1. education
2. school

Parliamentary Debates
(HANSARD)
THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
2014
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday, 16 October 2014
Legislative Assembly
Thursday, 16 October 2014
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers.
PAPERS TABLED
Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.
SCARBORO SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB
Statement by Minister for Sport and Recreation
MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin — Minister for Sport and Recreation) [9.01 am]: Today I take the
opportunity to share with members a fantastic achievement of some young athletes from the Scarboro Surf Life
Saving Club, which is in Hon Liza Harvey’s electorate. On Saturday, 4 October, the same day that Scarboro Surf
Life Saving Club members and the Surf Life Saving Western Australia emergency response team performed
more than 200 rescues on what was a hot day at Scarborough Beach, five Scarboro members were on the other
side of the world competing in the Lifesaving World Championships staged on the Mediterranean coast at
Montpellier in France. Club members contributed to the fundraising that allowed the girls to attend the event and
had been watching their progress avidly in the lead-up to the race. After achieving places in all their heats, they
were hot favourites to win. Boat rowers Megan Downs, Gloria and Jacqueline Nock and Amanda Rukuwai
Donnelly and boat sweep Justin Donnelly, who have been competing to date as an under-23 boat crew, achieved
a first for the club and Western Australia in the women’s open boat race, outrunning an impressive New Zealand
team to win gold. Justin and the girls, who are known as some of the hardest training and most enthusiastic club
members, have maintained a gruelling training schedule over the cold and dark winter months. After a brief stay
in Europe, they will be back for the new season competing for Scarboro and patrolling Scarborough Beach.
I congratulate the girls and the Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club on this magnificent achievement.
RESILIENT AUSTRALIA AWARDS
Statement by Minister for Emergency Services
MR J.M. FRANCIS (Jandakot — Minister for Emergency Services) [9.03 am]: On 8 October, I joined the
federal Minister for Justice, Hon Michael Keenan, to present the Resilient Australia Awards to this year’s
Western Australian recipients. These awards are sponsored by the commonwealth Attorney-General’s
department in conjunction with the states and territories. Now in their fifteenth year, the awards recognise
initiatives that make our communities more resilient in the face of emergencies, such as bushfires, floods and
destructive storms. Having resilience means that communities are able to withstand emergencies and then
recover from them. A resilient community is safer and stronger and better placed to save lives and property.
The Resilient Australia Awards cover initiatives undertaken by the private, not-for-profit, education and research
sectors and by local, state and territory governments, and any organisation or individual can nominate. This
year’s overall state winner was an initiative by the Shire of Augusta–Margaret River and the Red Cross called
Get Ready. It involves a successful campaign that encourages shire residents to adopt a shared-responsibility
approach to emergency preparedness. As well as preparing people for disasters, Get Ready stresses the
importance of getting to know one’s neighbours and learning how to help elderly and disabled neighbours in an
emergency. It is an approach that all communities should embrace. Evaluation of the project revealed a big
increase in the number of residents who now have an evacuation plan and an emergency kit. In addition,
two-thirds of the recipients have exchanged contact numbers with their neighbours. Well done to the
Augusta–Margaret River shire and the Red Cross!
The winner in the state government category was a bushfire education program devised by the Department of
Fire and Emergency Services and the Western Australian Department of Education called Bushfire Patrol. The
award winner in the not-for-profit category was the Western Australian Local Government Association. It was
recognised for developing a special emergency preparedness and response training program for all local
government emergency management personnel, including volunteers. The Western Australian Resilient
Australia award winners are now in the running for the national awards, which will be presented in November.
I commend all those who were nominated for this year’s awards and I applaud the finalists. These awards reflect
a growing recognition of the concept of shared responsibility when working to make our communities safer.
Governments, local communities and individuals all have a role to play in disaster preparedness, survival and
recovery and in creating a more resilient Australia.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7445
TRANSPERTH — CARBON TAX
Statement by Minister for Transport
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [9.05 am]: I inform the house that from
1 November, the carbon tax will be removed from all Transperth fares following the repeal of the carbon tax by
the Abbott coalition government. I also take this opportunity to announce that a free day of travel will be offered
on 3 November to compensate for fares already charged.
Following the decision by the Gillard Labor government to impose a carbon tax on our community, public
transport fares rose by 1.5 per cent, more than the consumer price index, to factor in the increased costs of
providing services caused by the tax. A new fare schedule without this tax will take effect for Perth and regional
towns from 1 November. The removal of the carbon tax will see the cost of some fares fall by 10c to 30c.
Individual fare reductions will vary according to the number of zones travelled, how the fare was rounded to the
nearest 10c and whether a concession was involved. This same principle is applied to the annual fare increase.
When the CPI increment changes a fare by less than 5c, the increase will be held over. For example, standard
price fares for two sections and between three and eight zones will drop by 10c. One-zone and two-zone standard
price fares will remain the same, but nine-zone standard price fares will drop by 30c. That is good news for
many commuters who use and enjoy our world-class public transport system on a daily basis. Even better news
is the day of free travel for everyone, Western Australians and visitors alike. This day of free travel is the fairest
way to reimburse the community for the period from the carbon tax repeal on 1 July and the fare change on
1 November, because it will be applied fairly to the whole community. Despite the popularity of the SmartRider
ticketing system, a significant number of Transperth customers are anonymous users who either buy a ticket with
cash or use an unregistered SmartRider.
The announcement of the removal of the carbon tax and a free day of travel is great news for public transport
users in our state. Labor’s carbon tax was a hit on each and every Western Australian individual and group. This
government has done its part to fairly remove this burden by reducing our public transport fares. I encourage
everyone to leave their cars at home on Monday, 3 November and to use public transport—be it a train, bus or
ferry.
MIDVALE PRIMARY SCHOOL — ELECTRONIC SPEED ZONE LIMIT
Grievance
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [9.08 am]: I direct my grievance, which is about a most serious issue in my
electorate, to the Minister for Transport. Last month I wrote to the Minister for Road Safety about this
issue—I note that in her correspondence to me she forwarded a copy of my letter to the minister’s office—but
I was disappointed by her response. Put simply, the issue is this: the speed limit along Morrison Road, which is
one of the main boundary roads of Midvale Primary School, is 60 kilometres an hour. Morrison Road is not
regarded as a regular suburban street with a speed limit of 50 kilometres an hour; rather, it is considered a feeder
road and, therefore, the speed limit on that road is 60 kilometres an hour. The road is a dual carriageway at that
point and traffic volumes have increased in recent years. We have a very dangerous situation in the mornings and
afternoons as children attempt to cross that road to go to school. Having crossed at the crossing point, children
also have to cross Wellaton Street at the intersection with Morrison Road. The students at Midvale Primary
School are not getting the same protection children at most other schools in this state are. There is
a 60-kilometre-an-hour speed limit and children have to negotiate a busy road in the mornings—young lives are
being put at risk.
I request the installation of a 40-kilometre-an-hour school zone. I would have thought that that is something that
the Minister for Road Safety would be interested in. She has often talked about school zones in this house and
during the estimates committee process. The minister will know that the government has a program of putting
flashing lights in school zones, although we have never seen the science behind that program in terms of its
validity as a road safety measure that will save lives. Be that as it may, it is certainly a very popular program that
the community welcomes. The sad thing is that there is no prospect of getting school zone flashing lights for
Midvale Primary School when it does not even have a school zone. I raise this issue with the acting minister by
way of grievance today because I do not want see another school year start without a school zone in place at
Midvale Primary School.
I note that a couple of days ago, I received a letter dated 13 October from the office of the Minister for Police;
Tourism; Road Safety; Women’s Interests that states —
Dear Ms Roberts
Thank you for your email received on 3 October 2014 regarding the 60km speed limit on Morrison
Road as it passes the Midvale Primary School.
7446
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
The concerns you have raised have been noted by the Minister. As the matter falls within the portfolio
responsibilities of the Hon Dean Nalder MLA, Minister for Transport, the Minister has requested that
your correspondence be forwarded to his office for attention and any appropriate action.
Yours sincerely
PHILIPPA REID
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
cc: Minister for Transport
I regard that as a very unsatisfactory response from the office of the Minister for Road Safety. I expect that
response was drafted by the police department rather than the Office of Road Safety. I suggest that in the future
the minister’s office might actually refer matters about school zones to the Office of Road Safety for the drafting
of responses, because it may be a little more interested and not just fob the issue off without any investigation.
I am hopeful that the Minister for Transport will commit today to a review of this situation. I think that once the
situation is reviewed, the minister will see the merits in dropping the speed limit to 40 kays an hour.
Midvale Primary School has a very healthy school population with over 400 students at the school—and it is
growing. Schools in that part of my electorate are growing rather than declining in numbers, and more students
will be affected by this in future years. I also note that traffic volumes on Morrison Road—certainly to me—
appear to have increased dramatically in recent years. Many people travel to work each morning and home from
work each afternoon along Morrison Road. They are from suburbs including Midvale, Swan View and
Greenmount, and in some instances people cut through from Middle Swan and Stratton to avoid traffic on other
roads. Morrison Road has become busier and busier. In recent years there have been roadworks on
Morrison Road—slip lanes and the like have been put in—but I really think that an urgent review of the speed
limit is needed. I believe that during morning and afternoon school hours, the speed limit needs to be
40 kays an hour. I know that this matter has very widespread support amongst the parent group at
Midvale Primary School, and that it was raised with the Department of Education and other relevant authorities
by the previous principal in the last couple of years. I am still chasing down details of that because those
approaches were made by the previous school principal about his concerns. The current principal is very
concerned about the speed limit and the safety of children crossing Morrison Road, as is the parent group.
I have spoken to a couple of Midvale Primary School parents in recent weeks, and they are very supportive of
a 40-kay limit. There may be some people who are not happy and will not want to slow down on their way to or
from work, but a school zone is really just a short section of road. I have seen school zones in place on roads that
take much higher levels of traffic. In my electorate Great Eastern Highway has a 60-kay limit and goes in front
of Governor Stirling Senior High School and children cross it without a school zone. I think that should be
investigated, but this school is pretty clear-cut and a review needs to happen straightaway.
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [9.15 am]: I thank the member for her grievance
and I agree that the safety of schoolchildren is an important matter. I understand that the member forwarded
correspondence to the Office of Road Safety on this matter and that correspondence was forwarded on to me in
the last few days. I have only recently become aware of this issue.
By way of background, Main Roads Western Australia is responsible for and has developed policy and
guidelines for school zones based on best practice from other state road authorities and road safety research. This
policy was developed in conjunction with stakeholders such as WA Police and the Department of Education. In
developing this policy, it was important to be mindful of putting in place a system that would be accepted by the
majority of motorists and members of the community For this reason, school zones across the state are only
installed on school frontage roads to ensure that motorists make a direct connection between the school and the
lower speed limit and exercise additional caution. Accordingly, school zone signs have been installed on
Midvale Primary School’s frontage roads, Midvale Place and Wellaton Street.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: They are very minor little roads.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I will come to that.
The 40-kilometre-an-hour signs are restricted because we want people to make a direct connection with the
school when they are in a school zone. That is why we limit the number of 40-kilometre zones specifically to the
front of schools. Experience has shown that installation of school zone signs on sections of road that do not
directly front schools diminishes the association between the signs and the school and reduces the overall
effectiveness of the school zone initiative. It is considered that extending the school zone to include
Morrison Road at this point would not be appropriate. Notwithstanding this, the safety of students crossing
Morrison Road is catered for by a school crossing and guard at Wellaton Street on the school boundary. The
guard crossing operates both in the morning and afternoon at school start and finish times. In addition,
a two-metre-high fence has been installed at the school along Morrison Road to encourage students to make their
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7447
crossing of Morrison Road at the guard facility rather than attempt to cross elsewhere. Any student crossing
Morrison Road should be encouraged to cross at the safest location.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: They are encouraged to do that and it is not working.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I understand that observations by Main Roads officers on a number of occasions indicated
there was a high level of student usage of the crossing and that the facility was operating appropriately. It was
also observed that the majority of motorists were aware of the crossing and were slowing on the approach even
though the traffic warden was not signalling for them to stop. However, in view of the concerns raised by
parents, I have asked Main Roads to review safety at this location to see whether further improvements can be
made. We view the safety of all students as important. I think there is a responsibility to encourage students to
use the guard facility and for them to do so. We will continue to explore ways to ensure that we make this a safe
area.
CHRYSALIS MONTESSORI SCHOOL — ELECTRONIC SPEED ZONE SIGNS
Grievance
MR S.K. L’ESTRANGE (Churchlands) [9.18 am]: I thank the Minister for Transport for accepting my
grievance today about prioritising the installation of 40-kilometre-an-hour LED signs on Parkland Road in
Glendalough outside the Chrysalis Montessori School.
Chrysalis Montessori School was established in 1990 at a temporary site in North Perth with only three teachers
and 23 families. In 1991, the school moved to its current site on Parkland Road in Glendalough and is now
a well-established and popular school in the area. About 145 children aged between three years and 12 years
currently attend Chrysalis Montessori School. Recently the school started a playgroup three mornings a week for
children aged from 18 months. The total number of children attending the school throughout the week is
approximately 155.
Parkland Road connects the busier thoroughfares of Harborne Street and Jon Sanders Drive, and, as such, the
school has had to manage with the traffic flow along the road in front of it. In more recent years, however,
commercial development in the area has seen traffic volume increase significantly, and with it the risk to the
lives of the children attending Chrysalis Montessori School. Herdsman Business Park, situated on Parkland Road
and Hasler Road, was developed in 2010 and added to the existing commercial development in the area.
Government Procurement and Building Management and Works, within the state Department of Finance, occupy
office space in the new development. As a direct result of this development, the school has witnessed a rapid
increase in not only the number of vehicles travelling along Parkland Road, but also those using it for parking,
which has made the road extremely busy.
The City of Stirling’s engineering department provided my office with traffic count data from October 2012 that
demonstrates the average weekday traffic flow equals around 5 196 vehicles per day. Other data includes the
morning peak hour traffic flow of 732 vehicles per hour between 8.00 am and 9.00 am and the afternoon peak
hour traffic flow of 565 vehicles per hour between 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm. The percentage of motorists exceeding
50 kilometres an hour during the day is 36.5 per cent—that is, approximately one in every three vehicles—and
the percentage of motorists exceeding 40 kilometres an hour during the school zone period equals 51.8 per cent,
or approximately one in every two vehicles. This rise in vehicle numbers over the past two years has
significantly increased the risk to children attending Chrysalis Montessori School, and parents and the school
staff fear for the safety of the children.
I know the minister and the state government are working diligently to fulfil our election promise of providing
flashing 40-kilometre-an-hour LED signs for all schools and that this will take time. However, given the current
and increasing risk to children attending Chrysalis Montessori School, I would ask that this school be made
a priority for the 40-kilometre-an-hour LED flashing sign program.
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [9.21 am]: I thank the member for his grievance
today. As I mentioned in the previous grievance, the state government recognises the importance of improving
the safety of children on their journey to and from school. In 1997, as an initiative of the Court coalition
government, the first 40-kilometre-an-hour school zones were introduced in Western Australia. Despite those
initiatives, some motorists continue to disregard the 40-kilometre-an-hour school zone speed-limit signs in some
locations, despite frequent additional enforcement by the WA Police. A major advance in improving safety and
driver observance of 40-kilometre-an-hour school zones has been achieved in recent years with the development
of solar-powered 40-kilometre-an-hour flashing electronic school zone signs. The Liberal–National state
government is delivering on its commitment to allocate $36 million to ensure that every school zone across WA
has 40-kilometre-an-hour flashing signs installed over the next three years.
The concerns raised today by the member for Churchlands on behalf of the Chrysalis Montessori Primary School
community are certainly acknowledged, and he has raised this matter with me on a number of occasions.
Incidences of drivers ignoring school zone speed limits cannot be tolerated. It is certainly appreciated that this
7448
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
school is located on a narrow local road in an office and commercial environment. The school currently has
static school zone signs as well as 40-kilometre-an-hour yellow markings on the road surface of Parkland Street.
It was not possible to include this location in the 2014–15 installation program. However, it will be given high
priority when developing next year’s program. Importantly, as a result of the government’s commitment, every
school with a 40-kilometre-an-hour school zone will have flashing lights by the end of the 2016–17 financial
year.
As at 30 June 2014, some 237 school zones have been upgraded to include electronic signs. Members will be
interested to know that instead of the usual 60 to 66 installations per year as in recent years, the program will
deliver around 73 sites in the current year, increasing significantly to around 760 over the two following
financial years. This unprecedented level of funding is being provided from the road trauma trust account, which
is returning speed camera and red-light infringement revenue to directly improve safety on our roads.
Electronic school zone signs are well regarded by schools, parents and motorists because they are highly visible
and remove any confusion about when the 40-kilometre-an-hour speed limit applies around schools. The
installation program has been extremely successful in raising driver awareness and safety around our schools.
The high number of approaches my office receives seeking the installation of these signs from members on both
sides of this house is a clear indication of the success and importance of the government’s initiative. The
government is delivering on its commitment, and is making real progress to ensure the daily safety of kids
around schools throughout Western Australia.
WHITE CORELLAS
Grievance
MR A. KRSTICEVIC (Carine) [9.25 am]: My grievance today is directed to the Minister for Environment,
Hon Albert Jacob. Whether we live in Carine, Wembley, Woodlands, Joondalup, Guildford or any other suburb
throughout the metropolitan area, we are subjected to the invasion of white corellas. This is my second grievance
about this ongoing problem; the first being in May 2013. I have received numerous complaints over many years
from constituents who have complained about the increased corella population. The birds are not native to WA
and, as an invasive species, they have effectively replaced all native WA birds, such as galahs and the
twenty-eight parrot.
Carine Glades shopping centre car park has many gum trees, and the birds have taken over. They remain noisy
throughout the night due to the lights being on at the shopping centre, resulting in sleepless nights for
neighbours. Their droppings land on parked cars and on the asphalt around food outlets, which is also a health
risk. They also plague Carine Open Space with their noise and destructive behaviour. The trees where they perch
for the night are often destroyed little by little because they chew the bark off smaller branches.
I have been trying to find a solution for this problem for years and would like to provide a more recent example
of the frustration I have experienced on this merry-go-round I have been riding. In a response received from the
minister, dated 4 March 2014, he acknowledged that and states, according to my notes —
The Department of Parks and Wildlife did operate a trial control program for introduced corellas and
lorikeets, which included the development of effective techniques for the humane control of these birds
that could be used by other land managers, such as local government. Unfortunately, this control work
was undertaken using specific grants, which are no longer available, so the program is not ongoing.
A coordinated integrated control program is required to effectively manage these birds in urban and
near-urban areas. To implement the initial phase of this Strategy within the greater metropolitan and
surrounding area, broad involvement and support from local governments across this region is required.
All local governments within the greater metropolitan area were asked to consider this proposal and
make a commitment to fund a minimum of $5,000 per annum for five years. However, of the 36 local
governments contacted, only 22 responded. 11 rejected the funding proposal, and of the 11 responses
that were financially supportive, only four provided in-principle support for possible future
consideration.
Unfortunately, this low level of commitment is not sufficient to operate a control program of this
nature, and the control of these introduced birds on lands managed by local government, such as the
Carine Open Space, will therefore be the responsibility of local government.
The Department of Parks and Wildlife has undertaken some training of external providers in the use of
appropriate control techniques and the department can put interested local governments in contact with
these contractors.”
I also wrote to the City of Stirling, and its response on 14 March 2014 states, according to my notes —
As advised previously, the City does not undertake culling of native wildlife as this is actually the
domain of the State Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW). Besides, the City does not possess the
necessary expertise to undertake this work.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7449
Although the City of Stirling does not agree to direct funding of the programme, it stands ready to
provide in-kind support as per previous arrangements with DPAW.
On 16 May 2014, I wrote to the City of Stirling advising that another constituent had again complained about
these nuisance birds and that I had recently received a response from the Minister for Environment stating that
the management responsibility for Carine Open Space falls clearly within the City of Stirling. Therefore,
I wanted to know what action the city would take to address this problem, and when it would do so. I received a
response on 26 May 2014, stating that the city concurs with the advice of the Minister for Environment.
However, it has stated that the problem of the overabundance of white corellas is not solely related to
Carine Open Space, but affects most parts of the metropolitan region, hence requiring a regional solution.
On 5 June 2014, I again followed up this matter with the City of Stirling to let it know that this matter is going
around in circles. I have written a number of times about this to the city, and am yet to be informed exactly what
is being done to address this problem. On 19 June 2014, I received a response from the City of Stirling, and it
was clear that it was tired of my efforts to address this problem. It stated that it had already responded to my
questions and had tried on a number of occasions this year to access specialist Department of Parks and Wildlife
staff to supervise white corella control operations but that as there is only one staff member statewide and that it
had been unsuccessful in addressing the matter. Then, of course, there is the cost issue. The City of Stirling
advised that it will try to factor the problem of white corellas into its proposed budget for 2014–15. However, it
is not confident that realistic controls can be achieved without a coordinated approach by other local government
authorities, as this is a problem that is manifestly regional in nature.
On Monday, 23 June 2014 I again wrote to the minister advising that I am still trying to find a solution for this
problem. The City of Stirling has raised the issue of cost for the contractor, and government assistance is
required to implement a coordinated program to control these birds. I have also been in contact with the City of
Joondalup and had a similar response. I hope that something can be done to stop this revolving door that has
contained no solutions. I request that this problem now be aggressively pursued by the Department of Parks and
Wildlife and to support the local governments with some financial assistance. I was advised last year that
research has been conducted to better understand the movement patterns of the corellas so that control efforts
may be better targeted in future. I would like to inquire how advanced that research currently is. Do we now
have an understanding of how the corella population moves around the metropolitan area? This is vital
information required for the success of a control program that needs to be coordinated. I would like to request
that the department of environment take on this responsibility and role of coordinating the local councils.
Specific problem sites can be targeted throughout the metropolitan area to achieve the successful trapping or
netting of these birds.
MR A.P. JACOB (Ocean Reef — Minister for Environment) [9.30 am]: I start by acknowledging the
ongoing efforts of the member for Carine to engage on this issue in representing the concerns of his electors in
particularly Carine, and also across his electorate. He has raised this matter with me a number of times.
I understand his frustration and I thank him for his efforts in this space.
By way of background, two species of white corella and also a type of parrot have been introduced into the Perth
metropolitan area—the two species of corella being the little corella and the eastern long-billed corella. Both
species pose a threat to local native birds through competition for nesting hollows, and also they are a nuisance
to local communities and primary producers, particularly outside the metropolitan area. Although both these
species are introduced to Western Australia, they are by definition native fauna and therefore become protected
under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. As such, a licence is required to take them unless an open season is
declared. Such licences may be issued for native bird species that are causing damage or public nuisance—these
ones would be prime examples.
Rainbow lorikeets are also an introduced species in the south west of Western Australia and they similarly pose
a nuisance to local communities, to the environment and, again, to primary producers. By way of example,
rainbow lorikeets are declared an acclimatised fauna under section 14 of the Wildlife Conservation Act, so no
licences or permits are required to take them within the south west land division. Rainbow lorikeets are also
declared pests in the southern part of WA under the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007, which
effectively requires landowners to control these birds on their private land without the need to obtain a damage
licence from the Department of Parks and Wildlife.
The control of nuisance bird species like corellas or rainbow lorikeets is not clearly assigned to any one
government agency or organisation. Typically, the principle would be that the relevant land manager carries
responsibility. By way of example, the Department of Parks and Wildlife’s current priority is to manage pest
species on lands for which the Department of Parks and Wildlife has direct responsibility, and local governments
are responsible for managing these birds on lands for which the relevant local government has responsibility.
Between 2007 and 2013, the Department of Parks and Wildlife operated a trial program for introduced corellas
and rainbow lorikeets that involved the removal of more than 25 000 birds. This program included the
7450
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
development of effective techniques for humane control of the corellas and lorikeets for use by other land
managers such as local governments. The program also included some monitoring of bird movement patterns in
the metropolitan area to gain a better understanding with the aim of developing more effective control strategies
across jurisdictions. From this work, it is apparent that a coordinated and integrated control program is the best
way to effectively manage these birds in urban, and near urban, areas.
The program was undertaken using external funds and the Department of Parks and Wildlife is not currently
undertaking specific control of corellas within the Perth metropolitan area. However, in 2013, the Departments
of Parks and Wildlife and Agriculture and Food, and the Western Australian Local Government Association
collaborated to develop a coordinated and cooperative strategy to control introduced corellas and rainbow
lorikeets in the Perth metropolitan area. In order to implement the initial phase of this strategy within the greater
metropolitan and surrounding areas, broad involvement and support from local governments as the key land
managers within the metropolitan and broader urban area is required. All local governments within the greater
metropolitan area were asked to consider this proposal and to make a commitment to fund a minimum of
$5 000 per annum for five years to be managed through an introduced corella and rainbow lorikeet response
group, which would also include the Departments of Parks and Wildlife and Agriculture and Food and the
Western Australian Local Government Association. As the member for Carine has noted, of the 36 local
governments contacted, responses were received from only 22—which is 61 per cent. Half of the responses
received rejected the funding proposal outright, being only $5 000 a year for five years to address this problem.
Of the 11 supportive responses, only four offered to provide in-kind support for possible future consideration.
With respect to the Carine area, the City of Stirling indicated that it would provide only in-kind support at this
time and did not commit to financial support. Unfortunately, the overall level of commitment was not sufficient
at this point to operate the integrated control program.
I again stress that it is important to note that local government, as with private landowners, is responsible for
managing pest animals on lands that it manages, as is Parks and Wildlife. To put that in context, the Department
of Parks and Wildlife manages over 28.5 million hectares of state conservation area and that conservation estate
alone is bigger than the state of Victoria. In addition, Parks and Wildlife has responsibility for pest, animal and
weed control on a further 89 million hectares of unallocated crown land and unmanaged reserves outside the
metropolitan area and town sites—that further area is larger than New South Wales. The estate the Department
of Parks and Wildlife manages is larger than New South Wales and Victoria put together.
In addition, the Department of Parks and Wildlife has also undertaken some training of external providers in the
use of control techniques for corellas and rainbow lorikeets. In order to assist local governments, where control
programs by local government are warranted, the department can issue damage permits for local government
authorities and put them in contact with trained contractors. Two good examples of that are the Town of
Claremont and the City of Mandurah which are currently taking such actions. I am advised that the City of
Stirling is investigating the option of engaging a contractor to undertake corella control work. I appreciate that
the corella population is a significant nuisance issue for the community, and given that they are a highly mobile
pest, the effectiveness of our approach would be maximised if it was able to be coordinated with similar control
work being undertaken by surrounding councils.
ITALO–AUSTRALIAN WELFARE AND CULTURAL CENTRE — ITALIAN LANGUAGE
PROGRAM
Grievance
MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [9.37 am]: I thank the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests for
coming into the chamber to receive this grievance. A number of members on this side of the house are very
concerned about the potential cuts to the Italian language program. I acknowledge the work being done by the
members for Fremantle, Armadale and Warnbro on this issue. I also acknowledge the member for Maylands who
has written, or is about to write, to the minister about the potential cuts to the Polish language program. The
member has raised that matter and I acknowledge it is also a serious issue.
Many members on this side have been working with the Italian community on a range of issues, but particularly
the Italian language program. The shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests has allowed me to
bring this grievance into this place, and also acknowledges that it is a serious issue. Key concerns have been
raised by the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre. As we know, the centre is a not-for-profit
organisation. The centre has been running an Italian language program for over 35 years, both insertion
programs and after-hour classes. The centre has offered classes to government primary schools and this has been
made possible by contributions provided by state, federal and Italian governments. I spoke with the consul the
other day and he basically reiterated how well respected this centre is nationally and internationally for the level
of expertise and rigour it applies to what it does. It is a great asset for the state to have such a centre. The centre
has been doing very good work in the community over the past 35 years, and it is well respected.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7451
The current Italian government policy is to promote the Italian language abroad. That is governed by a series of
laws and regulations. The Italian government provides funding and direct educational support for
800 000 students worldwide, in over 250 cities, including six in Australia. Around 20 per cent of the Italian
language students in Australia learn Italian in curricular courses offered by the Italian government in both public
and private schools through the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre as the local provider. The Italian
and Australian governments are negotiating the renewal of the bilateral cultural agreement, which addresses the
promotion of the Italian language in Australia. Under the banner of community language, the state government
contribution is about $35 per student. That funding has not increased since 1992. Currently, the centre has about
22 000 students in its programs, which are offered in both the metropolitan area and the regions, and employs
86 teachers.
The community language program has been transferred from the Department of Education to the Office of
Multicultural Interests. The key point that has been raised with me is the lack of engagement with the Italian
community about the transfer of this program. There has been little, or no, consultation on this transfer. Another
key issue is that moving this program from the education sector to multicultural interests suggests that this
program is not something that we want in our education system. I believe that is a very negative view to take.
On 21 May, during the estimates committee process, I asked the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural
Interests about the funding for the Italian language program, and the minister’s response was, in part —
We will look through the review and at the intent of the program now—what it should be and the
criteria for allocating money across all languages. Other issues spring up about what is to be done about
the quality of teachers and whatnot …
The minister said also that the review was instigated because a large number of groups had come to him over
time asking for assistance and complaining about the allocation to the Italian language program. I do not think
this should be a debate about the Italian language and other European languages versus Asian languages. I do not
think that is a healthy debate, and I do not think that is a debate we should be engaged in. It should not be about
cutting programs for one language to fund another language. It should be about promoting a second or third
language in not only our education system, but also the community. Communities are richer when people are
able to speak other languages and appreciate other cultures. I think it is true to say that Italian continues to be
a very popular language to learn in our schools and in our community. The statistics that I have seen indicate that
although someone like me would be interested in the Italian language because of my Italian background, only
about five per cent of the people who study the Italian language have an Italian background. Therefore, there
continues to be a keen interest in the Western Australian community to learn the Italian language.
