1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. parliament

Parliamentary Debates
(HANSARD)
THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
2014
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday, 20 November 2014
Legislative Assembly
Thursday, 20 November 2014
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers.
MIRRABOOKA — BUS SERVICES
Petition
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [9.01 am]: I have a petition with 48 signatures. The petition, which
complies with the standing orders, is a petition to improve the 376 bus service. It reads —
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of
Western Australia in Parliament assembled.
We the undersigned, draw your attention to problems of overcrowding of the 376 bus service during
morning peak times, which often results in buses that are too full to pick up passengers at every stop.
Public transport use is better for the environment, reduces traffic congestion, and more affordable for
people who are struggling with costs of fuel, car registration, and parking.
Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to look at bus services in Mirrabooka to ensure that they meet
growing demand.
[See petition 196.]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS — INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Petition
MR A. KRSTICEVIC (Carine) [9.02 am]: I have a petition to protect farms from genetically modified
contamination and to retain the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. The petition, which contains
20 signatures and has been signed as conforming to the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, reads —
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of
Western Australia in parliament assembled.
We, the undersigned, say that we as a State need to retain the GM Crops Free Areas Act 2003
as an essential part of the national regulatory system to regulate where and what type of
GM crops are grown in Western Australia.
Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to:
1.
Call for an independent review of the GM Crops Free Areas Act 2003 by
a parliamentary committee, inclusive of all political parties and stakeholders
including consumers, in line with the findings of the 2009 review of the Act under
Section 19.
2.
Support GM-free farming.
3.
Urge the WA Government to introduce Farmer Protection Legislation to compensate
any non-GM farmer who suffers economic loss from GM contamination.
[See petition 197.]
PAPERS TABLED
Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION
Extension of Reporting Time — Statement by Speaker
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): I have a letter that states that the reporting date for the Joint Standing
Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission will be 25 June 2015.
FISHERIES — APPROVALS
Statement by Minister for Regional Development
MR D.T. REDMAN (Warren–Blackwood — Minister for Regional Development) [9.04 am]: In the absence
of the minister representing the Minister for Fisheries, I am here representing the minister who is absent in
representing the Minister for Fisheries!
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8509
This year, the Minister for Fisheries approved the implementation of a new licensing framework for the aquatic
tour charter industry in Western Australia. This new framework provides a simplified licensing system and will
assist the charter industry to meet future challenges. The key changes include removing the requirement to hold
a licence to operate land-based fishing tours, aquatic ecotours and fishing tours from a non-motorised vessel.
Previous licensing arrangements were restrictive and provided less flexibility for charter operators. The changes
implemented by this government represent a positive step forward in the management of the charter industry
across Western Australia.
Recently, the Minister for Fisheries approved the implementation of changes within the recreational rock lobster
fishery that relate to the opening and starting date for the rock lobster fishing season for the south
coast—Black Point to the South Australian border—and the Abrolhos Islands. Changing the opening date of the
season has meant that there is now a consistent season for recreational rock lobster fishing from the south coast
to North West Cape—that is, from 15 October to 30 June. These changes are another step on the path to
simplifying recreational fishing rules for Western Australia.
In August this year, the Minister for Fisheries approved the declaration of the Kimberley Aquaculture
Development Zone at Cone Bay. The zone has been created through a process that primarily involved
environmental assessment of the zone as a strategic proposal under part IV of the Environmental Protection Act
1986. By securing approval of this proposal, the KADZ project has provided a more streamlined assessment and
regulatory process for future aquaculture operators starting up within the zoned area. The development of this
aquaculture zone will provide an investment-ready platform for future aquaculture operators’ investors.
Earlier this year, an online fish translocation approval process was implemented. It is designed to assess the level
of risk posed by fish that are translocated in Western Australia for non-commercial, aquaculture and commercial
purposes. Previously, applicants seeking authority to translocate fish were required to complete a paper-based
form as part of the risk assessment process. This process was often time consuming, unwieldy and not cost
effective. The new online form provides a more streamlined, user-friendly application process and has resulted in
a decrease in the approvals processing time.
REPEAL WEEK — LANDGATE — ONLINE PROCESSES
Statement by Minister for Lands
MR D.T. REDMAN (Warren–Blackwood — Minister for Lands) [9.06 am]: In the spirit of Repeal Week and
highlighting the government’s efforts to improve efficiency and reduce red tape, I rise today to provide some
examples of how Landgate is using world-leading technology to make its services quicker and simpler for
governments, businesses and members of the public.
The first example is Landgate’s improved lodgement process for land subdivisions. Landgate has introduced
a web-based plan lodgement process and a more efficient plan audit practice that has reduced red tape for the
survey industry. Surveyors now submit plans online via a dedicated survey channel. The new process ensures
that plans are captured and stored securely and include any relevant Department of Planning endorsements. In
addition, the plan is automatically distributed to relevant teams or individuals within Landgate for processing.
This supports land development within the state by reducing process uncertainty and ensuring that certificates of
title are issued in the quickest time possible.
The second example relates to property interest reports and the property dictionary. Landgate has reduced red
tape through the development of a centralised repository of information and a property-specific interest report for
those seeking information relating to interests, both government and other, over property within the state of WA.
The searchable interest dictionary is a valuable reference tool for anyone wishing to learn more about legislation
and the government agencies and other parties that hold interests or rights over property. It currently holds
information on more than 100 different interests that may be applicable to property in WA and reduces the time,
effort and cost expended by government agencies in providing responses to inquiries. A property interest report
is a property-specific collection of a number of those interests and provides a simple reference for anyone
undertaking due diligence or making themselves familiar with the rights and restrictions upon that property.
Previously, this could take many hours of investigation to gain a lesser degree of information than that provided
by the report. Property interest reports are available on Landgate’s website 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In
the majority of cases, the report is delivered within 10 minutes. Contact details for the interest holder are also
provided should further investigation be required.
As I have said many times before, Landgate is recognised both nationally and internationally as a world leader in
using the latest technology to unlock the power of location information. These are two more examples of how
Landgate innovations are helping to improve efficiency, reduce red tape and save time and money.
8510
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
SHIRE OF YORK — SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
Statement by Minister for Local Government
MR A.J. SIMPSON (Darling Range — Minister for Local Government) [9.09 am]: In response to a number
of complaints received over an extended time about the Shire of York’s ability to provide good governance, my
Department of Local Government and Communities has conducted a monitoring program at the shire. During the
monitoring period, a significant number of individual but not connected issues emerged. These issues gave rise
to serious concerns about the council’s ability to properly and effectively manage and control the operations of
the shire. Therefore, I have formed the view that, for the purposes of section 8.15C of the Local Government Act
1995, there is sufficient evidence that it is inappropriate for the Shire of York’s council to act or continue to act
without intervention. Given these concerns, I have, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995,
issued the Shire of York with a show-cause notice, in writing, notifying it of my intention to suspend the council.
