN: It has been a long debate. I am a person who has spent a long time functioning in
committees. I have listened with interest to the debate. I think the Leader of the House is right: we either make
the uniform legislation committee the “uniform legislation committee” and we have a legislation committee, or
we withdraw the legislation committee, take the resources and the members of the legislation committee and put
them into the other committee and make it a single entity. There have been two occasions on which the
legislation committee has met. We have a problem here. Mr President and his committee have quite rightly
looked at that problem. It is a problem with the function of the house, and the committee has every right to do
that. Personally, I think that if we have a uniform legislation committee, it should be a uniform legislation
committee; therefore, it looks at protecting the statutes and looks at the protection of the sovereignty of Western
Australia—and that is what it does; that is it. I listened carefully to the argument about the history. The uniform
legislation committee morphed out of the legislation committee and therefore has become the legislation
committee. The only other solution I see is that we get rid of the legislation committee, put the resources of the
legislation committee into the uniform legislation committee, put a couple of extra members on it and it can sit
as a subcommittee and do two things at once. That is the option. I do not see any other option. It is pointless to
argue that we will have a Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review but it will really be
the legislation committee, and also the Standing Committee on Legislation. Why are we doing that? Can
somebody explain to me why we are doing that? Unless someone does that, I personally believe, as Max
Trenorden, although we did consider this as a party, that we need to examine whether our statutes and our
sovereignty are at risk with legislation. Personally, I believe that should happen. I have been a major proponent
of the legislation committee. My view was defeated in the committee, as you know, Mr President. I believe we
should have a much stronger legislation committee with a larger, focused role. It is strange to have a legislation
committee and to morph out of that a uniform legislation committee that would then become a legislation
committee, so that we would have both. There is no logic to that. To me, we have two options. I will be voting
for the option that says we have both a legislation committee and a uniform legislation committee, because I
think both are necessary in this house. The only other option is to shut down the legislation committee and put
those resources and members into the uniform legislation committee.
Hon LINDA SAVAGE: I am only going to speak very briefly. I am probably the newest member and therefore
the newest member on any committee, so I am certainly not in a position to comment on the history of
committees. I am relieved to hear that Hon Max Trenorden has come down in support of both committees. I
initially thought that he might want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and do away with a committee. The
reality for the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review is that all the legislation that
comes to us, by its very nature, has an impact on the sovereignty of the Parliament of Western Australia. That is
a given. That is why it has come to us; it is inherent in the nature of the legislation that is referred to us. In the
period I have been a member of that committee, the committee’s workload has certainly been an issue. All
committees face issues that they have to deal with. That aside, the reports that have been produced are of a high
quality. In the short time I have been here, I have observed the extent to which members of the Council have
relied on those reports. Although we have not done an audit, the number of amendments that have been picked
up and agreed to is testament to the quality of the work that is done. With those brief words I would like to lend
my support to the direction in which we are going through the amendment first put by Hon Sue Ellery, which
may now be altered in the direction of the amendment foreshadowed by Hon Nick Goiran.
Hon LIZ BEHJAT: It was not my intention to speak on this matter, but I do want to say a couple of things.
Firstly, Hon Max Trenorden, I am sorry if matters are not referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation, but
just saying that we should get rid of that committee and make the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation
and Statutes Review the legislation committee I think is wrong.
Hon Max Trenorden: If the description of both is the same, why have two committees?
Hon LIZ BEHJAT: They are not, because only matters of a uniform nature are referred to the uniform
legislation committee. Other bills could be referred to the legislation committee. It is no secret—I have said it in
this place on more than one occasion—that if it were my choice, committees would not be resident in the other
place but only in this place. We would then see a lot more things sent off to committees. That will be a
discussion for some time down the track. I am supportive of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition,
but I also thank Hon Nick Goiran for his contribution to the debate, because I think what he is foreshadowing, if
somebody else is to move that amendment—it will not be me—is quite right. The leader also said that I had
foreshadowed something to him. I was perhaps canvassing that somebody could move to combine the words in
proposed section 5.3(a)—to consider and report on bills referred under standing order 125—with some of the
words in proposed section 5.4, so that particular attention would be given to, but not limited to, whether a bill or
proposal may impact upon the sovereignty and law-making powers of the Parliament of Western Australia. I
10302                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

think that also reflects what the committee that looked at the standing orders was intending. That would then be
the primary focus of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, but other matters
could be brought to the attention of the house. Members should always bear in mind, as I have said on more than
one occasion, that our committee is restricted from looking at policy. It never looks at policy. It makes particular
reference in a number of its reports to the fact that there are matters that are policy decisions of the executive. I
am in favour of the way in which the conversation around the house is headed, but I will be interested to see
what we actually get to vote on.
Hon SUE ELLERY: I would like to test the view of the house on an alternate amendment to the words in
proposed section 5.4. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment that is before the house and foreshadow that I am
doing that because I have had drafted a form of words that would give effect to the suggestion raised in the
comments by Hon Nick Goiran.
Amendment on the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Hon SUE ELLERY: With that in mind, I move —
         In section 5.4 — To delete “confine” and substitute “primarily focus”.
The amendment, as amended, would read —
         In relation to function 5.3(a) and (b), the Committee is to primarily focus any inquiry and report to an
         investigation as to whether a Bill or proposal may impact upon the sovereignty and law-making powers
         of the Parliament of Western Australia.
My view is that that makes it clear. The prime focus, but not the only focus, would be the impact upon the
sovereignty and law-making powers of the Parliament of Western Australia. The arguments for that have been
canvassed in the last 20 minutes or so of the debate.
Amendment on the amendment (deletion of words) put and passed.
Amendment on the amendment (insertion of words) put and a division taken with the following result —
                                                      Ayes (15)

Hon Liz Behjat               Hon Sue Ellery               Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich          Hon Giz Watson
Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm      Hon Adele Farina             Hon Linda Savage               Hon Alison Xamon
Hon Robin Chapple            Hon Jon Ford                 Hon Sally Talbot               Hon Ed Dermer (Teller)
Hon Kate Doust               Hon Lynn MacLaren            Hon Ken Travers
                                                      Noes (18)

Hon Jim Chown                Hon Brian Ellis              Hon Col Holt                   Hon Simon O’Brien
Hon Peter Collier            Hon Donna Faragher           Hon Robyn McSweeney            Hon Max Trenorden
Hon Mia Davies               Hon Philip Gardiner          Hon Michael Mischin            Hon Ken Baston (Teller)
Hon Wendy Duncan             Hon Nigel Hallett            Hon Norman Moore
Hon Phil Edman               Hon Alyssa Hayden            Hon Helen Morton


                                                        Pair
                             Hon Helen Bullock                              Hon Nick Goiran

Amendment on the amendment (insertion of words) thus negatived.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Following that vote, the obvious has occurred; namely, we have deleted
some words but we have not substituted any in their place.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Mr President, I ask that you leave the chair until the ringing of the bells so that this
matter might be sorted out.
Hon Adele Farina interjected.
Hon Ken Travers: No; you can’t put the same question even if you use the same—different words.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I beg your pardon? We have been quite flexible in respect of this and we have
sought to try by negotiation to come to some conclusion. I know that some members do not want to do that, but
that is what I am seeking to achieve now.
The PRESIDENT: I have had a request to leave the chair until the ringing of the bells, and that is what I will do.
                                      Sitting suspended from 3.54 to 4.30 pm
Committee interrupted, pursuant to temporary orders.
[Continued on page 10313.]
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10303

                                     QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
                      HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME — WATER UTILITIES
1118.     Hon SUE ELLERY to the minister representing the Minister for Water:
(1)       For August, September and October 2011, for each suburb or town, how many requests for hardship
          utility grant scheme assistance were referred to financial counsellors for assessment by —
          (a)     the Water Corporation; and
          (b)     any other water board or authority, with figures given for each water board or authority?
(2)       For August, September and October 2011, for each suburb and town, how many requests for hardship
          utility grant scheme assistance were not referred to financial counsellors for assessment by —
          (a)     the Water Corporation; and
          (b)     any other water board or authority, with figures given for each water board or authority?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied:
I thank the member for some notice of this question.
(1)       (a)     This answer is in the form of a long table, so I seek leave to table the document and have it
                  incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted. [See paper 4147.]
The following material was incorporated —


                   AUGUST 2011
 SUBURB                         REFERRALS
 ALBANY                                  1
 ARMADALE                                2
 ATWELL                                  3
 BALLAJURA                               1
 BANKSIA GROVE                           1
 BENTLEY                                 1
 BERTRAM                                 1
 BUTLER                                  1
 CANNING VALE                            1
 COLLIE                                  1
 CONNOLLY                                1
 COOLOONGUP                              1
 CURRAMBINE                              1
 DUNSBOROUGH                             1
 EATON                                   3
 EDGEWATER                               1
 ELLENBROOK                              1
 GERALDTON                               1
 HAMILTON HILL                           1
 HAZELMERE                               1
 HILLMAN                                 1
 HUNTINGDALE                             1
 JOONDALUP                               1
 KARDINYA                                1
 KATANNING                               2
 KENWICK                                 1
 LANGFORD                                1
 MADDINGTON                              1
 MANDURAH                                1
 MEDINA                                  1
10304                      [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

MIDLAND                           1
MINDARIE                          1
MOUNT HAWTHORN                    1
NILGEN                            1
ORELIA                            1
PARKWOOD                          1
PARMELIA                          1
QUINNS ROCKS                      2
REDCLIFFE                         1
SPEARWOOD                         1
THORNLIE                          2
WILLETTON                         2
YARLOOP                           1
TOTAL                            52




                SEPTEMBER 2011                                       OCTOBER 2011
SUBURB                           REFERRALS          SUBURB                          REFERRALS
BALCATTA                              1             ALBANY                              1
BALDIVIS                              1             BALDIVIS                            1
BEECHBORO                             1             BANKSIA GROVE                       1
BROOME                                1             BAYSWATER                           1
BUTLER                                1             BEECHBORO                           2
CAMILLO                               1             BENTLEY                             1
CANNING VALE                          1             BOYA                                1
COLLIE                                1             BUSSELTON                           1
DONGARA/DENISON                       1             CANNING VALE                        1
DUNCRAIG                              1             CLAREMONT                           1
GERALDTON                             1             CLOVERDALE                          2
GOSNELLS                              2             COOLBELLUP                          1
GREENWOOD                             1             ESPERANCE                           1
JOONDALUP                             1             HIGH WYCOMBE                        1
KALGOORLIE/BOULDER                    1             JERRAMUNGUP                         2
KALLAROO                              1             JURIEN BAY                          1
KELMSCOTT                             1             KARAWARA                            1
KOONGAMIA                             1             LANDSDALE                           1
LOCKRIDGE                             1             MADDINGTON                          1
MANDURAH                              1             MANDURAH                            1
MINDARIE                              1             MARANGAROO                          1
MOUNT HAWTHORN                        1             MERRIWA                             1
MULLALOO                              1             MIDVALE                             1
NOLLAMARA                             1             PIARA WATERS                        1
NORTHAM                               1             PORT KENNEDY                        1
ORELIA                                1             ROCKINGHAM                          1
PARMELIA                              1             ROEBOURNE                           1
QUINNS ROCKS                          1             SEVILLE GROVE                       1
SEVILLE GROVE                         1             SOUTHERN RIVER                      2
WANNEROO                              2             STRATTON                            1
WELLARD                               1             TAPPING                             1
TOTAL                                 33            THORNLIE                            2
                                                    WANNEROO                            1
                                                    TOTAL                              38
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10305

Hon HELEN MORTON: The answer continues —
         (b)      For August, Aqwest 1, Busselton Water nil; for September, Aqwest 6, Busselton Water 1; for
                  October, Aqwest 3, Busselton Water 1.
(2)      (a)      The Water Corporation does not keep records of the number of customers not referred to
                  financial counsellors.
         (b)      For August, September and October, Aqwest nil; Busselton Water nil.
                      CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ACT 2004 — ADJUDICATION
1119.    Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Commerce:
I refer to the Construction Contracts Act 2004 and matters accepted for decision by the adjudicators.
(1)      How many applications that have been assessed by the adjudicators since 23 September 2008 have
         concerned claims of over $1 million?
(2)      Of the applications in (1), on how many occasions did the adjudicator decline to meet with both parties
         involved in the dispute?
(3)      How many of the applications in (1) have been subsequently referred to the State Administrative
         Tribunal, and what were the outcomes of these referrals?
(4)      What actions can aggrieved defendants take to have adverse findings by adjudicators against them
         reviewed?
(5)      Did the Building Commissioner give to the minister, prior to 1 November 2011, a written report about
         the operation and effectiveness of this act during the 2010–11 financial year, as required by section 52
         of the act; and, if so, will the minister table that report?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
I thank the honourable member for notice of the question.
(1)–(3) To provide an accurate and useful answer in the short amount of time available is not possible, so I ask
        the honourable member to place parts (1) to (3) of this question on notice.
(4)      An adjudication is primarily to resolve a dispute regarding a particular payment. A determination will
         relate specifically to that payment dispute and may be enforced in the same manner as a judgement or
         order of the court—section 43(2). Determinations that have been decided by an adjudicator are not
         subject to statutory appeal or review—section 46(3). If there is an error in law, a person may take the
         matter to the courts.
         If an adjudicator dismissed an application to review a payment dispute under section 31(2)(a)(i) to (iv)
         on the basis that the application, respectively, did not concern a construction contract, was not prepared
         and served correctly, a binding decision—that is, by a court or arbitrator—has already been made on the
         matter, or the matter was too complex to determine fairly made, a person who is aggrieved by that
         decision may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of that decision. If a person is
         unhappy with the conduct of an adjudicator, they can make a complaint to the Registrar of the Building
         Commission, who will investigate the conduct under section 48(5). In any case, an applicant or
         respondent may have any contract, or provision thereof, reviewed by an arbitrator or court, irrespective
         of the payment dispute.
(5)      The Building Commission has prepared a written report on the operation and effectiveness of the act
         during the 2010–11 financial year, as required by section 52 of the act; and, after I have given the report
         due consideration, I will instruct the Building Commission to publish the report.
               DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — GIFT REGISTER
1120.    Hon KATE DOUST to the minister representing the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the Department of Environment and Conservation.
(1)      Does DEC maintain a register on which gifts and donations to DEC employees, including the director
         general, are recorded?
(2)      If not, how are gifts and donations recorded?
(3)      If so, who can access the register, and how is it accessed?
(4)      What obligations are DEC employees under to disclose gifts and donations?
(5)      Are employees permitted to access information about gifts and donations received by other employees,
         including the director general?
(6)      If not, how can this information be obtained?
10306                            [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

Hon HELEN MORTON replied:
I thank the member for some notice of this question.
(1)     Yes.
(2)     Not applicable.
(3)     The register is maintained by DEC’s people services branch manager. Any request for access is dealt
        with by the manager on its merits.
(4)     Employees are required to comply with the DEC policy “Gifts, gratuities, hospitality rewards and
        benefits”, which requires employees to disclose gifts and donations.
(5)     No. Employees may access information on the register that relates to themselves. Managers and
        directors may access information relating to employees for whom they are responsible. The director
        general, director corporate services and manager people services may access all the information.
(6)     The information can be provided in response to questions in Parliament, as has occurred in the past.
          DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — CODE OF CONDUCT
1121.   Hon SALLY TALBOT to the minister representing the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the Department of Environment and Conservation code of conduct dated April 2011.
(1)     Is every DEC employee required to sign the declaration on the code of conduct?
(2)     Under the provisions of the code, are employees required to disclose —
        (a)      donations to charities;
        (b)      political involvement of partners, siblings and children;
        (c)      voluntary work undertaken out of work hours; and
        (d)      membership of political parties?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied:
I thank the member for some notice of this question.
(1)     The Department of Environment and Conservation policy requires all staff to sign that they have read
        and understood the code of conduct.
(2)     (a)      No.
        (b)      Yes. The code of conduct requires employees to identify any conflicts of interest, or perceived
                 or potential conflicts of interest, and disclose political involvement of family or close
                 associates if the involvement has an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.
        (c)      Yes. The code of conduct requires employees to identify any conflicts of interest, or perceived
                 or potential conflicts of interest, and disclose voluntary work undertaken if involvement has an
                 actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.
        (d)      No. The code of conduct does not require employees to disclose membership of political
                 parties in the case of membership only. If a position is held in a political party that may present
                 an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest, a declaration is required.
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Look, we are getting near the end of a long week, which is the end of a
long year, so order!
                FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — SEIZURE OF FOREST PRODUCTS
1122.   Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for Forestry:
(1)     In the past three financial years, on how many occasions has the Forest Products Commission seized
        forest products from a customer for outstanding debt payments or non-payment of stumpages?
(2)     Will the minister please provide details in each case?
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied:
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.
(1)     For 2008–09 to 2010–11, none.
(2)     Not applicable.
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                     10307

                                       WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PORTS
1123.    Hon KEN TRAVERS to the minister representing the Minister for Transport:
(1)      On what date did the minister receive the report into the review of Western Australian ports?
(2)      When does the minister expect to make a decision on the recommended changes to the structure of WA
         ports?
(3)      When does the minister expect to grant approval for the expansion of the Esperance port to commence
         and when does the minister expect the expansion will be completed?
(4)      What rights or allocations do Cashmere Iron or Australian Infrastructure Group have in any expansion
         of the Esperance port?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I have been advised by the Minister for
Transport that it is noted that ports reform did not occur under the previous Labor government, nor was any
significant action taken to improve the efficiency and capacity of Western Australia’s ports. The most significant
event relating to ports that occurred under Labor’s watch was mismanagement at Esperance port which led to the
poisoning of a community. The Liberal–National government has cleaned up that mess.
(1)      The final report was received in September 2011.
(2)      After cabinet considers the report.
(3)      The Minister for Transport will await advice from the Esperance Port Authority on the outcome of the
         independent assessment of the expansion plan. Expansion will occur after the Deloitte report is
         received. It should be noted that this is a separate process to that of the review of WA ports.
(4)      The rights and allocations of mining companies are being considered by the Esperance Port Authority
         as part of its current review of procurement options for the expansion.
                                          WORKSAFE — STAFFING
1124.    Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Commerce:
I refer to WorkSafe, a division of the Department of Commerce.
(1)      How many full-time equivalent staff are allocated to inspections and investigations of workplaces
         and/or accidents?
(2)      Of these, where are they located and how many are in each location?
(3)      How many of these positions are vacant and for how long have they been vacant?
(4)      What is the employment status of these FTEs, how many are ongoing public sector employees and how
         many are employed under non-ongoing contracts?
(5)      Of those employed under contract, what is the term of their contract?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I might add that my staff have gone to some
efforts to ensure that we have an answer.
(1)      As of 10 November 2011, 86 full-time equivalent staff were allocated to inspections and investigations
         of workplaces and/or accidents. This number includes three directors who are delegated the powers of
         an inspector.
(2)      In Perth, 77 inspectors; in Broome, one inspector; in Karratha, two inspectors; in Albany, one inspector;
         and in Bunbury, five inspectors.
(3)      As at 10 November 2011, WorkSafe had an approved establishment of 103 inspectors, including the
         directors with inspector delegations. As such, 17 positions are vacant—16 based in Perth and one in
         Bunbury. The duration of such vacancies cannot be determined in this time frame, given the limited
         notice of the question; however, I am happy to provide details at the next sitting date—or earlier, if the
         member really needs to know.
Hon Jon Ford: That’s very generous!
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The answer continues —
(4)      Three inspectors are employed on contracts. The remainder are permanent public sector employees.
(5)      The term for two of the contracts is three years with the possibility of an extension for a further two
         years. The term of the remaining contract is four years with the possibility of an extension for a further
         one year.
10308                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