A very good system is already in place. Too often in our community we disregard the work that has been put into
systems and processes. We should recognise what is there, and not try to tear it down, because once we cut these
programs and tear these centres apart, it will be very hard to rebuild them. As I have said, we should not be
pitching the Italian language against Asian languages. We should support all languages, in particular the teaching
of languages at school. The process that has been instigated has failed to pay due respect to the role of Italian
language in our community. The government likes to pay lip-service to the role of the Italian community, but by
cutting this program, it is undermining all the lip-service that it has given to the Italian community over the past
few years.
DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests) [9.44 am]: There have
been no cuts whatsoever, just to start off. For the interest of members, particularly the member for Bunbury, and
others, I would like to go through the background of this issue. There has been a community languages program
since 1981. That program is jointly funded by the commonwealth and state governments. The program has until
recently been funded out of the Department of Education Services, and it has now been transferred to the
Office of Multicultural Interests. The program had not been reviewed in that period. It was set up to help ethnic
community groups to train kids, and others in the community, after school, in their own language. It was meant
to help non-profit ethnic organisations to provide language and cultural training in not only their communities
but the wider community. It is an excellent program. The program has received funding from the commonwealth
and state governments, as I have said. Exactly what money comes from the commonwealth is not clear, and the
history of the funding is very vague. It has not been well managed. We are trying to get to the bottom of it.
Ms R. Saffioti: Did you say it has not been well managed?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The funding through the Department of Education Services has not been well managed and
reviewed, so we are undertaking a review of that, and I will go into that in detail. The purpose of the program is
to help after-school community groups train their kids and the community in language and enhance the language
of migrant communities and non–English speaking communities, and to foster culture. It was sitting there
dormant, as the member for West Swan indicated. I have had concerns expressed to me, and I have received
many complaints from rapidly growing ethnic communities, such as the Indian, Chinese and African
communities, about the inadequacy of funding through this program to them, particularly relative to the funding
7452
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
that is provided in other states. Therefore, I put it out to tender, and Erebus International has been hired to
undertake a review of the program. Erebus International is the leading group in this area. It has undertaken
reviews of the community language program in New South Wales and Victoria, it has worked for the Australian
Federation of Ethnic Schools Associations, and it was hired by the commonwealth government to develop the
national quality assurance framework for community language schools. It is eminently qualified.
Erebus International has engaged in wide consultation with the community, not only the Italian community but
also other communities. It has held focus groups and it has met with all the interest groups, with Catholic schools
and with public schools—everyone—extensively over the last six months. I have also met with the Italian
community repeatedly, as have my staff, and as has OMI. Therefore, to say that there was no consultation is just
silly. There have been no cuts. No decision has been made.
I received yesterday a draft report, and I will have a look at it for a while and then release it for public
consultation. One thing that has come out of that report is that we in Western Australia spend a lot less on our
community languages program than is the case in other states. We spent about $1.058 million last year. By the
way, when the program was transferred to OMI last year—it came over officially in March—I continued the
funding in full and the allocation as per I received it; I took the $1.058 million and allocated it as it had been
allocated in the previous year. There were no cuts.
Ms R. Saffioti: That’s good of you, minister!
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: About 79 per cent of that funding went to the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre.
That is a source of tension in the community. I understand that. The Italian language program is an excellent
program that has been going on and has been well managed for a long time. But there is an issue about the equity
here. Since this program commenced in 1981, there has been a very large growth in the diversity of new migrant
communities, including Chinese, Indian, African and various others, and the residual is not very large. We have
made no cuts. We have had extensive consultation. We will review the program. We will look at the strength of
the commonwealth funding and we will also look at the continuation and strength of the commitment of the
Italian government. There are concerns because of the problems in Italy. Indeed, it is well known—Erebus
International has reported on this—that the Italian government is considering reviewing its international
program.
Ms R. Saffioti: Given what you’re doing, you encourage them to cut it.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The member raised a grievance; I ask her to please let me get through it.
Ms R. Saffioti: You should have been here on time.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, this is enough now. I call you to order for the first time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Erebus is reviewing the issues relating to funding, the sources of funding and the
commitment to it. We are committed to this program. My aim is to increase the amount of money going into this
program through OMI. That is one reason we moved it from educational services to OMI. We did that by
reviewing it to find out what its purpose is and how it is run. We came up with some principles of reallocation.
We will come out with a report and make a decision on it.
I understand that the Italian community is a bit concerned about cuts. It has expressed these concerns to me
repeatedly. I have heard nothing new from the member for West Swan. We will look at it. There are issues of
equity, fairness, sharing with new, emerging communities and allowing all the groups in the community to adapt.
We will look at this and make an announcement. Equity and fairness and the maintenance of community
programs will be priorities.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PEOPLE
Fourth Report — “2013–2014 Annual Report” — Tabling
MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [9.52 am]: I present for tabling the fourth report of the Joint Standing Committee
on the Commissioner for Children and Young People, “2013–2014 Annual Report”.
[See paper 2299.]
Ms L.L. BAKER: As Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young
People of the thirty-ninth Parliament, I am pleased to present the committee’s 2013–14 annual report. Over this
period, the committee has held a number of hearings and briefings. Of particular note have been the final
hearings with the inaugural Commissioner for Children and Young People, Ms Michelle Scott, before her
resignation from the position in December 2013. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms Scott for the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7453
tremendous job she did as commissioner. Her pioneering efforts developed the role of the commissioner from
scratch, and allowed children and young people in this state to be heard and considered in decisions that affect
their lives. Ms Scott did some informative work around issues such as the early years, reducing alcohol-related
harm, mental health, juvenile justice and the safety of children. Her “Report of the Inquiry into the mental health
and wellbeing of children and young people in Western Australia” was a fantastic example of how the children’s
commissioner can raise awareness about the issues and concerns of some of the state’s most vulnerable children
and young people to the highest levels of government. The “Wellbeing Monitoring Framework” provided
government and non-government agencies alike with a remarkable resource about what is working and what is
not with respect to the wellbeing of children and young people in the state. The updated volumes of this
framework will continue to be a legacy to her groundbreaking work.
I would also like to welcome Ms Jenni Perkins to the role of acting commissioner. The committee met with
Ms Perkins in March of this reporting period and was pleased that she intended to carry on many of the projects
instigated by the former commissioner, and that the office of the children’s commissioner would, while
advocating for all children and young people in the state, continue to make Aboriginal children and Aboriginal
young people a priority.
With respect to the operations of the children’s commissioner, I would like to raise my personal serious concern
over the delay in the release of the statutory review of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act
2006. This review had been completed by the Public Sector Commission and provided to the Attorney General
in January 2013. The report of the review was not tabled until 20 August 2014, which was over a year later. The
Attorney General is still to provide the government response to the review. The substantial delay in the release of
this report lent significant uncertainty to the role of the commissioner. In particular, the proposed role of the
commissioner to perform a complaints support function with regard to allegations of child neglect or abuse
remains unclear and deferred.
Two years have already passed since the St Andrew’s Hostel inquiry—the Blaxell inquiry—called for the
creation of a one-stop shop in managing reports of child abuse. A recommendation stated —
That the State Government develop a function and role within or across central and independent
agencies to fulfil a robust child focussed central complaints system that is a “one stop shop” for any
complaint concerning child abuse regardless of the public sector agency that the matter relates to.
The government, showing clear support for the Blaxell inquiry’s recommendations, promptly determined that
this role should be undertaken by the children’s commissioner. The Premier clearly committed to that in this
house. This was then included as a term of reference for the statutory review of the Commissioner for Children
and Young People Act. This is in part why the committee has been following the review’s progress so keenly.
Upon tabling the report of the statutory review, it was announced that implementation of the commissioner’s
complaints support function recommended by Blaxell will be delayed for two more years.
Given that two years have already passed since the need for a child abuse complaints support role in WA was
recognised by the Premier in his acceptance of the St Andrew’s Hostel inquiry recommendations and that
considerable time will be needed to develop the role after the required legislated functions are in place, the
committee is concerned about the potential harm a minimum four-year delay may cause to the meaningful
reporting of children suffering physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse and neglect.
It is the committee’s premise that any changes to the act should not prevent the commissioner from being able to
critically develop the role over time. The committee therefore suggests that consideration be given to
implementing all the recommended changes to the act as soon as practicable and in such a way as to allow for
a future examination and application of relevant royal commission recommendations when they are made public.
In support of this proposal, the committee will investigate this matter further. In the first instance, it has invited
the Attorney General to meet with the committee to discuss the outcomes of the review. The committee would
like to learn what changes to the act will be implemented and when and what operational impact these changes
may have on the functions of the commissioner. The committee then intends to more broadly examine the
review, and report to Parliament on the best way in which the commissioner’s child abuse complaint support
function could operate.
The commissioner’s most recent report titled “The State of Western Australia’s Children and Young People”
notes that during 2011–12, 13 745 notifications of abuse or neglect of a child or young person were received by
the relevant authorities. I will say that again: 13 745 notifications of abuse or neglect of a child or young person
were received by the relevant authorities in WA. That is nearly 14 000 children, members. This data is only
based on those departments responsible for child protection, so notifications made to other organisations such as
police or non-government organisations are not necessarily included. Therefore, although the statistic of nearly
14 000 children is upsetting, it is most likely an underestimate of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect in
this state right now as we sit in this house and listen to my contribution on this report. The commissioner’s
proposed child abuse complaint support role is thus critical to the safety and wellbeing of children in Western
7454
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Australia. Not only will the role have the potential to more accurately report on the number of child abuse
notifications in this state, but also it could crucially develop ways to break down reporting barriers in the first
place. For that to occur, the role needs time to develop. If we wait another two years for the commissioner to
have the capacity to start that work, we will have lost four years of the reporting of abuse. Just think about that.
I am strongly of the view that the proposed changes to the act should happen and still allow for the
recommendations of the royal commission to be considered when they become available. To this end, the
committee has agreed to make a formal response to the review of the Commissioner for Children and Young
People Act 2006.
The committee is happy to note the announcement that the recruitment of a permanent commissioner will start
soon. We do not yet have an end date for when the government expects to have a commissioner in place, but it
has been more than two years, again, since it has bothered to fill this role substantively. The committee will
follow the process closely, as we remain concerned about the delay in appointing a permanent commissioner.
Finally, I would like to formally thank my fellow committee members for their work and dedication to children
and young people, and the work of the commissioner. I would also like to express the committee’s appreciation
for the work performed by our principal research officers over this time. For a short time it was
Dr Loraine Abernethie, and then Ms Lucy Roberts.
ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRY STANDING COMMITTEE
Third Report — “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight Rail Network” — Tabling
MR I.C. BLAYNEY (Geraldton) [10.03 am]: I present for tabling the third report of the Economics and
Industry Standing Committee entitled “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight Rail Network”.
[See paper 2300.]
Mr I.C. BLAYNEY: I rise to present the committee’s third report of the thirty-ninth Parliament. Although the
report is entitled “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight Rail Network”, the report is concerned with
the lease arrangements and the management of the lease over the lines in the state’s south west that operate
currently under a 49-year lease.
There are a number of reasons for the committee viewing this as an important issue, and one that should be the
subject of an inquiry. First is the importance of the network to state development, particularly given the existing
and predicted freight task. Second, although the network is subject to a 49‐year lease, it remains a significant and
valuable state asset, owned by the government on behalf of Western Australians. Third, the negotiations between
CBH Group and Brookfield Rail have seemingly reached an impasse, with the Economic Regulation Authority
being involved for the first time in a floor-and-ceiling cost determination as provided under the
Railways (Access) Code 2000. Fourth, the Auditor General’s 2013 report noted a number of concerns in relation
to the management of the lease. Fifth, at the time this inquiry was initiated, tier 3 lines were earmarked for
placing into care and maintenance—something that happened on 30 June 2014. Sixth, there is concern in relation
to the potential for tier 2 lines to be similarly placed into care and maintenance. Seventh, there is a lack of
transparency and considerable public confusion and anxiety about the provisions of the lease and the roles and
responsibilities of all parties to the lease. Eighth, there seems to be a resurgence of rail in the freight market in
other jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which raises the question of why in
Western Australia some lines have become non-operational. Ninth, the lease and subsequent variations and
agreements appear to put Brookfield Rail—a natural monopoly provider—in the position of holding all the aces,
to the potential detriment of state development.
In light of the above, the committee determined to undertake its inquiry in an effort to clarify matters and find
ways to resolve some of the issues raised. I would like to thank my fellow committee members, the members for
Cockburn, Willagee, Moore and Joondalup, and the committee staff, Dr Loraine Abernethie and
Mr Michael Burton. I think I can say that this inquiry and reporting has been the most difficult and stressful work
I have done in the committee since I joined the Parliament in 2008—the staff and other members may agree.
I look forward to now going back to complete the committee’s inquiry into floating liquefied natural gas
production in the areas of opportunities and safety.
Edmund Burke was an Irish political philosopher and a Whig politician. He lived from 1729 to 1797, and is
widely regarded as the father of modern conservatism. He is also generally regarded as the author of the
expression “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I am not saying that the
committee has discovered evil; I am, however, saying that the committee has come to some decisions concerning
background material or evidence to the inquiry that we could have accepted as confidential, produced a cryptic
report, and walked away washing our hands. We would have left the people of the areas serviced currently by
third tier rail, and maybe other tiers in the future, to their fate, wondering, as they currently do, what on earth is
in the lease document and its various attachments. We could have left future miners to battle to get access to the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7455
lines, like Karara, or walk away and use trucks, like Sinosteel and maybe Top Iron. Instead, the committee has
decided to take the step of releasing with the report quite a lot of the information it has gathered. This basically
reveals information on which commercial confidentiality has been claimed, which is something I as chair have
agonised over and lost a large amount of sleep on for the last month or two. The decision for me was made easier
in reading in the Auditor General’s report that Brookfield had already sought an extension to the lease, and the
rejection of a commonsense proposal from CBH to sublease the third tier lines, with an agreement that they
revert to Brookfield if an alternative use is proposed; that is, another Karara. I am, frankly, amazed that such
a commonsense proposal was rejected.
At that point I finally believed that the committee should place all the information it could into the public arena
in the interest of all Western Australians, but in particular for the people of the eastern wheatbelt, who had
literally pleaded with us to do so. I am glad that the rest of the committee agreed with me. I spent seven years
going at least one hour each way every school day on a school bus on a busy highway, and then I put my own
children onto the same bus for about seven years. When people in the third tier area say to me that they do not
like all these trucks being on the roads and mixing with school buses, I understand what they mean because
I have been in their shoes. I will now work my way through the chapters of the report, mentioning highlights
from them. This is a complex subject, and so I ask anyone who has an interest to read the report carefully, and
maybe a number of times.
As the member for Geraldton, I have taken a keen interest in the development of the Karara mine and its railway
and port facility. I have visited the mine maybe 10 times, and its main shareholder, Ansteel, at Anshan in
Liaoning Province in China. I travelled the line to Morawa from Geraldton, when it was being upgraded from
one end to the other, with my friend Bruce Eldridge, the permanent way superintendent of the north. I was asked
to open the rebuilt line at Queens Park Theatre in Geraldton, which I did. Observation, and what I have learnt,
tell me that Brookfield knows how to run railways. They are railway people, as they say. I do not have any
issues, from what I have seen and heard, that the railways are run properly.
The Western Australian freight task is growing, and of course it needs to be efficient. Some evidence to the
committee has indicated that, in relative terms, rail is gaining in competitiveness against road, and will continue
to do so. The tonnage carried on rail has grown since the lease by 113 per cent, and should, and needs to,
continue to grow.
Initially, the lease was sold along with the rolling stock. The case is strong for vertical integration of above and
below rail, in low tonnage lines. Indeed, we have probably come to this point—the closure of the third tier rail
lines—because the separation of above and below rail on low tonnage lines finishes them. Effectively,
a vertically integrated operator maintains lines like the third tier, with revenue from them, as a means of getting
freight onto the rest of its network—that is, it is a break-even situation. Break the vertical integration, and the
ability to do this is gone. At the time of the sale of the lease, vertical integration was the clear preference of the
government. However, it was not put into the lease, so down the track Wesfarmers took its profit and the above
and below-rail operations were sold to separate companies. The government had not retained a right to give
assent to this. At the time of the original sale, a press release was put out, claiming that the purchaser was to
invest $400 million in track and rolling stock over the following five years. Once again, this was not in the lease,
and seems at that point to have been forgotten. The Department of Transport was not involved in the sale
process. If it had been, maybe the marshalling yards around the network would not have been sold to the then
above-rail operator—something that has become a barrier to new entrants.
Over the next few years, other issues were starting to emerge. The government, through various consultations,
arrived at the strategic grain network review, which was the origin of the classifications of tiers 1, 2 and 3.
Tiers 1 and 2 were seen as viable, and tier 3 as unviable. Tiers 1 and 2 were slated for investment, and tier 3 for
closure. The government put a mixture of funds into rail, roads and the Brookton strategy. I will not elaborate
here, but investment in the last two was not what was intended. At this time, the single-desk marketing structures
were abolished, which led to conclusions that growers would choose to cart a lot of their grain directly to port,
which basically did not happen. The SGNR also seems to anticipate a sharp fall in grain production in the eastern
and south eastern wheatbelt. This has not been realised. Advances in production by measures of water use
efficiency indicate that production is being maintained, and growers are confident of their future. Shortly after
this, Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd introduced its own advanced rolling stock, and a skilled operator from the
United States, Watco. One of our witnesses, Dr Fred Affleck, was the chair of the SGNR committee. On the
subject of the CBH rolling stock, he said that it has quite fundamentally changed the way in which the business
of grain freight conveyance in Western Australia is conducted. In CBH’s opinion, with its rolling stock, tier 3 is
absolutely viable.
The SGNR document is now really quite outdated, with the assumptions in it having been challenged as outlined.
It is no longer a document on which to base grain freight policy. However, the real crucial change to the original
lease was introduced at this time. Until this time, the lessee had a choice of what to do with third tier rail. It
could be kept fit for purpose, to the standards of the original lease, or, via a complicated process, be returned to
7456
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
government. However, at this time, an amendment was introduced into the lease to allow the lines to be put into
what was called “care and maintenance”. This effectively means that Brookfield does not have to maintain the
lines to an operational standard and it does not have to hand them back, but it can deny their use to anyone else.
This is the origin of the current situation. The committee has concerns that this arrangement may be extended to
other lines in the future.
The Railways (Access) Code 2000, administered by the Economic Regulation Authority, is an attempt to stop
the lessee from abusing monopoly power. Its current use by CBH, being its first in 15 years, would lead to the
conclusion that it is ineffective. The other catch 22 of this situation is that it has been difficult to review an
ineffective process that has never been used. There are many aspects to the code that are complex and difficult to
understand. The code is important because a privately run monopoly cannot be called a “robust, contestable
market”. In the words of Dale Park, of WAFarmers —
when we are looking for efficiencies in an industry, we either have transparency … or you have
competition. One of the problems is that with the grain on rail freight, we have neither.
A way to have a better informed market may be to have a public information board that carried the agreed rates
for contracts.
We have considered two case studies of the code, the first being the Karara mine in the midwest—Western
Australia’s first magnetite mine—and the other being the CBH access proposal. The process is very lengthy, and,
in the case of Karara, there being no being no obligation to upgrade the line by the lessee meant that direct
negotiation was the only way to achieve an adequate line. Karara ended up having to provide some $300 million
in bank guarantees, sign a 15-year take-or-pay contract and accept being excluded from use of the code for the
term of the contract. It is hard to see the Karara experience as being attractive to foreign investors looking to start
a new mine. The management of the lease by the Public Transport Authority was looked at closely. The chosen
model is called “light touch”, whereby the interests of the state and the lessee are well aligned. Light touch may
be adequate in these circumstances, but when these interests are not well-aligned, a heavier touch is probably
required.
Questions arose in several grey areas. There seems to be confusion about where the line exists between capital
investment and maintenance. Rail can be maintained in two ways—regular replacement of sleepers that need
replacing, or cyclic replacement of all of the sleepers in a line. Maintenance has been traditionally funded from
operating revenue, and there has frequently been a call to government for extra funds for cyclical replacement.
However, there does not seem to be an underlying agreement or plan defining the split between the two, and
there appears to be no evidence of a sinking fund for the coming cyclical repairs of a large amount of the track,
of which there will be at least one between now and the end of the lease. In a similar vein, the end of the lease
will need careful management, with a clear financial incentive for the lessee to run down the lines, and a need for
a government asset to be returned in the same condition in which it was originally leased. Similarly, the advent
of care and maintenance to the lease in 2010 has led to the current impasse. However, no definition of this term
and the obligations it imposes on the lessee appear to be available.
In the committee’s visit to the eastern wheatbelt, the impact on the local governments of the eastern wheatbelt of
the closing of the third tier was starkly explained. The damage to a number of councils’ roads is projected to
increase their maintenance bill to in excess of their total revenue capacity. Councils feel that they have not been
listened to for a long time on an issue that will impact on their roads, their finances and their communities.
A situation that has arisen with deregulation is the concentration of grain exports in the first six months of the
year. This will mean that a large proportion of the freight task is being carried at a time when the ground
underneath the roads is wet, increasing greatly the likely damage. The roads in the main in the tier 3 area were
built in the 1950s and 1960s and are, in the opinion of the shires, inadequate for the task and the size of modern
trucks. Most people were of the opinion that “licorice strips” being used to widen the roads were in the main not
durable. Personally, I feel that it is quite likely that the costs of using road instead of rail will be greater.
There are many aspects of the current lease that I think will impede state development. I think the case study of
Karara is instructive. Karara found itself negotiating with a monopoly, and considered the code of no use. The
lessee has no obligation to upgrade lines. There is no public pricing information. Karara largely carries the risk
via a bank guarantee. It has a 15 year take-or-pay contract and it is excluded from the use of the code during
those 15 years. Because the upgrade has been funded by private investment, the performance standards of that
line have not changed.
As I have said, the case for rail is strong and getting stronger. It keeps bulk freight off the roads. In many parts of
the wheatbelt, the roads are old and unsuited to large modern trucks. Rail is now cost competitive. Road safety is
a genuine and serious concern to the people who live in the wheatbelt, and rail saves a large amount of fuel.
Vertical separation is a serious problem. In the opinion of the Productivity Commission, it does not provide
economic efficiency on low-volume lines. Watco—CBH’s partner—runs 29 short-line railways in the
United States. The model relies on the revenue from these railways to cover their maintenance. Such a model
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7457
would work here and would probably result in more grain being transported on Brookfield’s other lines. It seems
a commonsense model—everybody wins.
Some of our final witnesses were a couple of farmers from Gnowangerup. They had heard about the inquiry and
had requested a hearing. Both farm in an area where the lines have closed. We fitted them in on a lunch break on
a day when the house was sitting to give them their chance to be heard. I was particularly struck by the remarks
that one of the farmers, Richard House, made towards the end of the hearing. He said —
We should put the cards on the table and actually solve this problem as a team, as a whole state—
growers, politicians, both sides of the party —
I suspect he meant both sides of the house —
—because it is beyond politics, I believe.
That is an outbreak of commonsense from the bush. I hope that out there in the ether, someone is listening in
Brookfield’s corporate headquarters, be it in Bermuda or Toronto or wherever, and intervenes and sorts out this
situation. As I have said, a win–win outcome is possible and all it will take is people of goodwill to sit around
a table. The report has shown a number of other concerns about the lease and its management, and I look
forward to the government’s and industry’s response and actions to the issues raised.
MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn) [10.21 am]: I will not go into the detail of the report that my colleague and
Chairman of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, the member for Geraldton, has because I think he
has given a fine explanation of it to the house. However, before I talk about the report itself, I would like to
comment on the difficulties faced by the committee in doing its job. I would like to comment on the behaviour of
the Public Transport Authority in continuing to stifle and obstruct access to key documents and its apparent
misunderstanding of the role of Parliament and parliamentary committees, and their primacy. In particular, and
surprisingly, there was the lack of understanding of the director general of Transport, Mr Reece Waldock, who is
a very senior bureaucrat who has been around government for many, many years. I would also like to comment
on the behaviour of the Minister for Transport himself in supporting the role of the Public Transport Authority in
making it difficult for the committee to get access to documents and his refusal to release documents to the
committee. A facade of secrecy was created over access to documents by determining or claiming that such
documents were cabinet-in-confidence even though those documents had not been before cabinet. I also
comment on the antagonistic behaviour of Brookfield Rail, which continually challenged the capacity and the
role of the committee through its lawyers. I also express my genuine surprise at the legal profession here in
Perth, for, again, as with the director general of Transport, its apparent misunderstanding of the role and powers
of Parliament in Western Australia and, in particular, the role and powers of parliamentary committees. All these
issues made it particularly difficult for the staff of the committee to drill down and find specific information vital
to this report. It is not appropriate for committees of the house to continue to subpoena people before committees
in order to get evidence. It is not appropriate for committees to do that, but that was a situation we were left with
on our committee because of the behaviour of the minister, a wide range of public servants and, of course, the
players in the rail freight lease, in particular Brookfield Rail. I raise these things because I believe that the
behaviour shown to our committee by both the public sector and private operators is so disgraceful that it should
itself form the basis of an investigation by the Procedure and Privileges Committee into the behaviour of the
executive government and the bureaucracy in Western Australia and its continuous attempts to undermine the
role of parliamentary committees.
Turning to the report itself, I put on the record that the Western Australian Labor Party opposes privatisation and
here is a classic example of the reasons why. The privatisation of Westrail’s freight network, as it was then, in
2000 is a classic example of how a government should not sell a key monopoly asset. The executive summary
report states —
While Chapter 7 acknowledges that the actions of PTA in some circumstances should be balanced
against the positive outcomes that flowed from the SGNR process, —
This is the point I am coming to —
the current lease arrangements and the management of the lease has allowed sections of the freight rail
network to become a frozen state asset.
That is what we have been left with as a result of what I put to the house is a botched privatisation of a monopoly
state-owned asset. A key infrastructure asset in Western Australia is a frozen asset because it is unable to be
accessed by private companies, even though they want access to use that rail infrastructure. That is the situation
we have been left with and there is nothing the state government can do about it under the 49-year lease that was
signed in 2000. That is the extent of how that privatisation was botched. The tier 3 lines, vital assets in our
state’s booming agricultural industry, particularly the grain freight lines, were closed on 1 July 2014 because of
a number of factors. As we have heard from the chair of the committee, the member for Geraldton, in 2007 the
network was broken into above ground and below ground without the specific contract clauses in the lease being
7458
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
amended to regulate the behaviour of the below-ground operator, Brookfield. Then, in 2010, a reduced standard
on care and maintenance was agreed to, and that was included in the project agreement for capital works on
dedicated narrow gauge. Introducing what is effectively a lower standard for care and maintenance allowed the
below-ground operator to determine such tier 3 lines as uneconomical and unilaterally close them. There was
nothing the state could do about it because of the way in which the lease was framed prior to 2000 and after it
was signed off in 2000. We were left absolutely hamstrung and that is unacceptable in a state such as
Western Australia, where agricultural industry is transforming through technology, new biological practices and
genetics that allow farmers to grow a far greater amount of grain in a lower rainfall environment and therefore to
produce more grain for sale to the international market. The state should not be hamstrung in getting that grain
from where it is grown to port because of a flawed lease that was entered into in 2007. That should not be
allowed to happen, yet that is the situation we are in. Regulation of the lease might have been able to help
farmers had not the regulator, the Public Transport Authority, acted in such a timid way. The lease expected, and
the view of the Public Transport Authority was, a light-touch approach. I can assure members that when they
read the report and see the evidence that has been gained as part of our committee’s work, the Public Transport
Authority certainly exercised a light touch to the management of this lease. As I pointed out, this has led to
a major section of the state’s economic industry—the agriculture industry that is growing and producing more
grain—and the state, particularly as a state government, being unable to manage the transportation of that grain
in an environmentally sustainable way by ensuring that that grain goes on rail. This is an unacceptable situation
for the state of Western Australia.
Other parts of the report go to the behaviour of both the Public Transport Authority and Brookfield Rail and their
relationship with other people in the state. I ask members of the house to consider this report carefully.
MR R.S. LOVE (Moore) [10.31 am]: I, too, would like to make a contribution on the report of the Economics
and Industry Standing Committee inquiry titled “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight Rail
Network”. I start off with some thanks: firstly, to fellow members of the committee, the member for Cockburn,
from whom we just heard; the member for Joondalup, who I think will make a contribution shortly; the member
for Willagee, who is not here today; and most of all to the chair, the member for Geraldton, who has done a very
good job of guiding the committee through this quite lengthy process, and I thank him for his efforts. I would
also like to acknowledge Dr Loraine Abernethie, principal research officer for the committee, and
Michael Burton, research officer; and also the many people who made submissions and participated in hearings
who helped on this matter.
The importance of this subject is twofold. First, it is important to examine the freight rail network, its
management and performance, and how the current arrangements are bringing positive change and helping to
further state development, or, if in fact, they are hampering state development. Second, it is important because it
serves as a case study for further privatisation of state-controlled assets, especially those in the situation of
natural monopoly.
The freight network is important to the ongoing economic strength of the regions it serves and rail is a key
component of that, especially in moving large quantities of bulk product to port from mining and farming areas.
The committee heard evidence and received submissions from the track operator, Brookfield Rail; from its
customers—the state’s grain handler, miners, farmers—road transport operators and local governments in both
the regions and the city, as well as members of the community, again from both regional and city areas. There is
no doubt that a great deal of controversy and community concern has been generated since the development of
the state strategic grain network review, and government investment decisions made subsequent to that review.
This was made clear to the committee when hearings were held, especially in Bruce Rock.
The review categorised rail lines in three categories: tier 1, core viable lines that were carrying heavy volumes;
tier 2, lines that were economically competitive with road but required some investment to be made; and tier 3,
lines that were deemed non-competitive with road transport. Interestingly enough, despite being designated as
highly priced and competitive with road, the SGNR still recommended that $121 million be invested in
tier 1 lines by the public, indicating that even the most heavily trafficked lines still apparently need a level of
government assistance to remain viable. The non-investment in tier 3 lines was to be accompanied by
expenditure on the road network to provide alternative pathways to port. The committee has seen that much of
this work appears to be completed, yet the road network in grain-growing areas remains in a parlous state. In
many areas we see the replacement of a state-funded asset, the rail, with a local government–funded road. In
coming years, this will represent a major cost shift to local communities as outlined in chapter 8 of this report.