Furthermore, the shire councillors will be required, within a period of six months of the order, to undertake
training. The training is to be in the areas of leadership, governance and meeting procedures. The Shire of York
has 21 days to respond to the show-cause notice. In accordance with my obligations under the Local Government
Act 1995, I will decide what action to take after I have received the response from the Shire of York.
TRAVEL AGENTS — DEREGULATION
Statement by Parliamentary Secretary
MR P.T. MILES (Wanneroo — Parliamentary Secretary) [9.10 am]: I refer to the cessation of travel agents
licensing. On 8 October 2014, the Travel Agents Amendment and Expiry Act 2014 commenced and removed the
requirement for travel agents to be licensed to operate in Western Australia. This is a significant reduction in
regulation and cost for the industry. The implementation of this reform by the government brought
Western Australia into line with national deregulation that has been occurring across jurisdictions since the
middle of this year. As members of this place know, the government was mindful in its response, due to the
effect deregulation could potentially have on consumers. A range of options was carefully considered before
repealing the legislation. For Western Australia’s 361 travel agents who were licensed prior to the
commencement of this reform, deregulation means that they will be able to remain competitive with their
interstate counterparts and online services. It also means cost savings for WA travel agent businesses. The
decision regulatory impact statement prepared to assist the government in its decision-making about the
regulation of travel agents estimated the savings for industry at between $1 315 to $2 015 per agent per annum.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — PENNY ROBERTS
Grievance
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [9.12 am]: My grievance is to Minister for Housing and it has two aspects
that I want the minister to address. The first is the delivery of public housing for the residents of the Mirrabooka
electorate, in particular, but not exclusively, for Ms Penny Roberts and her four children who have patiently
waited for suitable accommodation for seven years, from 2007. The departmental website shows that the official
housing waitlist for a four-bedroom house in the north west metropolitan region is people who were listed from
March 2005. On inquiring earlier this year, Ms Roberts was told that the department was housing people who
were listed in 2003. That equates to the experience of my office. My question to the minister is: instead of
building accommodation for overseas students in his electorate of Nedlands and spending around $100 million of
Department of Housing funds in the Pilbara for apartments that the government cannot let or sell, or building
14-storey apartments in Aberdeen Street, of which 10 per cent will be public housing—that is, 17 units out of
161—or 86 apartments in West Perth with no public housing, when will the minster provide much-needed public
housing stock in Mirrabooka?
The second important issue is whether the Department of Housing has disadvantaged Ms Roberts by putting her
on the priority housing waitlist. Given the urgency of her need, Ms Roberts applied for priority housing for
a second time, having been refused a number of years ago, and was placed on the priority housing list in March
2014. However, priority housing placements for four-bedroom accommodation in the north west metro area are
listed from 2009. Effectively, she has gone from a two-year wait on the waitlist, to a five-year wait on the
priority list, which has about a thousand people on it. Although I acknowledge that the department houses at
a rate of 80 per cent of people on the priority list and 20 per cent of people on the waitlist, my concern is that the
priority list is less secure, as it is reviewed regularly and culled constantly, mostly for political purposes to make
the minister’s reported figures look better. Minister, when Ms Roberts was placed on priority, she was given an
undertaking by the Department of Housing that if she was removed from priority listing, her application status
would be returned to her waitlist date of 2007. My questions to the minister are: Given Ms Roberts’
acknowledged need for public housing, having been placed on the priority list, will she be housed prior to the
two years that would have been the case had she stayed on the waitlist? If her case is reviewed on priority and
a decision made that she no longer meets the ever-changing priority criteria, can the minister confirm that
Ms Roberts—as she was told by the Department of Housing—will be returned to her original waitlist date of
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8511
2007 and not suffer any disadvantage? When is the minister going to fix the public housing crisis in the area? To
have a thousand people on a priority list is a joke. Spare me the spin, given that in the past year we have lost
10 houses in Balga, five in Koondoola and two in Westminster. All up, that is 17 houses in the area that have
been lost while the waitlist grows.
If the minister has not read the Eastern Reporter article about Ms Roberts, her background is that she is
a committed single mum trying to do the best for her four children. Her youngest has autism. Ms Roberts holds
down a part-time job and battles with financial commitments as she meets the demands of caring for her children
and in particular her son whose behaviour makes the routines of everyday life very challenging. Ms Roberts has
been assisted in meeting these demands by a supportive community in Westminster, her family and her
neighbours. In particular, Ms Roberts has great faith in the Westminster school community, and has experience
working with it to get the best possible outcomes for her older children. Given that, she trusts the school
community’s capacity to ensure that her youngest autistic son will be supported to achieve the best future he can.
With a child with a disability who presents challenges to day-to-day living, one can appreciate that community
support is paramount to Ms Roberts having a successful life. Ms Roberts could have sought to be transferred to
a different waitlist zone, such as Fremantle, which is allocating four-bedroom houses from August 2008. Given
that she was on the 2007 waitlist, had she transferred to another district, she would have been allocated a house
by this stage. However, this would not have been to the advantage of her family’s wellbeing. She is located in
Mirrabooka, where there is high need for public housing and the stock is declining. As I said, 10 houses have
gone in the past year. She is trying to achieve the best outcome for her family’s wellbeing. Why are Mirrabooka
residents disadvantaged by excessive wait times compared with other areas, and why does the Department of
Housing continue to sit on seven hectares of land bounded by Mirrabooka Avenue and Milldale Way that could
be developed for public housing?
In answer to a question on notice asked on 11 November 2014, the minister detailed 12 lots of undeveloped land
in the Mirrabooka electorate, and stated in answer to my question of whether any lots in the area are being
developed to meet the urgent demand from public housing that no lots developed have been allocated for social
housing. This is a perfect example of someone who is happy to wait on the waitlist, but to have to wait for seven
years is excessive. There are a thousand people on the priority list, who have to wait for four or five years, and
that is excessive. There is a declining amount of housing stock in Mirrabooka, according to the answer to
parliamentary question 2946, and an urgent need. With unprecedented demand for public housing in the
Mirrabooka electorate, when will these lots and the many untenanted houses in the area that have been left
vacant, no doubt, so the government can sell them as it has done in the past year, be returned to public housing
stock to meet demand? It is not enough for the minister to stand in this house and talk about housing options.