                  KWINANA INDUSTRIAL AIR BUFFER ZONE — ALCOA ACTIVITIES
1125.   Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the minister representing the Minister for Water:
I refer to the minister’s response to questions, some of which were asked on notice on 18 October, about the
Kwinana industrial air buffer zone.
(1)     Does the department expect that Alcoa’s activities will have an impact on surface water or groundwater
        in the buffer area?
(2)     If yes to (1), what possible impacts may arise?
(3)     If no to (1), why not?
(4)     Are there any water quality monitoring bores in the buffer area?
(5)     If yes to (4), how many, and how often is the water in each bore tested for contaminants?
(6)     If no to (4), does the department intend to install monitoring bores; and, if so, when, and does the
        department intend to request Alcoa to install monitoring bores; and, if so, when?
(7)     Is Alcoa obliged to act on a request from the Department of Water?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied:
I thank the member for some notice of the question.
(1)     Any potential impacts on water are assessed before a water licence is issued and are monitored as a
        condition of licence.
(2)     There is a potential reduction in groundwater levels as a result of pumping and the potential movement
        of the coastal saline wedge inland.
(3)     Not applicable.
(4)     Yes.
(5)     There are 287 monitoring bores. Testing for contaminants is undertaken in accordance with Department
        of Environment and Conservation licensing under part V of the Environmental Protection Act.
(6)     Not applicable.
(7)     Yes, if it is made in relation to a condition of a licence to take groundwater issued under the Rights in
        Water and Irrigation Act 1914.
                                        CARLY ELLIOTT — DEATH
1126.   Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental Health:
I refer to the death from probable suicide of 20-year-old Carly Elliott on 31 March 2011 at her home. I have been
asked by Carly’s parents, who I understand have also been in contact with the minister’s office, to raise this
matter.
(1)     Can the minister explain why, despite an urgent referral by Carly’s general practitioner to the Alma
        Street Centre on 29 October 2010 due to Carly’s severe depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, an
        appointment was not made available to her until 15 November?
(2)     Can the minister explain why Carly’s non-attendance at both this appointment and a subsequent
        appointment on 25 November did not result in an urgent follow-up by the mental health emergency
        response team?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied:
I thank the member for some notice of this question.
(1)     Five hours after receiving the general practitioner’s referral, Alma Street Centre triage made contact
        with Carly by phone. Carly reassured the triage officer in regards to her own safety and Carly stated that
        her doctor wanted her to see a psychiatrist so that the GP would have a better understanding of her
        symptoms and how to treat her. Carly accepted the triage officer’s advice regarding the time frame
        expected for her first appointment. As I mentioned in my answer yesterday, Carly had an exceptionally
        good relationship with her primary caregiver—the GP—so the effort was being put in to assisting and
        supporting that relationship.
(2)     There was regular phone contact with Carly from 29 October 2010 until 3 March 2011. On each
        occasion she gave reassurance regarding her own safety. Triage staff made contact with Carly on 4, 5
        and 16 November 2010. From 29 October 2010 to 25 November 2010, messages were left three times.
        Phone calls were also made to both parents individually and a discussion occurred with the GP on
                                    [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                     10309

          30 November 2010, during which the GP confirmed Carly had numerous “did not attend” incidents
          over a long period.
                      HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME — WATER UTILITIES
1127.     Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM to the minister representing the Minister for Water:
(1)       For August 2011, for each suburb and town, how many requests for hardship utility grant scheme
          assistance were referred to financial counsellors for assessment by —
          (a)     the Water Corporation; and
          (b)     any other water board or authority, with figures given for each water board or authority?
(2)       For August 2011, for each suburb and town, how many requests for HUGS assistance were not referred
          to financial counsellors for assessment by —
          (a)     the Water Corporation; and
          (b)     any other water board or authority, with figures given for each water board or authority?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied:
(1)       (a)     I table the table and seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard.
The PRESIDENT: Is that for the whole answer?
Hon HELEN MORTON: I can read the rest of the answer.
The PRESIDENT: Read the parts of the answer that are descriptive and then table the table and seek leave to
have it incorporated into Hansard.
Hon HELEN MORTON: The rest of the answer is —
(1)       (b)     Aqwest, one and Busselton Water, zero.
(2)       (a)     The Water Corporation does not keep records of the number of customers not referred to
                  financial counsellors.
          (b)     For both Aqwest and Busselton Water, zero.
I now table the table and seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted. [See paper 4148.]
The following material was incorporated —


 SUBURB                         REFERRALS
 ALBANY                         1
 ARMADALE                       2
 ATWELL                         3
 BALLAJURA                      1
 BANKSIA GROVE                  1
 BENTLEY                        1
 BERTRAM                        1
 BUTLER                         1
 CANNING VALE                   1
 COLLIE                         1
 CONNOLLY                       1
 COOLOONGUP                     1
 CURRAMBINE                     1
 DUNSBOROUGH                    1
 EATON                          3
 EDGEWATER                      1
 ELLENBROOK                     1
 GERALDTON                      1
 HAMILTON HILL                  1
10310                                [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

 HAZELMERE                       1
 HILLMAN                         1
 HUNTINGDALE                     1
 JOONDALUP                       1
 KARDINYA                        1
 KATANNING                       2
 KENWICK                         1
 LANGFORD                        1
 MADDINGTON                      1
 MANDURAH                        1
 MEDINA                          1
 MIDLAND                         1
 MINDARIE                        1
 MOUNT HAWTHORN                  1
 NILGEN                          1
 ORELIA                          1
 PARKWOOD                        1
 PARMELIA                        1
 QUINNS ROCKS                    2
 REDCLIFFE                       1
 SPEARWOOD                       1
 THORNLIE                        2
 WILLETTON                       2
 YARLOOP                         1
 TOTAL                           52


                              LEONORA DETENTION CENTRE — CHILDREN
1128.     Hon ALISON XAMON to the minister representing the Minister for Education:
I refer to children currently being detained in the Leonora detention centre.
(1)       How many of these children are currently attending Leonora primary school?
(2)       How many of these children are currently attending Leonora District High School?
Hon PETER COLLIER replied:
I thank the member for some notice of this question.
(1)       There is no Leonora primary school.
(2)       Nil. The last 36 students left Leonora on Tuesday, 22 November 2011. None was of primary school age.
              HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME — SYNERGY AND HORIZON POWER
1129.     Hon ED DERMER to the Minister for Energy:
Some notice has been given of the question.
(1)       For September 2011, for each suburb and town, how many requests for hardship utility grant scheme
          assistance were referred to financial counsellors for assessment by both Synergy and Horizon Power?
(2)       For September 2011, for each suburb and town, how many requests for hardship utility grant scheme
          assistance were not referred to financial counsellors for assessment by both Synergy and Horizon
          Power?
Hon PETER COLLIER replied:
I thank the member for some notice of the question.
(1)–(2) Horizon Power referred 91 customers to financial counsellors to be assessed for eligibility to receive a
        payment as part of the hardship utility grant scheme in September 2011. Horizon Power is provided
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                        10311

        with remittance notices on accounts that are credited with HUGS payments. The timing of referrals and
        receipt of remittance notices may occur in different months and, as such, Horizon Power cannot readily
        identify which of the following September 2011 applications had HUGS payments credited to their
        account: Baynton, two; Brockman, two; Broome, eight; Bulgarra, one; Cable Beach, one; Carnarvon,
        seven; Castletown, two; Denham, two; Derby, two; Djugun, one; Esperance, eight; Exmouth, one;
        Fitzroy Crossing, two; Halls Creek, four; Hopetoun, three; Karratha, one; Kununurra, four; Laverton,
        one; Leonora, three; Meekatharra, one; Millars Well, one; Mt Magnet, four; Nickol, one; Norseman,
        three; Nulsen, two; Pegs Creek, one; Port Hedland, one; Roebourne, one; Roebuck, one; South
        Hedland, 17; and Yalgoo, three.
        Horizon Power does not maintain records of how many customers were initially assessed as not being
        eligible for referral to a financial counsellor.
        Synergy referred 1 784 customers to financial counsellors to be assessed for eligibility to receive a
        payment as part of the hardship utility grant scheme in the month of September 2011. Synergy does not
        maintain statistics for the town or suburb that referred customers live in, and it would require undue
        resources to do so retrospectively.
        Synergy does not maintain records of how many customers were initially assessed as not being eligible
        for referral to a financial counsellor.
        HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME — SYNERGY, ALINTA AND HORIZON POWER
1130.   Hon LINDA SAVAGE to the Minister for Energy:
(1)     For July 2011, for each suburb and town, how many requests for hardship utility grant scheme
        assistance were referred to the Department for Child Protection by —
        (a)      Synergy;
        (b)      Horizon Power; and
        (c)      Alinta?
(2)     For July 2011, for each suburb and town, how many requests for HUGS assistance were not referred to
        the DCP by —
        (a)      Synergy;
        (b)      Horizon Power; and
        (c)      Alinta?
Hon PETER COLLIER replied:
I thank the member for some notice of this question.
(1)     Customers in financial hardship are not referred directly to the Department for Child Protection by the
        utilities; they are referred to a financial counsellor to be assessed for eligibility for a HUGS grant. If the
        financial counsellor determines that the customer is in hardship, the customer can then apply for a
        HUGS grant with the Department for Child Protection.
        (a)      In the month of July 2011, Synergy referred 1 477 customers to financial counsellors to be
                 assessed for eligibility to receive a HUGS payment. Synergy does not maintain statistics of the
                 town or suburb that the referred customers live in.
        (b)      In the month of July 2011, Horizon Power referred 163 customers to financial counsellors to
                 be assessed for eligibility to receive a HUGS payment. The following number of customers
                 were referred by suburb: Baynton, one; Brockman, one; Broome, 33; Bulgarra, seven; Cable
                 Beach, two; Carnarvon, 10; Castletown, two; Derby, five; Djugun, one; Esperance, 17;
                 Exmouth, two; Fitzroy Crossing, one; Gascoyne Junction, one; Halls Creek, two; Hopetoun,
                 one; Jerdacuttup, one; Karratha, one; Kununurra, nine; Laverton, two; Leonora, seven; Marble
                 Bar, three; Millars Well, one; Nickol, one; Norseman, three; Nulsen, three; Onslow, one; Pegs
                 Creek, two; Pink Lake, one; Roebourne, four; South Hedland, 33; Wiluna, one; and Wyndham,
                 four.
        (c)      As Alinta is a privately owned company, I cannot provide a response on the number of
                 customers referred to a financial counsellor.
(2)     (a)      Synergy does not maintain records of how many customers were initially assessed as not being
                 eligible for referral to a financial counsellor.
        (b)      Horizon Power does not maintain records of how many customers were initially assessed as
                 not being eligible for referral to a financial counsellor.
10312                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

         (c)      As Alinta is a privately owned company, I cannot provide a response on the number of
                  customers who were initially assessed as not being eligible for referral.
      INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE — FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT
1131.    Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the statements in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report in 2007
that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level;
most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due
to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations; and many impacts can be reduced,
delayed or avoided by mitigation, and delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to
achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.
(1)      Does the minister agree with the above statements?
(2)      If not, why not?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied:
The Minister for Environment has provided the following response —
(1)-(2) The government supports prudent but sensible actions to control greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the
        potential effects of climate change and move towards a less carbon-intensive economy. The government
        has promoted the use of liquefied natural gas to play a greater part as a clean fuel by approving or
        advancing the development of several key LNG projects in the north west and Kimberley. The Indian
        Ocean Climate Initiative, which commenced in 1998 with the support of the then coalition government,
        is a research partnership between the Western Australian government, CSIRO and the Bureau of
        Meteorology. It continues to provide high-quality scientific knowledge to support government, industry
        and community decision making to facilitate adaptation to climate variability and change.
                        FITZGERALD RIVER NATIONAL PARK — TOURIST ROAD
1132.    Hon SUE ELLERY to the minister representing the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the Fitzgerald River National Park tourist road.
(1)      How much has been spent on the construction to date?
(2)      Is refuelling of machinery being used on the road construction being done within the national park?
(3)      If no to (2), how are the machines being refuelled and why?
(4)      Where is the gravel for the road construction being sourced from?
(5)      How much construction work has been completed?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Transport has provided the
following information —
(1)      An amount of $15.3 million.
(2)      Yes.
(3)      Not applicable.
(4)      It is sourced from two pits in the localised area.
(5)      Eight kilometres have been completed and another 24 kilometres are currently under construction.
                HARDSHIP EFFICIENCY PROGRAM — PUBLIC HOUSING COMPONENT
1133.    Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Energy:
I refer to the public housing component of the hardship efficiency program.
(1)      What was the budget and expenditure for this component in —
         (a)      2009–10;
         (b)      2010–11; and
         (c)      2011–12 to date?
(2)      Why has the minister, along with the Minister for Housing, not done anything to ensure that this
         funding was used sooner to help alleviate the utility stress he has inflicted upon those energy consumers
         in WA who need it most?
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                    10313

(3)      What has the minister got to say to the thousands of people this scheme could be helping have a better
         Christmas, knowing that the millions of dollars allocated to help them reduce their energy bills is still
         locked away in government’s coffers?
And it better not be “Happy Christmas”.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied:
I thank the honourable member for this positive question. I would like to take this opportunity to wish Hon Kate
Doust all the best for Christmas and 2012.
(1)      (a)      In 2009–10 there was no specific budget allocation for public housing under the hardship
                  efficiency program. Public housing tenants were included in the general HEP services and
                  budget. Approximately $0.04 million was expended.
         (b)–(c) In 2010–11 cabinet approved a budget of $6.3 million for the public and community housing
                 sub-program, a new initiative of the Liberal–National government. Approximately $0.3 million
                 was spent in 2010–11 from the general HEP budget in relation to public housing tenants. The
                 sub-program budget was carried over to the 2011–12 financial year.
(2)–(3) The state government is committed to improving the energy efficiency of state-owned housing, thereby
        reducing the amount of energy required to provide essential services. The full amount budgeted for the
        public and community housing sub-program is expected to be spent in 2011–12. Government is also
        considering allocating additional moneys for activities targeted to public housing tenants from the
        overall HEP budget. Government has allocated total funding of $78.4 million in 2011–12 for rebates,
        concessions and hardship assistance.
                CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES — SOUTH WEST
                                   Question on Notice 4963 — Answer Advice
HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [5.01 pm]: Pursuant to
standing order 138(d), I inform the house that the answer to question on notice 4963 asked by Hon Adele Farina
on 2 November 2011 of me as Minister for Mental Health will be provided on the next sitting day, Tuesday, 6
March 2012.
                                 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 4928 AND 4936
                                                 Papers Tabled
Papers relating to answers to questions on notice were tabled by Hon Robyn McSweeney (Minister for Child
Protection).
                    STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES
Twenty-second Report — “Review of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council” — Amendment to Motion
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
                                                   Committee
The Chairman (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm) in the chair.
Committee was interrupted after amendment (3)(v) had been amended.
The CHAIRMAN: Members, we are dealing with proposed standing orders, schedule 1, section 5.4. The
question is that section 5.4, as amended, be agreed to.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: May I suggest from the point of view of expediency that we agree to this and then
go out of committee and recommit the question to reassess where we are at, basically. There is the problem now
whereby a word has been removed and it has not been replaced. I think we need to sort that out, but it cannot be
done unless we go out of committee and then deal with the matter and come back into committee.
Hon ADELE FARINA: Mr Chairman, I ask for clarification. I do not understand the question that is being put.
Is the question that only section 5.4 be adopted or that section 5 be adopted? As I understand it, to date we have
been putting the whole section, not little sub-components of it.
The CHAIRMAN: My understanding, member, is that it is just section 5.4 that we will be agreeing to, if that is
the will of the chamber, and then we will move section 5 as a whole.
Hon Norman Moore: We will come back to it once we have sorted out the problem we have created for
ourselves—or perhaps I have created.
Hon ADELE FARINA: So you are seeking leave now?
10314                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