The inevitable cost burden in dollar terms this will place on local communities is real and needs to be addressed.
The concern for community safety on the roads is also very real and is very strongly felt by those who gave
evidence. It would appear that all parties, including the PTA, acknowledge that the assumptions that led to the
agreed path that was laid out by the SGNR are now no longer valid, yet without action the situation appears to be
locked in. Of note is the fact that recent government investment in rail may need to be repeated throughout the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7459
life of the lease. This is a circumstance that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later as the future of the
tier 2 Miling–Toodyay line, carrying around 400 000 tonnes of grain per annum, is now in question.
The report points to a number of deficiencies in the public administration of this asset. There appears to exist
a culture of unnecessary secrecy, which has led to a degree of public disquiet about the use of what is a public
good—the state’s southern rail network. This disquiet has built up due to protection of commercial information
of the operator. This in itself is quite a legitimate act and not necessarily wrong; however, there is a broader
public interest that also must be considered, not just the view that in an open and free society, treaties that effect
infrastructure and services owned by the public or are essential to the public are quite rightly of widespread
general interest. Transparency can also help to ensure that the decisions that the regulators make are in the best
interests of the community, not just of the infrastructure service providers. It is in the interests of greater
transparency, while still being mindful of those commercial interests, that the committee has decided to table
today a number of documents, as outlined by the member for Geraldton, the chair, including the original lease
and a redacted version of the capital works agreement that was brought about as a result of investments made
under the government response to the SGNR report.
The sale of a public asset should not just be about realising the best sale price at the time. Although that is quite
an important aim, it must also be the case that government carefully considers the implications of that sale on the
wider community and on the economy of our state. In my view, rather than a simple one-off financial dividend to
the government of the day, bringing private investment to an asset should also aim to increase the efficiency and
cost effectiveness of its operation. Achieving this greater efficiency will not necessarily be achieved simply by
having a private operator. Any business will aim to maximise the returns it can make for its owners, and in the
situation of a monopoly, this can bring obvious dangers. Without careful regulation, including effective price
control, there is less incentive to grow profit through doing the hard yards and hard work and delivering a leaner
and more efficient business; it is much easier to use that natural monopoly to lift prices. The situation becomes
even more dangerous when there is an expectation that the public, the state, will partner in capital expenditure
that needs to be made. Even if members and the public are not particularly interested in the freight rail network,
I recommend they read chapter 3 of this report as an illustration of the importance of careful consideration of the
sale of a state asset that could constitute a natural monopoly; and also chapter 7 as a manual on pitfalls awaiting
regulators expected to manage that monopolistic situation. Perhaps we should not judge the individuals operating
regulatory agencies too harshly when reviewing those decisions made in the past. It is almost inevitable that in
discussions and bargains being made between career public servants and business operators whose next feed,
really, depends on reaching profit targets, the business guy will usually come out on top. We have seen recently,
though, with the coal price situation in Collie that even when the public service has a good result, it sometimes
has to be mitigated to meet the wider interests.
I commend this report to the house and I hope that members find it instructive. If nothing else comes of this
report, I hope it informs us of the need to ensure that the long-term interests of the economy and the wider public
are served as we look to a round of asset privatisation in this state and the nation in the future. I will leave
members with the simple question that is posed, at the very start of the report, by the chair of the
Nobel Economic Sciences Prize Committee, Tore Ellingsen. He asks: what sort of regulations do we want to put
in place so large and mighty firms will act in society’s interests?
MR J. NORBERGER (Joondalup) [10.40 am]: I would like to briefly take this opportunity to add my
comments on the tabling of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee’s report, “The Management of
Western Australia’s Freight Rail Network”. I certainly acknowledge the contributions that have already been
made by my fellow committee members. I will start by thanking the committee members. I truly enjoy being part
of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee. I think we work very well together. I acknowledge our
chair, the member for Geraldton, Mr Ian Blayney; the deputy chair, the member for Cockburn, Hon Fran Logan;
the member for Willagee, Mr Peter Tinley; and the member for Moore, Mr Shane Love, whom we have just
heard from. Obviously, we would not get too far without our wonderful secretariat, Dr Loraine Abernethie, our
principal research officer, and Mr Michael Burton, who do a fantastic job of supporting us.
This report has been highly interesting. It has obviously been very topical in relation to what is happening in the
community at the moment. It was surprisingly complicated. From the outset, I did not think it would be as
difficult an inquiry as it turned out to be. I think the chair indicated that in his time in this place—he has been
here a lot longer than I—it is probably one of the most difficult inquiries that have been undertaken. I look
forward to getting some credits towards a law degree after having finished this inquiry!
A couple of other members went into a little more detail on the point that not all the stakeholders were as
supportive as they could have been, and that is quite disappointing. I will leave it at that. I think members and the
members of the public who read the report will be able to ascertain what we mean by that.
The key aspect of the committee’s inquiry was to report on whether the current lease arrangements and the
management of the Western Australian freight rail network either facilitate or hamper state development. That
7460
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
was the key aspect of what we wanted to find out. According to many witnesses we heard from, the answer
clearly is that state development is being hindered. They pointed to evidence such as the fact that lines have been
placed into care and maintenance; more trucks are now on our country roads; access agreements are stuck in
arbitration; a lack of transparency exists; access seekers are up against a monopolistic service provider; and the
Economic Regulation Authority has extremely limited powers to assist the situation.
Beyond that, to truly evaluate whether the current lease has been a success requires us to determine what the
original intentions were. I will draw from some of the information in the report in and around that. It was quite
clear that the decision to sell Westrail’s freight business and lease the freight rail network was intended to realise
a number of benefits to the government and the wider community. The anticipated benefits of selling the freight
businesses included the introduction of an efficient, innovative specialist private rail operator committed to the
sustainability of rail transport in a competitive market and willing to make the necessary investments to improve
rail’s market share; and a renewed stimulus to increase freight tonnage on rail, have better services and,
importantly, decrease freight rates and increase investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock. Another
ambition was to reduce the community costs, such as the environmental costs of greater fuel use and the resultant
pollution, higher road maintenance costs and the social costs of road congestion and road crashes. There was also
the potential for rail to capture as much as possible of the forecast greatly increased bulk freight demand over the
coming decade and so avoid a massive increase in heavy truck traffic, and the potential to capture or recapture
freight from road transport. Those were the ambitions that the government of the day wanted to achieve from the
sale of the above-rail assets and the lease of the below-rail assets.
The decision to lease the below-rail business, as opposed to selling it, and, more importantly, the decision to
lease the below-rail business to the purchaser of the freight business, thereby creating a vertically integrated
operation, was to allow for maximum economies of scope and sale; maximum responsiveness to customers’
needs and new opportunities; integrated above and below-rail investment; capital investment in the infrastructure
greater than government can provide; and the minimisation of costs on low-volume routes. We have already
heard from the chair and the member for Cockburn how important this vertical integration was to the original
model and ideal of the sale and lease of this freight business. In fact, to achieve the aim that I have just pointed
out, the vertically integrated model was an absolutely key aspect. That is evidenced within the lease document.
Recital E of the lease document states, amongst other things, that the objectives of the agreement include
disposing of the freight business on a vertically integrated basis and ensuring that a person using or occupying
that part of the network comprising standard-gauge track has a financial or legal interest in the continued
maintenance and operation of the narrow-gauge track.
Indeed, vertical integration was also raised during the second reading speech of Hon Hendy Cowan, MLA, for
the Rail Freight System Bill 1999, in which he acknowledged that some people had been pressing for vertical
separation of Westrail into a track owner and a train operator. Nevertheless, the clear advice to the government
was that this would lead to a loss of efficiency to the detriment of users, the economy and, ultimately, the state as
a whole. Mr Cowan also referred to the Productivity Commission draft report on the inquiry into progress in rail
reform, which concluded that vertical separation was unlikely to deliver any significant competitive gains for
low-volume regional railways and, far from improving the performance of low-volume regional railways,
vertical separation may actually impair it.
An interesting thing happened in 2006. The Australian Railroad Group, which was trading as WestNet Rail, was
sold. The above-rail component of the original sale went to one entity, Queensland Rail, which is now Aurizon,
and the lease for the below-rail entity was sold to a separate entity, which is now Brookfield Rail. This
separation of the vertically integrated model has been significant and it has had a significant impact on why we
find ourselves where we are today. Most disconcerting of all was that there was a clause in the original lease that
would have given the government of the day a veto right, if you like, or the ability to have a say in whether that
was allowed to go ahead. Interestingly enough, that clause was negotiated out of the original lease, which meant
that the government did not even need to be consulted. Although vertical integration was seen from the outset as
quite critical in attaining the various benefits that we wanted to attain for the government, the state and the
economy—it was mentioned in the second reading speech, the lease document and the documentation leading up
to the sale—the very clause that would have given us the protection of maintaining that vertical integration was
negotiated out.
The loss of vertical integration was significant and was no doubt a key reason why we have line closures today.
The loss of vertical integration made it significantly easier to achieve the non-economic test, which Brookfield
Rail needs to meet to prove that certain lines are non-economical for it to either surrender them or, through later
changes, put them into care and maintenance. That said, many other issues that are addressed in the report
contribute to the current situation, including a lack of transparency, a lack of meaningful powers for the ERA,
a lack of meaningful step-in rights for the government, and the management style of the Public Transport
Authority over the lease. As such, there are many lessons to be learnt and, although I am a supporter of sensible
privatisation initiatives, especially when such activities can facilitate either renewed infrastructure projects or the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7461
containment of debt, this report highlights how extremely carefully such contracts need to be constructed to
ensure that the public good and the ability of the government of the day to maintain meaningful influence are not
entirely lost, especially when dealing in a monopolistic setting, as is the case with our rail freight network.
I thank the committee for its work on the report. It is a heavy read, but certainly I commend the report to the
house. There are some very meaningful lessons to be learnt from this exercise; and, not only are there lessons to
be learnt, but also opportunities to be grasped as we move forward to ensure that the rail network, our public
asset, is used to the most optimum effect for the benefit of our economy.
STATE FOREST 56
Partial Revocation of Dedication — Motion
MR A.P. JACOB (Ocean Reef — Minister for Environment) [10.51 am]: I move —
That the proposal for the partial revocation of state forest 56, laid on the table of the Legislative
Assembly on Wednesday, 15 October 2014, by command of His Excellency the Administrator, be
carried out.
The state forest revocation proposal that has just been tabled relates to the proposed Margaret River Perimeter
Road, or town bypass, and requires the excision of a portion of state forest 56. The area proposed for excision
totals 24.49 hectares and is located north of Margaret River.
Main Roads Western Australia proposes to construct a new road east around the Margaret River town site. This
road, currently known as the Margaret River Perimeter Road, is anticipated to remove heavy vehicle traffic from
the main street of Margaret River and provide an alternative route for those travelling through Margaret River. In
November 2013, 10.6 per cent of traffic through Margaret River was considered heavy vehicle traffic, which
equates to approximately 400 heavy vehicles each day travelling through the centre of Margaret River during the
beginning of the peak tourist season. It is expected that the proposed road will reduce congestion and enhance
safety for pedestrians, tourists and local traffic in Margaret River.
To facilitate the proposed construction, Main Roads has requested the excision of 24.49 hectares from state
forest 56. The proposed excision will result in the clearing of native vegetation and part of the Margaret River
pine planation. The native vegetation affected by the proposal was identified as primarily jarrah and marri forest,
with endemic understory species. Main Roads has commissioned an environmental impact assessment, which
has been reviewed and endorsed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Conservation Commission of
Western Australia, the vesting body for state forests. As a condition of the Conservation Commission’s
endorsement and prior to commencement, Main Roads was required to develop a detailed construction and
environmental management plan in consultation with the Department of Parks and Wildlife. This has been
completed.
Main Roads has been working with the Department of Environmental Regulation to provide an environmental
offset for the clearing of native vegetation associated with this proposal and other road proposals in the south
west. The proposed offset will be purchased on a like-for-like basis and have similar conservation values and
size to the areas proposed for clearing. Main Roads is also compensating the Forest Products Commission for the
early harvesting of the pines in the Margaret River pine plantation. The compensation ensures that the
Forest Products Commission will not be financially disadvantaged by the early harvesting of a portion of the
Margaret Pine Planation.
This proposal has the support of the Forest Products Commission, the Department of Lands and the Shire of
Augusta–Margaret River. It has also been endorsed by the Conservation Commission. I recommend this
revocation proposal to the house and ask members to support it.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [10.53 am]: I take the opportunity to rise and offer the opposition’s support
for this revocation. Let me begin by thanking the Minister for Environment’s staff for providing us with
a comprehensive briefing about what is involved with the revocation. I acknowledge that this particular
reduction in the area of the conservation estate will be met to some extent by the implementation of
environmental offsets. However, I take this opportunity to tell the minister that we need greater clarity about the
value of such offsets given that there will still be a net reduction in the area of the conservation estate and a net
reduction in the area of native vegetation. That is a concern, not especially in this case because, in fact, the vast
bulk of this particular offset involves a pine plantation area. The issue is about compensating the Forest Products
Commission for the early harvest of pine trees which, had they been allowed to stay in position for an extended
period, would have meant greater profitability for the Forest Products Commission. That is a minor concern, but
the broader issue is about the quality of environmental offsets. The fact that an organisation acquires land as an
offset is not much of an offset. Yes, it might provide for greater security of tenure, but it does not get away from
the fact that there is still a net loss of overall native vegetation area. The minister will have to tackle that problem
for other revocations.
7462
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
The issue of vestings comes up with this particular proposal. When I looked at the land surrounding the
revocation area, I noted that a number of areas are covered by management orders, which were previously
known as vestings, when the land was vested with the local government, which is along the Margaret River area
and adjacent to the proposed area. We acknowledge that this road upgrade is important and that it has been
planned for some time. The actual area of Bramley National Park that will be lost is relatively small and
represents a realignment of certain areas. We accept that, but I put it to the minister that when he is presented
with further revocations, he needs to ask a bit more about the nature of the offsets involved. It is not a major
issue for this particular case, but in other circumstances it could well be. I am very happy to support this
revocation.
Question put and passed; and, on motion by Mr A.P. Jacob (Minister for Environment), the Council
acquainted accordingly.
MENTAL HEALTH BILL 2013
Council’s Amendments — Consideration in Detail
The following amendments made by the Council now considered —
No. 1
Clause 4, page 4, lines 16 and 17 — To delete “mental health practitioner;” and insert —
other health professional;
No. 2
Clause 4, page 5, after line 26 — To insert —
health professional means —
(a) a medical practitioner; or
(b) a nurse; or
(c) an occupational therapist; or
(d) a psychologist; or
(e) a social worker; or
(f) in relation to a person who is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent —
(i) a health professional listed in paragraphs (a) to (e); or
(ii) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander mental health worker;
No. 3
Clause 4, page 6, lines 7 to 11 — To delete the lines and insert —
involuntary patient has the meaning given in section 21(1);
involuntary treatment order has the meaning given in section 21(2);
No. 4
Clause 20, page 20, line 22 — To delete “medical practitioner or other”.
No. 5
Clause 28, page 25, line 30 — To delete “referral” and insert —
order
No. 6
Clause 28, page 25, line 31 — To delete “, because of the person’s mental or physical condition,”.
No. 7
Clause 28, page 26, lines 19 and 20 — To delete “, because of the person’s mental or physical
condition,”.
No. 8
Clause 28, page 27, lines 10 and 11 — To delete “the person’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the person with treatment
No. 9
Clause 29, page 28, line 6 — To delete “because of the person’s mental or physical condition,”.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7463
No. 10
Clause 34, page 32, line 7 — To delete “the inpatient’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the inpatient with treatment
No. 11
Clause 48, page 40, lines 2 to 14 — To delete the lines.
No. 12
Clause 48, page 41, line 1 — To delete “prescribed”.
No. 13
Clause 52, page 42, line 21 — To delete “the person’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the person with treatment
No. 14
Clause 53, page 43, line 17 — To delete “the person’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the person with treatment
No. 15
Clause 58, page 47, line 9 — To delete “the person’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the person with treatment
No. 16
Clause 59, page 48, line 20 — To delete “the person’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the person with treatment
No. 17
Clause 62, page 50, lines 24 and 25 — To delete “, because of the person’s mental or physical
condition,”.
No. 18
Clause 62, page 51, lines 6 and 7 — To delete “, because of the person’s mental or physical condition,”.
No. 19
Clause 62, page 51, line 25 — To delete “the person’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the person with treatment
No. 20
Clause 63, page 52, line 16 — To delete “because of the person’s mental or physical condition,”.
No. 21
Clause 70, page 56, line 14 — To delete “the person’s psychiatrist” and insert —
a health professional who is currently providing the person with treatment
No. 22
Clause 79, page 60, lines 17 to 29 — To delete the lines.
No. 23
Clause 79, page 61, line 14 — To delete “prescribed”.
No. 24
Clause 126, page 95, lines 22 to 28 — To delete the lines and insert —
(c) the supervising psychiatrist reasonably believes that, despite the steps that have been taken, the
non-compliance is continuing and that, if the non-compliance continues, there is —
(i) a significant risk to the health or safety of the involuntary community patient or to the
safety of another person; or
(ii) a significant risk of serious harm to the involuntary community patient or to another
person; or
7464
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
(iii) a significant risk of the involuntary community patient suffering serious physical or
mental deterioration.
No. 25
Clause 129, page 98, after line 4 — To insert —
(5) The making of a transport order under subsection (2) is an event to which Part 9 applies and
the practitioner who makes the order is the person responsible under that Part for notification
of that event.
No. 26
Clause 133, page 102, lines 3 and 4 — To delete “because of the involuntary community patient’s
mental or physical condition,”
No. 27
Clause 139, page 104, lines 21 and 22 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member”
and insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 28
Clause 140, page 105, line 4 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 29
Clause 140, page 105, line 5 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 30
Clause 142, page 106, line 2 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 31
Clause 142, page 106, line 9 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 32
Clause 142, page 106, line 11 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 33
Clause 142, page 106, line 15 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 34
Clause 142, page 106, line 18 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 35
Clause 143, page 106, line 29 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 36
Clause 143, page 106, lines 30 and 31 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member”
and insert —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7465
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 37
Clause 143, page 106, lines 33 and 34 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member”
and insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 38
Clause 143, page 107, line 3 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 39
Clause 144, page 107, lines 17 and 18 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member”
and insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 40
Clause 144, page 107, line 23 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 41
Clause 144, page 107, line 26 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member” and
insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 42
Clause 144, page 107, lines 28 and 29 — To delete “nominated person, carer or close family member”
and insert —
carer, close family member or other personal support person
No. 43
Clause 212, page 155, after line 9 — To insert —
(2) A person is not secluded merely because the person is alone in a room or area that the person is
unable to leave because of frailty, illness or mental or physical disability.
No. 44
Clause 227, page 165, after line 17 — To insert —
(2A)
A person is not being physically restrained merely because the person is being provided
with the physical support or assistance reasonably necessary —
(a) to enable the person to carry out daily living activities; or
(b) to redirect the person because the person is disoriented.
No. 45
Clause 241, page 178, lines 16 to 20 — To delete the lines and insert —
(2) The person in charge of the hospital must ensure that a medical practitioner physically attends
on the person, for the purpose of examining the person to assess the person’s physical
condition, as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 12 hours after the time when the
person is admitted or received, and at reasonable intervals after that initial attendance, until the
first of these things occurs —
(a) the person is examined by a medical practitioner;
(b) if the person is a voluntary inpatient —
(i) the person refuses to consent to being examined by a medical practitioner; or
(ii) if the person does not have the capacity to consent to being examined by a medical
practitioner — the person who is authorised by law to consent to the provision of
7466
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
treatment to the person refuses to consent to the person being examined by a medical
practitioner;
(c) the person is released or discharged by or otherwise leaves the hospital.
No. 46
Clause 241, page 178, lines 21 to 23 — To delete the lines and insert —
(3) For the purpose of assessing under this section the physical condition of a person referred to in
subsection (1)(a)(ii) or (iii) or (b), these things may be done without consent —
No. 47
Clause 241, page 178, lines 27 and 28 — To delete “purposes of subsection (2)” and insert —
purpose of assessing under this section the person’s physical condition
No. 48
Clause 248, page 183, line 25 — To delete “that” and insert —
that, as soon as practicable after the refusal,
No. 49
Clause 253, page 185, line 24 — To delete “$15 000” and insert —
$24 000
No. 50
Clause 254, page 186, before line 1 — To insert —
(b) unlawful sexual contact with the person by a person who is not a staff member of a mental
health service that occurs at a hospital; or
No. 51
Clause 305, page 218, after line 2 — To insert —
(iii) the carrying out of medical or epidemiological research relating to mental illness;
No. 52
Clause 305, page 218, after line 10 — To insert —
provide, in relation to a mental health service, includes to carry out;
No. 53
Clause 317, page 226, line 22 — To delete “who is” and insert —
and is
No. 54
Clause 317, page 226, after line 24 — To insert —
(e) a person who is being paid through a funding arrangement with government to provide free
advocacy services and is representing a person who has, or may have, a mental illness or
a carer of a person who has, or may have, a mental illness.
No. 55
Clause 320, page 228, line 18 — To insert after “by” —
delaying,
No. 56
Clause 328, page 234, lines 13 and 14 — To delete the lines.
No. 57
Clause 337, page 243, line 29 — To delete the line and insert —
so many of those people as the Director considers appropriate.
No. 58
Clause 360, page 262, line 29 — To delete “section 249(1)(a).” and insert —
section 249(1)(a) or (b) or (3).
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7467
No. 59
Clause 360, page 263, lines 4 and 5 — To delete “section 249(1)(a); and” and insert —
section 249(1)(a) or (b) or (3), as the case requires; and
No. 60
Clause 361, page 263, line 19 — To delete “section 249(1)(a); and” and insert —
section 249(1)(a) or (b) or (3); and
No. 61
Clause 393, page 282, lines 19 to 22 — To delete the lines and insert —
(b) if the proceeding relates to an application made under section 390 and the applicant is not the
involuntary patient — the applicant; and
No. 62
Clause 397, page 284, line 27 — To delete “order) —” and insert —
order) that is or was in force —
No. 63
Clause 398, page 285, line 5 — To delete “section 400” and insert —
section 400(1)
No. 64
Clause 398, page 285, line 6 — To insert after “order is” —
or was
No. 65
Clause 400, page 286, line 24 — To delete “patient;” and insert —
patient or the person who was the subject of the treatment order;
No. 66
Clause 400, page 286, line 27 — To delete “patient;” and insert —
patient or of the person who was the subject of the treatment order;
No. 67
Clause 400, page 286, after line 30 — To insert —
(2) An application cannot be made under section 398(1) in respect of a treatment order that ceased
to be in force more than 6 months ago unless, in the Tribunal’s opinion, the applicant shows
good reason for the delay.
No. 68
New Clause 400A, page 286, after line 30 — To insert —
400A.
Parties to proceeding
The parties to a proceeding under this Division are —
(a) the involuntary patient or the person who was the subject of the treatment order; and
(b) if the proceeding relates to an application made under section 398(1) and the applicant
is not the involuntary patient or the person who was the subject of the treatment
order — the applicant.
No. 69
Clause 401, page 287, line 3 — To insert after “to be” —
or to have been
No. 70
Clause 401, page 287, line 4 — To insert after “order is” —
or was
No. 71
Clause 401, page 287, line 5 — To insert after “been” —
or was
7468
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
No. 72
Clause 401, page 287, line 14 — To insert after “been” —
or were
No. 73
New Clause 401A, page 287, after line 15 — To insert —
401A.
Discretion not to decide on validity of treatment order no longer in force
(1) In this section —
question of law includes a question of mixed fact and law.
(2) The Tribunal is not required to decide whether a treatment order that was in force was
valid or invalid, but may do so if satisfied that the matter raises —
(a) a question of law; or
(b) a matter of public interest.
No. 74
Clause 404, page 288, lines 14 to 16 — To delete the lines and insert —
(b) if the applicant is not the long-term voluntary inpatient — the applicant; and
No. 75
Clause 409, page 290, line 31 — To delete the line and insert —
(b) the applicant; and
No. 76
Clause 416, page 294, line 9 — To delete the line and insert —
(b) the applicant; and
No. 77
Clause 420, page 296, after line 5 — To insert —
(c) to ensure that a treatment, support and discharge plan for a patient is prepared, reviewed or
revised;
No. 78
Clause 426, page 298, lines 26 and 27 — To delete the lines.
No. 79
Clause 431, page 300, lines 16 to 18 — To delete the lines and insert —
(b) if the applicant is not the person who made the nomination — the applicant; and
No. 80
Clause 433, page 301, lines 10 and 11 — To delete the lines and insert —
(b) if the applicant is not the person whose rights it is alleged are affected — the applicant; and
No. 81
Clause 444, page 303, line 28 — To delete “section 447(1)(a) or (b)” and insert —
section 447(1)(aa) or (b)
No. 82
Clause 444, page 304, line 5 — To delete “section 447(1)(a) or (b)” and insert —
section 447(1)(aa) or (b)
No. 83
Clause 445, page 305, line 13 — To delete “section 447(1)(a) or (b)” and insert —
section 447(1)(aa) or (b)
No. 84
Clause 445, page 305, line 18 — To delete “section 447(1)(a) or (b)” and insert —
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7469
section 447(1)(aa) or (b)
No. 85
Clause 447, page 307, lines 4 and 5 — To delete the lines and insert —
(a) may appear in person; or
(aa) may be represented by any of these people —
(i) a legal practitioner;
(ii) a mental health advocate;
(iii) any person who, in the Tribunal’s opinion, is willing and able to represent the adult’s
interests;
or
No. 86
Clause 447, page 307, line 6 — To delete “another person” and insert —
a person listed in paragraph (aa)
No. 87
Clause 447, page 307, line 9 — To delete “may” and insert —
must in the case of the party who is the person concerned in the proceeding, and may in the case of
any other party,
No. 88
Clause 448, page 307, lines 28 to 30 — To delete the lines and insert —
(iii) the child’s parent or guardian;
No. 89
Clause 448, page 308, line 4 — To delete “another person” and insert —
a person listed in paragraph (b)
No. 90
Clause 448, page 308, line 7 — To delete “may” and insert —
must in the case of the party who is the person concerned in the proceeding, and may in the case of
any other party,
No. 91
Clause 449, page 308, lines 25 to 27 — To delete the lines and insert —
(c) the child’s parent or guardian;
No. 92
Clause 450, page 309, line 5 — To delete “at a hearing” and insert —
in a proceeding
No. 93
Clause 454, page 311, after line 15 — To insert —
(3A)
The Tribunal must make arrangements for the person concerned in a proceeding to be
represented at a hearing or a part of a hearing if —
(a) the person concerned is excluded by an order made under subsection (2)(b) from the
hearing or part of the hearing and is appearing in person in the proceeding; or
(b) the person concerned’s representative in the proceeding is excluded by an order made
under subsection (2)(b) from the hearing or part of the hearing.
No. 94
Clause 454, page 311, line 16 — To delete the line.
No. 95
Clause 456, page 312, line 3 — To insert after “person” (2nd occurrence) —
chosen
7470
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
No. 96
Clause 518, page 346, after line 20 — To insert —
(4A)
The Chief Psychiatrist cannot give the psychiatrist a direction under subsection (4)(b) to
provide the patient with specified treatment unless the Chief Psychiatrist gives the
psychiatrist a reasonable opportunity to withdraw from being the patient’s psychiatrist.
No. 97
Clause 575, page 381, line 26 — To delete “332(7),” and insert —
332(7) and (8),
No. 98
Clause 582, page 387, line 12 — To insert after “charge” —
in good faith
No. 99
Clause 582, page 387, line 22 — To delete “section 227(2) and (3),” and insert —
section 227(2) to (6),
No. 100
Schedule 2, page 393, in the Table, after row 10 — To insert —
s. 129(5)
The making of a transport
order under s. 129(2)
The practitioner who makes the
order
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 1 made by the Council be agreed to.
I inform the chamber that I will seek leave to deal with a number of amendments en bloc, obviously with the
opposition’s agreeance, so that we can proceed slightly more quickly.
The reason for amendment 1, which is to clause 4, is that the definition of a “community health service” as it
stands will result in additional practitioners unintentionally being brought within the scope of the bill—for
example, registered nurses, occupational therapists and social workers—including those who have not had three
years’ experience in the management of people with a mental illness. The amendment agreed to by the Council
replaces the words “mental health practitioner” with “other health professional”.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The parliamentary secretary has just explained the reasons for the proposed amendment to
clause 4. My understanding is that the amendment is trying to restrict those who are covered by the
Mental Health Bill. The definition of “health professional” is dealt with under the second amendment, yet at
clause 536, on page 356 of the bill—I am seeking an explanation—there is a definition of “mental health
practitioner”. The definition at clause 4 of “community mental health service” states “private practice of
a medical practitioner or mental health practitioner”. Clause 536 has the definition of a “mental health
practitioner”, which includes occupational therapists and social workers and which are included in the definitions
we will discuss in the next amendment that deals with health professionals. Is it possible that there will be some
confusion because the current amendment deletes the term “mental health practitioner” and inserts “other health
professional”? Then if we go to the definition of “health professional”, we see that the definition of “mental
health professional” includes social workers and psychologists, which are also included under the definition of
“health professional”. I am concerned about possible confusion.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: There is still a place for mental health practitioners in the bill. We have taken “mental
health practitioner” out of the definition of “community mental health service”, but there is still a place in the bill
for mental health practitioners who have had the three years’ experience in the field.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I understand that, but there is an overlap between the definition of “other health professional”
and “mental health practitioner”. The definition under clause 536, at page 356 of the bill, includes, as I stated,
psychologists, social workers and nurses, but there is a different definition for “nurse”. Social workers and
psychologists come under the definition of “mental health professional”, although I note that the parliamentary
secretary has said “with at least three years’ experience”. “Health professional” refers to social workers and
psychologists; it does not state “three years’ experience”, but, of course, it includes a person with three years’
experience. Are we saying, therefore, that social workers and psychologists under the definition of “health
professional”, which we will be moving on to shortly, are only social workers and psychologists who do not
have three years’ experience; and, if they have three years’ experience, do they become mental health
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7471
practitioners? To be a mental health practitioner, if a person is a psychologist or a social worker—I presume
even a nurse—do they need to have three years’ experience? If a person does not have three years’ experience,
are they just a health professional?