This woman has been shown to be and accepted to have priority need; she has been put on the priority list. Her
housing options are limited to public housing and the minister cannot and has not delivered that to the people of
Mirrabooka. When will the minister stop the spin and deliver much-needed and well-deserved public housing to
people in the Mirrabooka electorate?
MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Minister for Housing) [9.18 am]: I thank the member for Mirrabooka for
the grievance. I certainly sympathise with people on the waiting list, and particularly Ms Roberts, who is in the
member’s electorate. I will give a bit of background on her case before I answer some of the member’s other
questions.
It is true that since 12 March 2014, Penelope Roberts has been listed on a priority basis for a four-bedroom
property in the north west metropolitan zone. She has four children. She originally applied in 2007 for public
housing and it was confirmed by 2007, when documentation was provided, that she was listed on a wait-turn
basis; it was not a priority listing, as the member said. She applied for priority listing in March 2009 on the basis
that her then private rental was due to expire. The priority application was declined because, I am advised, the
department considered she had other housing options available, including accessing an alternative rental property
using a bond assistance loan that was offered to her. She did not appeal that decision or choose to access bond
assistance from the department. On 10 March, Ms Roberts attended a priority interview and provided the
department with medical documentation indicating that her private rental accommodation was aggravating her
son’s medical condition. The supporting documentation provided to the department at the interview stated that
her son has autism and global developmental delay and is vulnerable to intellectual disability. As a consequence,
Ms Roberts’ priority application was approved on 12 March.
As of 24 October, there were 6 549 applications for public housing in the north metropolitan region and of those
1 196 were priority listed. I will deal with some of the factors that can influence the time someone is on a waiting
list, such as the particular region and the turnover of properties, the type of accommodation required and the
number of people on the list. Four-bedroom accommodation stock —
Ms J.M. Freeman: The most important factor is that if she comes off that priority list, will she —
8512
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Mr W.R. MARMION: I will get to that. The member has raised a very good issue. The availability of
four-bedroom houses and three-bedroom houses is also a factor. Of our total housing stock, we have
12 475 three-bedroom properties and only 2 974 four-bedroom properties. Therefore, the waiting time for
a four-bedroom property, particularly in the north metro area, is probably one of our longest waiting list times.
Ms J.M. Freeman: In the state.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I do not know about right across the state. It probably is, because that is a pretty good
area in which to live.
Ms J.M. Freeman: So you could build some more.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka!
Mr W.R. MARMION: We could always build more. The member has raised a very good point about when
someone has been on the waiting list for a certain time. The way the department allocates houses means
60 per cent go to the priority list; 20 per cent go to those on the wait-turn list; and 20 per cent go to those who
want to transfer. It works out to 80 per cent versus 20 per cent. Then we have a dilemma; if someone has been on
the wait-turn list for, let us say, five years —
Ms J.M. Freeman: Seven years, yes.
Mr W.R. MARMION: Seven years—that is probably even trickier. Does that person go onto the priority list?
The people involved usually get advice. The information on some of the cases indicates that the department
gives people advice that if they are getting very close on the wait-turn list, they should stay on the wait-turn list
rather than go onto the priority list. I assume there is some flexibility, and I hope my department shows some
understanding when that happens because I think that would be valid. We do not want someone to suddenly be
worse off. We need to look at that a bit more specifically and see how that is working out. I take the member’s
point on that.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Can you confirm that if she comes off the priority housing list, she will go back to her 2007
list? Given that people get taken off priority all the time, will you confirm that she will go back to the 2007 list?
Mr W.R. MARMION: Yes, I can. In that case, she has been on the list the whole time. We need to look at the
policy a bit in that area. If someone jumped backwards and forwards between the lists, that would solve the
policy position—that is, because if someone went back on the list, that could be manipulated anyway. We could
argue that the policy should take care of that, so people do not have to —
Ms J.M. Freeman: If you get to the point at which it does not make any difference, you should be dual listed on
both.
Mr W.R. MARMION: Maybe there is some way to do that whereby the numbers do not double up. We are
running out of time, but to finish on the broader picture in the member for Mirrabooka’s electorate, we are
building more social housing and doing a range of things. I will look at Mirrabooka in particular. We usually
look at north metro as a block, but I can look at Mirrabooka. As the member says, there is plenty of land there. It
is a case of seeing what we can do. Indeed, I speak to the department regularly—every time the member for
Mirrabooka talks to me—so I am sure we will get somewhere.
ROAD SAFETY — SWAN HILLS ELECTORATE
Grievance
MR F.A. ALBAN (Swan Hills) [9.25 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Transport. I raise this grievance
as a key safety issue within my electorate of Swan Hills that threatens local residents, state industry and visitors
to the Perth hills region. As most members here would appreciate, each electorate has particular concerns that
constituents continually raise with them on a regular basis, although not on a daily basis, and this is one of these
concerns. I am talking about Great Eastern Highway or National Highway 94 and specifically the section that
stretches from Bilgoman Road, Glen Forrest, to Mann Street, just west of the Mundaring town site. As with
Great Northern Highway, this stretch of road is part of a major trucking route. Areas of Great Northern Highway
will receive significant benefits from the NorthLink Western Australia project, which is a state and federal
Liberal government initiative, and significant amounts of heavy haulage will be diverted and upgrades in
Muchea will form the route from Perth to Darwin. Meanwhile, the problems with this section of Great Eastern
Highway remain unresolved.
Discussions of the orange route have previously been raised as an alternative to Great Eastern Highway, but the
idea seems to be shelved, at least for the immediate future. A traffic count in 2007–08 found that 24 340 vehicles
use the area east of Bilgoman Road daily, with 10.6 per cent being heavy vehicles. As of 2014, that number has
increased by more than 24 per cent, although heavy vehicles now form only 9.1 per cent of the traffic. They have
still increased their number, but not by the predicted 60 000 to 80 000 truck movements that the opposition
would have us believe. I personally have campaigned for some years for these upgrades—as far back as
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8513
2008 when I was newly elected. In the Pearce electorate office I met with Warren Truss, then shadow
Minister for Transport; Hon Judi Moylan, then member for Pearce; and representatives from both the Shire of
Mundaring and the City of Swan.