The CHAIRMAN: At this point, we are simply putting section 5.4, as amended, and then we will come back to
section 5, “Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review Committee”—namely, sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4; that
will come afterwards.
Hon ADELE FARINA: We have not done things in sub-sections up until now. In fact, when I sought advice
from the clerks, I was told it would not be done that way. We were putting the whole standing order or the whole
part of a schedule, and now the rules have changed midway through.
The CHAIRMAN: I seek the will of the chamber. I will put the question that schedule 1, section 5, “Uniform
Legislation and Statutes Review Committee”, as amended, be agreed to, and then the Leader of the House will
move to recommit that.
Hon ADELE FARINA: I have some other things I want to raise. When the question is put, I will stand up and
raise the other matters I want to raise.
Hon Norman Moore: If you keep talking now, we will finish at 5.20 pm and that will be the end of it, so you
can take credit for this not happening.
Hon ADELE FARINA: That is fine; I am happy to.
The CHAIRMAN: The question is that section 5, as amended, be agreed to.
Hon ADELE FARINA: The proposed standing orders at section 5 propose to remove the own-motion referral
of the committee. No real explanation has been provided as to why that is being removed. I have received two
explanations that have been advanced. One is that the committee has not used the power, so removing it should
not be an issue. I want to put on record three responses to this. The first is that the committee and its former
incarnation have made use of the power. Just because the committee has made use of the power judiciously, this
is not a good justification for removing it. In fact, in most reasonable and rational environments, it would be an
argument for retaining it. Also, the committee has not used its treaties review function, yet the chamber saw fit to
retain it. On the basis of consistency alone, the chamber should retain the committee’s self-referral power. We
are after all a house that is steeped in custom and precedent and doing things simply because that is the way it
has always been done. The third point I want to make is that other committees have had a self-referral power. In
the absence of sound, reasonable justification in support of the deletion of this power, which to date has not been
provided, it should be retained.
The other reason that has been advanced for deleting the self-referral power is that the legislation committee
does not have a self-referral power, and therefore the uniform legislation committee should not have a self-
referral power. I just want to put on the record my response, which is that time and again Hon Norman Moore in
particular and some other members in this place have stated that the uniform legislation committee is not the
legislation committee; they have distinct and very different functions, they are not the same and only the
legislation committee can inquire into the policy of a bill. On the basis of consistency, if the two committees are
distinct and different, it is absurd to argue that because the legislation committee does not have a self-referral
power, the uniform legislation committee should not have one either. After all, as we have been told, they are
very different and distinct committees. I ask the Chairman to explain why the committee saw fit to delete the
self-referral power. The uniform legislation committee has used that power judiciously. It has not been abused. It
has been used only when it was felt necessary to do so, and that it would actually assist the house in doing that.
On that basis alone, I cannot see a reason to remove that when a self-referral power exists for other committees.
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again at a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Norman
Moore (Leader of the House).
[Continued next page.]
                                         BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
                             Standing and Temporary Orders Suspension — Motion
HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [5.10 pm] — without notice: I
move —
         That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as to enable the house to sit beyond
         5.20 pm in order to complete order of the day 15, the twenty-second report of the Standing Committee
         on Procedure and Privileges Subcommittee, “Review of the Standing Orders of the Legislative
         Council”.
Very briefly, that is the only business I propose to do after 5.20 pm. I seek the house’s support to finish the
standing orders some time this century.
Question put and passed with an absolute majority.
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10315

                    STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES
Twenty-second Report — “Review of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council” — Amendment to Motion
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
                                                    Committee
The President (Hon Barry House) in the chair.
Progress was reported after amendment (3)(v) had been amended.
The PRESIDENT: During the motion to delete section 5.4, there was another amendment to delete one word
and substitute another. We have deleted one word but we voted against substituting the other word. We are doing
the whole section, which is schedule 1, section 5, as amended. The question is that schedule 1, section 5, as
amended, be agreed to.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I will explain again, for the benefit of Hon Adele Farina, that this is a mechanism to
enable the chamber to agree to this, as amended, so I can then move to recommit the motion. We had to get out
of committee so that we can come back and undo the problem that we have created for ourselves. That does not
prevent Hon Adele Farina from making any further comments on the section.
Hon ADELE FARINA: Before we reported progress, I actually put a question to the Chair. I would appreciate
an answer to that question.
The PRESIDENT: The report speaks for itself. It is not up to me, as a member of that committee, or any other
member who is a member of that committee, to divulge any of the deliberations in that committee.
Hon ADELE FARINA: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a statement made by Hon Norman
Moore earlier today in which he —
The PRESIDENT: Hang on a second; only if it relates to the question specifically before the chamber.
Hon ADELE FARINA: Yes, it relates to section 5.
The PRESIDENT: The question before the chamber is that schedule 1, section 5, as amended, be agreed to.
Hon ADELE FARINA: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: If your remarks relate to that question, then you are welcome.
Hon ADELE FARINA: They relate to section 5 and statements made earlier that suggested the committee has
performed only one-third of its functions.
The PRESIDENT: I do not think that is relevant to the question before the chamber.
Hon ADELE FARINA: When we were considering section 5 earlier today, Mr President, you entertained
discussion on standing order 125.
The PRESIDENT: Because there was a direct link to 125.
Hon ADELE FARINA: Is there not a direct link between this section and how the committee goes about
performing its functions? Is this section not all about how the committee performs its functions and people’s
views about what it should and should not be doing?
The PRESIDENT: Okay; make your point.
Hon ADELE FARINA: Hon Norman Moore said that the committee was performing only one-third of its
functions and that the committee was reviewing uniform bills; however, it was not inquiring into treaties and had
not conducted a review of the form and content of the statute book. In relation to inquiring into treaties, the
current committee has tabled a report that has gone through a very detailed explanation of the committee’s
attempt to inquire into treaties and how, despite extensive efforts by the committee, it hit a roadblock at every
turn. The report explains that the committee cannot—I repeat cannot—implement this function. For that reason,
the report recommended that the provision be deleted. The chamber has decided not to do that, but it is wrong of
Hon Norman Moore to put on the record that the committee is not implementing its term of reference in relation
to treaty functions. We have tried. A previous incarnation of the committee also tried, and failed.
In relation to the review of the form and content of the statute book, the committee has actually undertaken work
into that function of the committee, contrary to the comments by Hon Norman Moore that the committee has
done nothing with that function and that term of reference. The committee is doing work. However, to what avail
I am really not sure because the whole purpose of reviewing the content and form of a statute book is to identify
either acts or regulations, or provisions of acts or regulations, that are obsolete and should be repealed, yet there
is no capacity for the committee to actually do that, or even to introduce legislation into the Parliament to do
that. All the committee will be doing is expending a huge amount of resources undertaking an inquiry into the
10316                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

statute book in order to bring a report before this Parliament, which will just get noted and sit collecting dust.
Nevertheless, that is a function of the committee. I just wanted to put on the record that the committee is
performing that function. We do take seriously the standing orders and the terms of reference of the committee
and our requirement to fulfil them, but it makes it very, very difficult when this house continues to insist on
including terms of reference that the committee cannot actually implement. I just want to say that the house
cannot do that and then criticise the committee if it is not able to fulfil that term of reference.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that amendment (3)(v), as amended, be agreed to.
Amendment (3)(v), as amended, put and passed.
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again at a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Norman
Moore (Leader of the House).
                                                     Recommittal
On motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), resolved —
         That order of the day 15, “Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges—Report 22—Review of
         the Standing Orders—Committee Report”, be recommitted for the reconsideration of amendment (3)(v)
         and then to complete consideration of all remaining parts of the amendment moved by Hon Norman
         Moore to the motion of Hon Norman Moore.
                                                     Committee
The President (Hon Barry House) in the chair.
Progress was reported after amendment (3)(v), as amended, had been agreed to.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Because the committee removed the word “confine” from proposed schedule 1,
section 5.4, and did not replace it with any other words, I move —
         In section 5.4 — To insert after “the Committee is to” —
                  confine
Hon ADELE FARINA: Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 170, which reads —
         Subject to SO 227, no question or amendment shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any
         question or amendment which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or
         negative, unless the order, resolution, or vote on such question or amendment has been rescinded.
I also refer to standing order 171, which states —
         An order, resolution, or other vote of the Council may be rescinded, but not during the same session,
         unless 7 days’ notice be given and an absolute majority of the whole number of Members vote in favour
         of its rescission.
In view of that, I do not know that what Hon Norman Moore has proposed actually complies with the standing
orders. As I read the standing orders, the same question cannot be put in the same session unless seven days’
notice has been given. I ask for a ruling on that. I also note that a view has been expressed to me that this is not a
meeting of the same committee that met when the question was first considered. I just draw the President’s
attention to the fact that when we reported progress, we sought leave to sit again. We would not need leave to sit
again if a different committee was meeting. By the very use of those words, it suggests that it is the same
committee that is sitting. Therefore, the standing orders do apply and we are not able to proceed on the basis as
proposed. The only course of action is for the question to be put in another session or for seven days’ notice to be
provided, because we are sitting again as the same committee. I seek a ruling on that.
                                                Ruling by President
The PRESIDENT: Standing order 170 refers to proceedings of the Council. We are in committee, and the
relevant standing order in terms of committee deliberations is standing order 301, which reads —
         Resolutions reported from a Committee may be agreed to or disagreed to by the Council, or agreed to
         with amendments, recommitted to the Committee, or the further consideration thereof postponed.
This matter has been recommitted to the committee. It is up to the committee now to do what it will with the
proceedings. I heard what the member said about standing order 170, but it is not applicable to this specific
situation.
                                                Committee Resumed
Hon ADELE FARINA: May I draw your attention, then, to standing order 237(b), which refers to amendments
in committee and says —
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                                  10317

         In the same Committee, no new clause or other amendment shall be proposed that is substantially the
         same as one already negatived or that is inconsistent with a previous decision of the same Committee.
That indicates that a question of the same substance cannot be put even in committee. I seek your ruling on that.
                                                    Ruling by President
The PRESIDENT: That would be true if we were in the same committee, but we have recommitted now for the
purpose of considering that part of the business that is before us. Therefore, the amendments can be made as the
chamber decides. We have recommitted for the purpose of considering proposed clause 5.4. The proposal from
the Leader of the House is to add the word “confine” after the word “to” and before the word “any”. The
question is that the word proposed to be added be added.
                                                    Committee Resumed
Hon SUE ELLERY: I just want to rise to make the point that this takes us back to where we were about an hour
and a half ago. The arguments have been canvassed. We oppose this word. We think this is taking it a step too
far and that proposed section 5.4 and the words that are proposed are an unreasonable restriction on the
committee. However, I also think that all of those views have been canvassed. I do not intend to elaborate any
further, other than to indicate that we will oppose it.
Amendment on the amendment put and a division taken with the following result —
                                                         Ayes (17)

Hon Jim Chown               Hon Donna Faragher               Hon Robyn McSweeney               Hon Max Trenorden
Hon Peter Collier           Hon Philip Gardiner              Hon Michael Mischin               Hon Ken Baston (Teller)
Hon Mia Davies              Hon Nigel Hallett                Hon Norman Moore
Hon Wendy Duncan            Hon Alyssa Hayden                Hon Helen Morton
Hon Brian Ellis             Hon Col Holt                     Hon Simon O’Brien
                                                         Noes (13)

Hon Liz Behjat              Hon Adele Farina                 Hon Linda Savage                  Hon Ed Dermer (Teller)
Hon Robin Chapple           Hon Jon Ford                     Hon Sally Talbot
Hon Kate Doust              Hon Lynn MacLaren                Hon Ken Travers
Hon Sue Ellery              Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich            Hon Giz Watson


                                                           Pairs
                            Hon Nick Goiran                                          Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm
                            Hon Phil Edman                                           Hon Helen Bullock

Amendment on the amendment thus passed.
The PRESIDENT: The question to complete the section is that section 5.4 on page 83, part of schedule 1,
part 5, as amended, be agreed to.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Very briefly, I think we should deal with this now. I give a commitment to those
members who have a particular interest in this matter to sit with them when the house resumes in March, in
perhaps a different environment, to see whether some other words can be tweaked to deal with some of the
issues raised by Hon Adele Farina—not all of them, but some of them—which were unable to be achieved in the
time we had today to consider the matter. I give that assurance and suggest we just move along.
Amendment (3)(v), as further amended, put and a division taken with the following result —
                                                         Ayes (18)

Hon Liz Behjat              Hon Brian Ellis                  Hon Col Holt                      Hon Simon O’Brien
Hon Jim Chown               Hon Donna Faragher               Hon Robyn McSweeney               Hon Max Trenorden
Hon Peter Collier           Hon Philip Gardiner              Hon Michael Mischin               Hon Ken Baston (Teller)
Hon Mia Davies              Hon Nigel Hallett                Hon Norman Moore
Hon Wendy Duncan            Hon Alyssa Hayden                Hon Helen Morton
                                                         Noes (12)

Hon Robin Chapple           Hon Adele Farina                 Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich             Hon Ken Travers
Hon Kate Doust              Hon Jon Ford                     Hon Linda Savage                  Hon Giz Watson
Hon Sue Ellery              Hon Lynn MacLaren                Hon Sally Talbot                  Hon Ed Dermer (Teller)


                                                           Pairs
                            Hon Phil Edman                                           Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm
                            Hon Nick Goiran                                          Hon Helen Bullock

Amendment (3)(v), as further amended, thus passed.
10318                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

Amendment (3)(w) —
The PRESIDENT: We now move to amendment (3)(w) on the sheet distributed initially; that is, proposed
schedule 1, part 6—Joint Delegated Legislation Committee. The question I will put before the committee is that
proposed schedule 1, part 6 be agreed to.
Hon SUE ELLERY: I move —
         After section 6.6 — To insert —
                  6.7      It is also a function of the Committee to inquire into and report on —
                           (a)      any proposed or existing template, pro forma or model local law;
                           (b)      any systemic issue identified in two or more instruments of subsidiary
                                    legislation; and
                           (c)      the statutory and administrative procedures for the making of subsidiary
                                    legislation generally, but not so as to inquire into any specific proposed
                                    instrument of subsidiary legislation that has yet to be published.
This is to make changes to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. Members may recall in the
debate yesterday that both the Leader of the House, I think, and I canvassed that there had been some discussions
with members of this joint standing committee. The committee is in a unique position in that it is the only joint
standing committee that operates under the standing orders of the Legislative Council. The conversations behind
the Chair go to the matters raised by the members of both major parties represented on the committee and which
have, as I am advised, been drafted in consultation with the members of that committee. In addition to the
amendments to standing orders that appear in the proposals before us, this amendment will add a new paragraph
that says —
                  6.7      It is also a function of the Committee to inquire into and report on —
                           (a)      any proposed or existing template, pro forma or model local law;
                           (b)      any systemic issue identified in two or more instruments of subsidiary
                                    legislation; and
                           (c)      the statutory and administrative procedures for the making of subsidiary
                                    legislation generally, but not so as to inquire into any specific proposed
                                    instrument of subsidiary legislation that has yet to be published.
In the conversations that I have had with members of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation,
the committee members were seeking the power to avoid the situation in which local government authorities
invest a lot of time and resources in preparing regulations and the committee then, for a range of reasons, finds
that—what is the word members use; it is getting too late in the day!—the authority does not have the power or
has gone beyond its power to make those regulations. The committee is seeking the power to have the capacity
to assist local government before it invests time and resources in preparing those regulations by doing some
work in advance to provide local government with the opportunity to see what a model clause might look like, or
canvass the matters in which there appear to be systemic issues identified in two or more instruments of the
subsidiary legislation. I am not a member of that committee, so I probably have not explained it as eloquently as
I should—maybe other members in this place will. As I am advised, this is an agreed set of words that has been
drafted specifically either by or in consultation with the staff of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated
Legislation as a result of the deliberations—albeit, I think, informal—of the members of the delegated legislation
committee.
The PRESIDENT: Hon Sue Ellery has proposed to insert that following new paragraph as she explained. The
question is that the words proposed to be added, be added.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: I completely support the amendment; I just wanted to seek clarification and a piece of
advice. If we insert this, obviously one of the things we will need to do is send a message to the other place
seeking its concurrence. I know these standing orders will not be in place until we return next year, but if the
Assembly has not accepted that amendment when we return, what will happen and what will be the standing
orders? Is the motion sufficient to accommodate that?
The PRESIDENT: Yes, the motion is sufficient to accommodate it, but the standing order will not come into
effect for that committee until the Assembly agrees to concur, following our message.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: Just so I am clear, will our existing standing orders for that committee remain in place,
despite what we now pass, until the Assembly concurs?
The PRESIDENT: That is correct.
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                          10319

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I just wanted to make sure that you agree with me.
The PRESIDENT: That is correct. Just to make it absolutely clear; if this chamber agrees to adopt these
proposed standing orders in whatever form in a few minutes, then they will be the standing orders in that gap
between the Legislative Assembly concurring to any message—no? Maybe I have it wrong.
Hon Ken Travers: That is why I think we need to get it clear; that is the confusion I am worried about. You will
have two sets of standing orders for the one committee.
The PRESIDENT: Let me make it clear. The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation is currently
operating under standing orders outlined in schedule 1, part 3, on pages 144 and 145 of the existing standing
orders. They will continue to be the standing orders that the joint standing committee operates under until the
Assembly concurs with any message from this house. Did I make that clear enough that time? There are
discussions about all sorts of things happening, but I will give the call to the Leader of the House.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Can we just deal with the matter that was raised by Hon Ken Travers first? I, too,
read that amendment (4) of this motion is that we repeal all the existing standing orders. I interpret that to mean
that the current standing orders will be repealed on 6 March 2012. It would cover us if we had something to the
effect that amendment (4) be amended so that the current standing orders, with the exception of standing order
whatever it is, be repealed, and that standing order be repealed once the Assembly agrees to this particular
standing order.
Hon Ken Travers: When the Assembly concurs, that will be repealed.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: That might just put it beyond any doubt. If we are happy to, I could foreshadow that
as an amendment to amendment (4). I gather that there are some other suggestions about the amendment moved
by Hon Sue Ellery, which I am going to sit and listen to.
The PRESIDENT: That foreshadowed amendment makes a lot of sense, to just remove any doubt about
anything that may or may not be in place. Hon Sue Ellery’s amendment is that the words proposed to be added,
be added.
Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: I just wanted to bring to the attention of the chamber a possible slight amendment to
the amendment moved by Hon Sue Ellery, if she is open to that. I move —
         Paragraph (c) — To delete “but not so as to inquire into any specific proposed instrument of subsidiary
         legislation that has yet to be published” and insert —
                  (d)      in the case of local laws, to examine any draft local law prior to its publication.
By way of clarification, many instruments come to us from local governments that have either a spelling mistake
or some issue that we have picked up from another local government, and we are not able to give them any
advice until that instrument has been gazetted, which obviously costs local governments a lot of money. Of late,
we have had quite a few local government requests to send us a draft beforehand if they know there has been a
problem with a certain instrument that we have disallowed before. They ask for our advice before spending all
the money for it to be gazetted for us to just disallow it. This amendment would allow the committee to advise
local government on draft legislation.
The PRESIDENT: Hon Alyssa Hayden has moved an amendment to the amendment that I will summarise by
saying that the words proposed to be deleted are in section 6.7(c), and there is a new section 6.7(d) to be added.
Leader of the Opposition.
Hon SUE ELLERY: Two things: firstly, is it possible for me to just accept the amendment?
The PRESIDENT: Yes, but I will still have to put the question.
Hon SUE ELLERY: Secondly, I place on the record that I do not disagree with what Hon Alyssa Hayden is
doing—I thought that was why I was moving what I have already moved, but maybe it was not. I feel somewhat
at arm’s length here; I am not a member of that committee. I have been asked by my members of that committee
of the other place to raise certain things; I have been advised that the amendment in my name addresses that. I
hope it does. But I feel somewhat at arm’s length. I am going to proceed and accept the advice I have been given
in the spirit that I think it was given, and I am happy to accept Hon Alyssa Hayden’s amendment, but I have to
say that I do feel somewhat at arm’s length.
Hon JIM CHOWN: As a member of that committee, I am a little confused. As far as I am concerned, the
proposed amendment by Hon Sue Ellery suited the purposes of the committee, and I am a bit aggrieved to be at a
difference with the honourable member on my left. But, as a form of clarification with regard to what we are
trying to achieve here, a number of local governments do submit instruments to the committee, and at times the
committee sends them back, and we are unable to give direction as to how they are to correct those instruments.
What I would not like to see is local governments use this committee as a sounding board.
10320                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