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: The amendment is limited only to the definition of “community mental health service”.
Health professionals have a place in the bill, and certainly a role in the bill, but the part the member is referring
to is not linked to the definition of a mental health service.
Dr A.D. BUTI: That may be the case, but the next amendment provides the definition of “health professional”.
Then clause 536 has a definition of “mental health practitioner”. The bill does not provide a delimitation on
whether a social worker, a psychologist or, arguably, a nurse, is a health professional or a mental health
practitioner. Is the delimitation the fact that they need three years’ experience? If so, that is not prescribed under
the definition of “health professional”. The definition of “health professional” stands as a definition outside
“community mental health service”, because it will be on page 5 if we pass the next amendment. The point is
that there is an overlap between a psychologist and a social worker and, arguably, a nurse who is also a health
professional or a mental health practitioner, but we do not know whether there is a difference between their
being a health professional vis-a-vis their being a mental health practitioner, regardless of whether it is for
a community mental health service.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: The bill sets out a different role for a health professional, and also the role of a mental
health practitioner. A mental health practitioner has a higher threshold—that three years’ experience—and that is
an important differentiation between the two.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Therefore, is the bill stating that a psychologist, social worker or nurse without three years’
experience in the field is only a health professional?
Ms A.R. Mitchell: That is correct, member.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 2 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 3 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 4 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 5 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 6 and 7 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: My concern relating to the amendments moved will come up in a number of places in this bill.
Amendment 6 states —
Clause 28, page 25, line 31 — To delete “, because of the person’s mental or physical condition,”.
Clause 28(1) states —
A medical practitioner or authorised mental health practitioner may make an order authorising the
person’s detention for up to 24 hours from the time when the referral is made if satisfied that, because
of the person’s mental or physical condition …
If we delete “because of the person’s mental or physical condition”, which the amendment seeks to do, I assume
a person can be detained for whatever reason. For what reason is a person being detained if we remove “because
of the person’s mental or physical condition”?
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I think the member would recall that during the debate he had some concern about
“physical condition” being one of the things that people could be assessed on. The important thing to note with
7472
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
this clause is that it relates to a person being detained. It is also about the transport order. The clause relates to
a number of areas.
The amendment made by the Council involves deleting “because of the person’s mental or physical condition”.
The rationale for that removal is that the person’s condition is comprehensively and more appropriately dealt
with by the referral process. The detention powers under clause 28 apply only in relation to referred persons.
That referral process is the key area at the moment.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The parliamentary secretary has a very good memory; we had quite a lengthy discussion about
the inclusion of a person’s physical condition. I do not think the Council has offered an appropriate solution. In
order to remove that error, we have created a problem in that we will remove the words relating to a person’s
mental condition, which is what the bill is all about.
The parliamentary secretary may say that we are referring to an order as a result of a referral, but we are looking
at detention in this clause. Other clauses relate to transfer orders. Surely, that has to have a yardstick to it, which
is the mental condition of the person. As the amendment currently stands, we will remove any conditional
characteristic. There may have been a conditional characteristic to the initial referral or order but it does not need
to be maintained in order for the detention to be maintained. There was a problem connecting mental and
physical conditions. The easy solution would have been to remove “physical condition” and ensure that “mental
condition” was retained. After all, this is the Mental Health Bill.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I have quite a detailed note here, which is about that referral process. I emphasise that
the referral process requires an assessment by a medical practitioner or an authorised mental health practitioner.
That referral can be made only if the practitioner who carried out the assessment has a reasonable suspicion that
the person is in need of an involuntary treatment order. That is the key part. The criteria include, among other
things, that the person has a mental illness that is in need of treatment. The mental component of that assessment
is still very strong. I do not think the member needs to fear that. The purpose of the detention and transport
powers is to facilitate examination of a referred person by a psychiatrist, and that is to merely give effect to the
referral. A simple example of where these powers may need to be exercised is when a person who is at serious
risk of deliberate self-harm is unwilling to present for examination of their own volition. If at any time a medical
practitioner or authorised medical health practitioner suspects that a person no longer meets the involuntary
treatment criteria, the appropriate course of action is to consider revoking the referral. If the referral is revoked
while the person is detained, the person must be released.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 8 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 9 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I assume that the explanation given in response to the concern I had with amendment 6 to
clause 28 will be the same with this clause.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: Yes, that is the case.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 10 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I think that is an incredibly sensible amendment.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 11 and 12 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: These amendments that the parliamentary secretary has moved delete the definition of
“prescribed health professional”. I presume that is why the government is seeking to delete the word
“prescribed” in clause 48, page 41, line 1.
Ms A.R. Mitchell: That is correct, member.
Dr A.D. BUTI: What effect does removing the word “prescribed” have? We have a definition of “health
professional”. Why is the government seeking to remove the word “prescribed”?
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: We can now just rely on the new definition of “mental health”.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7473
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 13 to 16 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 17 and 18 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Not so long ago we debated the removal of the reference to a person’s mental and physical
condition. Now we are talking about an amendment to clause 62, “Detention to enable person to be taken to
hospital”. It is all part of that process of involuntary detention, transportation et cetera. I understand the
explanation the parliamentary secretary gave, which has some logic to it. As I thought about it in the past few
minutes, I am really concerned that we have sought to remove “mental condition”. As we always said, “physical
condition” was silly and should never have been included in the clause.
I have heard the parliamentary secretary’s explanation, but it really does not have a legislative mandate.
The parliamentary secretary is saying this is the reason we have removed it, but it is not preventing someone
being held for a reason other than their mental condition. That is a concern I have, because surely, as we know
from clause 10 of the bill, we seek to ensure that liberties and freedoms are not impinged on if possible.
Removing this mandated requirement of mental condition, I think, creates a legislative loophole that will allow
an authorised mental health practitioner to detain someone for up to 24 hours, even if their mental condition
improves but the authorised mental health practitioner believes that the person should still be detained. It is fine
to hear the explanation for the amendment, but that explanation does not have a legislative mandatory reflection
in respect of the amendment that the parliamentary secretary is seeking to move in amendments 17 and 18 on the
notice paper.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: Member, clause 62 applies to a person who is subject to an order made by a psychiatrist
on the basis of involuntary treatment criteria, so I think the member does not need to fear that or have concerns.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I am not actually comforted by the reassurance, parliamentary secretary. If the parliamentary
secretary or the minister says X, Y or Z will happen, but there is no legislative mandatory provision for it, we are
just relying on the goodwill and professionalism of the mental health fraternity to ensure that X, Y or Z does
happen. As we know, there is a long history of X, Y or Z not happening, but I do not think I can take that matter
any further.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 19 to 21 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 22 and 23 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 24 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: In regard to amendment 24 that the parliamentary secretary has moved, can the parliamentary
secretary explain the actual change and the effect it will have? How is it different from what is in the bill before
us? I am not 100 per cent sure.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: Clause 126 sets out the circumstances in which a patient with a community treatment
order would be in breach of that order. Under the current drafting, the community treatment order breach process
is available only if there is a significant risk of serious deterioration. It is not available in response to the other
types of risk specified in the clause 25 criteria for an involuntary treatment order. The CTO breach process is
a less restrictive option than making an inpatient treatment order. As such, this should be available as an option
even if the person technically meets the criteria for an inpatient treatment order. The amendment to clause 126
agreed to by the Council would achieve this outcome.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 25 made by the Council be agreed to.
7474
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 26 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I will not go into a repetition of the discussion, but I again express concerns that we are
removing the mandatory requirement in respect to mental or physical condition.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 27 to 42 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I think this is a good series of amendments, although I note that we are deleting “nominated
person” as a result of the amendments. As defined under clause 4, “nominated person” means a person
nominated under section 273(1). Clause 273(1) states —
A person, including a child, may nominate another person to be the person’s nominated person.
That is as clear as mud, but anyway! I think it is great that the government has now included “or other personal
support person”. However, what effect will the removal of “nominated person” have? Is the parliamentary
secretary saying that that is basically the same thing as “other personal support person”? I ask for clarification,
really.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I can assure the member that we are not deleting “nominated person”. The personal
support persons include the nominated persons, as demonstrated in clauses 4 and 7.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The definition of “nominated person” is not being deleted, because it remains in clauses 4 and
273, but the government is deleting it from the amendments that it has moved en bloc.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I refer the member to “personal support person” on page 8 of the bill. That covers the
concern of the member.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I am not complaining about having “personal support person” in the bill—I think that is a good
idea—but that is not the same as a nominated person, though, is it? “Nominated person” is defined, as is
“personal support person”, and they are different. I am glad that the government has included —
Ms A.R. Mitchell: But, member, it does include it.
Dr A.D. BUTI: It does include what? Does the definition of “personal support person” include a nominated
person?
Ms A.R. Mitchell: Yes.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Let us see whether that is the case. Yes; I thank the parliamentary secretary very much.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 43 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: As a result of this amendment, a new paragraph will be added to clause 212, as follows —
(2) A person is not secluded merely because the person is alone in a room or area that the person is
unable to leave because of frailty, illness or mental or physical disability.
I can understand what this amendment seeks to do, but I have a major concern with it. The current clause 212
states —
Seclusion is the confinement of a person who is being provided with treatment or care at an authorised
hospital by leaving the person at any time of the day or night alone in a room or area from which it is
not within the person’s control to leave.
That is fine; it would be a common definition of seclusion. However, this proposed amendment states that just
because a person has been left in a room and is unable to leave that room because of the physical or mental
disability, it does not mean that person is secluded. I think it does. If a person is unable to leave the room
because of a mental disability, they should be assisted to leave the room. This is just a backhanded way to
increase the power to require people to be secluded. That is an incredibly dangerous road for us to be going
down. If a person is unable to leave a room because of disability, illness or fragility, there should be a carer to
allow them to exit the room. This is an incredibly dangerous amendment to be allowed to pass this Parliament.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: The member has raised an important issue and, if he does not mind, I will give quite
a detailed explanation of the amendment within my time. One of the aims of the bill was to remove uncertainty
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7475
for clinicians and patients where there is some uncertainty in the act in these areas. The amendment agreed to by
the Council to clause 212 would remove the uncertainty about what does and does not constitute seclusion.
I think the member is very comfortable with that. The current drafting may create ambiguity about whether or
not a person who is alone in a room or an area that the person is unable to leave merely because of frailty, illness
or mental or physical disability would be secluded for the purposes of part 14, division 5. Situations in which
a person is alone in a room and is unable to leave of his or her own volition are inevitable in authorised hospitals,
especially those that cater for older adults.
Examples include where a person with impaired mobility is in their bedroom alone at night, or a staff member
leaves a person alone for a brief period while attending to other urgent matters. The seclusion provisions are not
and have never been intended to regulate unavoidable scenarios of this nature. If such cases were to be captured
by the definition, the administrative burden on staff would be unmanageable. The effect of the amendment is to
ensure that the mere fact of person’s solitude does not give rise to a host of statutory obligations. Concerns with
the current definition were first brought to the attention of the Chief Psychiatrist and the Mental Health
Commission by clinical staff working in the area of older adult mental health. These concerns were subsequently
discussed with the Department of Health legal and legislative services. There has been no definitive advice that
the existing definition would be interpreted in an undesirably broad matter. Rather, the purpose of the
amendment is to avoid what is considered to be reasonable concern. The wording was prepared for us by
Parliamentary Counsel.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that explanation, but it provides me with very little
comfort. Nowhere in this amendment is a time period mentioned. I would not be concerned, and I do not think
anyone would be concerned, if someone were left alone for half an hour. This amendment just states that the
person has been left alone in a room; it does not have a prescribed time limitation. If this amendment included
a prescribed period of time, I would be more comfortable and more relaxed about the proposition. There can be
unintended consequences of any legislative provision, and I do not think that we would seek to say that leaving
someone alone for half an hour or an hour, or even maybe two hours, which may be very difficult to manage,
would necessarily come under the definition of seclusion. However, this proposed amendment proposes no time
limit at all. At a couple of stages in the parliamentary secretary’s explanation, she mentioned “immediate” or
“short period of time”. That is not provided for in this amendment. This amendment is an incredibly dangerous
proposition. It may have been approved by the other place, but I would not be comfortable with allowing it to
pass this house without any opposition.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: The inclusion in the amendment of the word “merely” is a factor that will give the
member comfort in that clause. It is not that there is inaction on the part of staff—the amendment does not fit in
with that—but in a broader medical situation, nursing policy determines the time constraints that are put on each
patient, so there is variation from patient to patient at the best of times. It would depend on the condition of the
patient.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The word “merely” does not provide me with any comfort. You would be very well aware,
Mr Acting Speaker (Mr I.M. Britza), of a case that came before a committee of which we were both members, of
a young boy with a disability who was left in a room at an aged care facility. Because of staff and management
issues—not enough staff et cetera—and to supposedly protect him from other clients in the facility, he was left
there all day to watch television, and was not allowed to leave the room. That was a tragic case, and I know that
the Acting Speaker also understands that case. This proposed paragraph has unintended consequences, and all for
the wrong reasons. The paragraph could quite easily contain time limits. It does not contain time limits. As we
very well know at the moment the mental health system is under incredible strain and stress, with not enough
staff to cope with the demands on the system, and I can foresee a scenario in which people are left in rooms for
extended periods and are unable to remove themselves from those rooms because of a mental or physical
disability. As a result of this amendment, staff will have the legislative protection to guard them against any
complaint. Therefore, this amendment is a bad amendment and should not be allowed to stand.
Division
Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Ian Britza) casting his vote with the ayes, with the
following result —
Ayes (29)
Mr P. Abetz
Mr F.A. Alban
Mr I.C. Blayney
Mr I.M. Britza
Mr G.M. Castrilli
Mr M.J. Cowper
Ms M.J. Davies
Ms W.M. Duncan
Ms E. Evangel
Mr J.M. Francis
Mrs G.J. Godfrey
Dr K.D. Hames
Mr C.D. Hatton
Mr A.P. Jacob
Mr R.F. Johnson
Mr S.K. L’Estrange
Mr R.S. Love
Mr W.R. Marmion
Mr P.T. Miles
Ms A.R. Mitchell
Mr N.W. Morton
Dr M.D. Nahan
Mr D.C. Nalder
Mr J. Norberger
Mr D.T. Redman
Mr A.J. Simpson
Mr M.H. Taylor
Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)
7476
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Noes (17)
Ms L.L. Baker
Dr A.D. Buti
Ms J. Farrer
Ms J.M. Freeman
Mr W.J. Johnston
Mr D.J. Kelly
Mr F.M. Logan
Mr M. McGowan
Ms S.F. McGurk
Mr M.P. Murray
Mr P. Papalia
Mr J.R. Quigley
Ms M.M. Quirk
Ms R. Saffioti
Mr C.J. Tallentire
Mr B.S. Wyatt
Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)
Pairs
Mrs L.M. Harvey
Dr G.G. Jacobs
Mr J.H.D. Day
Mr C.J. Barnett
Mr P.C. Tinley
Mrs M.H. Roberts
Mr R.H. Cook
Mr P.B. Watson
Question thus passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 44 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: This is really a point of explanation, parliamentary secretary. This new amendment states —
(2A)
A person is not being physically restrained merely because the person is being provided with
the physical support or assistance reasonably necessary —
(a) to enable the person to carry out daily living activities; or
(b) to redirect the person because the person is disoriented.
I understand that a person who becomes disoriented may need to be provided with assistance, but what is meant
by “redirect” and what amount of physical force can be used to redirect someone?
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: It is probably difficult to list each specific circumstance in which that might occur, but
the member is right that the redirection of patients —
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Excuse me, parliamentary secretary. Members, the chitchat is still
a bit loud. If you want to continue the conversation, I ask you to leave the chamber.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: Clinicians sometimes need to redirect patients and once again how that redirection might
occur depends on the situation the patient finds themselves in. We are talking about people with dementia or
someone wandering into someone else’s room, but, once again, the redirection depends on the person being dealt
with. I have to be careful how I say this, but it depends on the person and the idea is to make sure that there is
a difference between redirecting and restraint.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 45 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I do not necessarily have any issue with this amendment, but could the parliamentary secretary
just provide an explanation about the reason behind the amendment and the effect of it?
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: The clause in the bill requires a medical practitioner to attend to a person who arrives at
a hospital for the purpose of examining them to assess their physical condition. Of course, it may not be possible
for the medical practitioner to conduct an adequate examination at the time of the initial visit—for example,
when the person is highly uncooperative or aggressive. The drafting as it stands would mean that the medical
practitioner would not be under any obligation to try again at a later stage, so the effect of amendment 45 agreed
to by the Council would be to require further efforts at reasonable intervals until the physical health examination
is conducted. The requirement to attend at reasonable intervals will be limited by clauses 241(2)(b) and (c).
Paragraph (b) applies when the person is a voluntary patient and informed consent for examination is not
provided by the patient or the person authorised by law to consent on their behalf. The rationale is that a
voluntary patient should not be physically examined without consent. Paragraph (c) applies when the person can
no longer be examined because they have left the hospital, including when they have been released, discharged,
are absent without leave or have been transferred to another hospital. The amendment agreed to by the Council
reflects the fact that there are links between mental and physical illness that cannot be ignored.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 46 made by the Council be agreed to.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7477
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 47 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: This is an amendment to clause 241 on page 178 of the bill. The amendment is as follows —
To delete “purposes of subsection (2)” and insert —
purpose of assessing under this section the person’s physical condition
This is the issue about the person’s physical condition versus his mental condition. Can the parliamentary
secretary just give us an explanation for the reasoning behind this amendment? I am sure that it is
straightforward, it is just that I am not picking it up.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: This amendment has been recommended by Parliamentary Counsel to clarify the
language around the medical practitioner attending for the purpose of examining the person in order to assess
their physical condition.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 48 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 49 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 50 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 51 and 52 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 53 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 54 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: It is a good amendment to move, parliamentary secretary. I presume this amendment picks up
the concern the opposition expressed in debate in this place previously about preventing certain people who
provide legal aid–type services from being paid for their work; and, if so, that is a very good move.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: Member, this addresses your concerns.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 55 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 56 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 57 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
7478
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 58 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 59 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 60 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 61 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 62 to 73 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Amendment 68 is an addition to clause 400 to allow an application for a declaration to be made
by involuntary patients et cetera. The bill states that an application cannot be made under section 398(1) for
a treatment order that ceased to be in force more than six months ago unless the applicant shows good reason for
the delay. This places a time limitation on the ability to bring an application, which is not unusual in the legal
jurisdiction as the statute of limitations is often longer than six months. Here we are dealing with people who
have had a mental illness, and if they are an involuntary patient it may be quite a severe mental illness. Is
six months a sufficient time limitation period, when normally the statute of limitations period in civil action is
six years, although if the action is against the state they have to seek leave after one year and in contract law it is
three years? Here the period is six months, unless a person can show good reason for the delay. Why allow only
six months? When the bill refers to “show good reason” for the delay, what are some of the good reasons? Is it,
as in some jurisdictions, being able to overcome the statute of limitations discoverability rule, whereby the
person finds at a later date that an illegality was committed and before that date there was no reasonable way for
them to find out? Is it because there has been some fraud or some hindrance to the authorities finding out? What
are some of those good reasons that will allow a person to bring an action after the six-month prescribed period,
and, also, why is the period only six months?
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I will just give the member some background before I answer those specific questions.
The normal time limit for seeking review is six months, but it can be extended at the discretion of the tribunal.
This position reflects the fact that a person who has recently been discharged from an involuntary treatment
order may not be in the best position to seek redress immediately. It also reflects the reality that the reliability of
evidence and the ability to call relevant witnesses diminishes over time and, as such, the legislation should
encourage applications to be submitted in a reasonably timely fashion. Certainly the examples the member used
are the sorts of things that would be taken into consideration—and illness as well.
Dr A.D. BUTI: As the parliamentary secretary said, this person may have had a severe mental illness—certainly
if they were an involuntary patient. I can understand a time limitation being placed on the psychiatrist or mental
health advocate, but when it is placed on the involuntary patient, I have concerns that it is only six months when
most jurisdictions provide a much longer period than six months in which to bring an action. Granted, if
someone wishes to bring an appeal, there may only be 21 days or whatever, but we are not looking at that
scenario; we are looking at someone seeking to bring an action to question the treatment order. Often they will
have had major traumatic experiences; they have had a mental illness, otherwise they would not have been an
involuntary patient, and we are only allowing them six months in which to bring an application. The
parliamentary secretary mentioned the issue of witnesses and the freshness of the evidence. That is always an
issue in legal actions, but it is normally six years in the civil jurisdiction and sometimes three years under
contract law. Of course, if it is the state, it can be one year, but it would usually go beyond one year. I think it is
incredibly unfair to allow only six months for a cohort of the population who are particularly vulnerable and may
take considerable time to work through the process to recognise that they wish to bring an action, and it will
prevent many, many involuntary patients who may wish to query the treatment order that they were subject to
from doing so.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: The member’s concerns about a person in that situation and the time frame are covered
in that extensions can be given, and are given quite readily. The reasons are quite broad. The circumstances that
would apply to a person in this situation would certainly be taken into consideration.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The parliamentary secretary says that the reasons are quite broad, but the fact that someone has
to make an application to overcome the time limit is another stress that will be placed on a person who has had
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7479
a mental condition. Surely it would be a better mental health practice to not put them through that process if at
all possible. Of course there needs to be a time limit of some degree, but a time limit of only six months is harsh
and inconsistent with many other tribunal and court jurisdictions, and is particularly harsh for the cohort of
people we are dealing with under this legislation.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 74 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 75 and 76 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 77 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 78 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 79 and 80 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 81 to 86 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I refer the parliamentary secretary to amendment 85, which amends clause 447. I think this is
a very welcome amendment. I assume that it is in response to the various debates we had about the need to allow
people to have legal representation when possible.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: That is the case, member.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 87 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 88 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I just seek some clarification about the word “guardian”. It has been a while since I have had
a proper look at the bill. There is a definition, so that is fine.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 89 and 90 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 91 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 92 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 93 and 94 made by the Council be agreed to.
7480
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 95 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 96 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 97 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL — by leave: I move —
That amendments 98 and 99 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Ms A.R. MITCHELL: I move —
That amendment 100 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
The Council acquainted accordingly.
RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (WA) BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 17 September.
MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [12.10 pm]: I rise today to speak about the Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill
2014. As members would be aware, I am not the shadow Minister for Transport, but I do handle such legislation
in this house. I will be the lead speaker, so I want my full time. Thank goodness, for I have been given it! I am
sure everyone is relieved that I have been given a full 60 minutes to talk about this bill. I thought I was going to
be short-changed!
Mr W.J. Johnston: I was just about to make a point of order!
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I thought the member was secretly trying to become —
[Quorum formed.]
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am so glad I have a bigger audience to hear my contribution to the bill. I am sorry,
Madam Acting Speaker, I cannot hear myself.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Members, take your conservations outside. The member for
West Swan is speaking about a very important bill. The member for Fremantle might want to take her
conversation outside.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I do not discount the importance of the bill, but I make the key point that Hon Ken Travers is
the shadow Minister for Transport and he will provide more comments in the other place.
Mr W.J. Johnston: Where he gets unlimited time!
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Exactly.
Labor will support the passage of this bill. We will put our concerns on the table in the hope that they will be
explored to some extent in this place but, moreover, in the other place through its normal process, including the
committee stage.
Mr W.J. Johnston: Member, can I just make an observation. I thought the minister’s name was Dean, not
Scott—but he’s got no friends!
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Actually, there is a Scott Nalder in Parliament.
Mr W.J. Johnston: It is his cousin.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Really—a second or third cousin?
Mr D.C. Nalder: His father and my grandfather are first cousins.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7481
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: About fourth or fifth, I would say. I am Italian and I love learning about the number of
cousins I have!
I go back to the bill. The opposition supports the bill. It provides for the Office of the National Rail Safety
Regulator and will allow for a single rail safety regulator across Australia. Hon Ken Travers received a briefing
about the bill, which, unfortunately, I did not attend. However, one of my staff members did attend, so I will go
through some of the key points made at the briefing.
Historically, every Australian state and territory has regulated its railways independently and, as a result, there
have been inconsistencies between the jurisdictions. In 2006, the National Transport Commission identified
a model rail safety law. At the 2009 Council of Australian Governments meeting, the states agreed to a national
partnership agreement to deliver a seamless national economy to reduce costs between the states. In 2011,
COAG agreed to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Rail Safety Regulation and Investigation Reform. In
2012, South Australia passed the Rail Safety National Law and in 2013 it commenced the Office of the National
Rail Safety Regulator.
I will go through some of the benefits of reform. With any reform it is not only the concept, but also the
implementation that tests whether any of the benefits purported to be delivered are delivered. I will talk briefly
about a report that was handed down in this place today, “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight Rail
Network”, to look at what can be announced and what comes into being when key announcements are made
about privatisation and other reforms. The benefits of reform that were outlined to Hon Ken Travers in the
briefing include a reduction in compliance costs, a national pool of resources and specialist knowledge, the
strength and capacity to make evidence-based decisions and continuous safety improvement. As I said, the
objectives of this bill are for a national rail safety regulation scheme. The legislation will continue with some
historical Western Australian provisions, such as the provisions for drug and alcohol testing, and will provide for
the making of regulations. As I said, we support the bill and hope that the benefits outlined are delivered.
I refer to the timing of the bill, because it is my understanding that initially the government was reluctant to bring
it in because we had a federal Labor government. Once there was a change of government, there was more
keenness to proceed. Importantly, as it is spelt out in the second reading speech, the bill allows for some of the
Western Australian provisions to be different from those of the other states. There are three key points of
difference for Western Australia. The first is drug and alcohol testing. As stated in the second reading speech —
The original reforms based on the 2006 model allowed for drug and alcohol testing by way of urine
sampling and analysis. New South Wales and Western Australia were the only jurisdictions to provide
for it and have opted to continue to do so.
Other jurisdictions have a majority disallowance clause whereby regulations made under the legislation can be
disallowed only if a majority of jurisdictions subsequently vote against it. Western Australia has the view that
this would compromise its sovereignty; therefore, in contrast to the other states, that will not be allowed. The bill
also provides that the current employment conditions of the Western Australian public sector staff that will be
affected by the reform be respected. That means consenting employees from the Office of Rail Safety will be
seconded to the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator. As we understand it, employees of the Western
Australian Office of Rail Safety will be offered three options—they can resign and be employed by the new
office, be seconded to the new office or remain in the Western Australian public sector. That issue has been
drawn to our attention, and we would appreciate the minister providing clarity in his response on what will
happen to employees of the current organisation.
Another concern, which was also a concern of the former Minister for Transport, is tourism and heritage rail
operators. As members would know, many of those operators are small and are very distinct and separate to
main rail lines around the state. The specific concerns raised by the shadow Minister for Transport about heritage
rail operators centre on costs, expertise and the significant issues that all small operators find difficult to
accommodate. We understand that there has been discussion and consultation with those operators, but, again,
we would like the minister to address those specific issues in his response.
Other significant points raised in the briefing include the cost structure of the new organisation, particularly any
concept of potential cross-subsidisation between states—an issue everyone in Western Australia is aware of
given the significant GST debate—and the costs to fund the national office and the national model, which
I understand is still being developed. Again, we would appreciate the minister providing further detail in his
second reading response so that we can get across those three key issues, which are as follows: what options
employees will be given; issues relating to tourism and heritage rail operators, and the costings so that we know
who is paying for what and whether there is any possibility of cross-subsidisation, and what is the cost model
that will be created to fund the national body.
On the issue of rail safety, it is relevant to talk about what has happened in recent years on suburban tracks and
what appears to be an increase in disruptions—the word used in the newspaper is “chaos”—on metropolitan
7482
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
lines. I will go through some key examples of what has occurred in recent years in rail services. An article in
The West Australian on 5 October 2012 states —
Technical issues continued to blight the Perth train system yesterday with services on the Fremantle,
Midland and Armadale lines all having morning delays.
The article goes on to note —
Wednesday’s incident was the third time in two years powerlines have tangled around a pantograph, the
apparatus that connects the train to the power line …
…
Shadow transport minister Ken Travers said … that Wednesday’s failure could have been prevented if
conclusive investigations were made into the other incidents.
An article in The West Australian on 31 May 2013 details further issues on the train system, and states —
An investigation into the entanglement of a fast-moving train with 25,000-volt overhead power lines
has uncovered shortages of crucial maintenance and engineering staff, inadequate training and
unauthorised engineering procedures.
The Public Transport Authority’s report into the incident lays bare a raft of serious problems with the
management and safety of maintenance procedures on the Perth passenger train network.
The then minister said that the report highlighted significant shortcomings within the PTA. Again on 25 March
2014, another article appeared in The West Australian concerning some of the key issues in the transport system,
and states —
The fragility of Perth’s transport network was exposed again yesterday when—for the fourth time in
six years—rail services were halted by a snapped power line entangled around the top of a moving
train.
Public Transport Authority investigators still do not know what caused the line to snap about 7.50am
yesterday near the Daglish station on the Fremantle line.
That is another example of significant disruption and problems occurring on our train lines. Another article in
The West Australian only two days ago mentions another event, and states —
A crane will be used to correct a train that derailed in Kwinana today. The train had just unloaded iron
ore to the Kwinana Bulk Terminal when two locomotives and two wagons came off the rails.
As I have said, there have been significant disruption and failures on the train system in recent years and reports
have identified that they have been caused by a lack of investment and maintenance.