I must acknowledge the initial work that has been undertaken by both state and federal governments to improve
this area of road. In 2010 there was a trial of electronic variable speed limits throughout the town of Mundaring,
which was followed by the installation of a significant pedestrian crossing. For those members who are unaware,
the crossing islands look more like the tram stops we see in Melbourne’s malls. They separate the two directions
of traffic at different heights and provide guardrails for the safety of pedestrians. Last year, pedestrian crossings
on the eastern side of the town site were adjusted to allow easier crossings, and dedicated turning arrows were
installed. The federal government completed upgrades to the road east of the Mundaring town site and at
Sawyers Valley in the late 1990s. It is therefore imperative for the safety of all commuters in the region,
especially those locals who use it regularly, that this last section is undertaken. A road safety review prepared by
Main Roads Western Australia in September 2004—10 years ago—resulted in a number of audit findings
covering widening and sealing of shoulders, clearance of trees and stumps, drainage, vehicle barriers, kerb
works, additional turning lanes, seagull channelisation treatments, sight distances, and advance warning signs
among others. A number of these recommendations were noted as high priority in the report. In short, it was
extremely comprehensive.
As noted previously, works on Great Eastern Highway between the intersections of Stoneville Road,
Mundaring Weir Road and Mann Street were completed in mid-2012. These included improved capacity by
extending the right-turn pocket into Mann Street for westbound traffic, upgrading the median islands,
improvements to lighting and drainage, an increase of verge parking facilities, and two new pedestrian crossings
meeting latest disability standards. These works resolved the key issues within the township and were funded by
the state government with contribution from the Shire of Mundaring.
In April 2013, a Royal Automobile Club publication entitled “Federal Priorities for Western Australia” placed
this project in tenth position in terms of transport projects facing the state. In part it reads —
The upgrade of the section of Great Eastern Highway between Bilgoman Road in Greenmount and
Mann Street in Mundaring is a key priority. This section of Great Eastern Highway carries in excess of
20,000 vehicles per day including a large number of trucks which conflict with directly abutting
properties. There are currently no sealed shoulders along much of its length and there are safety issues
with pedestrians walking in the unsealed shoulder to access … bus stops. Sealing the shoulders will
additionally provide safer access to Great Eastern Highway from adjacent properties.
The 2014–15 state budget included in its 2015–16 and 2016–17 forward estimates a total of $12 million for
Great Eastern Highway works from Bilgoman Road to Mundaring. This line item is found in the 2014–15 budget
paper No. 2, Budget Statements, Volume 2 on page 819. Although we have not yet received commitment from
our federal counterparts for contribution to these upgrades, I believe they are a strong candidate for
Nation Building Program 2 funding under the previous federal government, as noted by the RAC publication
from which I just quoted. I have contacted the federal member for Pearce, Hon Christian Porter, MP, for his
support in advocating the need for these upgrades to Hon Warren Truss, MP, Minister for Infrastructure and
Regional Development. Notwithstanding the significant works my electorate and surrounding areas have and are
receiving from this state government, this stretch of road remains the single most urgent safety issue within
Swan Hills. Minister, I ask: what can be done on a state government level to progress any federal contribution to
these upgrades, ensuring this stretch of road is improved as a matter of urgency?
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [9.32 am]: I thank the member for this
grievance and I acknowledge his efforts over a number of years to draw attention to this matter. Great Eastern
Highway is part of the national highway network, and therefore its maintenance and upgrade is largely the
responsibility of the federal government. It is certainly acknowledged that this section of the highway between
Bilgoman Road and Mann Street has not been improved for decades and consequently is a hazard for both road
users as well as pedestrians and landowners trying to enter or leave their driveways. As many members may be
aware, the roadside verges along this section generally consist of a drainage gully and gravel shoulders. The area
lacks footpaths connecting to crossing points, and schoolchildren catching buses have to wait on the rough gravel
verge.
The member referred to a road safety review undertaken by Main Roads in 2004—some 10 years ago—yet the
problem has not been addressed and the same substandard conditions remain. Over the years, Main Roads has
developed a program of works to address safety issues on this seven-kilometre length of national highway. The
proposed upgrade includes widening and sealing road shoulders, new bus embayments, new shared path
facilities between Mann Street and Kintore Road, intersection improvements, upgraded street lighting, improved
drainage systems and removal of roadside hazards. The estimated cost of the identified improvement works is
$24 million. During the 2013 state election, and largely as a result of the member for Swan Hills’ efforts, the
8514
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Liberal–National state government gave the local community a commitment that if re-elected, the state would
provide 50 per cent of the estimated cost of the improvements. True to our word, our commitment has translated
into $12 million of state funds being allocated in the budget. As I have said on a number of occasions, we now
have a federal government with which we can talk and negotiate in a positive manner. Although this
Great Eastern Highway upgrade project was never supported by the previous federal government, I am confident
that the new Liberal–National federal government will be more open to working in partnership. This is already
proving to be the case on a number of other important road projects across our state.
For the member’s information, I have recently written to Hon Warren Truss and nominated this project as our
highest priority for consideration of future funding. I would anticipate a response on the state’s request in the
next month or so. In the meantime, I have asked Main Roads to continue planning for the proposed
improvements and arrange the necessary preconstruction activities such as service relocations. This will enable
works to commence as soon as the federal government confirms its commitment. The member’s continued
advocacy on behalf of the Swan Hills community is welcomed.
POLISH ETHNIC SCHOOL
Grievance
MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [9.35 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural
Interests. The minister was aware that I would be raising this issue specifically about the Polish community in
Western Australia and, in particular, the Polish Ethnic School in Western Australia. The minister might
remember that the member for West Swan brought a separate but related issue to him around the
Italian community schools funding. I start by letting the minister know that the Polish Ethnic School in WA has
been operating for 62 years and has provided a year 12 Western Australian Certificate of Education language
program for 20 years of that time. In association with the Ethnic Schools Association of WA, the Polish Ethnic
School is a very strong voice for language schools in our state. In September this year, the chairperson of the
Polish Ethnic School’s parent committee, its school coordinator and the high school coordinator of the ethnic
school made me aware that the minister has changed funding levels and eligibility criteria for community
language programs and also moved the administration of the program out of the Department of Education and
into the Office of Multicultural Interests. I start by talking about the funding. I read what the minister said in
response to the member for West Swan’s grievance earlier in the year, and I will still put on the record that it
might have been the minister’s intention to spread or increase funding, but the net impact of what he has done is
to radically reduce funding in one particular group and have the Italian government withdraw its support for the
courses, as the Polish Ethnic School and the Ethnic Schools Association have informed me.