Hon Ken Travers: Does the committee still meet regularly with the liaison committee of local government?
There used to be a process under which it did do that. Hon Ray Halligan used to go off regularly and have that
liaison.
Hon JIM CHOWN: Not regularly, no. My concern is that if this amendment turns the committee into a
sounding board for local governments throughout Western Australia, it will not be able to do its work.
The PRESIDENT: Before I give my advice, I will just take Hon Robin Chapple, because he has had some
experience in these matters.
Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Having been a former member of that committee, I take on board very much what
Hon Jim Chown has said. It has always been a problem for the committee that the committee tends to get
regulations from local governments that have even the wrong local government’s name written at the top of
them. A lot of the material is very badly prepared. But the key issue is that there is a responsible agency, and that
is the Department of Local Government. That department should be stepping in at an early stage and dealing
with a matter before it gets to the delegated legislation committee. There needs to be the ability for the delegated
legislation committee to address these issues. But I take on board exactly what Hon Jim Chown has said;
namely, that if the delegated legislation committee does that, and instead of going through the Department of
Local Government, the local government sends everything to the delegated legislation committee to fix up and
provide advice, it could mean an immense amount of work for that committee. So I take on board the intent of
what has been said. I think it is valued. But I am worried about the potential outcome.
The PRESIDENT: If I could offer an observation, it would be within the jurisdiction of the committee, in how it
goes about its business in an administrative way, to determine how it does that. But if the wording of the
committee’s terms of reference was more restrictive, the committee would have less room to move on the sorts
of issues that the two members who have just spoken have raised. So, a bit of discretion would be removed from
the committee as I read the words proposed in the amendment. But it is up to the chamber.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I presume I am a bit like everybody else—I am totally confused! But that has not
been the first time today, and it will not be the last time, probably. I am not sure how we deal with this. I wonder
if we might go back to the original proposal of Hon Sue Ellery and think about the suggestion made by Hon
Alyssa Hayden when we sit down and talk about these things when we return next year. That would get us
around this particular problem at the moment. I think most of us agree with the principle, but we are not sure
how it is going to work out. So I suggest that we stick with the original amendment moved by the Leader of the
Opposition and deal with that, and then when we come back next year we sit down with the members who are
particularly interested to see how we might tweak it.
The PRESIDENT: The other point made by the Clerk is that a message will have to be sent to the Assembly in
relation to this committee anyhow, so we still have a bit of time to resolve those particular details that might
relate to this committee. Also, of course, if the chamber agrees to proposal 6 on our list, there is a review
procedure next year to consider these finer aspects, I guess. So I will leave it in the hands of Hon Alyssa Hayden
as to whether she wishes to withdraw or proceed with her further amendment on the amendment.
Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: Thank you, Mr President. I am happy to seek leave to withdraw my proposed
amendment, noting that we will be able to review that either in the other place or at a later stage next year. That
would be fine.
Further amendment on the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT: We now go back to the amendment proposed by Hon Sue Ellery; that is, that the words
proposed to be inserted be inserted.
Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I seek clarification from Hon Sue Ellery with regard to section 6.7. Paragraph (c) refers to
“statutory and administrative procedures for the making of subsidiary legislation generally”. Is that confined to
Western Australia, or does it mean that the committee can look at subsidiary legislation generally throughout
other jurisdictions in Australia and other parts of the commonwealth?
Hon SUE ELLERY: I thank Hon Liz Behjat very much for the question. But I have already said that I am doing
this on advice. This is not a committee that I am on, nor is it one that I am familiar with. I am doing something
that I was asked to do. I have been given advice from the Clerks that this is in the best terms possible. So, if the
member wants a specific answer to that question, I am not in a position to give it to her. I am happy to ask,
through the President, for the Clerk’s advice to be provided to the chamber. But I would have thought it was
clear that I am not in a position to give the member that kind of answer.
The PRESIDENT: I may be able to help. The committee’s jurisdiction, as with this Parliament’s jurisdiction,
applies only to Western Australia. I would think that is the member’s answer. That is the boundary of the
jurisdiction that would apply.
Amendment on the amendment put and passed.
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10321

Amendment (3)(w), as amended, put and passed.
Postponed amendment (3)(c) —
The PRESIDENT: We now have to deal with two postponed amendments. We will deal first with proposed
standing order 15, and then with proposed standing order 93. The question now is that proposed standing
order 15, “Weekly Business”, stand as printed.
Hon WENDY DUNCAN: I thank you, Mr President, for deferring this proposed standing order to enable us to
come up with a form of words to deal with a concern that the Nationals originally had with proposed standing
order 110, “Non Government Business”. Under standing order 110, the definition of “a non-government
member” is “a member that does not support the government”. That has significant practical ramifications for
backbenchers who support the government, because those members have not been able to deal with their issues
in the Legislative Council outside of adjournment debates and have not been free to table private members’ bills
or raise debate on a particular issue.
Members may recall that in my opening remarks on standing order 1, I referred to the stated principles of the
review of standing orders. I now refer again to the particular one that I think pertains to what we are proposing
here. It states —
    •    ensure that the rights of all Members to contribute to proceedings in the House and its Committees are
         retained or strengthened;
Therefore, not allowing backbenchers who support the government time to present business to the house
contradicts the committee’s stated intention. As we all know, the current arrangement with non-government
business is that 80 minutes was agreed as part of the sessional orders and that is what we have been operating
under for some time. That means that in a four-week block, the Labor Party gets three turns and the Greens get
one. As I mentioned, backbenchers who support the government do not have those opportunities.
I thank the leaders of the other parties for hearing our concerns and for the conversations that have gone on
behind the Chair to come up with a solution that I believe means that the non-government business part of the
agenda remains intact for those members who do not support the government. We propose that 60 minutes
following non-government business on Thursday mornings be allocated specifically to government
backbenchers—that is, members of Parliament who support the government but who are not ministers or
parliamentary secretaries. We looked at Parliaments in other parts of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.
I had quite a long discourse ready to tell members about what they all do but, in view of the time, I will move
straight onto moving the amendment. There is the first amendment to amend proposed standing order 15, which I
will move now, and several consequential amendments. I move —
         After section (4) — To insert new section (5) —
                  (5)      Private Members’ Business
                           After the conclusion of Non-Government Business each Thursday, Private Members’
                           Business shall be taken for a period of 60 minutes.
The PRESIDENT: Hon Wendy Duncan has moved to insert new section (5), so that the question is that new
section (5) be agreed to. Just before we get to the debate, in case any member is looking at the clock, an
executive decision has been made not to adjourn for dinner but to continue this session until we reach a
conclusion.
Hon SUE ELLERY: I just want to make a few comments.
Hon Ken Travers: Starve you!
Hon SUE ELLERY: If there is any plan to starve us out, I would probably last longer than many other people!
The words before us now represent a compromise from what was put to the party leaders just two nights ago. I
think it is important to place on the record that although the various formations of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and Privileges spent two years debating standing orders, we never debated this amendment. It was not
canvassed in the course of the two years; it was put before us for the first time about 36 hours ago. The original
proposition was to replace non-government business completely with a form of private members’ business that
would have been open to both government and non-government supporters. I think it is unfortunate that that
happened in the past 36 hours when we had spent two years debating these matters, so I want the record to show
that. I am pleased that a compromise has been reached, because if it had not, we would be talking, I think, for a
very long time about the alternate proposal. I just wanted to put that on the record. I understand that these things
happen from time to time, but we had an awfully long time to canvass these things and we did not.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I want to comment on that matter. The issue was not raised in the committee because
it was known to everybody that there would be no agreement; the process was always considered to be one
10322                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

whereby we would seek consensus from those members of the committee and we would bring forward a report,
but it was always up to each party to take it back to their respective parties and seek their concurrence. That is
what happened. The bottom line is that not everybody in the Liberal Party, for example, agreed with every
standing order that the committee came up with. Indeed, I thought that the proposal to go from non-government
to private members’ business would have potentially received the enthusiastic support of the Labor Party,
because that is the system we had when it was in government. It was an acceptable state of affairs during the last
Labor government when we had private members’ business; the Labor Party as the government used some of its
time in private members’ business to do government business. That was the situation for that four-year period. I
would have thought that going back to that was not something the Labor Party would slash their wrists over, but
then I was advised that it would slash not only their wrists, but also mine at the same time! I was not too
enthusiastic about that. That is why we sat down to see whether we could work out a compromise to this.
We looked at a couple of alternatives; one was to use every second week of committee reports. It dawned on me
this morning that that would be a bit unfair to the committee report system, because it is important for the reports
to be considered and not gather dust as some people think they all do. The idea to have a separate time came
from Hon Wendy Duncan. Initially, using government time was not my most preferred option, but it may
transpire in the future that if there is no business that government backbenchers want to transact every week, the
government will use the time for its business anyway. This is a fair and reasonable outcome and achieves what
everyone thinks is a reasonable situation to allow backbenchers to be more involved in the house.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: I rise to make a couple of comments. In many respects the Leader of the House is
correct in the way he has described the system by which private members’ time operated in previous
Parliaments. I am at a loss to understand why we need this amendment. At the end of the day, the business of the
house is determined by the government. We have a session for non-government members because if we did not,
we would never get to deal with non-government business. That is a way to provide for some orderly process. It
is about dealing with private members’ bills, but it also replaced what was called the urgency motion. The
urgency motion was always moved by non-government members. At the end of the day, if the government wants
to give up an hour of its time every week to its backbench to raise issues in this Parliament, that is the decision of
the government. We do not need this amendment.
Hon Norman Moore: This provides a mechanism whereby people can know what is coming up in advance, in
the same way as it applies to non-government business. Members will be in the position to know the day before
what will come up. It is dealt with under a set of rules. You are perfectly right, but this is a way of formalising it.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: We saw it the other day when we dealt with the private member’s bill of a government
backbencher; the government gave the backbencher time and the house dealt with it. I find it quite extraordinary
and odd, to be honest, that we will insert a rule that requires the government to provide time to its backbench.
That tells me that there must be something dysfunctional about the government, because if the government had
issues that it wanted to deal with or wanted its backbench to deal with, it already has that power. The
government already has the ability to determine the processes of the house and what comes on when. The
government can bring on motions. Ironically, other issues sit on the notice paper that should be brought on by the
government but are not brought on, and those are neither non-government nor private members’ matters. I make
those points.
I am not sure why we need this amendment, because the government already has the power to determine the
business of the house and what is dealt with, but clearly there is some problem within the government that
requires it to have it written into the standing orders.
Hon Norman Moore: It would be just the same as what you used to do when you were in the government. We
had an identical system, but it just meant every backbencher could speak, as opposed to non-government
members. Sometimes your government would not let your members speak.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: I do not know that that was ever the case. I do not recall you ever being in our party
room meetings, Mr Moore.
Hon Norman Moore: I have my sources, Mr Travers.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: I hope when we finish this, we can get on to the next bill. If the Leader of the House
were a journalist, his sources would be protected; otherwise, we might have to ask him to name his sources.
Hon Norman Moore: Would you like me to?
Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the Leader of the House wants to.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I think we are moving away from the substance of the debate.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: The point I want to make is that, at the end of the day, if the government wants to bring
on government business for its backbench, it has that capacity, and it has always had that capacity. I find this
amendment a bit odd, to be honest. The other point I make is that this is about the urgency motion. That has now
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                    10323

been combined and the opposition has to deal with both the urgency motion and private members’ bills all within
that 80-minute period.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I do not want to comment on the merits of the amendment, but I am concerned
about the terminology. In a sense, all private members’ business is opposition non-government business as well.
Hon Norman Moore: Read the rest of it. There’s a definition.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: The definition defines “non-government business”; it does not define “private
members’ business” as a distinction.
Hon Norman Moore: It does.
The PRESIDENT: If the member refers to the list of amendments associated with this proposal, he will find his
answer there.
Hon WENDY DUNCAN: As a quick right of reply to the comments of Hon Sue Ellery and to set the record
straight, we are dealing with the first preference of the Nationals. When we first canvassed our desires on this
front, there was some concern about eating into government business; therefore, the other option that members
may have seen was put forward. Certainly, this is our preferred option. The answer to why it was not raised in
two and a half years is exactly as Hon Norman Moore has said: it was pretty obvious that it was not going to get
any support from the committee at the time.
Hon Ken Travers: But if you don’t ask, how would you know?
Hon Sue Ellery: It’s just a little discourteous, I think. You could have just said, “By the way, I know you’re not
going to agree, but we’re going to do this” instead of telling me 36 hours before the debate.
Hon WENDY DUNCAN: I take Hon Sue Ellery’s point and I will endeavour to do better next time. In response
to Hon Ken Travers, I would imagine that, as often happens in Parliaments around Australia and the world, in
private members’ business, which is for members who support the government, the government of the day will
decide whether it needs to deal with its urgent government business or whether it needs to deal with private
members’ business that may be raised by members.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.
Amendment on the amendment put and passed.
Postponed amendment (3)(c), as amended, put and passed.
The PRESIDENT: With the committee’s approval, there are associated amendments and some consequential
amendments. With the approval of the committee, I will put the associated amendment to insert proposed new
standing order 111. If the committee agrees, I have another proposition to put on the consequential amendments.
I will leave it to Hon Wendy Duncan to move the amendment.
Standing order 111 —
Hon WENDY DUNCAN: I move —
         After proposed Standing Order 110, Non-Government Business — To insert —
                  111.     Private Members’ Business
                           (1)      Motions without notice, Bills for introduction and orders of the day that are
                                    in the name of Private Members may be listed for consideration by the
                                    Council during the period prescribed under Standing Order 15(5).
                           (2)      For the purposes of this Standing Order, a Private Member is a Member who
                                    supports the Government but is not a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary.
                           (3)      Business subject to this Standing Order -
                                    (a)      shall be allocated according to the proportion of representation of
                                             political groups of Private Members;
                                             and
                                    (b)      is to be provided, together with the text of any motion without
                                             notice, to the Clerk by 4.00pm on the Wednesday prior.
                           (4)      The weekly rotation schedule under (3)(a) shall be tabled by the President at
                                    the commencement of each Parliament, and otherwise as required, and must
                                    be adopted by the Council prior to its application.
                           (5)      A motion without notice moved under this Standing Order —
                                    (a)      cannot be amended;
10324                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

                                   (b)      cannot be adjourned; and
                                   (c)      lapses at the conclusion of the debate.
I note that the time limits listed in the next amendment on the following page relate to a motion, but, as with
non-government business, if a bill is under discussion, the time limits for a bill would obviously apply.
The PRESIDENT: Just to make it clear, Hon Wendy Duncan made some broad comments about all the
amendments. That is fine, but I will put the question separately to make sure that every member understands it.
The most important question is that proposed new standing order 111, after proposed standing order 110, which
is “Non-Government Business”, be agreed to. The question is that proposed new standing order 111 stand as
printed.
Question put and passed; standing order 111 agreed to.
Consequential amendments —
The PRESIDENT: With the concurrence of the chamber, I move —
        That consequential amendments relating to proposed standing orders 21, 23, 64 and proposed
        schedule 3, “Definitions”, be agreed to.
The consequential amendments are as follows —
        Standing Order 21 — After the time limits related to Non-Government Business Motion — To
        insert —
                 Private Members’ Business Motion
                 Mover                                                           15 minutes
                 Responsible Minister or Parliamentary Secretary                 10 minutes
                 Other Members                                                   10 minutes
                 Mover in Reply                                                  10 minutes
        Standing Order 23 — To insert after section (1)(c) —
                 (d)      Private Members’ Business Motion (SO 15(5))            60 minutes
        Standing Order 64 — In section (2) — To insert after “SO 110 Non-Government Business” —
                 SO 111            Private Members’ Business
        Schedule 3 — To insert after the definition of “order of the day” -
                 “Private Member” is a Member of the Legislative Council who supports the Government but
                 is not a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary.
Question put and passed; consequential amendments agreed to.
Postponed amendment (3)(l) —
The PRESIDENT: The next postponed standing order is 93, “Contempts of the Council”, or amendment (3)(l).
We are resuming debate on this amendment on the amendment; we did not reach a conclusion.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yesterday I moved —
        To delete sections (1) and (2) and substitute —
                 (1)      The Council has power to determine that any particular act constitutes a contempt.
                 (2)      Criteria for the Council to take into account when determining whether a contempt
                          has been committed and examples of conduct which may be treated as a contempt of
                          the Council are provided in Schedule 4.
                 (3)      The list of examples in Schedule 4 is not exhaustive nor do they or the criteria
                          derogate from the power of the Council to determine that any particular act
                          constitutes a contempt.
I gather that there have been conversations about this and that members are generally satisfied that this
amendment more clearly clarifies the situation on matters relating to contempt.
Hon GIZ WATSON: I take this opportunity to indicate that, as I suggested that this amendment be postponed, I
am happy with the proposed new amendment. I appreciated the opportunity to take further advice. We will
support the new amendment.
Amendment on the amendment put and passed.
Postponed amendment (3)(l), as amended, put and passed.
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                    10325