Given the Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill 2014 that is before us today, we must talk about the Economics
and Industry Standing Committee report tabled today entitled “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight
Rail Network”. Although I have not read the entire report, it appears to be significant and well researched and
examines not only what is present before government today—I congratulate committee members and the
member for Geraldton on the report—but also the history of the freight rail network issue. As I said, the report
goes through the history of the freight rail network in Western Australia and demonstrates that the concept of
reform, whether privatisation or long-term leasing, is always attractive but that the implementation is as
important as the initial idea. When a state asset is privatised or sold, unless regulatory powers are in place to
allow the purported benefits to be delivered, it is difficult to claw that back after it is done. The report makes
some key points about that matter. Page 41 of the report states —
The decision to sell Westrail’s freight business and lease the freight rail network was intended to realise
a number of benefits to government and the wider community.
The report went on to state that the anticipated benefits of selling the freight business included the “introduction
of an efficient, innovative specialist private rail operator”, a reduction in what was known as the community
costs, and the potential to “capture or recapture freight from road transport”. These things are the bases on which
the rail was sold at the time, but, frankly, we understand that a lot of those have not been realised. I remember
the debate on that matter very clearly. Not only did it create some accountability, probity and governance issues
about who owned the shares around the cabinet table when it was sold to a particular entity—a massive issue at
the time—it also raised issues about what was being said and what was actually being negotiated and concluded
at the time.
The member for Cockburn spoke to me about the lease agreement being tabled in this place today, saying that it
is something that people have been wanting for years. At the time of the sale, the lease was hidden. We
witnessed a couple of failures by the government at the time, in particular the National Party. We need to
remember what precipitated the sale of Westrail Freight. The government had no money.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7483
Mr W.J. Johnston: It had five deficits in eight years.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: It had five deficits in eight years. After four deficits in a row, the government had no money.
The National Party was desperate to be re-elected so it put forward a proposition called Transform WA. I think it
was about a $10 billion 20-year road program. Actually, $10 billion might have been a bit too much at the time;
it was probably about $1 billion. I cannot remember the exact amount. I say to the Minister for Transport that
this is a true story; this is why Westrail Freight was sold. The National Party was keen to develop
Transform WA. I remember that there was a special supplement in The West Australian one day. Basically, an
entire wraparound was devoted to Transform WA. It was basically all about the National Party trying to retain its
seats in country WA. But the government had no money. At the time, Treasury and the Treasurer, the Premier,
said that to fund this, the government has to sell Westrail Freight. That is why Westrail Freight was sold.
Basically, it was sold not because it made good sense and not because it would deliver benefits through putting
more freight on trains but to fund another objective. It is quite interesting how history repeats itself with
privatisations. When the motive is simply revenue raising, privatisation does not work; a strong economic and
social argument needs to be put forward. At this time the sale was all about funding another priority for the
government, but it had no money. As I said, it was running operating deficits. It had five operating deficits in
eight years—four in a row. It was borrowing for everyday expenditure. That is what running an operating deficit
is. We should remember, it is just the operating—the accrual version of recurrent. It meant that the government
was borrowing to fund everyday expenditure, similar to what this government will probably be doing right now,
given its budget situation. It was told to sell Westrail Freight and off it went to do that.
This report refers to profit maximising. As a taxpayer, we should always try to get the best dollar if a decision is
made to privatise but also we have to realise that these assets, particularly monopoly or key infrastructure assets,
have a long-term impact on both the wider economy and the community. Another example was the pipeline,
something sold by the Premier, which again created enormous problems because of issues to do with pricing and
access to gas. Westrail Freight was another example of the government quickly selling it and getting the revenue.
I think one of our former members crossed the floor on this—no, they crossed the floor on the pipeline. The
government wanted to sell it, get the revenue and fund Transform WA.
Not only were issues identified in this report about how Westrail freight was sold, but also it was sold as
a vertically integrated monopoly. Frankly, it is quite an interesting economic debate. Normally, economists do
not like vertically integrated monopolies.
Mr W.J. Johnston: The Premier loves them.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Yes, the Premier loves them. The monopoly he has created is unusual because it is between
the generator and the retailer. The government sold the freight network as a vertically integrated monopoly. It
did so on the basis that it would deliver all these benefits. Basically, the owners could get some benefit as it
would help drive down costs and also address some issues about the sustainability of many of these tracks. That
is why it was sold. As the report said, no provisions were contained in this lease agreement about what would
happen when it was sold. One was a lease and one was a sale. As a result, those two things separated and the
report believes that is one of the reasons we have this issue.
Another key point that was made at the time related to all the investment that the privatisation of this asset would
bring. I always remember this because it was a key selling point. I remember where I was when I read the critical
media statement, as sad as that is. One of the key points in that media statement was that the government
guaranteed $400 million in investment on that train network. At the time I knew that was not possible. How
could something be sold and then the government tell us that it is guaranteeing that this private sector body will
invest $400 million to upgrade and maintain those tracks? The whole basis of the sale was that we would get not
only more freight on trains, but also a $400 million investment. That was how the government sold this sale to
the public and to Parliament. Page 45 of the report states —
In announcing the successful bidder, the Minister for Transport stated that as well as the up‐front
payment, ARG had ‘undertak[en] to invest $400 million in the track and rolling stock over the next
five years—with $280 million of that amount being spent within the first three years’. In effect, as the
Minister stated, this transaction would yield ‘a net benefit of $985 million to the State of Western
Australia’.
It goes on to say that this $400 million undertaking was not incorporated into the lease document. Where did this
$400 million commitment by which the government sold the whole basis of privatisation come from? I think the
deputy director general of Transport, Sue McCarrey, advised, in evidence, that information about the
$400 million from the consortia at the time was contained in a media release issued once the agreements had
been signed. Once it was sold to a company, the company said in its media release, “This is really good; we are
going to invest $400 million”, but there is no proof that it did that. Even worse, the government sold the benefits
of privatisation on this basis. I remember the debate succinctly; the government kept saying that this is
$400 million that it does not have to spend because the private sector is going to spend it. From the government’s
7484
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
point of view, it was saying to the community it would get this revenue. At the time, Hon Alannah MacTiernan
also questioned the location of debt between Westrail Freight and other parts of the government agency. There
are some theories—I trust Ms MacTiernan on this—that there was some shifting of debt away from
Westrail Freight into other parts of government, creating another cost. In relation to the $400 million, the
government was going to not only receive this privatisation income, but also it would not have to spend the
$400 million that the private sector company was going to.
It is stated on page 47 of the report —
What is not clear is what efforts were made by government to ensure that ARG delivered on its
commitment.
That is, its commitment of $400 million. The report continues —
Nor is it clear at precisely what stage ARG first mentioned this intended investment. It is difficult to
accept that the first mention would have been on the day the sale and lease was made. While
Ms McCarrey stated that ‘ARG certainly put a certain amount of investment over the years’, no
information has been provided that shows how much of the $400 million was invested by ARG during
the time it was the lessee or that reassures the Committee that any effort was expended by government
in monitoring ARG’s efforts in that regard.
Basically, the committee had no reassurance from anyone. Firstly, the committee could not find that
$400 million had been committed, and, secondly, it found that no efforts were made by the government to ensure
that the commitment was being delivered on.
Interestingly, 18 months after the sale and lease of the rural freight business, a subcommittee of cabinet was
formed called the Rail Freight Sale Taskforce. It delivered its final report to government 18 months after the
sale-on-lease transaction, and concluded that all four objectives had been met. So, the committee that set up the
sale congratulated itself on meeting the commitments it made.
This report highlights what the Labor Party has said on this issue over time: it was a flawed process that would
have unintended consequences. As I said, when monopoly assets that provide essential economic or social
services or benefits are privatised, it always comes back to the taxpayer. Geoff Gallop has always said that
business should do business and government should do government. When government and business try to work
together in a close relationship, similar to the Pelago development example—when I say “close” I mean
government underwriting the private sector—there are always going to be problems. This was a classic example,
but there are numerous, including Muja and Allia. There is no doubt that government needs to facilitate business
investment, but there needs to be clear lines of responsibility. A couple of weeks ago I was reflecting on the
Utopia episode on the Ord project.
Mr W.J. Johnston: Episode 8—what a wonderful episode!
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Yes, episode 8.
I remembered back to the first few years of this government coming in and talking about the Ord. It talked about
all the things the Ord would bring. I remember saying to myself, “Jeez, why didn’t we go ahead and do the next
stage as aggressively as they did?” That is what I thought. I doubted what we did; there is no doubt about that.
Then I realised why. Hon Eric Ripper actually wanted a business case! Hon Eric Ripper was actually looking at
the long-term exposure of taxpayers. That is why. Again in relation to Westrail freight, there is no use in selling
something and saying to the public, “This private sector person will be doing all these great things”, while the
long-term impact cannot be guaranteed.
I will quickly finish off on the Utopia episode. Many in this chamber enjoy watching that show, and, as I said,
everyone should grab episode 8 of the last season. Has the minister seen it?
Mr D.C. Nalder: Which show?
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Utopia.
Mr D.C. Nalder: No.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The minister should!
Several members interjected.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: It would probably limit the minister’s dorothy dixers, because I do not think anyone who
watches Utopia could deliver a dorothy dixer in this place after that! It is modelled on the office of national
projects.
Several members interjected.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Nation building—we should know this, as we have been watching it! Basically, an episode
of Utopia was dedicated to the Ord. Just to let the minister know, it is a sitcom!
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7485
Mr D.C. Nalder: I do know what Utopia is. I do know the program; I just haven’t watched it.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Rob Sitch and his team from Working Dog are involved in it. They used to do The Late
Show, which was one of my favourite shows. They did an episode on the whole Ord project, and one of the key
lines was from Tony, the character played by Rob Sitch, who asked whether any cost–benefit analysis had been
done, to which Jim, played by Lehmo, the Melbourne comedian, replied, “It’s too late for that now.” That is
basically the motto of this government. It is in such a rush to be seen to be doing something, it spends money,
and then for years upon years taxpayers have to pay it back. The freight rail network is a clear example of that.
That has always interested me, because the National Party failed its constituency. When Labor fails its
constituency, we know about it because the constituency tells us! Many people have been let down by the
National Party on this issue because the freight rail network was sold in a manner that delivered zero benefit, and
we now have the potential closure of key rail lines throughout the wheatbelt. The National Party has failed them
again and again on this issue. That is what this report that was tabled today shows. This report outlines the
privatisation issue and the issue of tier 3, and in some instances tier 2, rail lines. The Liberal Party would maybe
like to point that out down in Vasse, but this is a clear example of the National Party failing its own constituency
and basically having more front than Myer on this issue.
That is the conclusion of my comments. As I said, we support the bill but we would like three key issues
addressed in the second reading reply.
Mr D.C. Nalder: Is that employees—perhaps the current employees—the heritage operators and the cost
structure involved?
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Sure. On the heritage and tourism operators, I acknowledge their great work around the state.
I think for people with young children, there is nothing like going on a tourist or a heritage train, is there?
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Yes. As we all know, children are obsessed by trains—or some are.
Mr I.C. Blayney: Some adults are, too.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Yes. The member for Geraldton is not one of those people with a little train set, is he?
Mr I.C. Blayney: No; my son is.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: He is like the guy from The Sopranos! I am sorry, but I think the member for Cannington
needs to jump up, and I will conclude my comments.
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [12.49 pm]: I have to make a very strategic contribution to this debate
while we wait for the clock to tick over. We are talking about the Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill 2014.
I observed that this is a very thick piece of legislation. It contains some 265 clauses plus a number of schedules
that contain additional clauses. It will add 245 pages to the volume of the laws passed by the Liberal
government.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
[Continued on page 7499.]
MUSICA VIVA IN SCHOOLS CONCERT
Statement by Member for Girrawheen
MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen) [12.50 pm]: I had the pleasure recently of attending a concert of the
Musica Viva in Schools program at Roseworth Primary School. It was the last concert of 40 performed by the
lively Irish dance music group Ógham Soup in metropolitan, regional and remote Western Australia. Under the
Musica Viva in Schools program, professional musicians bring inspiring performances directly into schools.
These concerts are enhanced by the students undertaking preparatory work in the classroom. The teaching
resources provided are linked directly to the music curriculum, as well as other areas, especially literacy and
numeracy. I acknowledge the enthusiasm and lively commitment of Lindsay Lovering, Musica Viva’s Western
Australian state manager, concerts and education. Our heartfelt thanks also go to sponsors Wesfarmers Arts,
Rio Tinto and Healthway. With Ógham Soup, students became familiar with instruments such as the fiddle and
guitar, and vocals, hearing traditional jigs and reels. The band also combined instruments including a bodhran
and mandolin, and even an ancient Bronze Age horn called the dord. The Emerald Isle has a long and proud
musical tradition, and Ógham Soup brought a bit of good old Irish craic to Roseworth. Similarly enjoyed by
students last year was Musica Viva’s Datiwuy Dreaming at Our Lady of Mercy Primary School. That
performance fostered an awareness of the importance of music, dance and story in Yolngu culture. Hailing from
the Elcho Island and north east Arnhem Land, the performers shared their tradition of making music and sharing
stories for longer than almost anyone else on the planet. It was a real privilege to share the sense of wonder and
joy with the young concertgoers.
7486
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
WATTLE GROVE PRIMARY SCHOOL SCIENCE FAIR
Statement by Member for Forrestfield
MR N.W. MORTON (Forrestfield) [12.52 pm]: On Friday, 21 August, I attended the Wattle Grove Primary
School 2014 science fair and I could not help but be impressed by the quality of experiments and presentations
given by the students. The primary academic and multi-age academic classes from Wattle Grove and
Caladenia Primary Schools came together to share the work they have been doing on their science investigations
over the last five weeks. Parents and special guests were invited to view the students’ presentations and ask some
curly questions, before enjoying morning tea in the library. The knowledge of the students and the confidence
with which they presented their experiments and answered my questions was amazing. Some of the experiments
included an investigation into the properties of dry ice, while trying to answer questions such as: do different
genders react differently to gender neutral questions? I also had a fascinating conversation with a couple of
young students about aerodynamics. After recess, awards were presented for the most successful investigations
and then the PAC and MAAC students from each of the schools had a chance to view each other’s
investigations. It was a great pleasure to assist in handing out these awards. In the afternoon, after the science
fair had finished, the rest of the school came out for a science tabloid where students in groups rotated through
a series of science activities. As a former science teacher, it was also great to see children taking a keen interest
in the topic of science and I hope more schools will invest in their students’ science future. Congratulations to all
the teachers and parent volunteers who made it so much fun for the students and to Wattle Grove’s science
coordinator, Mr Sanderson, who not only did a great job with the science fair, but also had a significant role in
the success of the science tabloid. Congratulations also to Wattle Grove principal, Julie Roberts, and her
Caladenia counterpart, Ted Nastasi. They should be very proud of the results they are achieving with the PAC
and MAAC programs.
OLDHAM RESERVE — SPORTING CLUBS
Statement by Member for Butler
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [12.53 pm]: I rise to give parliamentary recognition to the efforts of the four
sporting clubs using Oldham Reserve in Yanchep. They have very basic facilities out there. The four clubs are
the Yanchep Redhawks Junior Football Club, led by its president, Michael Browne; the Yanchep Redhawks
Amateur Football Club, led by its president, Graham Hailstones; the Yanchep Redhawks Cricket Club, led by its
president, Rob Murphy; and the Yanchep Little Athletics Club, led by its president, Corinne Parker. At Oldham
Reserve in Yanchep there are only very basic facilities—a home change room, an away change room and a little
servery. There is no space for any club presentations or functions. The clubs have campaigned for such a room
for quite a while. The City of Wanneroo initially wanted the sporting clubs to contribute one-third of the cost, or
$98 000, to the erection of such a room. I was pleased to be able to assist these four sporting clubs in persuading
the City of Wanneroo to change its mind and fully fund the addition of this basic clubroom at Oldham Reserve.
I give recognition to the four sporting clubs for what they do for the community of Yanchep. More power to
those four sporting clubs.
JOONDALUP POLICE
Statement by Member for Joondalup
MR J. NORBERGER (Joondalup) [12.54 pm]: Earlier this year I had the opportunity to spend six hours on
patrol with the Joondalup police to better understand and appreciate the amazing efforts being undertaken by our
police force in keeping Joondalup safe. I would like to thank the Minister for Police’s office,
District Superintendent Charlie Carver and Inspector Steve Post for helping to make this ride-along possible.
From 3.00 pm to 9.00 pm on Monday, 25 August, Inspector Post and I joined the professional duo of Mossy and
Liz on patrol around Joondalup. Being able to witness the way in which this seasoned pair went about their
duties reminded me of how proud we can all be that whilst we all go about our daily lives, there are highly
trained, caring and professional men and women ready to risk their own lives in order to keep ours safe. The
six hours seemed to fly past and during that time I experienced a broad range of challenges that face our police
force every day, from welfare checks, responding to violent behaviour and even dealing with runaway kids who
did not want to return home. Without a doubt it requires great diligence, discernment and tact to be an effective
police officer, traits that are present in spades not only in Liz and Mossy but, I have no doubt, also in all of our
police officers throughout WA. So, to all of the men and women of Western Australia Police—with, of course,
a special mention to the great team at Joondalup Police Station, and Liz and Mossy in particular—thank you for
all that you do. You make us all proud and are worthy of our community’s respect. Above all, please keep safe.
INGLEWOOD ON BEAUFORT NETWORK
Statement by Member for Maylands
MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [12.56 pm]: A progressive new community network has come to Inglewood—
the Inglewood on Beaufort network. The network seeks to move Inglewood forward in a collaborative and
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7487
emphatic way. The place action plan for the IOB network has grown from Inglewood’s newly released place
action plan and the key themes are “green and urban oasis”, “creative local economy”, “slow living”, “accessible
and affordable”, “authentic and soulful destination”, and “sustainable and resilient place with active and
animated streets”. Projects for this year include “Get Seedy”, with residents invited to dig deep and come down
to the grassy knoll at Inglewood Library on 1 November at 9.00 am for a forum and information session on
Inglewood’s first community garden. The next project is the Inglewood night markets. Planning is well advanced
for the opening of a night market on Beaufort Street, Inglewood near Bunnings and the Westpac bank. First
expressions of interest have been received from more than 50 vendors, so we will see an exciting range of food
and activities when the night market is ready to go. The committee is chairperson, Vince Garreffa; vice
chairperson, Matt Seabrook; communications officer, Tamara Radi; treasurer, Christine Collette; and secretary,
Joya Varrasso. Retailers, residents and friends are encouraged to join as members of this new network. For
information on how to contribute to Inglewood on Beaufort, the organisation can be found on Facebook or
emailed on [email protected].
MICHELLE URBAN, OAM
Statement by Member for Morley
MR I.M. BRITZA (Morley) [12.57 pm]: Recently a constituent of mine, Michelle Urban, was awarded
a Medal of the Order of Australia in the general division, which is an honour bestowed in recognition of service
worthy of particular recognition, in this case for service to the community, particularly to historical and
genealogical groups. Michelle has been a founder member of the Jewish Historical and Genealogical Society of
Western Australia since 2005 and vice president and founding editor of Perth Jewish Roots newsletter.
Michelle is very humbled to have been awarded this honour. She is a fourth generation Australian on her
mother’s side and her father is a Holocaust survivor. She derives satisfaction from helping people to keep alive
the heritage and cultural history of the Jewish community in Western Australia, and working with the many
people who have similar interests and ideas, which is quite exciting. She originally wished to do research into
her own family—especially her maternal grandfather, who was a very well known Perth horse bookmaker—and
to learn family history. As there was no Jewish genealogical help in Western Australia at the time, this interest
expanded to helping other people, which led the formation of the society. Her satisfaction derives from being
able to nurture, preserve and educate on the cultural heritage and history of the Perth and Western Australian
Jewish community, and from helping people in their research to find their family history. She is to be
congratulated on her great work and she is making a difference to the lives of many people in tracing their
ancestry. I am very proud of her past endeavours and wish her every success with her future endeavours.
Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — PARKING FEES
804.
Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the parking fee increases at Fiona Stanley Hospital, which are being charged at $3 an hour or $21 a day.
Previously, patients at the Shenton Park campus were informed that parking would be $2 an hour, capped at
$10 a day.
(1)
Why did the parking fees increase between the time that patients at the Shenton Park campus received
information about costs and the opening of the hospital?
(2)
Has the Department of Health acted in concert with other operators in the Murdoch area to control
parking fees?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
(1)–(2) That is a very good word. It was recommended to me that parking fees at Fiona Stanley Hospital be the
same as fees at the other two tertiary hospitals. As members know, currently the day rate for visitor
parking at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, for example, is $3.60 an hour. It was recommended that when
Fiona Stanley Hospital opened, fees be set at $2.00 an hour. My concern was that right next door at
St John of God Murdoch Hospital, with parking adjacent to Fiona Stanley Hospital, parking fees were
$3 an hour and a maximum of $21 a day. I therefore instructed the health department not to make
parking fees at Fiona Stanley $2.00 an hour, but to make them the same as the fees at St John. We did
not want the visitors at St John to use our car parking at Fiona Stanley Hospital because our parking
fees were much cheaper.
Mr R.H. Cook: You could just stop them.
Dr K.D. HAMES: How do we stop them? Hon Ken Travers said, “Why don’t we just work out where visitors
are going?” What should we do? Should we have a person at every gate asking people which hospital they are
going to and say, “Excuse me, you can’t park here if you’re going to Murdoch”? That would be ridiculous. After
7488
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
we had made that decision and until recently those were to be the fees. Then St John increased its fees to
$3.60 an hour and $21 maximum a day. We did not want the opposite situation with people at St John’s car park.
We do not want different parking fees at hospitals right next to each other. In the same way, we did not want
people using the train paying zero parking fees so that everyone parked at our hospital and then caught the train.
Parking fees at those two hospitals must be the same, and that is why we made that decision. The initial fee was
set before the hospital opened. As occurs at Sir Charles Gairdner, for patients who have to go to the hospital
a lot, there is a set of rules for who we call “frequent flyers” who have to visit the hospital a lot whereby those
fees are reduced to a much lower level. In fact, those who go to the rehabilitation service for more than, I think,
three days, are charged the original amounts, which are $2.00 an hour and $10.00 a day.
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — PARKING FEES
805.
Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I have a supplementary question. Before the minister decided to slug vulnerable patients and families with these
high increases, what other options did he consider? Did he, for instance, call the chief executive officer at
Murdoch and ask him not to increase his parking fees?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
No; because we ended up in concert but not in collusion. I did not know St John was putting up its fees. I first
found out St John had put up its fees after it had done it. St John had made that decision to charge that fee and
changed all its paraphernalia, so we were left with the dilemma: do we leave our fees at the rate we set, or do we
make them the same as St John’s fees? Remember that although the fees will be the same as the hospital next
door charges, they will still be less than the fees for patients who go to Sir Charles Gairdner and to Royal Perth.
I might say that the patients who go to Royal Perth have been paying higher fees for a long period.
NURSES — OVERSEAS-QUALIFIED — REGISTRATION
806.
Mr J. NORBERGER to the Minister for Health:
Before I ask my question I would like to quickly acknowledge the principal, the deputy and the student leaders
from Maida Vale Primary School in the Speaker’s gallery today and wish them all the best from the member for
Forrestfield.
I understand the minister has stepped in to try to find a solution to the situation facing United Kingdom and
South African qualified nurses who have been prevented from working as registered nurses in Australia. Can he
update the house on his progress?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
Before I answer that question, I need to apologise to the wonderful students up the back, whom I should have
named before Mandurah Primary School, which is just down the road, got in. Glencoe Primary School, from my
electorate, is clearly much more organised because those children got the top seat! Well done guys.
This is an important issue. It is in relation to new rules set by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia
around qualifications required by nurses to work in Australia. Many nurses who graduated a long time ago,
particularly from the UK and South Africa, have a nursing diploma, but now in Australia a person needs
a tertiary degree to become a registered nurse. The nurses’ board took the view that the legislation requires the
board to employ only those from overseas who have tertiary qualifications, so the board made that change. Prior
to making that change, a whole lot of nurses with a vast amount of experience had moved their families and
everything to Australia, but were unable to be registered as a nurse without jumping through a huge lot of hoops,
including doing further studies and sitting examinations. I raised this issue last year. I asked all those in Western
Australia to let me know whether they were involved in this so that I could try to help them. I ended up getting
letters from all over Australia—nearly 70 letters altogether—asking whether I could do something. We wrote to
the nurses’ board and got it to make some changes, which included organising the registration of all those in the
cut-off time, so that their problem was sorted out.
As members know, I was in hospital recently and one of the nurses looking after me was from South Africa. She
was extremely well qualified as a coronary care nurse. Luckily, she came here three or four years ago, but if she
were to come here now, she could not be registered. I raised this with the other ministers at the health minister’s
meeting recently and we agreed that we would get the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to have further
discussions with the nurses’ board to get it to take into consideration the experience of overseas nurses in
working out whether they should be registered. That way, experienced nurses in areas of shortage, not just the
main area but in the coronary care unit, the intensive care unit, and in theatre—nurses who might have done
20 or 30 years overseas—will be able to come here and be registered to work in Western Australia.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7489
IRON ORE EXPORT VOLUMES — PREMIER’S COMMENTS
807.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I refer the Premier to comments by Rio Tinto chief executive officer, Sam Walsh, about the Premier’s recent
remarks to which Sam Walsh responded —
“I’m not sure where Colin is coming from given that we’ve been very clear in our plans,”
“... some of the people who were criticising that were cheering from the sideline when we were
bringing on projects and making major investments.”
(1)
Is Mr Walsh correct?
(2)
If the Premier is so concerned about increases in production, why did he give approval to these
expansion projects?
(3)
Why is the Premier’s budget predicated on big increases in iron ore volumes if he is so opposed to
them?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
(1)–(3) It is not a good question. How long does it take to develop an iron ore mine—two to three years?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: As I have said now for the third day in a row, iron ore production in Western Australia
will double over the course of this decade. Yes, the government has approved major expansions in capacity.
Does Sam Walsh or Jimmy Wilson at BHP Billiton ring me up every morning and ask, “Colin, how much can
we ship today”? No, they do not. I have no control or influence over their day-to-day, week-to-week or
month-to-month targeting of iron ore. That is their decision. What we agree to is capacity under state
agreements, and capacity will continue to grow. It is their decision to flood production into the market at a time
of low price. That is what is happening. Can I read to members —
Ms R. Saffioti: They’re losing money!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: They are not losing money, but some of the small producers may well, and may well close
with the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. That is a concern that members opposite should worry about.
The first comment I ever made on this issue was a week ago on Thursday.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr W.J. Johnston: In 1999—forgotten it?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, had I not acted in 1999 there would be only one iron ore producer in
Western Australia.
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will just read a quote from two days before I made any comment. My comments about
this matter were in response to a question. I have answered questions in this place and outside this place, but two
days prior to my comment, BHP said that it is a tough old world out there. It said that if a player in the market
had a cost point above the price point into the future, that is a very uncomfortable position for them to be in. It
said that it is what it is, and that it is driving more volume through the equipment that it has put in place over
10 years now. It said that to the extent that impacts on others, such is life.
So this flooding of the market was well underway and commented on by the major companies, journalists and
international commodity traders.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: This was not an issue I raised first. There had been much media commentary about it —
Mrs M.H. Roberts: They had it coming, did they?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: No. I responded to a question about an issue that was being reported nationally and
internationally prior to that.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: No.
7490
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Look at the questions. We want —
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, it is pointless.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Cannington. I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: By their own admission the major companies are pushing increasing volumes on
a month-to-month basis into the market very conscious that they are contributing to price falls in an already
depressed market; and very conscious, by those quotes as an example, of the impact that this will have on
smaller iron ore producers. I want to see a competitive structure for iron ore in Western Australia, which will
include the two big producers, some mid-level producers such as Roy Hill and Fortescue Metals Group, and
a smaller brigade of producers that are by nature higher cost but finding their way into the market. That is what
I want to do. I do not want to see a duopoly of iron ore production in Western Australia.
IRON ORE EXPORT VOLUMES — PREMIER’S COMMENTS —
RIO TINTO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
808.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. Our third major miner, Fortescue Metals Group, has just announced today
a record shipping quarter, which I welcome. Is the Premier as concerned about our third major miner upping
production as he is about our two major miners?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
Is it not interesting? FMG I think is heading up to around 150 million tonnes, so it is making that next step,
I guess, into being, not the same size as BHP Billiton or Rio Tinto but certainly getting up there and well ahead
of any other producer, including Roy Hill, Gina Rinehart’s project. However, I wonder whether anyone in this
place can remember how the Labor government dealt with the FMG project.
Mr M. McGowan: I approved it in 2006.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is claiming personal credit for it, because I seem to
remember that one Brian Burke orchestrated the passage of that through this Parliament—going through the
upper house first and then the lower house. Do members opposite remember that—Brian Burke’s deal? Did the
Leader of the Opposition deal with him?
Mr M. McGowan: No.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: But the Leader of the Opposition just said that he approved it. He must have dealt with
him, because he managed it through the Parliament.
TOWN OF EXMOUTH — FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
809.
Mr V.A. CATANIA to the Minister for Regional Development:
Mr Speaker —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members! Member for Mandurah, that question is over.
Mr V.A. CATANIA: My question is to the Minister for Regional Development —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for West Swan—I call you to order for the second time; the Leader of the
Opposition for the first time; and the Premier for the first time. Right; that question is finished.
Mr V.A. CATANIA: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and as I said, my question is to the Minister for
Regional Development.
The town of Exmouth in my electorate is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary and it is a great pleasure to host the
minister in Exmouth over the weekend. Can the minister please explain what the Liberal–National government is
doing to ensure that Exmouth continues to grow and prosper for the next 50 years?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
I thank the member for North West Central for the question. I also thank him for the chance to go to Exmouth on
Saturday—I have not been there for some time; I think I tripped through on a holiday going back a number of
years—to see in more recent times what it has been through over many years. The recent developmental work
that government has been able to support in that community is fantastic. I do not think Exmouth was declared
a town until the 1960s when the American defence had a footprint of activity there, which is still there. It was
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7491
finally declared a town, and since then it has built on its natural tourism assets—Ningaloo Reef and the fantastic
whale sharks and diving and coastal opportunities that it presents. There is also a lot of support in the community
from the fishing industry. The ability of the oil and gas sector to offer supply and servicing opportunities out of
Exmouth also offers a level of industry that Exmouth has been able to capitalise on in recent times. It is only
appropriate for such a community, which has so many natural assets plus a now burgeoning industrial
opportunity out of both the fishing and oil and gas industries, that effort goes into ensuring the community and
the growth of the community—the CBD in particular—is supported in its development.