In relation to funding, only schools that received funding in 2013 are eligible to apply in 2014. There was no
funding available for new language schools. This means that there is no funding to support language groups for
new and emerging communities. Further, funding for 2014 was capped at 2013 levels and based on the
2013 enrolments. I will run through what the Polish Ethnic School has said the impact on their specific school
has been. In 2013, it had 47 enrolments. In 2014, its funding was therefore capped at 47 when 55 students were
actually enrolled.
Dr M.D. Nahan: No, it was 49 students.
Ms L.L. BAKER: I have been speaking directly with staff from the Polish Ethnic School—some of whom are
sitting in the gallery at the moment—who taught the students. If the minister thinks there were 49 enrolments, he
needs to double check his figures because according to those who were teaching the students it seems that there
were 55. At the moment, the 2015 enrolment numbers are 40, and at this stage of the year it takes a while for
enrolments to pick up—more students enrol over the summer break. If the enrolment numbers are 40, this means
that the school will get funding for only 40 students in subsequent years. That is the Polish Ethnic School’s
assessment of the situation. The funding provided by the WA government is pitiful.
The funding is $65 a student. If it is more than that, I would welcome the minister to tell us that, because they
will look forward to receiving more. The state government in Victoria provides $184 a student for the same
program, in New South Wales it provides $135 a student, and in South Australia it provides $140 a student. The
Polish Ethnic School considers that moving the administration of community languages out of the Department of
Education Services has devalued the program. I get that. I completely understand why community language
schools would be miffed at having their major WA Certificate of Education program moved out of Education
and into the Office of Multicultural Interests. Part of my questioning to the minister will be about the resourcing
of curriculum advice for these programs now that they have been moved to the Office of Multicultural Interests,
which does not have a core business in education—that is not its mission statement or core business.
The Polish Ethnic School is the only Polish educational institution in Western Australia offering year 12 Polish
language studies. The year 12 students sit exactly the same exam as everyone else who studies Polish, whether
they live in Victoria or Western Australia. Those students therefore have the right to receive the same treatment
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8515
as other WACE exam candidates and to have access to the same resources, government funding and learning
possibilities that are available for other year 12 WACE subjects.
I will finish by outlining the four questions that the Polish Ethnic School has asked me to put to the minister.
Firstly, can the minister provide hard evidence that the Office of Multicultural Interests has the resources, or will
recruit the resources, in curriculum expertise and education personnel required to support the maintenance and
constant upgrade of a community language program? Secondly, will the minister please lead negotiations with
the education department to enable community schools to access public school facilities after hours free of
charge, or to provide rent assistance to enable this to occur; and, in that same area, will the minister lead
negotiations to examine the viability of the education department opening a secondary-level school of languages
offering WACE exams? I think that is based on the Victorian model, which I am told is an example that works
very well. Thirdly, the minister advised on 20 October, when the member for West Swan raised this issue, that
a draft report by Erebus International would go out for public consultation. I understand from a brief
conversation with the minister that he thinks that report went out two weeks ago. We have a copy of the letter
that the Ethnic Schools Association received from OMI dated 17 November, so something is very wrong with
the information that the minister has been given.
DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests) [9.42 am]: I thank the
member for Maylands for providing some information on this matter. I want to give a bit of history about this
program. This program was designed some three decades ago to help community language schools—that is,
community organisations that want to teach, after school, on a non-profit basis, people, often children, but also
adults, language and culture. It is a national program. Initially, it was funded by the commonwealth and state
governments. It was for a long time administered by the Department of Education Services, as the member
indicated. As a local member of Parliament who is very active in culturally and linguistically diverse
communities, it came to my attention that the funding was inadequate; as the member indicated, at $65 per
student, it had not increased for decades in aggregate, and it was allocated primarily to the Italian insertion
program. Therefore, when I became the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, I inquired into this,
and I found out that very little information was known about the program, it had not been evaluated for decades,
it had not been upgraded for decades, and the policies and funding arrangements were opaque. We understood
that there was some commonwealth funding for the program, but it was not clear. As the member knows, the
commonwealth is cutting programs, especially joint grants programs, and my concern was that the
commonwealth would cut this program. The rumour that we heard was that the commonwealth funded half of it.
I undertook a review. We had a transition period in 2014. We wanted to understand the program, understand the
funding and understand its allocation. The program had been going for 30 years essentially, with no change. So,
that is what we did; we just freeze-dried the program for a year. We kept the exact funding to the exact programs
to the exact schools for one year. We hired Erebus International, which had conducted inquiries into the
programs in New South Wales and Victoria, and into the national program—so we hired a good firm—to
undertake a review. I knew that the Victorians in particular, who have the best program, were paying twice our
level, so I had to come to grips with why. I am a strong supporter of community-based language programs and
non-profit CALD communities. I have been very active in many of those communities, not just the Chinese
community but a range of them. We found that about $1.058 million is allocated to this program. Sometime in
the past—we are not sure when—the commonwealth bailed out. Again, the documentation on this program is
abysmal. DES has not run this program well. I therefore arranged to have the program shifted to OMI so that
I could undertake the review and tighten up the program. Erebus found that 80 per cent of that $1.058 million
goes to the Italian insertion program. The Italian community has an after-school program, and that is great.
However, 80 per cent, or just shy of $800 000, of that $1 million goes to the Italian insertion program run by the
Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre, which hires teachers to teach Italian in Catholic schools and in
eight public schools—not after school, but in schools. Erebus found that 80 per cent, or just shy of $800 000, of
the money goes to that. That is a large share of the money.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: We also made extensive inquiries with all the 26 community language schools—Erebus did
this, as did OMI—including the Polish community, to find out what their issues are. Many of the issues that the
member has raised were also raised with Erebus, particularly the lack of funding. The Polish community teaches
Polish for the Western Australian Certificate of Education and it has accreditation for that. However, many other
communities also do that, such as the Hindi and the Chinese —
Ms L.L. Baker interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Maylands!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Just let me finish. The programs will continue. In fact, they are going to expand.
8516
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Ms L.L. Baker interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Maylands!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The truth is that we had the study, and we put it out there widely, and the report has been
sent out. I do not know whether the Polish community has it.
Ms L.L. Baker: No, they have not.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: It has been sent to them. I checked it.
Ms L.L. Baker interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Maylands, I call you to order for the first time.
Ms L.L. Baker: Will you take an interjection, minister?
The SPEAKER: Member for Maylands, I am standing up!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: No. I am running out of time.