Amendment (4) —
The PRESIDENT: We now move to amendment (4), which reads —
         (4)      the current Standing Orders be repealed and replaced by the proposed Standing Orders adopted
                  by the House, effective from the first sitting day in 2012;
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I move —
         To insert after “current Standing Orders” —
                  , except for the terms of reference for the Joint Delegated Legislation Committee under current
                  schedule 1(3),
I will move to insert new amendment (5) after that has been dealt with.
The PRESIDENT: Do members understand that, as it relates back to a previous discussion?
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Just by way of clarification, I will move a new amendment (5), which in fact then
asks that Legislative Assembly be acquainted with our new standing orders and they come into effect when they
have concurred.
The PRESIDENT: Let us start with amendment (4) for the moment, which I have effectively moved. The
Leader of the House is seeking to amend that motion by adding those words, except for that reference. The
question is —
         That the words to be added be added.
Amendment on the amendment put and passed.
The PRESIDENT: An absolute majority is required because it is actually changing our standing orders.
Amendment (4), as amended, put and passed with an absolute majority.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I move —
         The Legislative Assembly be acquainted that the Legislative Council has adopted proposed schedule 1
         part 6, “Joint Delegated Legislation Committee”, and invite the Legislative Assembly to concur.
Question put and passed.
Amendment (5) —
The PRESIDENT: Now we move to amendment (5) on the supplementary notice paper. The amendment
states —
         The Clerk be authorised to make clerical amendments to the proposed standing orders adopted by the
         house;
Amendment (5) put and passed.
Amendment (6) —
The PRESIDENT: Now we move to amendment (6), which states —
         The Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges conduct an inquiry into the operation of the new
         standing orders and report to the House during the spring sittings in 2012.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: This is the last motion on this particular set of motions relating to the new standing
orders. I chose deliberately not to do this at the beginning of the conversation, because I had hoped we might get
this whole thing finished. I place on record my enthusiastic thanks to all those members of staff who worked so
hard—the Clerk, the Deputy Clerks and everybody else who was involved with this process. I thank them very
much for a job extraordinarily well done. The house owes them a debt of gratitude. I think that members will
find that the standing orders have been well thought through. However, as with all new things, there may well be
occasions when some extra tweaking is required. The proposal now is that the members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and Privileges, perhaps during the next four or five months when the house is sitting,
make a note of any particular obvious problem that might arise, get together very briefly some time in the spring
session and fix up those little parts of the standing orders that might need to be fixed. I do not think for one
minute that anybody has any enthusiasm for a major and thorough overhaul of standing orders again for at least
the next 60 years!
Amendment (6) put and passed.
                                              Motion, as Amended
The PRESIDENT: As this is the end of the process, I endorse the thanks and congratulations of the Leader of
the House and the Leader of the Opposition to the staff involved in this process. They have done an inordinate
10326                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

amount of work. They have put a huge commitment towards it. There is absolutely no excuse now, given this
exhaustive process, for members of this Parliament not to know a little bit more about standing orders than most
members know in other Parliaments. Congratulations, everybody.
Question put and passed.
                                                    As to Report
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I move —
         That the President report the standing orders to the house.
Question put and passed.
                                                       Report
Resolutions reported.
                                           Adoption of Report — Motion
HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [6.24 pm]: I move —
         That the report be adopted.
HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [6.24 pm]: Can I suggest that you, Mr Deputy President, make
sure you take the question on the basis of there being an absolute majority to make sure it is clarified? I think this
is actually the most important motion that requires an absolute majority.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm): I think the formalisation of that is an excellent
suggestion. Doing a quick scouting of the numbers, there is an absolute majority in the house.
Question put and passed with an absolute majority.
                                            MARRIAGE EQUALITY
                                                     Statement
HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [6.25 pm]: I rise tonight to express my support for marriage
equality and to urge all Western Australians to call upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to
amend the commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to provide for that marriage equality. It is an important time to do
that, because this weekend the Australian Labor Party national conference will be considering changing its
policy to end discrimination in marriage. The Parliaments of Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have
already supported this, and we hope that the Western Australian Parliament, had it the opportunity to debate this
motion, would also support it. I know that, come the new year, the South Australian and Victorian Parliaments
will be debating this very motion. However, at this stage, on behalf of the Greens (WA), I felt that it was
important to put on the record our support for marriage equality. The time is certainly now. I will take only three
minutes to explain how important this is.
Many couples are asking for marriage equality. Their mums and dads, brothers and sisters, daughters and sons,
cousins, nephews, nieces, aunts, friends, work colleagues and teammates have all supported the campaigns for
marriage equality. In fact, today we learnt that 130 000 Australians have signed the GetUp! petition to send a
message to the ALP conference. This weekend will be a major milestone and I hope that our colleagues here in
Western Australia who go across to the ALP conference take the message that Western Australians want
marriage equality to be adopted by the party. It is going to be a hot topic and if the media predictions are true, the
motion to endorse same-sex marriage will be supported. With the support of the ALP members in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate, the Greens motion to remove discrimination in marriage will be supported in
the commonwealth, and that will be a very exciting time.
I want to tell the house that last night the Queensland Parliament voted to adopt civil unions for same-sex
couples. Civil unions have been adopted in other jurisdictions around Australia, although Western Australia has
not yet done that. New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Victoria have all adopted
civil union reforms for same-sex couples. Since 2001, 10 countries have allowed same-sex couples to marry
nationwide. Do members know which ones they are? They are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and
recognised in Mexico City and in the United States in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York—most obviously when it did that it was a very exciting moment for us all—and Vermont, which is where
my own grandparents come from.
It is high time that Australia joins these other civilised states and nations in rejecting prejudice and embracing
marriage equality. Opponents have argued that allowing same-sex marriage will cause potential damage to
children and to the sacred institution of marriage. However, neither of those claims is borne out by the evidence.
American and Australian psychological associations agree that the children raised by same-sex couples are just
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                        10327

as well adjusted as their peers, perhaps even better adjusted than their peers. In fact the American association
went further, saying that if children of same-sex couples experience any harm, it is due to the fact their parents
cannot marry. Despite all the doom-mongering to the contrary, studies in North America and Europe have also
found that allowing same-sex couples to marry actually strengthens the institution of marriage rather than
redefining or weakening it. The leaders of both the ALP and the federal opposition are out of step with most
Australians on this. They should listen to what the surveys say the voters want. Some day soon I hope we will
look back on this same-sex marriage debate and wonder what all the fuss was about, and wonder how such
inequitable and prejudicial laws could prevent someone from marrying the person they love and how we could
have allowed them to persist for so long.
                     CARLY ELLIOTT — DEATH —MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
                                                      Statement
HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [6.30 pm]: I rise again tonight in relation to 20-year-old
Carly Elliott to put on the public record my concern about how the WA mental health system failed her.
Carly Elliott died by way of suicide on 31 March 2011. Nothing that we do or say here will bring Carly back, but
we need to know what happened to Carly Elliott at the Alma Street clinic and why the Alma Street clinic at
Fremantle Hospital has also failed other patients. It is astonishing, given the death of Carly Elliott, that the
Minister for Mental Health stood in this place yesterday and told the house that at no time had Carly not received
appropriate care. How can this be, given that Carly Elliott is now deceased? The minister also said that Carly’s
primary caregiver in respect of the services she received was a general practitioner, and his involvement was
substantial. The point is that Carly’s primary caregiver was in fact a general practitioner and not a specialist. If
anything, he is a medical generalist. By and large, a GP is not somebody who generally holds qualifications in
psychiatry. Therefore, I think the minister has demonstrated a lack of understanding about the importance of
having specialist psychiatry services provided to people with complex mental health issues.
I also put on the public record that I have got concerns about GPs dispensing medication to mental health
patients with complex mental health issues. It would be interesting to find out what medications were being
prescribed by the GP for Carly Elliott’s treatment and who had oversight of this. We know there is a shortage of
psychiatrists, social workers and mental health nurses. This was confirmed again yesterday, with the tabling of
the 2010–11 annual report of the Council of Official Visitors. Mental health consumers are complaining that they
are not able to access specialist mental health services. Carly Elliott was certainly not able to access these
specialist services either. In fact she hardly got any access to any services at all. She paid the ultimate price;
having taken her life. We know that this minister is trying to wean mental health patients off specialist services
and have more services provided in the community.
Hon Helen Morton: Do you think psychiatrists work in the community?
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The minister can have her say.
I believe that this cost-cutting policy decision can be measured in terms of the loss of human life. There have
been four deaths alone related to the Alma Street clinic this year. These are the ones that we know about. In
Carly’s six-month involvement at Fremantle Hospital and the Alma Street clinic, she received the following: a
one hour face-to-face assessment in six months and one community emergency response team home visit on
1 March 2011. The minister wants us to believe that during that 10 to 15-minute visit by CERT officers they had
given Carly Elliott a full mental health assessment and suicide risk assessment. Clearly, Carly never had a full
mental health assessment or suicide-risk assessment, because we know that these cannot be done in 10 to 15
minutes, and they certainly cannot be done by community emergency response team officers who are not fully
qualified psychiatrists.
I asked some fairly straightforward questions today about why, despite the urgent referral by Carly’s general
practitioner to Alma Street on 29 October 2010 due to Carly’s severe depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation,
an appointment was not made available to her until two weeks later on 15 November. The minister advised that,
five hours after receiving the GP’s referral, Alma Street Centre triage made contact with Carly by phone. Carly
reassured the triage officer in regard to her safety, and Carly stated that her doctor wanted her to see a
psychiatrist so that she, the GP, would have a better understanding of her symptoms and how to treat her. Carly
accepted the triage officer’s advice regarding the time frame expected for her first appointment.
It beggars belief that the triage officer just accepts the word of a very, very sick patient about her own safety.
Hon Helen Morton: She’s not an involuntary patient.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I know she is not an involuntary patient.
Hon Helen Morton: You can’t force her to come in.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: But, minister, this is a 20-year-old girl —
Hon Helen Morton interjected.
10328                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

The PRESIDENT: Order!
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Mr President, this is a 20-year-old patient who was originally brought in to the
emergency department at Fremantle Hospital on 20 September 2010 by police and ambulance officers. She was
aggressive and had mentioned that she had previously attempted suicide and had been assessed at triage. It was
found that she was suicidal, irrational and refusing to answer questions. She saw the nurse, and she was supposed
to see the psychiatrist, but she shot through. Nobody bothered to find out where she had gone or what happened
to her. Nobody had bothered to call the police to see where Carly Elliott disappeared to.
I have to say to the minister that I have had a look at the information that has been provided to me by the parents
of Carly Elliott, and there are huge gaps in the support that was given to Carly Elliott. Today the minister made
the point that, in terms of contact with Carly, she had regular phone contact from 29 October 2010 until 3 March
2011, and on each occasion she gave reassurances regarding her own safety. Triage staff tried to contact Carly
on the fourth, the fifth and the sixteenth. That is wrong. On the fourth, Carly in fact phoned them, and then they
phoned back on the fifth. I do not know where the minister is getting her information from. Then the minister
goes on to say that they also had contact on 16 November. There are so many inconsistencies —
Hon Helen Morton: On your part.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: No, no. There are many inconsistencies about the way the treatment was in fact
not given to Carly Elliott that the minister would have to ask herself some questions. Tell me, minister, how it is
that a CERT team can do a full psychiatric assessment and a suicide risk assessment within 10 to 15 minutes?
Can the minister just answer me that one question? Just the one?
Hon Helen Morton: Where did you get 10 to 15 minutes from? Because I —
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: From her parents, and they would know better than the minister.
Hon Helen Morton: Exactly, so you’d better just check the medical record.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: This is a very, very serious issue. If the minister does not think that four lives
lost this year through contact with Fremantle Hospital’s Alma Street clinic is a serious issue, then I ask her to
think again. Some of these people had a very long life ahead of them; they were young people. The minister
should be the first one who is concerned about finding out what happened about the admissions, the treatment
and the discharge of these four people.
Hon Helen Morton: And what have I done to do that? You know what I’ve done, because —
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: The minister has not done anything.
Hon Helen Morton: I have done something and you know it!
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: She is having a departmental internal inquiry. Minister, that is not good enough.
    COMMUNITY PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING) AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2011
                                            Receipt and First Reading
Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Peter Collier (Minister for Energy), read a first time.
                                                 Second Reading
HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Energy) [6.41 pm]: I move —
         That the bill be now read a second time.
The bill delivers on the state government’s commitment to introduce a public sex offender register in Western
Australia. The bill will enable any member of the public to access certain information on Western Australia’s
most dangerous and high-risk sexual offenders, and will also enable parents and guardians to make inquiries with
Western Australia Police about any person who has access to their children. The objective of this bill is to ensure
that families and communities have information on known sex offenders, which will assist with the protection
and safety of children.
Before I turn to the detail of the bill, I will briefly explain what the terms “reportable offender” and “dangerous
sexual offender” mean in a legislative context. A reportable offender is a term used in the Community Protection
(Offender Reporting) Act which describes a person whom a court sentences for a reportable offence.
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I appeal to you to have a little patience, and then we will move to the most
important proceedings of the day.
Hon PETER COLLIER: A reportable offence is an offence that comprises a sexual or serious element
involving a child or an incapable person as defined in Part 2 of the act. A reportable offender can also include
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10329

offenders who come to reside in Western Australia from other jurisdictions and persons whom the court has
ordered to comply with the act. A reportable offender is required by the act to report their personal details to
police on a regular basis. Such details include their address, whether they reside with or have regular
unsupervised contact with children, their email address and internet service provider, and details of their
employment.
A dangerous sexual offender is a person who has been ordered by the Supreme Court under the Dangerous
Sexual Offenders Act to post-sentence detention or to strict supervision in the community. An order of this
nature can be made when the offender is under a sentence of imprisonment for a serious sexual offence. Both the
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act and the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act can apply to children.
Western Australia currently does not have any dangerous sexual offenders who are children; however, there is a
small proportion of reportable offenders who are children. It is important to note that the bill does not apply to
child offenders. Whilst an offender is still a child, no publication or disclosure can be made in relation to them.
I will now turn to the detail of the bill. This bill enables three differing types of disclosure. The first tier of
disclosure will apply to reportable offenders who have failed to comply with his or her reporting obligations
under the act, or who have provided a false or misleading report to police. In these circumstances, if police also
do not know the location or whereabouts of the reportable offender then they will become subject to disclosure.
Disclosure in these circumstances will occur via publication on a website maintained by the Commissioner of
Police. The purpose of this publication will be to enhance public vigilance and increase the prospect of the
offender’s arrest. Whilst all personal details relating to a non-compliant offender can potentially be published,
except for information that may identify a child, the commissioner will have discretion as to what personal
information will ultimately appear on the public register. Once the reportable offender reports his or her
whereabouts to police, the publication in relation to that offender will be removed from the website as soon as
practicable.
The second tier of disclosure involves publication of the image and locality of certain categories of offenders
primarily for the purposes of enhanced public awareness and safety. There are three categories of offenders who
will be eligible for this type of publication. The first category of offenders will be dangerous sexual offenders
subject to supervision orders under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act. However, the bill provides that it will
be possible for the Supreme Court to include in a supervision order that the dangerous sexual offender’s
photograph and locality not be published. The second category will be reportable offenders who are considered
to be high risk. “Risk” in this context is determined by the reportable offender having re-offended since
becoming a reportable offender and one of the offences committed was a serious sexual offence against a child
or an indecent assault offence involving a child. The final category of offenders subject to publication will
consist of those whom the Commissioner of Police applies to the Minister for Police for approval to publish.
This category will be persons who have been convicted of an offence punishable by five years or more
imprisonment and concern is held that this person is a risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more persons, or
persons generally. The minister does not need to identify a risk to a particular person or class of persons in
authorising the approval to publish. In making the authorisation, the bill specifies that the Minister for Police
may take into account the following factors: any medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessments
relating to the person; any information indicating whether the person is likely to commit a sexual offence in the
future; whether there is any pattern of offending behaviour on the part of the person; the person’s antecedents
and the seriousness of his or her total criminal record; the person’s age and the age of any victims of any
offences committed by the person at the time those offences were committed; the difference in age between the
person and any victims of those offences; and any other matter the Minister for Police considers relevant.
The bill specifies the matters the Commissioner of Police may take into account when determining whether to
publish a person’s details, or considering removing those details from the website. These considerations apply to
both the first and second tiers of publication. Considerations include whether the publication of the identifying
information about a person would interfere with an investigation by police officers in relation to the person; the
person’s compliance with the reporting obligations of this legislation; or the operation of a community order
under the Sentencing Act 1995, a supervision order made under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act, or any
other order or requirement under a written law to which the person is subject. Further considerations are whether
the publication of the identifying information about the person might identify a victim of an offence, or the
school attended by a victim of an offence committed by the person; the effect that the publication of the
identifying information about the person might have on a victim of an offence committed by the person;
whether, in statements made by the victim to the Commissioner of Police, the publication of the identifying
information about the person has been supported or opposed by a victim of an offence committed by the person;
whether the publication of the identifying information about the person would increase the risk of the person
committing offences; the commissioner’s assessment of the benefit to the community of the publication of the
identifying information about the person; if the identifying information is about a person who is awaiting trial on
a charge of an offence, whether the publication of the identifying information might prejudice the fair trial of that
person; and any other matter that the commissioner considers relevant.
10330                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