As part of the celebrations on Saturday, we will be able to announce the final opening of Exmouth’s newly
redeveloped town centre and foreshore facility. It is an $11 million project of which $6.8 million came from
royalties for regions through the Gascoyne revitalisation fund and the country local government fund. I will give
members an idea of the activities that have gone on as part of that transformation. We have realigned some roads
to improve traffic flow and increase parking; we have created more pedestrian areas and safe places for families
to walk; we have put in underground power—so very critical to an area that is impacted by cyclones; and we
have also put in more shaded areas that are important for such a hot climate. I was able to visit the new water
playground that is part of that facility, and seeing the little kids haring around in that on a nice sunny day gave
me some comfort that it is indeed a strong community. There are also some new facilities at the town beach
separate from the CBD but important for the locals to utilise the coastal assets that sit around Exmouth. We also
know that in the tourism peak season the population could double or treble, so ensuring that Exmouth has a CBD
that matches the capacity to take on that level of population and have the tourism, the public open spaces and the
assets there to support it is really important—and we feel very proud as a government to be part of that
development.
The Minister for Transport also gave me the opportunity to announce a project that he has recently taken through
cabinet and is also supported by royalties for regions. He is announcing the allocation of $20 million towards an
upgrade of the Exmouth boat harbour. Construction will start next year but that upgrade will include an extra
130 metres of wharf space allowing the very congested harbour facility the scope to grow and have a heavy
lifting facility to support and service the industrial activity coming from the oil and gas sector. Through the
Minister for Transport, that is another fantastic announcement supporting a community that is growing and
developing. It is a fantastic community.
I make one point—it is an observation I made when I was making the announcement with the member for
North West Central—that it was interesting to see the demographic of the community. It is a very, very young
demographic—unusually so. When I asked about the size of the primary school in the community, I was told it
was quite a substantial school for the population base. No doubt the young demographic is a significant
contributor to that. To have young people prepared to stay and live and invest in those communities is a fantastic
outcome for regional development. We have been able to support it through another royalties for regions
investment in that community. Along with the member for North West Central, it was fantastic to be a part of the
celebrations that occurred on Saturday.
PUBLIC SECTOR — REDUNDANCIES
810.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer:
I refer to the government’s redundancy plan announced on 9 October.
(1)
What is the expected cost of the scheme for the 2014–15 financial year?
(2)
Will the 1 500 public servant positions be abolished?
(3)
What are the expected savings from the scheme?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
Thanks for the questions.
(1)–(3) As the member for Victoria Park indicated, we announced a voluntary redundancy scheme, to start
almost immediately, for 1 500 positions. The cost this year is estimated to be $134 million, with savings
of $120 million a year thereafter. As indicated, the program will be selective; it will be up to the
directors general to choose who goes out. I am sure that many people will apply, judging from the last
one, which was significantly oversubscribed and it was left to the directors general to choose who was
selected from the ration. We will have a review of that also. In the first instance it will target public
servants who want to leave. They will not be forced out; they must put up their hand. In the second
instance, it will target areas within which positions are not needed. The aim is to reduce the total
aggregate full-time equivalent positions by 1 500.
7492
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
PUBLIC SECTOR — REDUNDANCIES
811.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer:
I have a supplementary question. In light of the Treasurer’s final comment that “the aim is to reduce the total
aggregate full-time equivalent positions by 1 500”, how does the Treasurer reconcile that statement with the
Premier’s Statement on 14 October that those redundancies “will be replaced by a new graduate”?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
He was referring to a question by the member for Maylands about whether this applied to front-line people.
I think her question was about child protection officers.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: How do you reconcile that with the aggregate numbers?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The member for Victoria Park asked me a question; he should let me get to the answer. The
aim here is for the directors general to have a voluntary ration and to target areas in the public service for which
FTEs are no longer needed.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Are they reduced or replaced?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The aim is to target those areas. In some areas a director general may come to us and say that
a person wants to leave the public sector. For instance, it could be a mature age teacher, which is a position for
which we have had a lot of requests for redundancy. The Commissioner of Police came to us last time and said
there was a large number—190, I think—of mature age policemen sitting doing office work who wanted to
leave. They were no longer physically up to the task of going on the street and doing the beat. In that case we
made an additional 190 positions redundant and we moved those FTEs to the streets and to the community. It
was a very good move requested by Mr O’Callaghan. We will be flexible with this. The aim is to reduce the
number of FTEs.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Your saving is based on that, isn’t it?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes. However, if a director general comes to us and says some people are no longer ready
and want to leave the service, and he wants to replace them in lower-cost areas, we will look at that.
EELUP ROTARY, BUNBURY — UPGRADE
812.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI to the Minister for Transport:
For the past few decades the Eelup Rotary roundabout in Bunbury has held the unenviable record of being the
state’s worst crash blackspot location. Can the minister advise whether recent improvements have improved the
safety of thousands of people who travel through this site every day?
Mr D.C. NALDER replied:
I thank the member for his ongoing interest in road safety. Unfortunately, the reputation of Eelup roundabout as
the state’s worst blackspot is correct, with some 650 crashes reported between 2005 and 2010. The intersection is
one of the busiest, if not the busiest, in regional WA. The Liberal–National government responded to the
problem with $16 million allocated to improvement works in 2011. These works included the construction of
improved slip lanes as well as, for the first time, traffic lights —
Mr M.P. Murray: And the flyover. You forgot the flyover.
Mr D.C. NALDER: And the footbridge, if the member wants.
Mr M.P. Murray: No, the flyover.
The SPEAKER: Member for Collie–Preston, I do not know whether the minister needs your help, but if he
does, he will ask for it.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I thank the member for Collie–Preston for his interest in this project. The test is not so
much around the works that we have undertaken; the test is the reduction in both congestion and the number of
accidents. I am really pleased to report that there has been a significant improvement in the results at this
roundabout. There were 148 reported crashes in 2010; 142 in 2011; it was down to 43 in 2012; 17 in 2013; and
10 crashes in the first half of 2014. The real test is not the work that was undertaken—thank you all the same,
member for Collie–Preston—but the improvement in not only the reduction of the number of crashes, but also
the support provided to deal with the congestion and the heavy level of traffic going around this roundabout. It is
a great result for the people of Bunbury and I thank and acknowledge the hard work that the member for
Bunbury, Mr John Castrilli, has put in over the years to bring about this outcome.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7493
INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES — FEMALE PRISONS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
813.
Mr P. PAPALIA to the Minister for Corrective Services:
I refer to the Inspector of Custodial Services report tabled this morning, which stated that female offenders guilty
of violent and drug offender crimes were “significantly more likely to reoffend” after completing a treatment
program in prison.
(1)
Does this confirm that despite years of spin and denial, the Barnett government has been running
a crime university, making serious female offenders more likely to reoffend after they leave prison than
when they entered?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected.
Mr P. PAPALIA: Has the Premier read the report?
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, ask your question.
Mr P. PAPALIA: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker; I was just responding to the interjection by the Premier, who
clearly has not read the report.
(2)
Does this not also confirm the inspector’s findings tabled in another report only last week that stated
women’s imprisonment is in “a state of preventable crisis”?
Mr J.M. FRANCIS replied:
(1)–(2) I thank the member very much for the question. The first thing I point out is that the biggest thing
I have learned in this place in the past year and a half is not to believe a certain thing that man says until
I have walked out of here and checked it. He did it again on Tuesday night.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the first time.
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Midland, I call you to order for the first time. I want this answered through the
Chair.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: The member for Warnbro did it again on Tuesday night when he made off-the-cuff
remarks about contractors and not following up on dangerous sex offenders and chopping off GPS tracking
devices.
Several members interjected.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: I walked out of here, and what do members know? What he said in here was plainly not
the truth—far from it. I know that I cannot believe a single thing he says until I have walked out of here and
checked it. Let me get to the report. Instead of being disingenuous, why does the member for Warnbro not refer
to the press release the Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services put out today that went with the report, in
which he acknowledged that the minister and the department are putting more resources into rehabilitation
programs across the entire state than has ever been put in before?
Let me get to the women’s estate and the specifics of the question. Firstly, the inspector’s numbers were based
on a comparison between the 2008–09 figures and the 2010–11 figures; they were based on material that is
four years old. I am happy to talk about what is happening in corrective services. I am happy to talk all day long
about the reduction in re-offending rates in the prison system in the last couple of years. Instead of looking at
2010–11 figures, I am happy to look at what has happened in corrective services in the last 10 years and the
re-offending rates of adult prisoners, male and female, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. I do so as a way to point
out the member’s absolutely ridiculous proposition that we are not doing enough to stop re-offending rates in
prisons in Western Australia. Firstly, it costs about $100 000 to keep an adult —
Point of Order
Mr P. PAPALIA: I did not ask a question about imprisonment numbers for the last 10 years. I asked about
a report from the independent Inspector of Custodial Services that was tabled in Parliament today that was dated
September, which is a month ago; it has been sitting on the minister’s desk. Why will the minister not answer the
question? Mr Speaker, I ask that he be brought back to the question.
7494
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
The SPEAKER: Minister, please focus on the question.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: Mr Speaker, I am answering the question, I am talking about the re-offending rate of
prisoners as a result of the programs delivered to them while they are in prison, both female and male prisoners.
I am glad to point out that in the past four years the reduction in the re-offending rate of prisoners from prison to
corrective services in Western Australia has decreased by 15.9 per cent, almost 16 per cent, when the national
average for re-offending has gone up by over five per cent. From corrective services to corrective services within
Western Australia, the re-offending rate has gone down by 14.7 per cent.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: From community corrections to corrective services, the rate has gone down by
45.1 per cent in the past four years.
Point of Order
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The question was about women’s prisons, and the minister is not talking about women’s
prisons. Mr Speaker, I ask that his answer be brought to the question.
The SPEAKER: Minister, please deal with women’s prisons.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: I think members might want this information, so I am happy to table the Department of
Corrective Services’ table titled “WA Adult Recidivism Measures—Rates of Return to Corrective Services
2014”.
[See paper 2304.]
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: Lastly, nine per cent of adult prisoners in Western Australia are female. When one looks at
the net changes in success and failure rates—we cannot save everyone—in the female estate as a percentage of
population from four to five years ago, on which the numbers in the report the member referred to are based, of
course a small number will make a big difference as a percentage. I care about the overall result and the trends,
and ensuring that the courses we are delivering right now at Bandyup Women’s Prison and all the prisons that
hold females are serving the purpose of addressing the rehabilitation of drug offending and violent behaviour,
and anything else those prisoners need. All the information that I have so far for 2014 proves that to be the case.
INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES — FEMALE PRISONS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
814.
Mr P. PAPALIA to the Minister for Corrective Services:
I have a supplementary question. Is the minister saying that the Inspector of Custodial Services was wrong when
he said that the programs the minister is applying are making women worse than they were before they came into
prison?
Mr J.M. FRANCIS replied:
No. I might also table today’s media release from the Inspector of Custodial Services that states —
[See paper 2305.]
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the second time. Member for West Swan,
I call you to order for the third time.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: The media release states —
Reducing recidivism has been a general goal of the Department of Corrective Service for many years,
but I applaud the sharper focus that is now being given to this by the Minister and the Department and
the fact that new initiatives and funding are being directed this way.
Point of Order
Mr P. PAPALIA: Mr Speaker, I asked whether the minister is saying that the Inspector of Custodial Services
got it wrong.
The SPEAKER: Minister, do you have anything to add?
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: No, Mr Speaker.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7495
PERTH RACING — WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TROTTING ASSOCIATION — ASSETS
815.
Mrs G.J. GODFREY to the Minister for Racing and Gaming:
Perth Racing and the Western Australian Trotting Association have conducted racing activities from their
racecourses at Ascot —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the second time. Member for Belmont, just repeat
that, please.
Mrs G.J. GODFREY: Perth Racing and the Western Australian Trotting Association have conducted racing
activities at their racecourses at Ascot, Belmont Park and Gloucester Park for many years. Can the minister
please update the house on the work being done to investigate the future and sustainability of Perth’s key racing
assets?
Mr T.K. WALDRON replied:
I thank the member for the question. I know that her electorate of Belmont is heavily involved in the racing
industry. Perth Racing and the Western Australian Trotting Association have long and proud histories as leading
organisations in thoroughbred and harness racing. Although the facilities at Ascot, Belmont Park and
Gloucester Park have been considered quite grand over the years, there is no doubt that they require significant
modernisation to maintain their attractiveness and competitiveness in what is very much an entertainment
market. I think the land on which the racetracks are located is prime real estate, and we need to see whether these
assets are providing an adequate return in that business sense. A large amount of capital is required to modernise
these venues. The Liberal–National government provides about $20 million over five years to support racing
infrastructure. There is a $6.6 million boost to that funding from royalties for regions. The $20 million is to
support infrastructure very much focused on racecourse safety, promoting safety and ensuring that occupational
health and safety initiatives are in place. I think we have done a really good job on that. However, it is not a big
enough fund to meet some of the major issues that the racecourses face.
I have been contemplating this year the need for a review of major metropolitan horseracing venues. The
Premier has also stated his view that the industry needs to do more with those assets to underpin its
sustainability. I am pleased that the governing body, Racing and Wagering Western Australia, announced the
establishment of a task force to review thoroughbred and harness racing and training assets in the metropolitan
area and provincial areas that affect the metropolitan area. That task force will be chaired by RWWA deputy
chairman, Robert Pearson, and representatives from metropolitan clubs have been invited to participate. Perth
businessman and former president of the Urban Development Institution of Australia, Dr Russel Perry, whom
a lot of people know, will provide independent experience on the task force. He brings with him a wealth of
experience and knowledge. There will also be a representative with strong venue planning experience from the
Department of Sport and Recreation to help the task force. When the review was announced, RWWA chairman,
Jeff Ovens, who I think is doing a really good job in his role at RWWA, made it clear that the task force is
established to address the current and future utilisation from an industry and public interest perspective and to
look at the optimal utilisation of our metropolitan racing assets, which is critical to the viability of racing and
training operations in Western Australia. The RWWA board is of the view that the timing of this task force is
right and that it is necessary to demonstrate to the stakeholders that we are deploying our resources properly in
the most effective and efficient manner. This has not been done, and I think that it is a critical part of the process.
I certainly support what is taking place, and I welcome the decision to set up the review. This is a great
opportunity for the racing industry; the state government wholeheartedly supports that opportunity.
WATER CORPORATION — ASSET INVESTMENT PROGRAM
816.
Mr D.J. KELLY to the Minister for Water:
I refer to statements in the Water Corporation’s “Strategic Development Plan 2014/15–2018–19”, which was
accidentally tabled by the minister in August this year, that the Water Corporation’s capital program is
$954 million below what is necessary. I quote from the report —
Any further reductions in this capital budget may place the Corporation at an unacceptable level of risk
of asset or regulatory failure.
Given this clear warning, how can the government responsibly impose a further five per cent or $132 million
reduction to the Water Corporation’s asset investment program, as announced last week as part of the Premier’s
$2 billion package of cuts to deal with his government’s mismanagement of state debt?
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
I thank the member for the question. The Water Corporation is not immune to the decisions that the government
is making across the board to ensure that we are managing the budget responsibly, and it is subject to the
7496
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
application of the same efficiencies. We are requiring the Water Corporation to find some of those efficiencies
within its budget. I can guarantee that there will no reduction in the services provided to the community; we will
continue to deliver a very high quality product in water and sewerage services to our customers. In this financial
year, there will be no changes to the price that our customers are currently charged. The corporation operates to
the very highest of operating standards and it is continually operating within those standards, so I can guarantee
that we will be able to meet the requirements of our asset infrastructure plan going forward, maintaining
a quality service and delivering quality water and sewerage services to the community.
WATER CORPORATION — ASSET INVESTMENT PROGRAM
817.
Mr D.J. KELLY to the Minister for Water:
I ask a supplementary question. Given that the strategic development plan identifies 17 projects that have already
been deferred because of a denial of capital, is it not appalling that while customers are experiencing record price
increases, this government is not giving the Water Corporation the capital it needs to do its job?
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
The member is being facetious because that is referred to in a section of the report. Another section of the report
refers to the conversation that occurs between me, the Water Corporation and the Treasurer about the fact that
the Water Corporation is confident that it can meet its operating requirements going forward and continue to
deliver a quality service.
Mr D.J. Kelly interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Bassendean!
Ms M.J. DAVIES: Member, that document and that risk —
Mr B.S. Wyatt: It should never have been tabled.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: Open and accountable government —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Carry on, minister, through the Chair.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: That risk matrix to which the member referred is about the conversation that the
corporation —
Mr D.J. Kelly: Not the risk matrix; the list of projects that the member referred to —
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the first time. Minister, just answer the
question, please.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: I am trying, Mr Speaker; I keep getting interrupted.
I am very confident that the Water Corporation will be able to continue to deliver within the parameters of its
operating requirements with the capital that it is provided. As a corporation, it is not immune from the fiscal
restraint that government is showing in managing our budget going forward.
FEDERAL AND STATE SMALL BUSINESS MINISTERS — MEETING
818.
Mr P.T. MILES to the Minister for Small Business:
I understand that last week the minister hosted in Perth the meeting of federal and state small business ministers.
Can the minister please update the house on the results of this meeting?
Mr J.M. FRANCIS replied:
As members will be aware, there are some 210 000 registered small businesses across Western Australia. They
make up 97 per cent of all registered businesses in Western Australia and play a significant part in the economic
productivity of our state. As you know, Mr Speaker, ever since Sir Robert Menzies’ “The Forgotten People”
speech and his reference to those who generate that wealth, the Liberal Party has tried to be the party for small
business; it is critical to our philosophy.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Warnbro!
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: Upon becoming the minister, I was disappointed to learn in 2011 that the former
Gillard government cancelled the regular get-together of national small business ministers, so I took it upon
myself to invite to Perth last week Hon Bruce Billson, the federal Minister for Small Business, and every other
minister or parliamentary secretary from around the country so that we could see whether we were in concert
when it comes to small business.
Several members interjected.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7497
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the third time. Member for West Swan, you
were on three calls. You are now on 3.5 calls.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: It was a great get-together. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries came from New South
Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania—from all over the commonwealth. Unfortunately, one Labor state
refused to send a minister or representative, but that is its problem; no-one from South Australia came. However,
the rest of us were in absolute orchestra. We had a great get-together. We heard from the Under Treasurer of
Western Australia. We are trying to ensure that we are doing everything we can in symphony with each other to
do as much as possible to help small businesses not just in our own jurisdictions, but also across the entire
country. We want to be in absolute harmony. Interestingly enough, Professor Ian Harper came along and gave us
a great brief on his root-and-branch review of competition policy laws and institutions, and I welcome the
Harper review that will be released in its final form shortly. That report contains 52 draft recommendations that
will go a long way if they can be adopted at not just a state level but also a national level to help small business
do what it does best, which is to get on and create wealth, jobs and opportunities for the people of Western
Australia
ELECTRICITY PRICES — INCREASES
819.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON to the Minister for Energy:
I refer to the coal uplift question-and-answer document circulated by a senior media adviser from the office of
the Premier about the decision to increase payments to Yancoal.
(1)
Is it true that there will not be an immediate increase in electricity prices?
(2)
When will the increase in electricity prices occur?
(3)
How much will this increase in electricity prices be?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
I thank the member for the question.
(1)–(3) There will be no immediate increase; there will not be one at all. The price in the franchise market,
which is the A1 tariff, is set for this year and we will not be increasing that. For households and small
businesses, Synergy provides a regulated tariff regime in the south west interconnected system, and
Premier Coal provides coal, and there will not be a change. There will not be an immediate change and
there will not be a long-term change. We are into the process. Yes, the cost of coal will go up, but also
the surety of supply will improve under this contract. I might add that coal is the cheapest, lowest-cost
source of fuel in this state—at least in the south west interconnected system. This will assure jobs in the
Collie basin, because there was a real risk, as I indicated yesterday —
Mr M.P. Murray interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Collie–Preston, you are starting to remind me of my old sergeant major when you
bellow out—please!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I am not sure about the sergeant major but, anyway, there will not be an increase. This
renewal of an existing contract has an uplift, but it also requires Premier Coal to do a great deal of work to
improve the efficiency of the operation. We are confident it will do that and put in some long-term commitment
to the coalfields and to the ownership and structure of a valuable resource. We are on the way to reforming
Synergy, and we are achieving great things in that area because of the merger and otherwise, and we will be able
to comfortably absorb this increase and achieve substantial savings going forward.
ELECTRICITY PRICES — INCREASES
820.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON to the Minister for Energy:
I have a supplementary question. Is it true that the minister has just gone past the Premier’s election commitment
to hold electricity increases to the rate of inflation by saying that there will not be any further increases in
electricity prices?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
This is ridiculous. Even if we kept it at the consumer price index rate, we would be announcing increases. The
member asked me whether there will be an immediate increase in electricity prices. No. The member asked me
a specific question. And will there be, because of this contract renegotiation, further increases? No. I cannot say
any more.
7498
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PEOPLE
Review of Functions — Terms of Reference — Statement by Speaker
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): I have received a letter dated 16 October 2014 from the Chairman of
the Joint Standing Committee on the Commissioner for Children and Young People, advising that the committee
has resolved to conduct an inquiry with the following terms of reference —
The Committee will undertake a review of the functions exercised by the Commissioner for Children and Young
People, with particular reference to the recommendations contained in the recent Review of the
Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2006, and will report to the Parliament by 15 October 2015.
SCHOOL EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Receipt and First Reading
Bill received from the Council; and, on motion by Dr K.D. Hames (Minister for Health), read a first time.
Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister.
Second Reading
DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [2.49 pm] — by leave: I move —
That the bill be now read a second time.
The School Education Amendment Bill 2014 gives effect to policies announced by government and streamlines
the regulation of non-government schools. Starting in 2015, year 7 students in public schools will move to
secondary school. This is a major change to the structure of the government school system. Despite this, only
a minor amendment to section 97 of the act is necessary to allow secondary school charges to be levied for
year 7 students from the beginning of 2015.
Another significant initiative of the government is the establishment of child and parent centres on government
school sites. In December 2010, the Premier announced the establishment of 10 CPCs, and in February 2013,
a further six were announced. Five of those 16 centres are at regional schools, and 11 are at metropolitan
schools. The objective of the CPCs is to prepare children and their parents for success at school. As the centres
are to be located on school sites, it is necessary to provide specific authority in the act to allow the Minister for
Education to be the contracting party for CPCs and the licensor for the use of the land. This is achieved through
the amendment to part 6 of the act to enable the Minister for Education to enter into joint arrangements that
complement and benefit the delivery of school education and enable a licence to be granted for the use of school
property for CPCs.
Compulsory enrolment and attendance are foundation obligations of the act and for a child’s progress in their
education program. Current provisions for enforcing compulsory schooling have proven to be cumbersome. The
act is amended to strengthen the enforcement of compulsory schooling. The amendments focus on streamlining
processes to enforce both enrolment in and attendance at schools. For non-enrolment, a new section 11AA has
been introduced. This will place the onus on the parent to provide written proof of enrolment when the director
general of Education has formed the opinion that the child is not enrolled. Failure to provide the proof when
requested carries a fine of up to $2 500. This is the same amount as the fine for failure to ensure that the child is
enrolled. For a non-attendance, the process for ensuring that attendance at school has been streamlined. This
includes amendments to allow for greater flexibility when taking steps to facilitate a child’s attendance at school,
reduce the reporting obligations of attendance panels, and enable attendance panels to advise parents to enter into
responsible parenting agreements as a means of obtaining parental engagement and commitment to school
attendance.
Section 240 of the act is amended in response to a November 2012 report of the Corruption and Crime
Commission. It will enable the director general of Education to order a staff member to stay away from not just
their school, but all government school sites, during a misconduct investigation when student safety or welfare is
at stake.
Part 4 of the act governs the establishment and regulation of non-government schools. The workability of this
part has been under consideration by successive ministers and the Department of Education Services for some
years. It is cumbersome to administer and imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden on both schools and the
department. The proposed amendments streamline procedures, improve efficiency and fairness, reduce
regulatory burden and enable the registration standards for non-government schools to reflect contemporary
expectations.
Under the amendments, the proponents of a new non-government school are required to apply to the minister for
an advance determination. The application must be made at least 18 months before the planned opening date.
An advance determination is essentially an assessment of the likely effect of the proposed new school on existing
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7499
schools and on the choices available to parents. Applications will be assessed against policy criteria published in
the Government Gazette and must be finalised within six months. An advance determination will also be
required for schools seeking to make significant changes that could have an adverse effect on other schools.
Significant changes would include moving the school to a different area, opening a new campus in a different
area, and adding year levels. Refusal of an advance determination will become a reviewable decision. A request
for review will be referred to the non-government school registration advisory panel for a recommendation. This
panel is constituted by experts in both school planning and education provision. Registration decisions now
made by the minister will, under the amendments, be made by the chief executive officer of the responsible
department. These include initial registration, renewal of registration, change of registration, school inspections,
sanctions and cancellations. The CEO’s decisions are reviewable by the minister with the advice of the panel. It
is proposed to amend the scope of registration standards to include a specific standard on what measures are
required for preventing child abuse and for responding to any such abuse that may occur.
Under other amendments, school governing bodies will be accountable for implementing effective strategic
directions for their schools and for processes to plan, monitor and achieve improvements in student learning, as
well as for effective financial management.
The school inspection powers are expanded to enable an inspector to be charged with investigating how and why
a registered school has failed to comply with a registration standard or requirement. Currently, inspectors are
limited to assessing whether a school is compliant here and now. Inspectors will be able to take account of the
history of the present situation and the outlook for the future.
The amendments introduce a new tool for promoting school improvement. This is the quality improvement
notice that will be non-mandatory and non-punitive. It could be issued when quite minor improvements are
identified in a school that is otherwise performing well. The other sanctions of a condition on registration and
a direction are retained, as well as the ultimate sanction of cancellation of the school’s registration. Conditions
and directions are published on the register of non-government schools, as well as on the school’s registration
certificate.
Agreements between the minister and a school system—known as system agreements—are to be bolstered with
requirements concerning levels of care, the provision of statistical, financial and policy information about the
system and its schools, and the system’s performance in regulating quality in its schools. Currently, the only
system agreement is with the Catholic Education Commission. No change is made to the provisions on school
funding or loans for capital works.
Part 4 has caused frustration for non-government school proponents, regulators and Ministers for Education
throughout the life of the current act. The proposed amendments have been reviewed by both the
Catholic Education Office and the Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia, and both have
expressed their satisfaction with them.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman.
RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (WA) BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [2.58 pm]: I have already outlined the extent of the bill—another
245 pages of Liberal government laws. I suppose we have to ask whether this bill has been through the
regulatory gatekeeping unit. That is a genuine question that the Minister for Transport could answer. As he is
also the Minister for Finance, he has responsibility for the regulatory gatekeeping unit. Is the regulatory
gatekeeping unit keeping regulations?
I wanted to raise some matters about rail safety in my electorate. The rail freight line forms the eastern boundary
of my electorate of Cannington, which is an unusual boundary. I would have thought that the
Electoral Commission would have used Roe Highway as a boundary but it put the electorate boundary a couple
of hundred metres to the east, using the freight rail line, which is no trouble except that it splits the suburb of
Thornlie. The southern end of Thornlie used to be split three ways between the former seat called
Southern River, the former boundary of the seat of Gosnells and the boundary of Cannington. After the last
redistribution, although my electorate was not changed, the rest of Thornlie was put into the member for
Gosnells’ seat after being taken out of the seat of Southern River. That is an unusual situation. About 350 houses
in Thornlie are in my electorate and everybody, including the residents, would expect those houses to be with the
rest of the suburb of Thornlie in the member for Gosnells’ seat.
I now draw attention to Partridge Way and Lyrebird Way in Thornlie, which back onto the rail freight line. On
becoming a member of this place, I wrote to the former Minister for Environment and the former Minister for
7500
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Transport to ask questions about residents’ exposure to particulates from the diesel locomotives that used the
freight line. It was an issue that had been raised with me by residents. I was surprised to find that there is no limit
applied to diesel exhausts or particulates from diesel locomotives. Let me put this in context. There are limits on
particulate exhaust from diesel trucks but not from diesel locomotives. In my view, there is a clear gap in the
regulatory environment. I believe this is a safety issue. It is certainly a safety issue for residents along the freight
line in Partridge Way and Lyrebird Way who have to cope with their backyards being covered in diesel
particulates from the freight trains that pass behind their back fences. What is worse for those residents is that
going back, say, to the 1980s when some of these people moved into that area, the rail freight line might have
had a train a day, or even two or three trains a day. Now, with the growth in industry and in the Western
Australian economy, the freight movements have expanded enormously. It is a bit like my residents complaining
about the airport. People say, “The airport has been there for 60 years; you came afterwards.” That is true, but
the nature of the airport has changed over the last 20 years. It is the same with the rail freight line. There
certainly was a rail freight line there for a long time but the nature of the operations on the rail freight line are
very different today from what they were in the past.
It is not like that great scene in The Blues Brothers when Elwood brings Jake back to the apartment and the
L trains are going past their window. The apartment was in Chicago. Every time an elevated train went past their
window, the entire apartment shook. Every 60 seconds, there was another train. That is not what it was like. I am
not saying that it was a rural idyll in Thornlie, but it was not like it is today. It is a major change for those
residents, particularly the ones in Partridge and Lyrebird Ways. The increasing volumes of rail traffic along the
freight line through Thornlie have significantly impacted on their lifestyle.
I imagine the member for Gosnells might say a few words in this debate because his residents are also in
Thornlie, on the other side of the rail line. I will not say who is worse off, but I will make the observation that the
distance from the north-bound rail line to the back fence and the back door of residents on the western side of the
freight line is very close. It is a very short distance. This is a major problem for those people. A number of
residents have raised that with me. When I do my street corner meetings, one of the issues raised with me is the
fact there is no standard in Western Australia relating to particulates from those trains.