We have sent it out widely, including to the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre. The recommendations
are to reorientate money from the insertion program to the community program. That is what is going to happen,
and eventually we are going to get feedback from those groups. Be clear: the purpose is to reorientate money to
the community language programs so that we can pay more per student and expand them, because there is
a rapid increase in demand for the study of languages in new and emerging communities. Three Swahili schools
have opened up. They get no money. There has been an expansion of the Hindi program, which gets no money.
Also, they have to hire teachers, and the start-up costs are high. In Victoria, for example, as the member
indicated, students get double the amount. The whole purpose of this is to reorientate the program from the
Italian insertion program to communities, to give existing schools more money per student, to enable the
expansion of those schools and to allow for the expansion of other schools. The reason for that is we have found
that, amongst other things, Catholic schools and public schools already get money to teach languages.
Ms L.L. Baker interjected.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: They do. That is the problem.
Ms L.L. Baker interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Maylands! Let the minister speak.
Ms L.L. Baker interjected.
The SPEAKER: Do not talk to me when I am standing up. Just let him finish. If you are not happy, you can ask
questions later today.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The whole purpose is to get more money to address properly the Polish community and
many other community language schools. I wish the people on the other side of the house would support it, but
they do not. We are going to issue the report and make some changes to it to increase the amount of money
going to community language schools on a student basis and on an aggregate basis to expand the school
program. That is fair and equitable. There have been some tough issues. The member’s colleague the member for
West Swan argues against it. So be it. We will make a policy statement in a short period. I look forward to the
Polish community flourishing.
GATEWAY WA — HALE ROAD–TONKIN HIGHWAY INTERSECTION
Grievance
MR N.W. MORTON (Forrestfield) [9.50 am]: My grievance today is to the Minister for Transport. I start by
acknowledging the transport solutions that are being delivered to my electorate as we speak. Firstly, there is the
Gateway WA project, which I will come back to. This record spend is delivering some great outcomes for the
local community. I take this opportunity to make mention of Nick Combe and his team, who are doing a great
job of delivering this project ahead of time and under budget. Retrofitting major interchanges within highways is
never easy and they have done it very well. In particular, their traffic management has been exemplary. I also
need to thank the minister for coming out to my electorate last week to turn the sod on the grade-separated
interchange that is occurring at the Berkshire Road–Roe Highway intersection. That is a fantastic outcome for
the electorate of Forrestfield, as we have mentioned many times in this chamber. It has been a major bugbear for
my constituents and a major black spot, with an accident occurring every 10 days on average at that intersection.
For people who do not know the lie of the land, if they saw it firsthand, they would understand why; half the
intersection is uncontrolled and that half of the intersection is primarily used by trucks and has industrial-type
movements. That is a fantastic outcome for the community and it is great that we are delivering that one.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8517
I also note the Forrestfield–Airport Link, which will be a game changer for the eastern suburbs, connecting my
electorate to the city with a 20-minute train ride. All these things are fantastic and I thought I should be fair and
make note of the fantastic things that are being delivered for the community. However, with that said, I return to
the Gateway WA project, which I mentioned earlier. Although I acknowledge the great things that Gateway WA
is doing, I want to highlight with the minister today an issue that has been raised with me by a number of my
constituents—that is, the intersection at Hale Road and Tonkin Highway. As it stands, Gateway WA intends to
close the right-turn lane from Tonkin Highway into Hale Road for people travelling into the suburb of
Wattle Grove. My constituents are not happy with this outcome and, as such, I have raised this with the
Gateway WA team; in fact, I raised it at the meeting I had with the team at Parliament House. The Gateway WA
team was very responsive and had done some initial planning around a possible solution to this problem and
undertook to take that possible solution to a steering committee meeting, which I believe was held last month.
I understand that the rationale behind closing the lane is due to the upgrades occurring at the neighbouring
Tonkin Highway–Roe Highway interchange and, as such, the off-ramp from Roe Highway south onto
Tonkin Highway is considered too close to Hale Road for commuters to merge in time to safely enter the
right-turn lane and enter Wattle Grove; thus, the initial solution was to close the right-turn lane and instead
people could turn left at Hale Road, go up to a roundabout at Reynolds Road, near Hartfield Park, and return to
the lights at Tonkin Highway and then cross when the lights are green into Wattle Grove. Quite rightly, the
residents of Wattle Grove view this as ridiculous, as do I. The alternative solution is to put bollards along the
off-ramp from Roe Highway so that cars from that lane cannot merge, add a lane to the intersection and keep the
right-turn lane into Wattle Grove open. This would mean that motorists entering Tonkin Highway from
Roe Highway would not be able to enter Hale Road; they would need to do this at the upgraded interchange at
Berkshire Road and Roe Highway and then travel down Hale Road into Wattle Grove. However, all other
commuters heading south along Tonkin Highway would be able to enter Hale Road from Tonkin Highway at the
right-turn lane, which I see as a commonsense solution that balances both safety and accessibility for the
community.
Responsible government should always look for commonsense solutions, and I think this is a solution that the
community would welcome, rather than the closure of the right-turn lane. I look forward to the minister’s
response.
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [9.55 am]: I thank the member for Forrestfield
for raising this issue with me. After visiting the intersection with him last week, I can understand his
constituents’ frustration with this otherwise very successful infrastructure project. His constituents have
appropriately identified an issue with the initial planning for this intersection that would have removed the
right-turn access from Tonkin Highway into Hale Road. Without right-turn access from Tonkin Highway, his
constituents from Wattle Grove will spend more time in transit and I worry that, out of frustration, they may
consider performing a risky or unsafe U-turn. I applaud the work the member has undertaken with Gateway WA
and its willingness to assist by preparing an alternative design for this intersection that will retain the right-hand
turn into Hale Road.
As the member mentioned, the proposal involves widening Tonkin Highway to three southbound lanes through
the intersection, merging the entry ramp with the left-most lane and physically separating this lane from the
remaining two lanes through the intersection. The right-turn pocket would remain, but a physical separation
would prevent cars weaving across multiple lanes, creating a significant safety issue. This means that motorists
originating from the Roe Highway ramp, both westbound and eastbound, will be prevented from turning right
into Hale Road. They will be required to use the new Berkshire Road interchange or Welshpool Road East.
Again, this will prevent the unsafe weaving movement I mentioned earlier.