If the Commissioner of Police proposes to publish the photograph and locality of a person under the second tier,
the commissioner must give the person written notice of the proposal and provide them with a specified period
of not less than 21 days to make a submission on the proposal. If the person is a dangerous sexual offender, the
commissioner must also provide notice of the proposed publication to the Department of Corrective Services.
Before publication can occur, the commissioner must have regard to any submission made by the person, and, if
the person concerned is a dangerous sexual offender, any submission by the Department of Corrective Services.
Again, publication of the second tier of offenders will occur on a website maintained by the Commissioner of
Police. There will be some limitations on the information disclosed for the second-tier offenders so that only the
locality and photograph of the offender will appear on the website. The commissioner may remove the
photograph and locality of a second-tier offender from the website at any time. He also must remove the person’s
details if the person ceases to be a dangerous sexual offender subject to a supervision order or if the person is no
longer a reportable offender or a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by five years’
imprisonment or more—for example, in circumstances in which a conviction is quashed. The commissioner
must also remove the photograph and locality of a reportable offender if that person’s reporting obligations have
ceased and they are not on the website by virtue of being a dangerous sexual offender subject to a supervision
order, or by the authorisation of the Minister for Police.
The final tier of proposed public disclosure will enable parents and guardians to inquire of police whether a
specific person who has access to their child or children is a reportable offender. The applicant will be required
to supply police with any evidence required by the commissioner to be satisfied that the person the subject of the
inquiry has regular unsupervised contact with the child or children. If the commissioner is satisfied that the
person the subject of the inquiry has unsupervised contact with the applicant’s child or children, the
commissioner may confirm to the applicant whether the person is a reportable offender.
The bill provides for protection to the Commissioner of Police and the state of Western Australia from civil or
criminal liability arising from the publication or provision of information under this bill. This protection from
liability extends to omitting to publish or provide information. The bill also ensures that information published or
provided cannot be regarded as a breach of duty of confidentiality or secrecy imposed by law or as a breach of
professional ethics or standards or as unprofessional conduct.
Given the highly sensitive nature of the bill, offence provisions have been included that will apply to the misuse
of publically disclosed information. Firstly, the bill creates an offence that prohibits behaviour in a public place
that is intended to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a person who has been
identified on either the website or through an inquiry. This offence carries a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
The bill also provides for a similar offence without the requisite mental element that prohibits behaviour in a
public place that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a person who has
been identified either on the website or through an inquiry. This offence carries a penalty of two years’
imprisonment. Further, the bill creates an offence that prohibits information obtained either from the website or
through an inquiry being published, distributed or displayed without the prior written approval of the Minister
for Police. This offence carries a penalty of two years’ imprisonment. The government wishes to evaluate this
scheme and accordingly the bill contains a requirement for the minister to review the operation and effectiveness
of these reforms in three years.
In closing, the bill seeks to provide members of the Western Australia community with a tool to further
community safety and a measure to protect children and vulnerable people. I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
                                JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON AUDIT
                                Council’s Resolution — Assembly’s Concurrence
Message from the Assembly received and read notifying that it had concurred with the Council’s resolution,
subject to amendments.
                                      ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
                                                      Special
HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [6.51 pm] — without notice: I
move —
         That the house at its rising adjourn until a date and time to be fixed by the President.
THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Before we take the vote, I will make a few general comments, being
the last sitting day of this year, and invite other members to follow with some comments if they wish. Firstly, I
start by thanking and congratulating all members and staff for another constructive, fruitful year in the
Legislative Council. Everyone has played their part in making 2011 a year in which we can hold our heads high
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                     10331

in terms of how legislation was dealt with, how the committees have contributed and how we took major steps
forward, for example, just a few minutes ago, in upgrading our standing orders.
To the Leader of the House, Hon Norman Moore, ministers Hon Simon O’Brien, Hon Peter Collier, Hon Robyn
McSweeney and Hon Helen Morton, together with parliamentary secretaries Hon Donna Faragher, Hon Michael
Mischin and Hon Wendy Duncan, the Whip, Hon Ken Baston, and all Liberal and National Party members, I
thank and congratulate you for a very constructive year.
To the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Sue Ellery, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Hon Kate Doust,
together with your Whip, Hon Ed Dermer, and all Labor members, I congratulate you on your hard work, which
is very evident in this chamber, during the year and the way that you have contributed to the Legislative
Council’s role as a house of scrutiny and accountability.
To Hon Giz Watson and the other Greens members, I also add my congratulations and thanks for the part you
have played in all the proceedings of the house—in the debates, questions and committee work.
I think the house has generally acquitted itself very well in terms of its role in accountability and scrutiny, and
members have upheld the reputation of the Legislative Council. I add a special mention to the Deputy President,
Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm, and thank him for his help and assistance throughout the year. A lot of things go
unseen by many members but the Deputy President assists me in my role as President in several other areas,
particularly in ambassadorial protocol roles, which can be quite time consuming, at times demanding, and at
times good fun. I thank him very much for his role generally.
To the Deputy Chairmen, Hon Col Holt, Hon Jon Ford, Hon Ken Travers, Hon Brian Ellis and Hon Michael
Mischin, I appreciate the assistance and the efficiency with which you conduct your role in the chamber.
I also thank the Parliament House staff; the Clerk, Malcolm Peacock; the Deputy Clerk, Nigel Lake; the Clerk
Assistants, Paul Grant, procedure, and Michael Baker, committees, initially; the Usher of the Black Rod, Dr Julia
Lawrinson; the advisory officer, procedure, Grant Hitchcock; and parliamentary officers, procedure, Chris Hunt
and Peter Axford. Can I specifically mention that with the restructure of some of the staffing positions in the
Legislative Council this year, all those officers have adjusted to their new roles extremely well and they do a
very professional job. To the chamber staff, Peter Gale, Brian Conn, Selena Flynn and Hayley Brown, thank you
very much for your assistance. The members, I know, appreciate enormously that you are there to help in all
aspects of their role in this chamber.
We have also had some baby additions to the staff this year, which, as I alluded to last year, were pending. I
report and congratulate that Lisa Parrella has a baby boy named Cristian Antonio; Kelly Alcock has a daughter,
Samantha Marie; and Lisa Peterson has a girl, Hannah.
I add my thanks to parliamentary officers Tina Beale and Janice Shaw, who particularly assist the Leader of the
House and ministers; executive assistant to the Clerk, Ms Corinne Briant; my own personal assistant,
Ms Lorraine Coogan; and the President’s Steward, Anthony James, who of course looks after your needs very
well in the members’ lounge.
The committee system in the Legislative Council is an important part of our structure, and I express my
appreciation to David Driscoll and staff, and add my thanks and congratulations to the various chairmen and
chairpersons of standing committees and joint committees of the Legislative Council, and the committee staff
who participate in that work so well.
Thanks to the Parliamentary Services Department, headed by Mr Russell Bremner, with Rob Hunter, the Deputy
Executive Manager, and his staff, who perform their duties outstandingly in this Parliament, particularly Enno
Schijf, the Catering Services Manager, and the head chef, George Webb, who was acknowledged for 30 years’
service just a few weeks ago, and his dedicated team.
Members, 2011 was a year containing many events and milestones. Can I add our appreciation to Mr Tony
Paterson, the Security Manager, and his staff; to Belinda Corey and everybody involved in Hansard—we all
know they do an incredible job in producing the official records of the Parliament; to Judy Ballantyne,
parliamentary librarian, and all of her staff, who are accommodating and efficient; and to the staff of the Finance
department, headed by Dawn Timmerman, who were, as previously noted, recognised by the Auditor General for
their efficiency and very good work.
Information Technology is headed by Mr John Buchanan, with his staff; the Parliamentary Education Office is
headed by James Sollis, with his staff—they, I am sure members agree, do a very good job in our interests.
Building Services is headed by Graham McDonald, and they are largely unseen but they are always there when
we need them, and we really appreciate it. While we are talking about people in that department, I would also
like to thank and mention the assistant manager for Building Services, Mr Peter Pascoe—who is recovering from
health issues; we certainly wish him well and look forward to his return to work in 2012—and project manager
Dan Cochrane. These people can be called upon at any hour, and they always oblige with a smile.
10332                               [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

I thank the Dining Room Manager, Mark Gabrielli and his staff, including the bar staff, Deb, Lee, Steve and
Anna and everyone else involved in the bar. It is actually the members’ lounge; it is not the members’ bar any
more. They are extremely cooperative and provide an outstanding service to members.
The gardens around Parliament House are always immaculate. On behalf of members I thank Mr David Boag
and his staff and express our appreciation for the work they do to maintain Parliament House as such an
attractive place. I thank also the parliamentary telephonists, headed by Cathy Harrison, who we know was
awarded a Public Service Medal during the year for outstanding service, Rosalie Arnold and Lorraine Lewis,
and, once again, a special mention to Marilyn David, who was a very long-serving telephonist in this Parliament,
and who is recovering from illness. We wish her all the best.
Many members may not know this person exists but he is a very vital part of this establishment, the gym
instructor, Mr Joe Lubout, who does an outstanding job shaping the fitness minded. Joe decided to retire at the
age of 70, which occurred in August, but the Parliamentary Services Department convinced him that he was still
too young—he does look too young—so he will continue to work part-time on sitting days. He was thrilled
because he did not realise that that was an option.
During the year we had a couple of departures. I thank Donald Allison and the former President’s Steward,
Andrew Gardos, who retired during the year. He contributed outstanding service to this institution.
As the year draws to an end I would like to advise members that the Parliamentary Services Department will, as
it does every year, commence its summer capital works program. This extended period provides an opportunity
to make the necessary improvements to our facilities without disrupting the business of the respective houses.
This year’s program will involve significant upgrades to our security infrastructure and, most notably, there will
be changes to how visitors and guests are welcomed to the Parliament. The focus will be on improving the level
of security to more closely reflect what most people expect from a building of this importance and in this era.
For members, the changes will be almost seamless because their current security passes will mean they bypass
additional security measures and continue to access and egress the building with ease. However, there will be a
requirement for members to carry their security passes at all times, as some areas will be restricted to the public,
and will require access via a security pass. There are many changes to further safeguard our members and staff
and to enhance our security controls. We appreciate that many members have been asking for this for some time
and, accordingly, will welcome the changes. The Speaker and I are fully supportive of the changes, and we will
carry our passes at all times. Finally, I would like to congratulate our security team who, for a long period, have
done an outstanding job with very limited resources. Our commitment is to make the Parliament more secure for
its users and we are pleased to be part of these improvements.
In conclusion, I wish members a terrific time with your family and friends in the next coming weeks, during the
festive season and in the summer holiday period. I wish all members and staff a well-earned break from the daily
rigours of parliamentary and electorate life. It is time for us all to take a deep breath and reflect and refocus on a
busy year in 2012. Merry Christmas and good health and much happiness for 2012.
Members: Hear, hear!
The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition. Sorry; the Leader of the House!
HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [7.04 pm]: Do you know
something I do not know, Mr President!
Thank you Mr President; it is interesting that you should say that because it was only a few weeks ago when I
thought this might be my last speech in this place. I know that some people are very disappointed that it is not,
but that is the nature of politics. But let me just say this: I have made a decision to stay on in this role for lots and
lots of reasons. Fundamentally, the timing was totally unsuited to what I seek to do with my life. But can I make
it very clear to the house that the suggestion by at least one journalist that it had something to do with who my
successor might be in this chamber is absolute rubbish. So we can dispense that to the speculation of journalists.
Mr President, as you have already acknowledged everybody by name, I will just take this opportunity to mention
a couple of people whom I particularly want to thank before we move on. I thank you, sir, for the work that you
do for the Legislative Council and the very good natured way in which you manage the affairs of this chamber.
Your deputy, Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm, has a similar approach to managing the house, and I am also very
grateful for the work that he does. I particularly want to acknowledge the contribution of my ministerial
colleagues, Simon O’Brien, Peter Collier, Robyn McSweeney and Helen Morton. They work very hard, I know.
Being a minister is hard work, and I thank them for the work that they do. To the parliamentary secretaries,
Donna Faragher, Michael Mischin and Wendy Duncan, I thank them very much again for the work that they do
in the clamber in their roles.
I thank all the members of the black hand gang for their loyalty and their support throughout the year. With the
new standing orders, they will be able to say a lot more in the future, so that is good, because being a backbench
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10333

member of government is not a place to be if we want to make lots of speeches, and some opportunities will now
arise for them as a result of the new standing orders.
I also acknowledge the contribution of the other leaders in the house, Hon Sue Ellery, Hon Giz Watson and Hon
Wendy Duncan, and their colleagues. I thank them for the contribution that they make to this chamber. I thank
the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the two Clerk Assistants, the Usher of the Black Rod, and all the house staff, for the
way they manage this chamber. They do a superb job, and I thank them very much for that. I especially want to
thank them again for the standing orders committee work that they have done, and to say they can be very proud
of their achievements. Let us hope the standing orders are as good as we think they are going to be, and I do say
thank you for a job very, very well done in that respect.
I especially want to say thank you also to Julie Holmes, who works in my office, and to Tina Beale and Janice
Shaw, who also assist in the management of the house on behalf of the Leader the House. They are very
competent people, for whom no task is too great, and I am very grateful to them for what they do. To all of the
other staff whom you have mentioned, Mr President, I thank them again for the contribution they have made.
I also want to say best wishes to everybody for the parliamentary break, because associated with that is
Christmas and the New Year; so best wishes for that part of the year. I hope you get the chance to give your
families the attention they deserve, because, as we all know, they are the people who generally miss out on
seeing us for much of the year. It is an occasion to take advantage of family opportunities. So I wish everybody a
very special time of the year and thank them again for their contribution to the house.
HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [7.07 pm]: Mr President, I want to
endorse the list of people whom you have thanked, on behalf of the house, who keep the house functioning well.
I add my thanks to you, in particular, Mr President, for your guidance.
When reflecting on the issues for the year, two things stand out. One is that it has been a relatively quiet year in
terms of the legislation that we have had before the house, and I look forward to seeing whether that changes
next year. The other issue that stands out is the one that has dominated parts of my Wednesday for the last two
years, and that is the standing orders review that we have just completed. I have already put on the record once
that I will not be participating in the review in about 12 months’ time.
I wish the government members well for the festive season ahead. I now want to turn to the Leader of the House.
I had the most beautifully crafted speech written and ready to go. I had pulled out quotes from various
contributions and from some of the special moments that have appeared during the contributions of the Leader of
the House in the various sides that he has sat on. But I am taken back to his comment last year, when he said, “I
am only halfway through my parliamentary life”. That turns out to be true. I was going to end by wishing the
Leader of the House a white Christmas, but I cannot do that any more. I do not want to dwell on it, but I know
personally that the Leader of the House had to make a difficult decision and so I wish him in particular a
peaceful Christmas as he comes to terms with what might have been!
Hon Norman Moore: It will take longer than that!
Hon SUE ELLERY: I want to thank Julie Holmes in Hon Norman Moore’s office who is always courteous and
professional in her assistance when she deals with me. I want to thank my own colleagues, the members of the
team. It is the case that whatever members might think about the opportunities they have been given as
backbenchers in government and how tough that is, I have sat there and it is a hell of a lot better than sitting on
this side, so they should relish it while they have it. I would like to thank in particular, in my team, my deputy,
Hon Kate Doust, for her assistance. She loves it when I am not in this place because she gets to boss people
around as well, and she does it well. To the opposition Whip and his deputy, thank you for staying in the
chamber and keeping me supplied with the things that I need to be supplied with and for your forbearance and
hard work as ever. I thank the members of the Greens (WA) and wish them well for the festive season as well. I
want to place on the record that it has been nice having Malcolm Peacock back with us this year. That is no
reflection on the Deputy Clerk, but it is good to see that Malcolm is back after what was a difficult health scare
last year. I particularly thank my electorate office staff, Julie, Sam, Shannon and Emm, who keep the wheels
moving, not just in my portfolio but also in my additional duties as leader of the Labor Party in this house. I
particularly want to thank Donna and Rod who assist with the organisation of parliamentary matters for me. Next
year is the pointy end of the electoral spectrum, therefore I wish all members, but particularly those on my side,
the very best for the festive season. I urge them to rest well because the hardest work is still ahead of us.
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [7.11 pm]: On behalf of the Greens (WA) I want to join in making
some comments before we adjourn for a well-earned rest. I add my thanks to all parliamentary staff who do an
extraordinary job very professionally. I can think of no criticism of any part of the parliamentary services
system. I think it all functions extraordinarily well and deals with members when we are not always the easiest
people to deal with, and I acknowledge that in situations of pressure and stress that parliamentary staff are
absolutely faultless in the professional service they provide. I thank the members of the government for
10334                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

enjoyable and challenging debating opportunities and, as always, I think the Greens have participated very fully
in the bills that we have debated this year and the various committee activities. I make a particular point of
thanking the staff of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations. I think they have done an
extraordinary job for that committee, which I chair. What else can I say? I also comment, having participated in
the review of the standing orders, that although it was a very lengthy process, it was carried out in a very good
spirit of cooperation in dealing with very difficult conversations about the rules of this place and I think we did a
good job. We nearly fell over right at the end when we got to the debate, which I could almost see coming, and
perhaps we should have done it a week earlier so that we were not quite as tired. But we did get there and I
actually enjoyed the process. That might be strange, but I am really pleased that we have done a very
comprehensive review and I have confidence that we will have much better standing orders for this place. It was
a big job and I think people have been putting off doing it, therefore I think we should all be congratulated for
having got there. With those comments I wish everyone all the best for a festive season and a suitable rest and
break ready for next year.
HON WENDY DUNCAN (Mining and Pastoral — Parliamentary Secretary) [7.14 pm]: Mr President, I
endorse the remarks of the other leaders in the house and particularly your very comprehensive list of all the
people who work in this place to make our lives easier. It is a good time to stop and reflect on exactly how many
people look after all the various functions of Parliament because it all runs so smoothly that we probably do not
realise the amount of work that goes into it and also the leadership that is necessary by those who are in charge
of the various departments to ensure that everything runs smoothly. I certainly concur with your remarks. In
particular, the Nationals were discussing the staff here within the house, and how cheerful and quick they are to
anticipate our needs, and we decided amongst ourselves that they are better than the staff in the other place, but I
do not know whether there should be an annual competition or something! Certainly, we greatly appreciate the
work that they do.
Another person I would like to particularly thank is Anthony, the President’s Steward. When Andrew left I was
devastated; I thought I would never have one of those absolutely irresistible cups of tea again, but Anthony has
obviously been taught well. I find the tea is so good that Anthony brings me a mug now so that I can have one, if
not two, so he is doing an excellent job and I greatly appreciate it. But that does not detract from everybody else
who are certainly absolutely essential to the smooth running of our Parliament.
I would also like to thank my colleagues. We have had a very good year and we have enjoyed each other’s
company. There are times when the debate is quite ferocious, perhaps that might be too strong a word —
Government members: Robust!
Hon WENDY DUNCAN: Robust, thank you, yes, from the words that are used in press conferences!
But I think that is healthy and in fact we thoroughly enjoy that within the Nationals. I think that we are a pretty
interesting bunch of people and we come together with a cause that does not necessarily attach back to a
particular philosophy. I thank you all for your support during the year and for the work that you have done; it has
been very good.
I thank the Leader of the House; I have enjoyed learning from him and working with him and his ministers and
my colleagues the parliamentary secretaries. I look forward to achieving more next year. To the Labor Party, Sue
and her team, I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you as well and seeing how you work and the hard work
that you put in. As an opposition you have certainly worked hard and done your job. The same applies to the
Greens; you are always thorough in dealing with legislation and certainly I find it quite illuminating to hear the
debate and work with you.
I also mention our own staff who assist the Nationals, in particular Grady Powell, who is our executive officer,
and Jane Bevan. Members may have met Jane; she is all over the place like a rash. She takes life very seriously,
she is very focused on detail and certainly has helped us greatly this year in researching legislation and ensuring
that we have the information we need to come into this house.
Finally, it is a time for reflection and it is a time to spend with family. Really, the most important thing for all of
us is to enjoy that time of family and to celebrate our homes, families and communities. It is also important to
rest because we all work incredibly hard, even though perhaps we are not quite credited for it at times. As other
members have noted, next year is a big year for all of us and we are certainly looking forward to it. All the best
and thank you.
The PRESIDENT: I inform members that the usual refreshments are available right now in the Legislative
Council lounge following the end of these proceedings.
Question put and passed.
                                            House adjourned at 7.19 pm
                                                    __________
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                 10335