I have read newspaper articles by Mr Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz) about the issue of the freight line in the
former configuration of the member’s seat of Southern River. I am not currently aware of how close residents are
to the rail freight line in the Acting Speaker’s seat of Southern River. I think they are probably a bit further down
with the reconfiguration of the seat. I remember seeing some commentary about these issues in the media
a number of years ago from the member on behalf of his constituents. They are important issues.
Equally, there is another issue that directly relates to rail safety, and that is the question of what is being
transported on the freight trains. When lead was being exported from Fremantle, it travelled through Thornlie on
its way to port. I wrote to the City of Gosnells about that as it is responsible for the emergency management
plans. In each community, the local government is the coordinator; I forget the proper title. The member for
Midland can probably correct me on the title; I think it is the “chair”. The chair of the emergency management
committee in each local government is the local government, and they are designed to coordinate all the other
agencies. Although no-one would expect a local government to have all the resources to deal with rail accidents,
the committee does the scenario planning et cetera. I wrote to the City of Gosnells to say that I hoped it had a
plan to deal with lead being transported along that line. Many other chemicals are transported along that line.
There needs to be a proper, coordinated safety plan. Everybody understands that the economy of Western
Australia is what underpins our wonderful lifestyle. We need to ensure that industry can operate to generate
wealth for the benefit of the community. That operation cannot be done without regard for the community, or
else there is no point to the development. Given the increasing volumes on that line, it is an absolutely essential
issue to make sure that there are proper safety arrangements in place to guarantee the security of those residents.
As the volumes on the freight line increase, that will become increasingly important.
I often hear people say, “We have these plans; they’ve been there for a long time; residents need to take account
of the plans when they make a decision to buy in one location or another.” These are all things that are said.
There is value in all of those comments, but of course we know that the Stephenson plan in respect of the freight
system in Western Australia has been rejected by the Liberal Party, going back years and years. For example, the
Stephenson plan recommended a bridge at the end of Stock Road to link the south side and the north side of the
Swan River to allow trucks to travel across that bridge. That was never built, and never will be built. The
Stephenson plan called for a freight road to run north from Fremantle to join with what eventually became the
Mitchell Freeway. That is another road that has never been built, and never will be. The reason for the decisions
to reject those important pieces of transport infrastructure, which would have aided commerce and industry in
this state, was the interests of residents in the locations that would have been impacted on had those roads and
that bridge been built. It is a bit unreasonable for people to say that the western suburbs do not have a road going
through them, so they live there, and for those same people to then say that the people in Thornlie knew the
railway line was there. There should have been a big road going up through the northern beaches of Perth if the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7501
Stephenson plan had been implemented, but it was never built because the residents objected to it. I am not
saying that they were wrong to object to it; I am just saying that it is also perfectly reasonable for people in
Thornlie. Just because they are working people who do ordinary jobs or survive on pensions or through the
combined effort of their families through small business, why should the impact that industry has on their lives
not be considered? In just the same way as the Liberal Party rejected the Stephenson plan and would never
implement it, it is right for people in Thornlie to say that if there is to be this major piece of economic
infrastructure literally in their backyard, they should have some guarantees that their safety and security are
properly considered. In the same way, those residents are all affected by noise and vibration, and that will be an
increasing issue in the future and we will have to see what plans we can put in place to help them ameliorate the
impact they will bear.
I make the point that my own house that I live in is a block and a half from the metropolitan railway line.
Because my house is over 100 years old, when the trains go past, my house rattles at the front. I must say that is
the joy of living in a 100-year-old house and it is fabulous to live 200 metres from the train station, so I am not
complaining about that, but I am making the observation that my house rattles when a train goes past. That is
nothing like a freight train going past a person’s back fence. Let me make it clear: a freight train rolling past
someone’s back fence bringing iron ore from Yilgarn down to the Fremantle bulk terminal makes a real shake,
and residents, particularly in Partridge Way and Lyrebird Way in Thornlie, know it when a train is passing. They
know it from the diesel fumes, they know it from the noise and they know it from the vibration. At some point,
a solution will have to be found, because we currently do not have one.
I will now move on from representing my constituents to just asking a couple of quick questions of the minister.
First, I note that this legislation will supersede the Rail Safety Act 2010, which I understand from the minister’s
second reading speech arose from the National Transport Commission’s model rail safety law, which, as the
minister said, was published in 2006. I note from the third paragraph of the minister’s speech that in 2009 the
Council of Australian Governments voted to establish a single national regulator for rail safety. The point I am
getting to is that I am wondering why, when we dealt with the Rail Safety Act 2010 in the Parliament to
implement the 2006 NTC model rail safety law—which, when I scan back, seems to have been dealt with in
2010—we had already had the COAG agreement of June 2009 to introduce a single regulator. The minister got
a couple of questions from the member for West Swan, so I will imagine he will answer those, and it would be
good if we could get an indication of why we needed to implement the model law in 2010, four years after it was
published by the NTC.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: In 2006 the NTC published the model law, in 2009 COAG agreed to a single national
regulator, in 2010 we brought in the model law that was agreed to in 2006 and now in 2014, four years later, we
bring in the single regulator.
I would also be interested to know from the minister whether this decision to move to a national regulator is just
a matter in respect to the rail transport industry or whether Western Australia is moving towards a broader
joining with the national regulatory models. I make the observation that we do not regulate our truck system in
this way; we have not joined the national scheme for road freight, but we will for rail freight. I wonder whether
this is a precursor to moving to the national system for road, and, if it is not, why are we doing it for rail and not
road? It would seem that if the national scheme is being picked up for one part of the transport competition, the
other part should be picked up, because, as we all understand, rail freight and road freight are directly competing
against each other—seaborne transport is also potentially a competitor, but in Australia it is generally trucks and
trains. If there is to be a single regulator for one half and the national arrangement for rail safety is taken up, will
it also be done for road safety? Has there been an analysis of the potential savings for the harmonisation of rail
safety compared with the potential savings in harmonising road safety? It may well be that we can get a bigger
bang for our buck by harmonising the road freight safety system rather than harmonising the rail freight safety
system. That is an issue I thought about as we were dealing with this bill.
I have not had the opportunity to read all 251 pages of the October 2014 third report of the Economics and
Industry Standing Committee entitled “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight Rail Network”, which
was tabled today. I have of course read the findings and recommendations, and the question I have for the
minister is: will we be able to more effectively manage the freight rail network through this rail safety national
law so that rail lines that could be available become available through this system? Of course, at the moment in
the interpretation applied, as I read the Economics and Industry Standing Committee report—as I say, I have not
read the whole report but I have read a number of chapters, as well as the findings and recommendations and the
executive summary—the economic interests of the operator, the lessee of the freight rail network, seems to be
contrary to the interests of the broader community. Will this rail safety national law help us to deal with the
issues raised? Many of the issues raised by the lessee relate to its perception of safety on those lines, so will this
allow us to have a more effective regulatory regime that will get us better operation of that government-owned
infrastructure that we are currently being denied access to because of contractual arrangements?
7502
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
I want to also comment briefly on the heritage and tourism rail lines operated by volunteers, but I make the
observation that I have not had anything to do with the operators of those lines here in Western Australia. Like
every other member of the chamber, I have kids who have enjoyed a ride on one of the trains, but I have not
personally been involved in the operations. Many years ago when I was a director of the Australian Bicentennial
Authority, we provided a grant for the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Railway Historical
Society to rebuild its trains because the volunteer members found they could do all the maintenance on their
steam trains, except the boilers. They needed many hundreds of thousands of dollars, even in 1986, to get outside
agencies to do the work. The interesting thing I was going to mention was that the volunteers would get the
engines ready, shunt them around their yard, connect up all the train carriages, shunt them down to the end of
their lease area and then get out so that State Rail Authority drivers could drive the train. The volunteers were
not allowed to drive them; only New South Wales SRA drivers could drive them. Even though those enthusiasts
were massively interested in the trains, they could do everything except drive them and that seemed very unfair.
I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether there is flexibility for people interested in these things to drive
trains while making sure of the standards. We want people to do things that they are good at, as long as they
meet proper minimum standards. I hope the minister can let us know that that will continue to be the case.
I note also from the minister’s second reading speech that the Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill will pick up
most of the Rail Safety Act 2010. It would be good to know the specific variations between the existing
arrangements and the new arrangements. The explanatory memorandum contains comments—I am sorry;
I cannot find the exact words—that it is not a significant change in the regulatory regime because it has been
covered by the 2010 legislation.
Mr D.C. Nalder: That is right.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: If there is variation, can the minister let us know specifically what it is. I am not the
shadow spokesperson, but I am using this speech to make some important points on behalf of my community.
I am not going to say that I am an expert on all the legislation.
We do not want the commonwealth running everything here in Western Australia, and that is well understood.
Given that we are holding out on road freight, why have we given in on rail freight? Why will Canberra run the
show now rather than we running it ourselves? What is the ideological reason for that? I do not intend to
unnecessarily delay the house but I wanted to get on the record some very important issues relating to my
community. I have some ideas about how we can solve some of those problems. None are easy to solve and
some will be exacerbated by the building of the Thornlie line extension at some future time. Who knows when
that will be? Some members—I am not trying to drag the Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz) into the debate—at
certain times have promised all sorts of things around the Thornlie line extension. It is a logical extension. The
Kenwick deviation was not commonsense but the completion of the Thornlie line extension through to Cockburn
will be, and there will be some issues when the Thornlie line extension is built at that southern end of Thornlie.
It should not be just a matter of putting the grade separation at Nicholson Road, although it is very important, but
it is not all that needs to be done. Obviously, there is an ideal opportunity to use the rail freight corridor but there
may need to be some interaction between the metropolitan line and the freight line. All those issues will have to
be resolved, particularly for the people who live in Thornlie. With those comments, I commend the bill.
MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah) [3.25 pm]: I rise to make a contribution to the Rail Safety National Law
(WA) Bill 2014. I acknowledge that the main purpose of the bill is to establish the Western Australian
component of the national scheme for the regulation of rail safety. Railways have a very strong sense of
romanticism for many people in our community. For those people who worked on the railway system, as did my
good mate who now lives in Two Rocks, Mr Les Couzens, a locomotive driver with Western Australian
Government Railways for a number of years, the thrill of being part of a steam era, as he was, was exciting.
Les was part of the steam era towards the end of that time. The immense pride he and many like him, including
those involved in the Midland Workshops, felt and still feel for the railway system in which they worked was
remarkable. We need only look at some of the Western Australian towns throughout the state, particularly during
the early part of the last century through to perhaps the 1970s and even into the early 1980s, to appreciate that
the railways played a very important part in the vibrancy of those towns. I come from the railway town of
Northam, where I was born. Northam, itself, was a major junction for trains heading to the goldfields as well as
to other parts of the wheatbelt. My nanna Templeman, my father’s mother, worked for one part of her life at the
Grand Hotel, which is opposite the old Northam railway station. She told me many stories about the railway
workers and the vibrancy that a dynamic rail industry brought to the town of Northam and many other inland
towns of Western Australia.
As we know, passenger rail used to run to Geraldton and to Albany and, of course, through to Northam and into
the inland towns of Western Australia. Many sidings and many small communities existed primarily to keep the
Western Australian railway system operational. Of course that is not necessarily the case in Western Australia.
For various reasons, railway lines have closed or been decommissioned. Big workforces that were required in
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7503
towns such as Narrogin, Northam, Merredin and some of the other bigger centres were drastically reduced for
efficiency reasons and because road transport became a major competitor.
It is fascinating to note the history of railway development in Australia generally. There was a time last century
when people travelling from Perth to Sydney or to Melbourne passed through four or five railway gauges on
their journey. I can remember in 1979 travelling on the then Trans-Australian Railway with my nanna
Templeman, as her partner was a railway worker and she was able to get some reduced fares for us. We in fact
got on the Trans-Australian Railway at Northam and went to Kalgoorlie. Then at Kalgoorlie we travelled to
Port Augusta and changed trains to travel on a narrower gauge to Port Augusta. Then we changed again at Port
Pirie and again en route to Adelaide before we eventually left Adelaide on the Overland, as it was called
then—I think it still is called the Overland—and travelled on a different gauge through to Melbourne. That was
the trip. I think we changed gauges at least three or four times on that trip in 1979. We have seen the regulation
of the standard railway gauges but now, of course, we are making sure that there is standardisation of the total
jurisdiction regarding rail safety. This is at a time when we have in many parts of Australia increased rail
infrastructure, particularly for public transport of patrons, in constantly bigger and bigger numbers.
The day the southern suburbs rail was opened in Mandurah by Hon Alannah MacTiernan and then
Premier Alan Carpenter will always be a proud moment for me personally, as the member for Mandurah and
having been a member of this place now for nearly 14 years. I do not think that people who do not live in a place
can quite recognise the jubilation in people when they are connected using a piece of infrastructure such as rail.
I can just imagine the euphoric response of people back in the early 1900s through to the 1920s and 1930s when
inland towns in Western Australia were connected to the rail line, because the people of Mandurah were
euphoric only seven years ago when the Mandurah rail opened on 23 December. It was symbolic for many
reasons. It was a symbolic connection to the Perth metropolitan area; it was and is a symbolic and important
economic connector for people who use the service for work; and it is an important social connector for people
who have family and loved ones in various parts of the metropolitan area. I am reminded nearly every day in
Mandurah that people are very grateful that we have a world-class rail connection to the southern suburbs. Of
course, quite rightfully, the Labor Party will be credited for the delivery of that rail. The now federal member for
Perth, Alannah MacTiernan, particularly will share in much of that accolade. I remind people that I was
a member of this place, as were a number of other members, when in those early years of the Gallop government
we were hounded by the then Liberal–National opposition and significant members of the conservative
establishment in Perth who derided the vision of Premier Gallop and Alannah MacTiernan for the southern
suburbs rail. People such as Willy Packer and others constantly said that it would be a waste of money. They
used terms such as, “It is well before its time” and “It will be a white elephant.” Have they not been found
wanting in their comments today?
The electrification of the northern suburbs rail line and the extension by the then Labor governments occurred in
the 1980s and early 1990s; and then the addition of more than 72 kilometres of rail for the southern rail system
was an important and significant investment in rail infrastructure. Of course we know that the southern suburbs
rail in Mandurah has been paid off. The Minister for Transport’s comments on the southern suburbs rail bewilder
me when he uses the line about us never delivering the rail to the centre of Mandurah. I am puzzled by those
comments. The minister was not a member of this place at the time of the early planning and discussions. It is
interesting to note that the land that was identified for the now Mandurah terminus was the only land left
available in the Mandurah precinct to fit in the rail infrastructure reserve. I think that is what the minister is
getting at when he asks why the rail was not taken to the so-called Mandurah CBD. One thing he needs to
understand is that the Mandurah CBD area is less than 500 metres in length. That is not a big CBD. The minister
pushes the comment that we did not get the rail into the CBD. Mate, I am sorry, but the fact is that Mandurah
CBD, as it is known, was even back then and still is a tiny portion of land. That is what the minister is on about
when he keeps saying that we never took the rail to the centre of Mandurah. If we had taken it to the centre of
Mandurah, the only area that —
[Interruption.]
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Will we expel the member in his absence?
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I think you, Mr Acting Speaker, should call to order that phone!
Even the parcel of land on Peel Street would not have accommodated a rail station. It was considered, but I think
the minister will find that in early considerations it was acknowledged that there would need to be a tunnel from
the now existing terminus all the way along Peel Street and Allnutt Street, and I think the cost of tunnelling
would have been problematic because Mandurah had a problem with its generally high watertable. Honestly, the
minister bewilders me with this thing about the centre of Mandurah. The interesting thing is that the centre of
Mandurah has changed now and gravitated towards the existing railway station.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, I remind you that the bill is not about the Mandurah railway line but about
national regulation and safety. It is very interesting, I must admit.
7504
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I want to put that on the record because the minister tends to do this in question time
quite often, and I need to put him at rest. LandCorp’s investment now is quite significant around that whole
centre, and members will find that that is indeed the centre of Mandurah.
However, speaking about safety, I have to tell the minister that when governments build rail systems, I think
people vote with their feet and they want to be involved. They jump on board, and there are literally thousands of
safe boardings on the southern suburbs rail at the Mandurah terminus. However, I understand this government
has no plans to provide any new station between Mandurah terminus and Warnbro station in the medium term. In
the upper house only yesterday, in estimates —
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, I want to draw you back to the bill, please.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I am talking about safety. It is very important; it is about safety.
The ACTING SPEAKER: They might fall off a station that does not exist!
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: It is about safety because Mandurah has a population of 88 000 people with
a hinterland population of 90 000-plus. Only one station services that population, yet the government has no
plans, as determined by the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations in the last day or so,
until at least 2025 for the consideration of any station in the northern Mandurah area. I am telling the minister
now, for the safety of patrons and people who want to access the rail line into the future, a new station is
required in north Mandurah. I have argued and I will consistently argue that a Lakelands station is needed.
However, the minister’s department and his experts and his government continue to say that the catchment is not
big enough. This is based on an assumption that needs to be challenged—that is, not every new station needs to
be a whiz-bang $50 million initiative. We should be considering new stations that cater for little parking but very
good public transport linkages, as we have on existing lines at Ashfield, Daglish and Claremont. Lakelands
should be considered for a new station.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: The government’s planners focus on only the big stations. They keep saying it has to
be a 30 000-patron catchment before they will consider a station. I challenge that. Lakelands is a prime example
of an area where a much less expensive piece of infrastructure could be delivered to relieve what I think will
become safety concerns for the Mandurah terminus into the future if we do not provide not only additional
parking for patrons but also another station to the north of Mandurah. I will leave that point there. Minister, I will
not let up on this. I invite the minister to come down to Mandurah early one normal workday not only to see the
number of people seeking parking there, but also to get bowled over just before 9.00 am by the many seniors
who use this railway station. We have an interesting example of safety; it is about safety. This is a very
interesting phenomenon and I think it happens only in Mandurah. If the minister goes to the station just before
9.00 am, he will see all the people waiting for their free travel that is made available at 9.00 am. It is amazing.
I guarantee that at 9.00 am on a weekday before the turnstiles will be 60 or 70 people waiting for the clock to
tick over to nine o’clock because the first train leaving after 9.00 am is at 9.02 am. I have seen this phenomenon.
He will get bowled over by people with walking sticks waiting for that 9.02 am train. That is great, but it raises
issues of safety for us. I appreciate, Mr Acting Speaker, your leniency about making that point.
I will now make a point that is perhaps more relevant to the bill; it is about how the national scheme of
regulation affects heritage rail provision in the state. The minister would be aware that the Peel region is home to
the Hotham Valley Tourist Railway experience, which has trains moving between Pinjarra and Dwellingup and
also out of Dwellingup along the line to the east. I cannot remember the name; it starts with E. The line is only
about 10 kilometres I think, but they use it as a brief day experience. When we had the devastating fires in
Dwellingup, some of the infrastructure was lost. It was replaced, but it severely dented, if you like, the rail
infrastructure and in some ways severely affected the aspirations of particularly the Boddington shire to
reinvigorate the line that runs from Boddington to Pinjarra via Dwellingup. I know that the shire president and
councillors have always believed that it would be a great heritage rail experience if the Hotham Valley service
could be extended through to Boddington, but that would be a significant infrastructure cost because it would
mean that the existing railing reserve and infrastructure would need to be dramatically improved. However, I put
in a bid for the Hotham Valley entity because it is an important part of the tourism attractions of the Peel region.
Indeed, every Wednesday and Sunday, particularly during this time of year and the winter period, it is a very
popular experience. It is a great experience for workers, ex–railway men and women, who were part of the
golden era of railways in Western Australia, and particularly the steam era. It is nostalgic and romantic and
a very important living history aspect of rail transport in the Western Australian context.
I have been reassured, and I am sure that the minister will reassure us again, that ensuring Western Australia is
part of this national approach to rail safety regulation will not have a detrimental effect on the very popular
heritage rail initiatives that continue to operate successfully in the state. I hope the minister gives us that
assurance. It is important that the minister understands just how revered the Hotham Valley experience in the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7505
Peel is. I want to finish by saying that I acknowledge the volunteers, both past and present, who have been part
of the Hotham Valley experience in the Peel region for their commitment and dedication to the rail experience
and bringing that to families. Seeing kids’ eyes when the puffing locomotive pulls up to hitch on and take them
up to Dwellingup is quite an experience. One gets a tremendous thrill just from seeing their eyes, because it is
a window to the past and a very wonderful part of our history. We want to see that sort of activity, tourism
opportunity, continue. I hope during the minister’s time as Minister for Transport he will continue to support
these initiatives, because they are important parts of our heritage and culture and they give so many families who
visit or live in the Peel region and take part in that rail experience a great thrill.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [3.50 pm]: I rise to speak to the Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill 2014.
Of course anything that improves rail safety is important. If rail safety can be brought about by ensuring
consistency across jurisdictions, it is a good thing and a commendable goal of the legislation before us. Much of
this issue is around consistency at the jurisdictional level, but I want to bring to the minister’s attention my rail
safety concerns about the lack of consistency in the day-to-day operations of trains that run along the part of the
rail freight network I am familiar with—that is, the rail freight line, as the member for Cannington explained,
that runs along the boundary between our respective electorates and has trains going from Forrestfield to
Kwinana. It is an increasingly busy section of track that is administered and effectively operated by
Brookfield Rail. There is a whole discussion to be had about the merits of the decision to outsource the
responsibility for the management of that track to an outside company. Brookfield Rail is the operator of the
tracks and other companies operate the trains that run along those tracks, and the state government is the landlord
and has ultimate responsibility for the train line. I think on most counts Brookfield Rail would say that the rail
reserves belong to it and that it controls access to them, but that is only until things get a bit difficult; if there is
something a bit contentious, will Brookfield Rail spend money, for example, to upgrade the noise mitigation
walls that will be desperately needed on people’s properties as the frequency of trains increases? I think it is very
important that the minister starts to think about this issue. The extension of the passenger network—something
we all know is absolutely essential and much needed—and the increased volume of freight going along the
freight lines mean that it is vitally important that the minister and his advisers take to cabinet the issue of
government responsibility to ensure that owners of properties adjoining the rail freight line and the future
Public Transport Authority passenger line do not have their quality of life damaged or reduced in any way by the
rail line extension and the increased volume of freight trains.
My impression is that most people with properties along the rail freight line—my constituents—are pretty stoic
about train noise, vibrations and the level of risk they are exposed to from the nature of the goods in the train
wagons that use the line. We are working with people who are very prepared to cooperate with the state
government and Brookfield Rail to ensure a harmonious ongoing relationship. My house is on Debenham Street,
Thornlie and effectively backs onto the train line. Fortunately I have the Aylesford Reserve between my back
fence and the train line, but I can hear and certainly feel the vibrations from freight trains going past. Further
down, I have constituents on Kidman Court and Greenway Avenue whose homes are probably closer to the rail
line and they feel the vibrations proportionately more than me, no doubt about it.
We have noticed that a lot of the nuisance is down to the quality of the rolling stock, and this is an opportunity
for us to ensure that we can really improve things. I commend Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd; I think the new
CBH rolling stock has gone a long way to improving things. It is fortunate, because CBH has had to deal with
some record harvests in recent times of 13 million tonnes. I am not sure what the projections are for this year; it
might be 13 million tonnes again. A lot of that grain—not all of it, by any means, but a significant amount—
comes along the Forrestfield–Kwinana freight line. The new silver grain freight wagons that have been specially
designed for the job seem to be much quieter. That is the rolling stock that contains the freight. There is also the
issue of the locomotives. Some of the locomotives pulling massive loads are much quieter than others. Then an
old clunker will come along at two o’clock in the morning and it is disruptive. It is not a problem for me because
I am further back from the rail line, but for the people who live in Kidman Court and Greenway Avenue I think it
is more significant. Their houses are older as well. As the member for Cannington said, they are the people who
moved into the area before usage of the rail line expanded. Now we have everything from iron ore and lead to
chemicals for the gold industry—all manner of materials going along that freight line. The volume of traffic has
grown exponentially and I am sure that the Brookfield Rail website has an explanation or indication of how the
volume of traffic has increased.
Moving further west along the freight line, still in my electorate, residents of Elliot Place, Tarradee Circuit,
Carakine Grove and Nyandi Court are generally in newer properties and are suffering from vibrations more than
some of the older properties, which raises questions about the application of the building code. It just goes to
show that the issue of safety and the regulation of the construction and operation of train lines is many-faceted.
I think there are commendable features of this legislation, but we need to recognise that there are other areas of
government that have to be looked at to ensure that people who live in a rail corridor are respected, their quality
of life is maintained and their personal safety is not endangered.
7506
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
One of the biggest issues, which gets to the heart of rail safety, is the sounding of sirens by trains when they go
over level crossings. I began by talking about how this legislation intends to create a degree of jurisdictional
consistency across the country, but something that is not consistent at an operational level is the sounding of
freight train and PTA passenger train sirens; there are all kinds of variations. There is variation in the length of
the sounding of the siren, the intensity or decibel output of the siren, and the location where the siren is sounded.
There is variation on those three elements all the time, which leads to a high degree of frustration amongst
residents of the streets that I mentioned. I must say that this also happens along the Armadale line.
I have talked to some of my constituents who live in a very well run and happy Department of Housing complex
at 7 Fremantle Road—I think there are at least 60 villas in that complex and some great people live there.
I recently visited Mr Fred Skinner who had called me out to demonstrate the inconsistency with which this key
safety initiative of making sure a train sounds its siren as it is going over a crossing is applied. That siren can be
an irritation to residents who have to endure the noise. Sometimes they think it is not a problem at all and that
they can live with it, but then there are other times at two o’clock in the morning when they find that it is a real
nuisance. However, leaving aside that issue, if we have this level of inconsistency, what does it say about the
value of sounding the siren from a rail safety point of view? Does it mean that sometimes people hear the siren
sounded when the train is actually 10 metres from the level crossing? In that case is there any benefit in sounding
the siren because if a person were endeavouring to go over the crossing at that time, the siren would be sounded
too late and tragically their lives would come to an end. We need to ensure that we give good, clear direction to
the operators of freight and passenger trains. Rail safety relates to people who operate trains travelling through
the night across the Nullarbor Plain, but rail safety in our urban areas is crucial.
It is absolutely remarkable just how many trains go along the line between Perth and Armadale each day. The
boom gates operate with amazing reliability. People are very understanding when they get caught up by a train,
which they are very likely to do if they want to across the Armadale line. They accept that the boom gates come
down and it all seems to work reasonably well. However, I know that this is an issue that the minister is
considering at the moment because my friend and colleague the member for South Perth is lobbying this matter
as much as I am. We are looking for the creation of grade separation at the Nicholson Road crossing. Presently,
the freight line goes over Nicholson Road and creates an increased risk to all concerned; it is a rail safety issue.
I fully applaud the initiative of grade separation. Indeed, grade separation was central to our Metronet proposal.
If we were to achieve a Public Transport Authority station at Nicholson Road, we had to have grade separation
so that the boom gates were not constantly going up and down at a very busy crossing that is three lanes in each
direction—it is a very wide piece of road. I understand that the federal government has given a commitment to
providing 50 per cent of the required funds for grade separation at that Nicholson Road crossing. This gets back
to my previous point about the sounding of sirens, because once we eliminate a rail crossing, we eliminate the
need for sirens to be sounded. The people who live especially in Nyandi Court and Carakine Grove were very
concerned about the implications of frequent PTA passenger trains going along their back fences on their way to
the Mandurah line at Cockburn. They see that there will be a benefit in that they will no longer have to endure
the sirens—I have spoken about the inconsistency about with which those sirens were sounded—because once
we have achieved grade separation, the trains will be able to roll through smoothly. That will be combined with
the continual upgrading of the rolling stock that will be presumably newer, safer and more reliable in terms of its
ability to break should there be some emergency. The locomotives will be more reliable and quieter, and no
doubt efficient as well. I mention again the member for Cannington who referred to less pollution in terms of
diesel particulate. There are all kinds of benefits if we keep pushing for the constant upgrading and application of
the latest in terms of rail standards; that is a good thing and a positive step forward.
On the matter of grade separation, an important point must be made, and I hope that the member for
Southern River’s optimism about this is not misplaced. I mentioned that the federal government is putting up
50 per cent of the money and the state government is putting up the other 50 per cent. In the state budget in May
next year we need to see that 50 per cent come through to pay for the grade separation on Nicholson Road.
I hope that we will not be let down yet again because it is something that will make a big difference to the
quality of life and the commuting time of many people. It will set us well on the way to allowing that extension
of the Thornlie line through to the Mandurah line as well. It is essential that we get on and do it and I think the
time is right. If the federal government is prepared to put up 50 per cent of the money, it is time the state
government came up with it as well. I know that in May next year, the member for Southern River and I will
both be anxiously looking through the budget papers to see that that money is there and that the payments can be
made.
I will elaborate a little further on this need for noise mitigation to be part of any rail upgrades or continuation or
increase in the volume of freight on the line. We need to make sure that noise mitigation rules are just a natural
part of the way we do business.
[Member’s time extended.]
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7507
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: When the rail freight network was handed over to Brookfield Rail, it should have been
included in the contract that as certain threshold levels of freight transport were reached, we would then improve
the noise mitigation on either side of the tracks—that seems only reasonable. The people who live along those
tracks accept that there is a certain volume of traffic going along the line, but it gets to a point where Brookfield
is no doubt making more money through increased traffic volumes along the tracks, while their neighbours are
suffering the consequences of that traffic through increased noise and vibration. I really hope that the minister is
studying this issue hard to work out how we can make sure that we have the very best in noise and vibration
mitigation applied to the freight network.