The Gateway WA project steering committee agreed to proceed with developing a preliminary design and cost
for this project. Once the details are available, I will seek advice from Main Roads to determine whether this will
fit with the current scope of the project. I hope to have good news for the member and his constituents early in
the new year.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Seventy-sixth Report — “City of Greater Geraldton Animals, Environment and Nuisance Local Law 2014” —
Tabling
MR P. ABETZ (Southern River) [9.57 am]: I present for tabling the seventy-sixth report of the Joint Standing
Committee on Delegated Legislation.
[See paper 2396.]
Mr P. ABETZ: This report recommends the disallowance of part 2 and items 1 to 22 of schedule 1 only of the
City of Greater Geraldton Animals, Environment and Nuisance Local Law 2014 because the Executive Director
of Public Health did not give consent prior to the making of part 2 of the local law as required by section 342 of
the Health Act 1911. The recommendation about items 1 to 22 of schedule 1 is consequential, as these items
8518
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
relate to offences prescribed in part 2. Part 2 of the local law regulates the keeping of animals and deals with
subject matter that falls within the local law–making powers in section 199 of the Health Act 1911. The
remainder of the local law is made under the lawmaking power in section 3.5 of the Local Government Act 1995
and is therefore unaffected.
Hon Michael Mischin, the Attorney General, has advised the committee that the consent of the
Executive Director of Public Health is required under section 342 of the Health Act 1911 for any part of a law
when the subject matter of the law falls within the area identified in the Health Act 1911. The Minister for
Health has advised that no such consent was given and he does not take issue with the committee recommending
the disallowance of part 2 of the local law. The committee wishes to make it clear that the validity issue with
part 2 of the local law arises through no fault on the part of the City of Greater Geraldton or its officers.
The committee concludes that part 2 of the local law is invalid because the procedural requirement in
section 342 of the Health Act 1911 was not complied with. Part 2 therefore offends the committee’s term of
reference 10.6A in that it is not within the power of the empowering act. The committee recommends that
part 2 and items 1 to 22, schedule 1 of the local law be disallowed. I commend the report to the house.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Seventh Report — “Age-friendly WA? A challenge for government” — Tabling
MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen) [9.59 am]: I present for tabling the seventh report of the Community
Development and Justice Standing Committee entitled “Age-friendly WA? A challenge for government”.
[See papers 2397 and 2398.]
Ms M.M. QUIRK: Demographers often describe the baby-boom generation as though it were an indigestible
mammal—maybe a rabbit or a really big rat—slowly moving through a python. That is our population. As this
generation has aged, the baby-boom bulge has remade society in its image, first as a massive class of toddlers,
later as rabble rousers in the 1960s, then as solidly middle-class heads of household and, soon, as the largest
class of retirees the country has ever seen. The ageing of our state population is a demographic inevitability. By
2021 more than a fifth, or 21 per cent, of Western Australia’s population will be in the 60-plus age bracket. What
are we doing about it? Throughout the western world, governments have been confronted with the need to plan
for this social shift. Western Australia is no different and the question necessarily arises as to how and when
governments will take the necessary action.
I want to briefly digress. One of the key advocates for seniors and the elderly in WA is the Council on the
Ageing. At the outset, I want to acknowledge its valuable work and in particular congratulate it on the success of
the various activities it organised during Seniors Week last week. Chief executive officer Ken Marston must be
proud of its efforts. In this context I also want to acknowledge the fantastic service of my former colleague
Bob Kucera. He recently finished his five-year term as president of COTA and, from my observations, the
members of COTA always appreciated his straight-talking, passion and commonsense. Under his stewardship,
COTA undertook some important work on key issues, and I wish Bob’s successor, Judy Hogben, well.
I return to the inquiry. We looked at other jurisdictions and what is held to be best practice to see how we can
make WA more age friendly. We examined the state government’s 2012 policy, “Seniors Strategic Planning
Framework 2012–2017”, to see how and whether it was being implemented. The committee soon realised,
however, that the breadth and depth of issues confronting the ageing population warranted a more substantial
investigation. We were indebted in our inquiry to having received a number of thoughtful and comprehensive
oral and written submissions. I thank those who generously gave of their time to assist the committee. Generally
speaking, there is a level of denial about the impact our ageing population will have. Good intentions are well
and good, but not enough. There is simply no firm resolve to act, nor a collective recognition that this trend will
have major economic and social shifts in our community. To compel the government to confront these issues in
a timely way, we have recommended that the state government periodically produce a seniors’ report card so that
progress on all key issues can be monitored.
The Community Development and Justice Standing Committee is of the view that our community can be
enriched if planned for and embraced with a cohort of seniors and elderly who are healthier, more socially
engaged and respected. Conversely, it is inevitable that if we fail to address the range of issues that have been
canvassed in this report, individuals, family and, indeed, the whole of our community will feel the impact and
consequent pressures in years to come. It requires leadership to enshrine age-friendly principles within our
community. It also requires meaningful consultation and debate with older Western Australians themselves.
A number of local governments have undertaken exemplary work in this regard and have been acknowledged
internationally for their work. We have heard positive and encouraging accounts of what is being done in some
communities. The City of Melville has been acknowledged internationally as a leader in the age-friendly arena.
Likewise, Mandurah, which has the highest proportion of older people in the metropolitan area, is doing some
wonderful things. The committee was impressed by the buzz of activity and the range of programs and services
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8519
at Ac-cent, the local Mandurah community centre. The Wheatbelt Development Commission is also engaged in
some innovative research and age-friendly initiatives, particularly in the area of housing and aged care. I should
also mention the City of Cockburn, which received the inaugural age friendly award at the seniors’ awards
during Seniors Week. I thought there was some irony that this award is under the aegis of the Minister for
Seniors and Volunteering, who is also the Minister for Local Government and who, of course, is seeking to
abolish that council. In the course of the inquiry, the committee was fortunate to visit two World Health
Organization accredited age-friendly cities in New York and Manchester and to meet international experts in
ageing and the creation of age-friendly communities. It is somewhat ironic that many of the changes these
communities have instituted relating to accessibility are of equal assistance to others in the community, such as
mothers with prams, and the disabled. The modifications required to infrastructure are often modest in nature.
In stark contrast, the allocation of resources at state government level has been risible. There appears, moreover,
to be little coordination between agencies and key departments, demonstrating that these demographic changes
do not feature at all in strategic planning. Allocation responsibility between key ministers appears to be based on
whether a senior is in good health or otherwise. Evidence such as that which indicates that Aboriginal Western
Australians are five times more likely to fall victim to dementia than non-Indigenous counterparts should be
a clarion call for immediate action by government. Similarly, the acute shortfall of suitably located and
accredited aged-care accommodation will not go away by engaging in a game of brinkmanship with the federal
government. In this respect, recent federal policy changes will adversely impact on the provision of such care.