                                           QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

                                 Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

                                 LIGHT RAIL PROPOSAL — HIGH WYCOMBE
4707.   Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
(1)     Has the Public Transport Authority (PTA) commenced investigations into extending light rail to High
        Wycombe?
(2)     If no to (1), why not?
(3)     If the PTA has not commenced investigations into light rail to High Wycombe, when will this work
        commence and what is the expected completion date?
(4)     Does the State Government acknowledge that the current population east of the Perth Airport is in
        excess of 200, 000 people, and if not, what is the current population figure for that area?
(5)     Does the State Government acknowledge that Directions 2031 estimates that the area referred to in (4)
        will grow to in excess of 400,000 people, and if not, what are the Government estimates for that figure?
(6)     Would the State Government acknowledge that, given these population estimates, infrastructure east of
        the airport warrants inclusion in the Public Transport Strategy?
(7)     If no to (6), why not?
(8)     Is the State Government aware of the projected significant increases in traffic movement east of the
        airport along Grogan Road and Hudswell Close once Terminal Western Australia is complete?
(9)     If no to (8), why not?
(10)    Does the State Government accept that the Perth Airport Eastern Access Planning study highlights the
        significance of this increase in traffic movement?
(11)    If no to (10), why not?
(12)    Does the State Government acknowledge that the preferred site for Kewdale Site T2, if developed, will
        significantly increase heavy traffic north through the Forrestfield industrial area?
(13)    If no to (12), why not?
(14)    Have these traffic demands been factored into the need for significant investment in road infrastructure
        through Forrestfield
(15)    If no to (14), why not?
(16)    Does the State Government acknowledge the impact on the Forrestfield industrial area of the Kewdale
        Site T2 will be significant?
(17)    If no to (16), why not?
(18)    Does the Gateway Western Australia Project have funds allocated to the Forrestfield industrial area?
(19)    If no to (18), why not?
(20)    Does the funding include the Berkshire Road–Roe Highway intersection?
(21)    If no to (20), why not?
(22)    Does the funding include the intersection of Grogan Road and Abernethy Road?
(23)    If no to (22), why not?
(24)    Is the Berkshire Road–Roe Highway intersection one of the three top 10 intersections that will receive
        funding as reported in the Sunday Times on 21 August 2011?
(25)    If no to (24), why not?
(26)    Has the Shire of Kalamunda been advised that the Gateway Western Australia project does not include
        funds for road infrastructure in the Forrestfield industrial area?
(27)    If no to (26), why not?
(28)    Has the preparation of the Metropolitan Freight and Intermodal Network Plan commenced yet?
(29)    If no to (28), why not?
(30)    Has the State Government requested the Shire of Kalamunda to sit on the Steering Committee for the
        Plan referred to in (28)?
10336                                [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

(31)    If no to (30), why not?
(32)    Has the Shire of Kalamunda been notified of the Gateway Traffic Studies?
(33)    If no to (32), why not?
(34)    Have the studies been extended to include the Forrestfield Industrial area?
(35)    If no to (34), why not?
(36)    Is the State Government aware that the seat of Hasluck, which includes Forrestfield, has the fourth
        highest number of Fly-In, Fly-Out and Drive-In, Drive-Out workers, as at the 2006 census in the State?
(37)    If yes to (36), will the State Government acknowledge the significance of this factor in consideration of
        the Public Transport Strategy?
(38)    If no to (37), why not?
(39)    Is the State Government aware that Co-operative Bulk Handling is located in the Forrestfield Industrial
        area?
(40)    Has the State Government factored the impact on road infrastructure in the Forrestfield industrial area
        resulting from Tier 3 rail decisions which will increase grain freight from rail to road?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Department of Transport advises:
(1)–(3) The Public Transport Authority is not responsible for the preliminary investigations and planning.
(4)     The combined 2009 estimated residential population (ABS) of Shire of Kalamunda and Shire of
        Mundaring, which is considered to be east of the airport, has 93 000 people. However, only 17 500 live
        in the urban foothills area.
(5)     The current Western Australia Tomorrow population forecasts estimate that the population in the Shire
        of Kalamunda in 2021 will be 59 400. This is extrapolated to a 2031 projected population of
        approximately 65 000 people.
(6)     The independent panel that prepared the plan considered that terminating the airport line at the
        terminals was appropriate.
(7)     Please refer to part (6).
(8)     Yes
(9)     Not applicable
(10)    No
(11)    The Perth Airport Eastern Access Planning Study did not include any traffic demand analysis.
(13)    Yes
(14)    Not applicable
(15)    No
(13)    Planning work for the Gateway WA project to date has centred around developing an ultimate planning
        design concept for the regional road network. Investment decisions will form part of the next phase of
        the planning process.
(16)    Yes
(17)    Not applicable
(18)    Yes
(19)    Not applicable
(20)    No
(21)    Upgrade of this intersection was not included in the original Gateway WA project scope.
(22)    No
(23)    Please refer to part (21).
(24)    No
(25)    Please refer to part (21).
(26)    Yes.
(27)    Not applicable
                                    [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                 10337

(28)     Yes
(29)     Not applicable
(30)     Local governments across the Perth and Peel Regions are represented on the study by the Western
         Australian Local Government Association. Local governments will be consulted as appropriate.
(31)     Not applicable
(32)     Yes
(33)     Not applicable
(34)     Yes
(35)     Not applicable
(36)     In the 2006 Census, the Shire of Kalamunda accounted for 4.8 per cent FIFO population.
(37)–(38) Not applicable
(39)–(40) Yes
             PEGASUS METALS — DIAMOND DRILLING AT HORIZONTAL WATERFALLS
4794.    Hon Robin Chapple to the Leader of the House representing the Premier
I refer to the Premier’s statement reported in the West Australian of 31 August 2011, on page 1, in which he is
reported to have said ‘while he supported protecting parts of the West Kimberley, including the Horizontal
Waterfalls, a blanket listing would stymie development’, and I ask —
(1)      Is the Premier aware that Pegasus Metals Limited made an ASX announcement on 14 September 2011
         that they were about to commence diamond drilling at its McLarty range copper project?
(2)      Is the Premier aware that the McLarty range copper project is in the ranges and ridges that surround
         both of the Horizontal Waterfalls?
(3)      If yes to (1) and (2), what will the Premier do to stop the exploration and mining of the McLarty ranges
         by Pegasus metals or any other company in the area that surrounds the Horizontal Waterfalls?
(4)      If no action is to be undertaken by the Premier, why not?
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied:
(1)      Yes.
(2)      Yes.
(3)–(4) Pegasus Metals Limited obtained approval from the Department of Mines and Petroleum earlier this
        year for a limited programme of diamond drilling to be carried out in a location situated 4 kilometres
        north–west of the Horizontal Falls. This approval followed the Environmental Protection Authority’s
        decision not to formally assess the proposal under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 given the low
        impact nature of the programme (total proposed disturbance was 0.255 hectares). The approval was
        subject to strict environmental standards, including minimising disturbance, through only being able to
        clear using hand tools and mobilising the drill rig via helicopter. Should exploration indicate there is
        significant mineralisation and it is economic then the proponent would need to obtain a mining lease
        and submit a formal mining proposal. Such a mining proposal would be very carefully scrutinised by
        government. The State’s position is that no exploration and mining will be allowed around the
        Horizontal Falls that would in any way compromise the environmental and tourism values of the Falls.
                                        BURSWOOD STADIUM — COSTS
4856.    Hon Ken Travers to the Leader of the House representing the Premier
I refer to the Government’s proposed new stadium at Burswood, and ask —
(1)      How was the indicative cost of $700 million determined and will the Premier table a copy of any of the
         reports or studies used to determine this cost?
(2)      If no to (1), why not?
(3)      Has any comparative analysis been undertaken into the cost of building the new stadium at any
         alternative sites?
(4)      If yes to (3), will the Premier table it?
(5)      Will the Stadium have retractable seating?
(6)      What is the indicative cost for —
10338                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

        (a)      a walk bridge over the Swan River;
        (b)      rail upgrades;
        (c)      road upgrades; and
        (d)      a new bus interchange?
(7)     Where will the 3000 plus vehicles, estimated by the Major Stadiam Taskforce, park?
(8)     What traffic modelling has the Government undertaken and did it allow for the future closure of
        Riverside Drive?
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied:
(1)–(8) The Member is asked to direct his questions to the Minister for Sport and Recreation.
              DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION — REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POSITIONS
4883.   Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Education
I refer to the advertisements in the West Australian Newspaper for a Principal Consultant Regional Development
and a Senior Project Officer Regional Development, for the Department of Education, and I ask —
(1)     What is the level and salary of the Manager, Regional Development?
(2)     How many staff, by FTE and headcount, are in the Regional Development section?
(3)     For each position in (2), what is the level and salary?
(4)     In what Directorate within the Department of Education is the Regional Development section?
(5)     In what building is the Regional Development section located?
(6)     How many applications for Royalties for Regions funds has the Department of Education made to the
        Department of Regional Development and Lands in —
        (a)      2009–10;
        (b)      2010–11; and
        (c)      2011–12 to date?
(7)     For each application in (6) —
        (a)      what project was the application for;
        (b)      how much funding was requested;
        (c)      what was the total cost of the proposed project;
        (d)      was the application successful; and
        (e)      will the Minister table a copy of each application; and
        (f)      if no to (7)(e), why not?
Hon PETER COLLIER replied:
(1)     The Manager, Regional Development is Level 8 with a salary of $121 485.
(2)–(3) As at 3 November 2011, the Regional Development staff comprise:
        Title                                  FTE     Headcount    Level   Salary ($)
        Manager                                1.0         1          8      121 485
        Principal Consultant                   0.6         1          7       63 568
        Senior Project Officer                 1.0         1          6       93 633
        Finance and Administrative Officer     1.0         1          5       80 803
        Administrative Assistant               1.0         1          2       54 900
(4)     Regional Development is located within the Statewide Planning and Delivery Division.
(5)     The Regional Development section is located at the Department of Education, 151 Royal Street, EAST
        PERTH WA 6004.
(6)–(7) These matters are Cabinet-in-Confidence.
          OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER — APPLICATION PROCEDURES
4899.   Hon Giz Watson to the Leader of the House representing the Premier
I refer to the latest annual report of the Office of the Information Commissioner, which refers at page 6 to
additional resources being obtained by the Department of Premier and Cabinet to assist Ministers with freedom
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                        10339

of information matters, and also to the answers to my questions on notice Nos 4388 to 4398 inclusive and 4454
asked on 9 August 2011, and I ask —
(1)     Will you please provide full details regarding the nature and quantity of the additional resources?
(2)     When will the additional resources be available to Ministers?
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied:
Department of the Premier and Cabinet advises:
(1)     An additional three FTEs (two level 5 and one level 3 officer) will be undertaking the role of assisting
        Ministerial offices in dealing with FOI applications.
(2)     The positions were recently advertised. It is expected that the additional resources will be available to
        the Ministerial offices prior to the end of this year..
                     DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION — FTE EMPLOYEES
4928.   Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Child Protection
(1)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the total funded full time equivalent (FTE) employee allocation by
        directorate and district?
(2)     As at 31 August 2011 —
        (a)      what were the vacancies in the FTE terms by directorate and district;
        (b)      how many of those vacancies were subject to advertising at 31 August 2011 by district; and
        (c)      of those not subject to advertising as at 31 August 2011, why not?
(3)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the total service delivery FTE employee allocation by directorate and
        district?
(4)     As at 31 August 2011, what were the total vacant service delivery positions by directorate and district?
(5)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the total FTE case worker allocation by directorate and district?
(6)     As at 31 August 2011, what were the total FTE vacant case worker positions?
(7)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the FTE number of employees by directorate and district on permanent
        contract and on fixed term contract?
(8)     As at 31 August 2011, how many Department of Community Protection (DCP) field officers have been
        co-located with Western Australian Police staff from the family protection unit, in regional and rural
        offices as part of the strategy to combat family and domestic abuse?
(9)     What are the co-location sites where the DCP officers referred to in (8) are situated?
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied:
(1)     Total FTE — 2297 FTE. [See paper 4149.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
        Please note: In order to have capacity to fill positions and be as flexible as possible, the Department
        funds the number of positions according to the FTE Cap, but creates an additional 5% positions which
        gives districts the capacity to work within a natural vacancy/attrition rate. The Department always has
        higher vacancy rates in hard to fill districts/locations and so by creating the additional positions districts
        do not have to deliberately hold vacancies but have the opportunity to recruit as necessary. The
        Department has approximately 2300 FTE and a cap of 2216, with the Department’s vacancy rate, the
        total FTE usage comes very close to the FTE cap.
(2)     (a)      Total Vacancies — 242 FTE. [See paper 4149.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
        (b)      97 FTE were subject to advertising/pool recruitment processes. [See paper 4149.] for a full
                 breakdown.
        (c)      Of those not subject to advertising/pool recruitment processes, 145 were vacant and were being
                 reviewed for advertising and recruitment options.
(3)     1555 FTE. [See paper 4149.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(4)     181 FTE. [See paper 4149.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(5)     777 FTE. [See paper 4149.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(6)     92 FTE. [See paper 4149.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(7)     1844 FTE (Permanent), 265 FTE (Fixed Term). [See paper 4149.] for breakdown by directorate and
        district.
10340                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

(8)     9 Field Officers.
(9)     [See paper 4149.] for a full list of co-location sites.
                                       FOSTER CARERS — STATISTICS
4930.   Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Child Protection
(1)     As at 31 August 2011, what was total number of applications to be a foster carer approved by category
        of relative and non-relative carer and by district?
(2)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the total number of registered foster carers by category of relative carer
        and non-relative carer and by district?
(3)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the total number of interim foster carers, by category of relative and
        non-relative carer and by district?
(4)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the total number of registered foster carers with children placed, by
        category of relative and non-relative carers by district?
(5)     As at 31 August 2011, what was the total number of interim foster carers with children placed, by
        category of relative and non-relative carers by district?
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied:
(1)     During August 2011, there were 32 relative and 18 non-relative foster carer applications approved in
        the following districts:
        Armadale — 1 relative, 1 non-relative
        Cannington — 2 relative, 1 non-relative
        Fremantle — 4 relative, 2 non-relative
        Joondalup — 2 relative, 2 non-relative
        Midland — 4 relative, 0 non-relative
        Mirrabooka — 4 relative, 1 non-relative
        Perth — 3 relative, 1 non-relative
        Rockingham — 2 relative, 1 non-relative
        East Kimberley — 2 relative, 0 non-relative
        Goldfields — 1 relative, 1 non-relative
        Great Southern — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
        Murchison — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
        Peel — 1 relative, 2 non-relative
        Pilbara — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
        South West — 1 relative, 1 non-relative
        West Kimberley — 2 relative, 0 non-relative
        Wheatbelt — 3 relative, 1 non-relative
        Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
        Fostering and Adoption Services — 0 relative, 4 non-relative.
(2)     These data are not retrospectively available. As at 13 September 2011, there were 1,207 relative
        and 834 general registered foster carers in the following districts:
        Armadale — 78 relative, 77 non-relative
        Cannington — 119 relative, 62 non-relative
        Fremantle — 126 relative, 43 non-relative
        Joondalup — 59 relative, 65 non-relative
        Midland —64 relative, 45 non-relative
        Mirrabooka — 91 relative, 54 non-relative
        Perth — 71 relative, 41 non-relative
        Rockingham — 48 relative, 49 non-relative
        East Kimberley — 68 relative, 12 non-relative
        Goldfields — 68 relative, 31 non-relative
        Great Southern — 47 relative, 35 non-relative
        Murchison — 61 relative, 37 non-relative
        Peel — 52 relative, 45 non-relative
        Pilbara — 61 relative, 10 non-relative
        South West — 45 relative, 79 non-relative
        West Kimberley — 84 relative, 29 non-relative
        Wheatbelt — 62 relative, 59 non-relative
        Accommodation and Care Services — 1 relative, 13 non-relative
                                 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                      10341

        Fostering and Adoption Services — 2 relative, 48 non-relative.
(3)     These data are not retrospectively available.
(4)     These data are not retrospectively available. As at 13 September 2011, there were 813 relative and 522
        general foster carers with children placed in the following districts:
        Armadale — 64 relative, 53 non-relative
        Cannington — 80 relative, 41 non-relative
        Fremantle — 72 relative, 28 non-relative
        Joondalup — 43 relative, 50 non-relative
        Midland — 46 relative, 29 non-relative
        Mirrabooka — 68 relative, 43 non-relative
        Perth — 57 relative, 27 non-relative
        Rockingham — 30 relative, 36 non-relative
        East Kimberley — 37 relative, 3 non-relative
        Goldfields — 50 relative, 14 non-relative
        Great Southern — 31 relative, 22 non-relative
        Murchison — 36 relative, 19 non-relative
        Peel — 43 relative, 35 non-relative
        Pilbara — 37 relative, 2 non-relative
        South West — 31 relative, 50 non-relative
        West Kimberley — 52 relative, 14 non-relative
        Wheatbelt — 35 relative, 26 non-relative
        Accommodation and Care Services — 1 relative, 11 non-relative
        Fostering and Adoption Services — 0 relative, 19 non-relative.
(5)     These data are not retrospectively available.
                    DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION — FTE EMPLOYEES
4936.   Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Child Protection
(1)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the total funded full time equivalent (FTE) employee allocation by
        directorate and district?
(2)     As at 31 October 2011 —
        (a)      what were the vacancies in the FTE terms by directorate and district;
        (b)      how many of those vacancies were subject to advertising at 31 October 2011 by district; and
        (c)      of those not subject to advertising as at 31 October 2011, why not?
(3)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the total service delivery FTE employee allocation by directorate and
        district?
(4)     As at 31 October 2011, what were the total vacant service delivery positions by directorate and district?
(5)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the total FTE case worker allocation by directorate and district?
(6)     As at 31 October 2011, what were the total FTE vacant case worker positions?
(7)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the FTE number of employees by directorate and district on
        permanent contract and on fixed term contract?
(8)     As at 31 October 2011, how many DCP field officers have been co-located with Western Australia
        Police staff from the family protection unit, in regional and rural offices as part of the strategy to
        combat family and domestic abuse?
(9)     What are the co-location sites where the DCP officers referred to in (8) are situated?
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied:
(1)     Total FTE — 2312 FTE. [See paper 4150.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
        Please note: In order to have capacity to fill positions and be as flexible as possible, the Department
        creates an additional 5% positions over its funded FTE. This assists districts to work within a natural
        vacancy/attrition rate. Previous answers to the same questions have referenced the FTE number of
        created positions in its establishment. It is more accurate to reflect the funded FTE. This answer uses
        funded FTE.
(2)     (a)      Total Vacancies — 217 FTE. [See paper 4150.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
        (b)      86 FTE were subject to advertising/pool recruitment processes. for a full breakdown.
10342                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