In my reading of the bill so far, I have seen no reference to another aspect of rail safety: the access to the rail
reserve. Brookfield has responsibility for that reserve and gets very upset if somebody strays onto it. In the
lead-up to the last state election while campaigning with my colleagues, we wanted to take a photo and talk
about the extension of the Thornlie train line and we needed to gain access to a part of that Brookfield Rail
reserve. I do not think it was very enthusiastic about us doing that so we respected its wishes, of course. It is
interesting that Brookfield Rail is concerned about access to that reserve. From my experience, it does very little
about trail bikes that access the rail reserve at different times. When we talk about the trail bike problem in my
area and many areas of Perth, the rail reserve is one area where that dreadful nuisance is most prevalent. I think
Brookfield Rail could do much more to restrict and control access to the area, thereby preventing and stopping
people from taking their trail bikes along the train tracks or the adjacent rail reserve. Perhaps it could work with
the state government on its long-promised state trail bike strategy, something that is yet to see the light of day.
A comprehensive draft document was produced by the Carpenter government. Years have gone by and there is
still no progress on that state trail bike strategy. Brookfield Rail, with its concerns about rail safety, is also a part
of this. It should be pushing for rail safety to be a key component of the strategy. It would want to see it
implemented as quickly as any of us.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of duties of persons loading or unloading freight under clause 54. I find
it very interesting. I have a personal interest in this. As a Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd worker in the early
1980s, I recall working at the Shackleton wheat bin. One year I decided I wanted a break from the position of
weighbridge officer. I did not want to be in the sampling hut; I preferred to be outside loading the rail wagons.
My first duty was to pull back the tarpaulins on the wagons. We would start that job at six o’clock in the
morning, I think. We would feel the heat of the day bite into us by seven o’clock. We looked at the train wagons
that we were yet to load and it seemed like there were as many to load as we had just loaded. It was an important
task, nevertheless. I am sure that there are people right around the state engaged in some form of loading rail
wagons. When I see clause 54, “Duties of persons loading or unloading freight”, it makes me realise that the
content of the bill before us is very vague and general. As a young CBH worker, I was not without some degree
of responsibility. We will probably re-visit this clause in consideration in detail. The clause states —
A person who loads or unloads freight on or from rolling stock in relation to the transport of the freight
by railway must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the loading or unloading is carried out
safely and so as to ensure the safe operation of the rolling stock.
I think that is very vague and very broad. It seems to me that this clause, along with other clauses in the bill, puts
an enormous responsibility on owners and operators —
Ms J.M. Freeman: Most things in safety legislation are reflected in regulations and codes of practice. That is
what you are looking for. They will be much broader in the regulations.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: One would hope that there would be more detail in the regulations. Reading that
clause, if I was back in my old job working on the Shackleton wheat bin, I would have thought that I had a huge
responsibility to ensure that the rolling stock was up to scratch. I was not qualified to check that the bearings and
things like that would not be a problem and could not reassure someone that it was not likely to cause
a derailment further down the track, literally. It is a particularly vague piece of legislation. I trust the member for
Mirrabooka that there be will be more detail in the regulations that surround this legislation, it will be clearly
spelt out who is responsible, the duties of persons loading or unloading freight will be better defined and it will
not be down to the seasonally employed casual worker to determine what is a safe piece of rolling stock and
what is an unsafe piece.
I offer my support for this legislation. I hope that the minister and his advisers have been able to take careful
note of the issues that I have raised, especially around the issues of consistency. I say again that this bill has been
brought to this place on the basis that it will achieve consistency across jurisdictions. I am concerned about the
inconsistencies that I see on a daily basis. Indeed, we can see the inconsistency of the application of the rules
surrounding sirens on an hourly basis when we stand on the tracks in either Thornlie or Gosnells. Clearly, there
is a problem. It has not been clearly defined. I do not think that is fair on the train drivers. I do not want to blame
the drivers who have responsibility for respecting these rules. So far my investigations reveal that they have not
been given that clear guidance. There is a job for someone in the minister’s position, through people in the
7508
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Office of Rail Safety and other places, to deliver for the Western Australian community the safety that we are
entitled to.
I conclude my remarks and look forward to further debate on this bill.
MR P. ABETZ (Southern River) [4.16 pm]: I would like to make a brief contribution to the debate on the
Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill 2014. The issue of rail safety is obviously very important. National
consistency in regulations certainly helps the freight component of the rail traffic that goes through my
electorate. At this point, there is only freight; hopefully, before too long we will have some passenger trains as
well.
Ms J.M. Freeman: After Mirrabooka.
Mr P. ABETZ: Canning Vale definitely comes first.
The issue that has been raised by the member for Gosnells about trail bikes on rail reserves is certainly a great
concern to me. In my electorate there is a wire mesh fence between the railway line and parks and then also near
a footpath and residences. When Brookfield Rail is contacted, generally within two working days the fence is
repaired. It is constantly cut by people who ride their trail bikes. I know that the rail people are very concerned
about it, the residents are concerned about it, Brookfield is concerned about it and the police are concerned about
it. The real difficulty is in catching the culprits because they ride quite fast and they are on trail bikes that have
no identification plates of any sort. The police have a quad bike on loan. When using that quad bike, the young
people race along. The danger to the kids on those bikes is such that police stop chasing them because they
would hate for somebody to come off and end up being involved in an accident. Parents need to take much
greater responsibility to ensure they know what their kids are getting up to and address that.
One of the other issues that is of concern is sirens and their use. The trail bikes are even used on the track at
night. Even when there is no level crossing near the houses behind Canning Vale, sometimes at night the drivers
toot their horn at the trail bikes. The residents wonder why drivers are tooting their horns at two o’clock in the
morning. I certainly hope that when the passenger service comes through, we will get some —
Mr W.J. Johnston: Do you know the drivers have to blow their horns because it is at a level crossing?
Mr P. ABETZ: Yes, at the level crossing, but further down, where there is no level crossing—the Ranford Road
bridge where they go underneath—sometimes they toot their horns there because somebody is on the rail
reserve, which is only right and proper. I certainly hope that when the passenger service comes through there
will be a physical sound barrier, such as a built-up concrete wall. It will make it a lot harder for anybody to cut
and then get in there.
In terms of safety, the freight line carries lead, cyanide, petrol, diesel and so on. Sometimes people’s perceptions
of safety differ. There was a park meeting in my electorate one time because people were worried about lead
being transported through it. I made it very clear to residents that I would much rather have lead coming through
in sealed containers and all of that than I would cyanide. If ever we were to have a derailing of a cyanide tanker,
we could be in deep, deep trouble.
Mr F.M. Logan: Absolutely.
Mr P. ABETZ: Absolutely. Similarly, if a petrol tanker rolled over and exploded, I would not want to be in the
house next to the railway line. If a container full of lead were to tip over, even if the lead were to spill out of the
container, because it is dry it is very easy to clean up. The great thing about lead is that once-only exposure to
lead is actually not particularly damaging to health; it is long-term exposure over time that causes the most
damage, as we know from the situation in Esperance. Hopefully the rail safety national law will also ensure that
there is national consistency in the regulations governing the transport of different dangerous freights.
[Quorum formed.]
Mr P. ABETZ: I am glad there is a quorum now to hear this worthy contribution!
The other issue I want to raise about rail safety is the importance of grade separations. The members for
Cannington and Gosnells mentioned the rail crossing on Nicholson Road. If I am correctly informed, it is the
very last of the level crossings of the freight trains in the metropolitan area that has significant traffic going
across it. It is good to know that the federal government has listened to my pleas, and possibly other people’s
pleas, for funding. Two years ago we had the federal shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Regional
Development, Warren Truss, out there—it was before the last federal election anyway—urging him, together
with Ken Wyatt, the member for Hasluck, and the member for Tangney, Dr Dennis Jensen, to try to impress
upon him the importance of getting some funding for that. We were thrilled to see that in the last federal budget
there was $18 million set aside for that. I will lean very heavily upon both the Treasurer and the Minister for
Transport to ensure that we do not even have to wait until the next state budget. I hope there will be an
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7509
announcement before the next budget; that it will be a promise. As Liberal Party promises can be trusted, I am
sure that it will eventuate.
The issues of noise and particulates were also mentioned by the member for Cannington. The interesting point is
that not only are there no particulate regulations for locomotives but also there are no regulated noise levels for
locomotives. The member for Gosnells mentioned that the Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd trains are incredibly
quiet. They are the quietest trains on that line. They are often hauling quite substantial loads, yet they chug along
fairly quietly with minimal vibration.
Mr F.M. Logan: It is called brand new.
Mr P. ABETZ: Yes, they are brand new. If they are maintained well, they should continue to chug along with
minimal noise. Some of the old locomotives appear to have no muffler on them whatsoever. They make such an
enormous din that some residents say that a locomotive running on its own without pulling a train makes more
noise than a fully laden grain train. One would hope that the noise issue could also be addressed.
The other aspect is that the vibration from rail traffic is a sign that something in the rolling stock, or in the tracks,
is not in order. I have mentioned in this place before that when I was at Tom Price a few years ago, when our son
worked up there, I noted that when the big, heavy iron ore trains went past I felt zero vibration standing right
next to the rail crossing. As my son was working on the rail expansion project for Rio Tinto, I asked him about
it. I told him that the trains down in Canning Vale rattle like anything. He told me the issue is that train wheels
get slightly out of round. They get flat spots from heavy braking at times, and the track itself also gets slight
indentations in it. Rio has a machine that shaves a thousandth of a fraction off the track to keep it exactly
smooth. The company also ensures that the wheels are machined regularly so they maintain perfect roundness
and that way there is zero vibration.
In my electorate of Southern River the rail line runs behind houses in Canning Vale. About four years ago there
was a major issue for people who had built houses there when it was a new area. They knew they had built next
to a railway track and they did not mind the increasing number of trains, but they said, “Our house now rattles.
We wake up at night from the vibration. We never used to wake up before. Something has changed.” It was only
after persistently pursuing Brookfield Rail and getting onto the operators of the trains that the maintenance issues
were finally addressed. The vibration complaints then disappeared. In the last couple of months I have started
getting a few complaints again about certain trains causing vibrations. The vibration actually causes more stress
to the rolling stock. That can also contribute to premature mechanical failure, which has a safety dimension to it.
With that, I will conclude my comments. I support the bill. One would hope that the Rail Safety National Law
(WA) Bill 2014 will help keep our freight system, from the eastern states coming through to Western Australia,
operating efficiently with minimal difficulties with variations in regulations. That will contribute towards
keeping more of our freight on rail and fewer trucks on the road.
MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn) [4.30 pm]: I also wish to contribute to the debate on the Rail Safety National
Law (WA) Bill 2014. It is interesting that the members for Southern River, Cannington and Gosnells have all
raised the same issues about the same railway line. The railway line they were talking about runs from Midland
and part of it goes to Kwinana and the other part goes to the Fremantle port. It is exactly the same rail line that
runs through the parliamentary seat of Jandakot and it also runs right the way through the seat of Cockburn,
where it divides into two, with one part going through the member for Fremantle’s seat, but the bulk of it staying
in Cockburn. The issues that the members for Southern River, Gosnells and Cannington have raised are identical
to those I have raised in this house on many occasions. The last one, as the minister knows, was the issue relating
to the rail bridge at Beeliar, of which the fascia collapsed three years ago. It remains collapsed and fenced off,
with both Brookfield Rail and the City of Cockburn pointing fingers at each other about whose responsibility it
is. This is a reflection, I might add, of the problem we talked about earlier in this house that relates directly back
to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee report on the management of the freight rail network in
Western Australia. It is that issue that is leading to the problems that have been highlighted by the three members
who spoke before me, particularly with the southern rail network between Midland, Kwinana and Fremantle.
The issue is that a botched privatisation has left the below-ground train freight network as a monopoly in the
hands of what is now basically a Canadian company registered in the Cayman Islands—that is, Brookfield Rail.
When Brookfield Rail is approached to address these issues, many of which have been highlighted by the
members for Southern River, Cannington and Gosnells, not only is there a rejection of any responsibility by
Brookfield Rail; quite often, it will not give a response at all. Letters get written to the CEO—no answer. The
CEO was confronted coming out of an Economics and Industry Standing Committee hearing and reminded about
the particular issue of the Beeliar rail bridge. He said he knew all about it and would get onto it—but nothing.
That is because, as was pointed out in the report handed down earlier this morning in this house about the
management of the freight rail network, the Public Transport Authority does not enforce regulatory control of the
monopoly owner of the below-ground rail network. Brookfield Rail, as the lessee of the below-ground rail
network, knows this, does nothing and gets away with it. Minister, just one issue is the Beeliar rail bridge. Still
7510
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
nothing has happened on it. Neither the PTA, Brookfield Rail nor the City of Cockburn have got back to me on
the minister’s attempts to address the issue, so I ask that he intervene again and push this thing along.
The other issue, which did not occur when the current Minister for Transport was in office, but which I have
raised on many occasions with previous ministers—including, I might add, those in the Labor Party when we
were in government—is the issue of access to that freight rail line. The problems are identical to the ones that
have already been addressed. There is a maintenance road that runs beside those freight rail lines in the southern
corridor and it is easily accessible from any main road that the railway line crosses. At some points there are now
gates put up to stop vehicles getting onto that access road, but the gates are just two posts and a bar across
them—a piece of rolled steel joist. That might possibly be strong enough to stop a four-wheel drive, but it
certainly does not do anything to stop motorbikes getting onto the access road, and in many cases it does not stop
four-wheel drive vehicles either. The situation in the four electorates whose representatives the minister has just
heard from is that people, particularly younger people, roar along the freight rail line access road on trail bikes,
which they use as their own personal road to get from one part of Cockburn to another, and it is exactly the same
in those other electorates. They just use the railway access road as their private road. It drives residents
absolutely berserk. On a weekend all they can hear is the screaming noise of dirt bikes roaring along those access
corridors along the freight rail network—that happens right through the southern suburbs. Even worse is that
some of the people riding the trail bikes use the access road as a means of gaining entry to people’s homes. They
ride bikes along to the back of people’s homes, park the bike outside their back fence, jump up on the seat and
hop over the fence. The next minute they are breaking into the house. They jump back over the fence, onto the
motorbike—gone. I had meetings with WestNet, when it was the operator of the below-ground rail network, with
the police and with the City of Cockburn, pulling them all together to try to find a solution to the problem. The
operators of the rail network have at all times said that they need to have that maintenance corridor open and
they would not do anything about it. At one particular meeting the police sergeant was so angry I thought he
would throttle the representative of the below-ground rail operator—that is how angry he was—because the
police are frustrated by the fact that they cannot get the below-ground rail operator to do anything about this. As
I pointed out, this is not just an issue for my electorate; it is an issue for electorates represented by members on
both sides of the house, right the way through the southern suburbs, and it has to be addressed. It is a shocking
problem and a blight on the southern suburbs of Perth.
The other issue about rail safety that I wish to draw to the minister’s attention is that touched upon by the
member for Southern River, and it is something about which people over the years have just ducked their heads.
The member for Southern River talked about the type of freight carried on that railway line, particularly between
Kwinana and Midland. A significant proportion of the freight that comes out of Kwinana to the goldfields is
diesel, petrol, sulfuric acid, sodium cyanide and other chemicals. The carriage of sodium cyanide fills me with
horror, honestly, minister. We are transporting in huge tankers one of the most dangerous chemicals known to
humans through one of the most populated areas of metropolitan Perth. There have been spills of this specific
chemical in the same types of tankers on rail lines in the United States, so it is not as though it cannot be
released. It can be released and there have been accidents in the United States with exactly the same chemical. If
one of those tankers went over and there was a release of the sodium cyanide, once it came into contact with the
air, it would immediately become cyanide gas and drift across the suburbs of Perth killing everyone in its path.
The scale of such a disaster would be monumental. Department of Fire and Emergency Services plans for the
movement of dangerous and noxious goods apply to the railway lines. The minister should ask about those plans
and about an emergency response. Hardly anyone knows about them. Access to the rail corridor for firefighting
and chemical emergency services is difficult. Access seems to be a lot easier for motorbikes than for emergency
vehicles because, remember, the gates, where they exist, are locked. Who has the key? Brookfield Rail has it. On
many occasions the railway line runs right past schools; for example, it is immediately adjacent to Beeliar
Primary School. In fact, the line is right next to the bridge. Beeliar Primary School is on one side next to the
bridge, which is falling down, and sodium cyanide tankers go over the bridge. That is why I raise concerns in
this house about not only the bridge, but also the traffic used on that railway line. The minister can ask any one
of the other local members—I am not too sure about the member for Southern River, but I am sure he does not
know—such as the members for Cannington and Gosnells what the emergency response plans are for a chemical
or noxious goods spill on the railway lines that pass through our electorates. I do not know. They are not well
known. The local council may know. Certainly a lot of the local councils do not know anything about them.
Mr P. Abetz: Emergency services does.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: Emergency services does but the member for Southern River does not and I do not. We do
not know what the planned responses are. As I pointed out to the minister just now, access to that railway
corridor in those types of vehicles is very difficult. A proposal was being prepared by the Public Transport
Authority as part of the overall future development of the freight rail network that came to our attention on the
Economics and Industry Standing Committee about an east–west corridor link—another railway link into
Kwinana. Given what I have put to the minister and the serious possibility of a major catastrophe in the southern
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7511
suburbs of Perth, should there be an accident with the types of chemicals carried on that railway line, I urge the
minister to consider an alternative route for transporting those chemicals. They have to be carried by rail
somehow. An alternative proposal is on the minister’s desk relating to the east–west link from Kwinana to the
wheatbelt. As I say, minister, that concept has been discovered by the Economics and Industry Standing
Committee as part of its inquiry into the management of the freight rail networks in Western Australia. I urge the
minister to again dig out that report on the east–west link and look at the possibility of creating an alternative rail
route into both the Kwinana port and the Rockingham grain port, for a number of reasons; not just because it is
a more efficient way of bringing grain to the terminal in Rockingham but also because it is a less dangerous
route for the transportation of noxious chemicals, particularly dangerous chemicals such as sodium cyanide. It
would keep that material away from the densely populated areas of Perth where an accident could lead to a major
catastrophe.
I would like to address a couple of other matters while I am on my feet relating also to safety and that comes
back to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee’s inquiry into the management of Australia’s freight
rail network. One of the issues raised was the safety standards of the tier 3 rail lines.
[Member’s time extended.]
Dr K.D. Hames: I thought the member for Mandurah had gone but he is still there!
Mr F.M. LOGAN: Yes; the member sitting in the member for Mandurah’s seat is a far more handsome chap,
but does not have the same sense of humour!
The issue I am addressing now relates to the tier 3 rail lines. As I said earlier in my contribution on the tabling of
the committee’s report into the management of Western Australia’s freight rail network, I was very critical of the
Public Transport Authority, the Commissioner of Main Roads and, indeed, the minister, although I do not sheet
all the blame home to the minister—previous ministers must share that blame—about gaining access to
information that is in the public interest. The standard applied to the safety of the tier 3 rail lines has been
mentioned in that report. As late as only yesterday in the Legislative Council, Hon Darren West asked a question
of Hon Jim Chown, parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Transport, about the safety review of tier 3 rail
lines. Hon Darren West asked —
(1)
When was the review completed?
(2)
Has the government now considered the findings in the report?
(3)
… will the minister table a copy of the report?
(4)
… when will the government consider the findings in the report?
On the Minister for Transport’s behalf, Hon Jim Chown replied that the review was completed in August this
year; that the government—that is, the minister—had considered the findings in the report; and in answer to part
(3) on whether the minister will table the report, the minister’s answer is no. What do we have to do, minister?
Do we have another committee of inquiry to subpoena the minister to make this document available to the
general public and to people who are interested in the use of tier 3 rail? What is so secretive about these things?
It is in the public interest and in the long-term interests of the state for those reports to be made available. As the
minister knows, the Economics and Industry Standing Committee inquiry tabled a series of documents in the
house today, many of which the minister and his predecessors refused to make available to the general public,
refused to table in Parliament and in some cases refused to give to the committee itself. Certainly the Public
Transport Authority had no mind to provide some of that information, particularly on the lease documents for the
rail freight network, to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee and, as I said earlier, seemed to
completely misunderstand the role of Parliament and the role of parliamentary committees. It is as though the
minister’s response was somehow more important than a request from Parliament. It is beyond me to know how,
after having been public servants for so many years, those members of the PTA could have come to that
conclusion, and it is beyond me that they are public servants yet do not know how Parliament works!
As I pointed out to Parliament earlier, the Economics and Industry Standing Committee had a continuous battle
to get certain documents made available. Thank goodness that battle is over and that many of those documents
have now been tabled and made available to the public, whereas the minister and his predecessors would not
have done that. Here I am again reporting to Parliament this afternoon on yet another review and report, this time
on the safety of tier 3 rail lines, that the minister is refusing to make available.
I urge the minister to read carefully this report from the Economics and Industry Standing Committee. It points
out all the major flaws and problems associated with the privatisation of the rail freight network in
Western Australia. It points out the lack of details and consideration that should have been applied to the lease
by the government of the day, and particularly by the public servants of the day, to ensure that the interests of the
public, the government and the state of Western Australia were protected. That clearly has not happened. When
I then draw a line from those criticisms about the lease, the privatisation and the splitting of the rail network to
7512
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
above and below ground and the fact that the below-ground section of the lease is now controlled basically by
a monopoly—a Canadian multinational registered in the Cayman Islands—it is no wonder that there are the
problems at the micro level in our electorates that have been referred to today. The operator of the network,
Brookfield Rail, simply does not believe that it is responsible to members of Parliament who complain about
issues such as fascias on rail bridges falling down, rattling trains, noise and other safety issues related to that rail
network in the southern suburbs. It is no wonder that members have these problems, all of which stem from the
botched privatisation of the Westrail Freight network in 2000 and the mismanagement—clearly set out in this
Economics and Industry Standing Committee review—of that lease by the Public Transport Authority. The
PTA’s weakness and timidity in dealing with Brookfield is absolutely staggering! It is one thing to put into
a lease that there will be a light touch to the management of the lease; it is another thing to be timid and weak
and to fail to protect the state’s interests. That is what the PTA is employed for!
Finally, I want to touch on the issue raised by the members for Southern River, Cannington and Gosnells about
noise and vibration. It is a pity that the member for Jandakot is not in the chamber because he has a problem in
his electorate, and that problem is also mentioned in this Economics and Industry Standing Committee report
titled “The Management of Western Australia’s Freight Rail Network”. In the area where the southern corridor
freight rail network passes through the seat of Jandakot, particularly the area immediately adjacent to the
freeway near Glen Iris Public Golf Course, the problem is identical to those raised by other members of this
house this afternoon. The people who live adjacent to the railway line at the Glen Iris golf course estate raised
the issue of vibration, damage to their houses and noise caused by the passing of trains on the railway line
immediately below them in a cutting at South Lake and Jandakot. The issue has been going on and on for years.
There is a solution, minister, to that problem. That problem could have been addressed when Brookfield was
working on that specific section of rail line, which I think was early this year or late last year. At that time it
re-banked the railway line and I think reinforced the sleepers along the railway line, which involved the piece of
engineering equipment that comes along and lifts the section of the rail line and then spreads the per-way stones
around to give it a better base. At that time the anti-vibration carpet, or whatever it is called, is put down.
Mr D.C. Nalder: It is matting.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: The matting, rather, could have been put down at that point and those issues in Jandakot,
hopefully, could have been addressed right at that time, as the company was working on the rail line and had
lifted the actual rail line itself to reinforce the per-way underneath. It did not do that because it had no obligation
to. The members of the Public Transport Authority, who well know about this issue in Jandakot, did not tell the
operator, Brookfield, to do it. Obviously the PTA felt that it had no power to force Brookfield to do it. Even
worse, the PTA did not bring the matter back to the Minister for Transport and say, “Here is this long-term
problem. Here is a way of fixing it. Here is the cost. Shall we do it?” It did not do that either. As far as the PTA
is concerned, the railway was there before the residents were and they knew what they were facing when they
moved in—hard luck! As I said, it is a pity that the member for Jandakot is not in the chamber to address this
very issue in his own electorate.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Dr K.D. Hames (Minister for Health).
House adjourned at 5.00 pm
__________
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7513
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
MINISTER FOR WATER’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2903.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Water; Forestry:
Since 1 July 2013, what has been the outlay from the Minister’s Office Budget for the following:
(a)
staff social functions;
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
catering for ministerial functions; and
(d)
the purchase of crockery and/or glassware for the Office?
Ms M.J. Davies replied:
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
$144.00
(d)
Nil
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2912.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Attorney General; Minister for Commerce:
For each agency, department and government trading enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of
responsibilities:
(a)
since 11 March 2013, have senior executives and/or board members undertaken any leadership or
strategic planning events or retreats; and
(b)
for each such event:
(i)
what was the duration of the event;
(ii)
how many senior executives and/or board members attended;
(iii)
what was the location and venue for the event; and
(iv)
what was the total cost, including but not limited to accommodation, travel, catering and any
facilitation costs?
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
Corruption and Crime Commission
(a)
Yes, two leadership events.
(b)
(i)
One hour for one event and three hours for the other.
(ii)
Six senior executives attended one event and five attended the other.
(iii)
The Corruption and Crime Commission, Perth CBD.
(iv)
The total cost was $1 618.
Commissioner for Children and Young People
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Department of Commerce
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) Strategic Planning and Leadership Session
[See tabled paper no 2303.]
Department of the Attorney General
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
7514
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Equal Opportunities Commission
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Office of the Information Commissioner
(a)
Yes — a strategic planning day was attended by all staff.
(b)
(i)
One working day.
(ii)
All staff members attended.
(iii)
St Catherine’s College, Nedlands.
(iv)
Total cost was $50.78 per head ($660.14 in total) covering catering and venue hire.
Legal Aid
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
2 days
(ii)
11
(iii)
At Legal Aid WA, 10th Floor Training Room, Perth CBD
(iv)
$5 000
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Legal Profession Complaints Commission
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
WorkCover
(a)
Yes
(b)
Board Strategic Planning Session
(i)
1 hour
(ii)
5
(iii)
WorkCover WA Board Room
(iv)
Nil
Leadership Development Training
(i)
4 hours
(ii)
5
(iii)
WorkCover WA Training Room
(iv)
$1 997
Leadership Development Training
(i)
4 hours
(ii)
5
(iii)
WorkCover WA Training Room
(iv)
$1 997
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
7515
MINISTER FOR WATER’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2920.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Water; Forestry:
For each agency, department and government trading enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of
responsibilities:
(a)
since 11 March 2013, have senior executives and/or board members undertaken any leadership or
strategic planning events or retreats; and
(b)
for each such event:
(i)
what was the duration of the event;
(ii)
how many senior executives and/or board members attended;
(iii)
what was the location and venue for the event; and
(iv)
what was the total cost, including but not limited to accommodation, travel, catering and any
facilitation costs?
Ms M.J. Davies replied:
Aqwest
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) [See tabled paper no 2302.]
Busselton Water
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) [See tabled paper no 2302.]
Department of Water
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Forest Production Commission
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Water Corporation
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) [See tabled paper no 2302.]
FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — ANNUAL PLANTATION HARVEST
2928.
Mr M.P. Murray to the Minister for Forestry:
I refer to Forest Products Commission (FPC) and their obligations to supply forest products under the
State Supply Commission (SSC), and ask:
(a)
how many hectares of hard wood plantation is FPC required to harvest each year;
(b)
how many hectares of hard wood plantation are subcontracted to private growers to harvest;
(c)
how many hectares of soft wood plantations is FPC required to harvest each year;
(d)
how many hectares of hard wood plantation are subcontracted to private growers to harvest;
(e)
under terms of the SSC, what percentage of plantation hectares required have FPC fulfilled;
(f)
under terms of the SSC, what percentage of plantation hectares required have private growers fulfilled;
and
(g)
is there a gap between hectares planted by FPC and private growers that will result in shortfalls in
supply of both soft and hard wood under the State Supply Agreement over the next ten years?
Ms M.J. Davies replied:
In answering this question (a)–(g) it is noted that the Forest Products Commission’s (FPC’s) obligations to
supply forest products arise from production contracts, not the State Supply Commission.
(a)
The area harvested varies from year to year depending on several factors including the demand by
customers and the quality of the plantations. The FPC harvested 616 hectares of hardwood plantations
in calendar year 2013.
7516
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 16 October 2014]
(b)
Nil
(c)
The area harvested varies from year to year depending on several factors, including the demand by
customers and the quality of the plantations. To meet customer demand for forest products the FPC
harvested 7 616 hectares of pine plantations in calendar year 2013.
(d)
Nil
(e)
In meeting customer demand for forest products from plantations the FPC does not have a specific
obligation in relation to plantation area.
(f)
Not applicable
(g)
The FPC has identified a possible shortfall in pine resources available to meet future contracted supply
commitments. There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the likelihood, timing and amount of any
potential shortfall.
ABORIGINAL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE — KIMBERLEY DISTRICT
2932.
Ms J. Farrer to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health:
I refer to the government media statement of May 8 2014 entitled Supporting and Protecting the Community and
ask:
(a)
what is the proportion and amount of funding from the State-wide Aboriginal Mental Health Service
that is allocated to the Kimberley;
(b)
noting the claim in the statement that the program has delivered positive early results, can the Minister
please outline the evidence on which the claims are based; and
(c)
how does this reconcile with the Auditor General’s findings in his report entitled The Implementation
and Initial Outcomes of the Suicide Prevention Strategy?
Ms A.R. Mitchell replied:
(a)
From 1 July to 31 December 2014, 24.5% ($1,164,820) of SSAMHS funding will be allocated to the
Kimberley.
(b)
An interim evaluation of the State-wide Specialist Aboriginal Mental Health Service was undertaken by
the Western Australian Centre for Mental Health Policy Research in 2012. The interim evaluation found
the following:
An upward trend in the number of Aboriginal people coming in contact with mental health services;
A decline in the ratio of Aboriginal to non-Aboriginal people using Emergency Departments since the
Metropolitan SAMHS started in July 2011;
A small but upward trend in the use of community-based services in the metropolitan area; and
A decline in the use of mental health inpatient units in the metropolitan area.
Since 2010/11, the annual number of clinical contacts delivered to Aboriginal consumers by community
mental health services has increased by more than 50% across Western Australia. (Source: Mental
Health Information System, WA Department of Health. Data extracted 23 July 2014).
(c)
The Auditor General’s findings acknowledged that communities and organisations have benefited from
suicide prevention activities funded by the Western Australian Suicide Prevention Strategy 2009–2013
(the Strategy).
__________