        (c)      Of those not subject to advertising/pool recruitment processes, 131 FTE were vacant and were
                 being reviewed for advertising and recruitment options.
(3)     1562 FTE. [See paper 4150.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(4)     164 FTE. [See paper 4150.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(5)     778 FTE. [See paper 4150.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(6)     77 FTE. [See paper 4150.] for breakdown by directorate and district.
(7)     1877 FTE (Permanent), 285 FTE (Fixed Term). [See paper 4150.] for breakdown by directorate and
        district.
(8)     8 Field Officers.
(9)     [See paper 4150.] for a full list of co-location sites.
                                       FOSTER CARERS — STATISTICS
4938.   Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Child Protection
(1)     As at 31 October 2011, what was total number of applications to be a foster carer approved by category
        of relative and non-relative carer and by district?
(2)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the total number of registered foster carers by category of relative
        carer and non-relative carer and by district?
(3)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the total number of interim foster carers, by category of relative and
        non-relative carer and by district?
(4)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the total number of registered foster carers with children placed, by
        category of relative and non-relative carers by district?
(5)     As at 31 October 2011, what was the total number of interim foster carers with children placed, by
        category of relative and non-relative carers by district?
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied:
(1)     In October 2011, there were 32 relative and 6 non-relative foster carer applications approved in the
        following districts:
        Armadale — 1 relative, 0 non-relative
        Cannington — 3 relative, 0 non-relative
        Fremantle — 4 relative, 0 non-relative
        Joondalup — 3 relative, 0 non-relative
        Midland — 3 relative, 0 non-relative
        Mirrabooka — 1 relative, 0 non-relative
        Perth — 1 relative, 1 non-relative
        Rockingham — 3 relative, 0 non-relative
        East Kimberley — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
        Goldfields — 2 relative, 0 non-relative
        Great Southern — 1 relative, 0 non-relative
        Murchison — 2 relative, 0 non-relative
        Peel — 3 relative, 0 non-relative
        Pilbara — 1 relative, 1 non-relative
        South West — 0 relative, 1 non-relative
        West Kimberley — 1 relative, 0 non-relative
        Wheatbelt — 3 relative, 1 non-relative
        Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
        Fostering and Adoption Services — 0 relative, 2 non-relative.
(2)     These data are not retrospectively available. As at 7 November 2011, there were 1,247 relative and 839
        general approved foster carers in the following districts:
        Armadale — 89 relative, 78 non-relative
        Cannington — 136 relative, 66 non-relative
        Fremantle — 120 relative, 44 non-relative
        Joondalup — 66 relative, 63 non-relative
        Midland —70 relative, 47 non-relative
        Mirrabooka — 100 relative, 60 non-relative
        Perth — 71 relative, 40 non-relative
        Rockingham — 43 relative, 53 non-relative
                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                 10343

      East Kimberley — 56 relative, 11 non-relative
      Goldfields — 73 relative, 34 non-relative
      Great Southern — 43 relative, 37 non-relative
      Murchison — 65 relative, 34 non-relative
      Peel — 57 relative, 45 non-relative
      Pilbara — 63 relative, 9 non-relative
      South West — 43 relative, 77 non-relative
      West Kimberley — 86 relative, 27 non-relative
      Wheatbelt — 62 relative, 59 non-relative
      Accommodation and Care Services — 1 relative, 13 non-relative
      Fostering and Adoption Services — 3 relative, 42 non-relative.
(3)   These data are not retrospectively available. As at 7 November 2011, there were 494 relative and 30
      non-relative foster carers who were approved on the basis of an interim assessment in the following
      districts:
      Armadale — 50 relative, 6 non-relative
      Cannington — 49 relative, 5 non-relative
      Fremantle — 55 relative, 0 non-relative
      Joondalup — 21 relative, 1 non-relative
      Midland — 35 relative, 1 non-relative
      Mirrabooka — 27 relative, 2 non-relative
      Perth — 19 relative, 1 non-relative
      Rockingham — 19 relative, 3 non-relative
      East Kimberley — 18 relative, 1 non-relative
      Goldfields — 51 relative, 7 non-relative
      Great Southern — 8 relative, 1 non-relative
      Murchison — 26 relative, 0 non-relative
      Peel — 29 relative, 1 non-relative
      Pilbara — 21 relative, 0 non-relative
      South West — 13 relative, 1 non-relative
      West Kimberley — 33 relative, 0 non-relative
      Wheatbelt — 18 relative, 0 non-relative
      Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
      Fostering and Adoption Services — 2 relative, 0 non-relative.
(4)   These data are not retrospectively available. As at 7 November 2011, there were 828 relative and 528
      general foster carers with children placed in the following districts:
      Armadale — 72 relative, 55 non-relative
      Cannington — 86 relative, 41 non-relative
      Fremantle — 69 relative, 30 non-relative
      Joondalup — 47 relative, 48 non-relative
      Midland — 51 relative, 32 non-relative
      Mirrabooka — 68 relative, 49 non-relative
      Perth — 55 relative, 28 non-relative
      Rockingham — 32 relative, 38 non-relative
      East Kimberley — 37 relative, 2 non-relative
      Goldfields — 45 relative, 17 non-relative
      Great Southern — 29 relative, 24 non-relative
      Murchison — 39 relative, 20 non-relative
      Peel — 44 relative, 31 non-relative
      Pilbara — 35 relative, 3 non-relative
      South West — 28 relative, 47 non-relative
      West Kimberley — 52 relative, 12 non-relative
      Wheatbelt — 38 relative, 26 non-relative
      Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 10 non-relative
      Fostering and Adoption Services — 1 relative, 15 non-relative.
(5)   These data are not retrospectively available. As at 7 November 2011, there were 281 relative and
      13 non-relative interim foster carers with children placed in the following districts:
      Armadale — 35 relative, 4 non-relative
      Cannington — 26 relative, 2 non-relative
      Fremantle — 22 relative, 0 non-relative
10344                             [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

        Joondalup — 13 relative, 1 non-relative
        Midland — 23 relative, 1 non-relative
        Mirrabooka — 10 relative, 0 non-relative
        Perth — 13 relative, 1 non-relative
        Rockingham — 14 relative, 1 non-relative
        East Kimberley — 11 relative, 0 non-relative
        Goldfields — 30 relative, 1 non-relative
        Great Southern — 2 relative, 1 non-relative
        Murchison — 12 relative, 0 non-relative
        Peel — 23 relative, 1 non-relative
        Pilbara — 12 relative, 0 non-relative
        South West — 8 relative, 0 non-relative
        West Kimberley — 16 relative, 0 non-relative
        Wheatbelt — 10 relative, 0 non-relative
        Accommodation and Care Services — 0 relative, 0 non-relative
        Fostering and Adoption Services — 1 relative, 0 non-relative.
           STUDENT SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS — NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
4948.   Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Education
(1)     Is the Minister able to provide statistics for suspensions and expulsions from non-government schools?
(2)     If no to (1), why not?
(3)     If yes to (1) —
        (a)      how many students were expelled from non-government schools in each of 2008, 2009, 2010
                 and year to date 2011?
        (b)      how many students were suspended from non-government schools in each of 2008, 2009, 2010
                 and year to date 2011?
        (c)      what was the total number of days suspension of students from non-government schools in
                 each of 2008, 2009, 2010 and year to date 2011?
(4)     How many students were enrolled in government schools subsequent to being expelled from a non-
        government school in each of 2008, 2009, 2010 and year to date 2011?
(5)     If no to (1), will the Minister commit to seeking this information from non-government schools?
(6)     If no to (5), why not?
Hon PETER COLLIER replied:
(1)–(2) This information is not collected by the Government. In light of the independent nature of non-
        government schools, each of the 313 non-government schools would need to be approached
        individually and their consent and cooperation to participate in a survey sought. Furthermore, to achieve
        comparability of information across all schools in Western Australia, such a survey instrument would
        have to consider issues such as the definition of the terms used and since “suspensions” are
        almost always time-specific, there would be need to be agreement reached on the scope of that data to
        be collected. The provision of historical information beyond the current year may also pose difficulties
        for some schools.
(3)     Not applicable.
(4)     This information is not held by Government.
(5)–(6) Refer to (1)–(2).
                            TRANSPERTH CALL CENTRE — OPERATOR DUTIES
4949.   Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
(1)     Can the Minister confirm that it is a requirement for the operators of the Transperth Call Centre to
        record the details of anyone seeking a reimbursement of a fare due to a failure to tag off and to then
        process the reimbursement of the fare once verification of the default fare is available?
(2)     Is this a requirement of their contract with the Public Transport Authority?
(3)     Can the Minister confirm that people are not requested to call back later once verification is available?
(4)     Is the Public Transport Authority aware of any occasions when people have been requested to call
        back?
                                  [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                    10345

(5)     If yes to (4), on how many occasions has this happened?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Public Transport Authority advises:
(1)     Transperth Call Centre Operators are instructed to record the passenger’s request for reimbursement for
        a default fare within the Transperth Route Information System (TRIS) program which is used to record
        all customer comments. In the case of a request for reimbursement, the default fare is verified, notes are
        recorded against the claim and the reimbursement is applied.
        Where a cardholder fails to tag on/off, it is the policy of Transperth to charge a default fare and not to
        apply a refund. However, given that genuine mistakes can be made; Transperth apply commonsense
        and reimburse the initial default fare and record this action in the notes field of the SmartRider
        system. If a mistake is claimed by the cardholder and there are similar regular occurrences noted in the
        SmartRider system, the claim will not be processed. It is the responsibility of the passenger to use their
        SmartRider card properly in order to access the discounted fares offered.
        Where a default fare is charged due to equipment or card failure, the fare is reimbursed once
        verification of the fault has been determined.
(2)     Transperth’s contracted call centre provider is required to process all transactions in accordance with
        Public Transport Authority (PTA) policy and procedures, as amended from time to time.
(3)     Call Centre staff should not advise the cardholder to call back.
(4)     The PTA is not aware of any times where a cardholder has been asked to call back the Call Centre.
        However, if this action was identified, the staff member concerned would receive immediate coaching
        to confirm the correct procedure to prevent repeat occurrences.
(5)     Not applicable
                PUBLIC TRANSPORT — INCIDENT AND FAULT REPORTING SYSTEM
4950.   Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
I refer to the Incident and Fault Reporting System, and ask —
(1)     Does it record train delays due to overcrowding?
(2)     If yes to (1), for each month in the 2010 and 2011 years, how many trains were delayed due to
        overcrowding on each rail line?
(3)     Does the Minister keep any statistics on the delays?
(4)     If yes to (3), will you table them?
(5)     Do you monitor the average time of the delays?
(6)     If yes to (5), will you table the results for each month?
(7)     If you are unable to provide specific figures, has the Minister done any work to identify lines which are
        experiencing delays due to overcrowding?
(8)     If yes to (7), which lines and in which months have you identified that delays are a problem?
(9)     Has the Public Transport Authority taken any action to reduce these delays?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Public Transport Authority advises:
(1)     No
(2)     Not applicable
(3)     No statistics are kept by the Public Transport Authority (PTA) on delays due to overcrowding.
(4)     Not applicable
(5)     No
(6)     Not applicable
(7)     The PTA uses ticketing system patronage data to determine train loadings.
(8)     As advised previously at the Estimates and Financial Operations Committee hearing, the peak loading
        months for public transport in Perth (as in most cities) are March and April. The lines with heaviest
        passenger loadings are Joondalup and Mandurah.
10346                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

(9)      In terms of addressing peak period crowding, the Liberal–National Government introduced 4 x 3
         additional railcar sets were introduced onto the Joondalup–Mandurah lines in April 2011. In accordance
         with the Government’s budget decision, the Liberal–National Government has ordered an
         additional 15 x 3 railcars sets which will begin arriving in the second half of 2013. In addition, action
         including railcar drivers making announcements to ensure that passengers move down the train takes
         place.
                                LIGHT RAIL PROPOSAL — COST ESTIMATE
4951.    Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
I refer to the estimated cost of $1 billion for Light Rail in the document ‘Public Transport For Perth in 2031’,
and ask —
(1)      On what basis was this figure determined?
(2)      Is it based on any studies undertaken for the Government?
(3)      If yes to (2), what are the names of the studies?
(4)      Is it based on any comparative projects undertaken in other jurisdictions?
(5)      If yes to (4), which jurisdictions?
(6)      Can you provide a breakdown of what is included in this $1 billion?
(7)      How many kilometres of light rail track is the $1billion based on?
(8)      Does it include an allocation for any depots?
(9)      If yes to (8), how many and how much?
(10)     Does it include any allocation for urban design or streetscape enhancement?
(11)     If yes to (10), how much is allocated?
(12)     Does it include any allocation for land resumptions?
(13)     If yes to (12), how much is allocated?
(14)     Does it include any allocation for tunnels?
(15)     If yes to (14), how much is allocated?
(16)     Does it include any allocation for bridges?
(17)     If yes to (16), how much is allocated?
(18)     If the Minister are unable to provide a specific allocation for each of these items, can the Minister
         please explain on what basis was the figured determined?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Department of Transport advises:
(1)–(18) This figure is based on a high level analysis of other light rail systems, both national and international,
         undertaken in the development of the ‘Public Transport for Perth in 2031’ plan. Each project identified
         in the plan will be the subject of further planning and analysis. .
                                LIGHT RAIL PROPOSAL — COST ESTIMATE
4952.    Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
I refer to the estimated cost of $131 million for light rail vehicles in the document ‘Public Transport For Perth in
2031’, and ask on what basis was this figure determined?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Department of Transport advises:
This figure is based on the cost of light rail vehicles and is based on the current (2010 dollars) average cost of
modern light rail vehicles.
                         PUBLIC TRANSPORT — ADDITIONAL FACILITIES COST
4953.    Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
I refer to the estimated cost of $180 million for additional rail, bus and light rail depot and maintenance facilities
in the document ‘Public Transport For Perth in 2031’, and ask —
(1)      On what basis was this figure determined?
                                   [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]                                    10347

(2)      How much of this is for light rail depots and facilities?
(3)      How much is for bus depots and facilities?
(4)      How much of this is for train depots and facilities?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Department of Transport advises:
(1)      This figure is an estimate of the investment required to develop required bus and rail depots between
         now and 2031.
(2)      Nil
(3)      $130m
(4)      $50m
                          PUBLIC TRANSPORT — TRANSIT INTERCHANGES COST
4954.    Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
I refer to the estimated cost of $135 million for transit interchanges, including park and ride, in the document
‘Public Transport For Perth in 2031’, and ask —
(1)      On what basis was this figure determined?
(2)      Can you please provide a breakdown of the interchanges included in this figure?
(3)      Does it include any interchanges for light rail?
(4)      If yes to (3), how many and how much was allocated?
(5)      Does it include any interchanges for buses?
(6)      If yes to (5), how many and how much was allocated?
(7)      How many interchanges for rail does it provide for and how much was allocated for each interchange?
(8)      Does this figure include the proposed new rail stations in the document?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Department of Transport advises:
(1)      This cost is based on recent investment in train stations and preliminary design estimates for
         interchanges.
(2)      Interchanges — Canning Bridge and Stirling.
(3)      No
(4)      Not applicable
(5)      Yes
(6)–(7) The interchanges are identified in the ‘Public Transport for Perth in 2031’ plan.
(8)      Yes
                          PUBLIC TRANSPORT — RAIL SYSTEM EXPANSION COST
4955.    Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
I refer to the estimated cost of $1.2 billion for rail system expansion in the document ‘Public Transport For Perth
in 2031’, and ask —
(1)      On what basis was this figure determined?
(2)      Which extensions are included in this figure?
(3)      What works are included for each extension?
(4)      How many kilometres of rail are included in this figure?
(5)      How many new stations are included?
(6)      What are the location and cost of the new stations included in this figure?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Department of Transport advises:
(1)–(2) This figure is an estimate of the investment required to develop the rail system expansion projects
        identified in the ‘Public Transport for Perth in 2031’ plan, which has been publically available since
        July this year on the Department of Transport website (www.transport.wa.gov.au).
10348                              [COUNCIL — Thursday, 1 December 2011]

(3)      Typical rail network construction works are included, such as track work.
(4)–(5) Refer to part (1)–(2).
(6)      Individual station costs are subject to further project planning.
                          PUBLIC TRANSPORT — BUS INFRASTRUCTURE COST
4956.    Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport
I refer to the estimated cost of $343 million for bus rapid transit and bus priority infrastructure in the document
‘Public Transport For Perth in 2031’, and ask —
(1)      On what basis was this figure determined?
(2)      What infrastructure is included in this figure?
(3)      What works are included for each bus rapid transit or priority project?
(4)      How many kilometres of bus rapid transit are included in this figure?
(5)      How many kilometres of bus priority are included in this figure?
(6)      How many new stations are included in this figure?
(7)      What are the location and cost of the new stations included in this figure?
(8)      What other works are included in this figure?
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:
The Department of Transport advises:
(1)      This figure is an estimate of the investment required to develop the bus rapid transit system and bus
         priority infrastructure identified in the ‘Public Transport for Perth in 2031’ plan.
(2)      The figure generally includes provision of priority infrastructure for buses by reallocation of some
         existing road space, red asphalt treatments, major bus stops, introduction of additional bus queue jump
         lanes and changes to signalised intersections.
(3)      Refer to part (2).
(4)–(8) Refer to part (1).


                                                    __________

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:3/11/2012
language:English
pages:87