The community needs to be satisfied that the state government will fearlessly advocate to the commonwealth for
a fairer deal on aged care.
The committee was constantly reminded that seniors are often thought of as one all-encompassing group, grey
haired and bespectacled and cast in negative and derogatory terms. But the population of seniors is far from
homogenous; it includes everyone from 65 to 105: the active, the frail, the well connected and the isolated. They
are rich, poor, straight, gay, tech savvy and computer illiterate and speak many languages. Thanks to increased
prosperity and better health, there will be more and more seniors every year for many years to come. They have
much to offer their families and the community. For example, a large proportion of WA’s volunteers are in their
senior years. Many grandparents are actively involved in the day care of their grandchildren. Many have the
wisdom of rich and diverse experiences to impart.
Early in the course of this inquiry, it became apparent that the Department of Local Government and
Communities, which administers the framework, had little idea of how age friendly Western Australia is. It had
not monitored the implementation of age-friendly initiatives by local government authorities and, in latter years,
had not provided any financial support or incentive for local governments to do so. We heard evidence that the
Department of Local Government and Communities did not have the resources to undertake research and it
relied on local governments to do so. The policy capability of the Department of Local Government and
Communities in the seniors area has seriously diminished in recent years. Oversight coordination of the
framework strategies has been severely lacking and the department has not demonstrated the leadership required
to implement an age-friendly agenda. The merging of the Department of Local Government and the
Department for Communities 18 months ago seems to have been to the detriment of seniors. The issue of local
government amalgamations has consumed so much of the new department and the Minister for
Local Government’s attention that seniors issues seem to have faded into the background. Various witnesses and
submissions, however, brought those issues to the committee’s attention. We were disturbed to hear about the
lack of suitable social housing for seniors. We were also very disturbed to hear that insecurity of tenure is
leading to increasing levels of homelessness.
[Quorum formed.]
Ms M.M. QUIRK: The committee was told about the challenges of living with dementia for not only the
patients, but also their families and carers. In general, carers permitted the elderly to stay at home for longer, but
the toll it takes on carers has to be given due recognition and respect. Various culturally and linguistically
diverse communities have wanted to establish aged care for their communities but found the processes required
almost impossible to negotiate. The committee heard that Aboriginal life expectancy is still about 10 years less
than the life expectancy for non-Aboriginal Western Australians. This does not mean that they are not affected
by diseases in old age—they just get them earlier.
Age discrimination is also on the increase. In the context of employment for older Western Australians, there
was cogent evidence given that a specialised employment service, such as those that exist in other states, is
certainly warranted.
Fundamental to the wellbeing of senior and elderly Western Australians is the imperative to stay active and
socially connected. Major transitions, such as bereavement or the loss of a driver’s licence, need to be recognised
and supported in the same way as the transition from school to post-school options is closely monitored in the
disability sector.
8520
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Another cause of social isolation arises when family members or carers misappropriate real property or money,
in many cases leaving the elderly person destitute. People working within the sector are very concerned that
inadequacies in the law relating to enduring powers of attorney can facilitate such financial elder abuse. The
legislative framework in this area has been under review for considerable time; in fact, I would say too long. The
notion of a helpline for elder abuse, recently funded by the government, is welcomed, but many elderly persons
are reduced to being so fearful of their abusers and so ashamed of what has happened that they would never
report it. Prevention is always better, which requires a number of strategies. For others, marginalisation or
depression is overcome by being able to get out and about in the community. The committee found that
sometimes even simple matters can assume greater significance for older persons. For example, the committee
heard that pedestrian concerns are not being addressed and that seniors sometimes find it impossible to cross
busy roads. Even where there is a signalled pedestrian crossing, the length of time allowed by the green man to
cross the road is clearly not enough. We know that technically the capacity exists to alter the timing on these
crossings, enabling more time to cross. A number of local government representatives gave evidence that they
requested Main Roads Western Australia to do this in areas with high senior populations, but Main Roads has
resisted those requests out of hand. It says to slow the traffic crossings down would further contribute to
congestion. The committee’s report mentions that the now Minister for Transport, in his election literature,
promised that this very thing would occur in his electorate. It is somewhat ironic that his department is now
resisting the very thing that he promised.
Crosswalks are only one piece of a deep-seated problem comprising many subtle environmental details that most
of us never even notice, such as whether there is a park bench to catch one’s breath or a kerb is cut for a walker.
The pace of city living feels entirely different when a person requires an extra beat to read a road sign or when
a person does not even have a licence to drive a vehicle at all.
As I said, the importance of physical activity, and suitable places to engage in it, was stressed to the committee.
The Seniors Recreation Council treated the committee to a demonstration of exergaming. It is a highly successful
way of getting older people active that is fun and engages even the most introverted seniors. Mall walking is
proving increasingly popular. Done prior to shops opening, it provides air conditioned, safe, even, stable ground
for groups undertaking exercise. The Council on the Ageing Western Australia Inc will expand this program.
Action should be a priority, if for no other reason than a larger part of the electorate is likely to express their
displeasure at this neglect, feeling that, in the words of Anthony Powell, “Growing old is like being increasingly
penalized for a crime that you haven’t committed.”
I acknowledge the thoughtful and enthusiastic contributions of my fellow committee members in the conduct of
this inquiry: Dr Tony Buti, MLA, Deputy Chair; and Mr Mick Murray, MLA. Former committee members
Mr Ian Britza and Mr Chris Hatton resigned in July this year, participating in only part of the inquiry.
Mr M.P. Murray: The trip!
Ms M.M. QUIRK: The failure to replace these members for this inquiry is an indictment on the Liberal Party.
Playing petty politics —
Point of Order
Mr C.D. HATTON: The member in front of you, in reference to members on this side of the chamber, keeps
repeating the word “trip”, which is an indictment —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Balcatta, you cannot use a point of order as a debating point. There is
no point of order.
Debate Resumed
Ms M.M. QUIRK: Because of that interruption, I will repeat myself. The failure to replace these members for
this inquiry is an indictment on the Liberal Party. Playing petty politics rather than actively participating to
examine such —
Several members interjected.
Point of Order
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: There are a number of Liberal members in the chamber trying to drown out the member
for Girrawheen. That is unparliamentary and should not be tolerated.
Mr A. KRSTICEVIC: No-one is trying to drown her out; they are trying to correct the record. She is
misleading the house in the statement she is making.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The Liberal Whip knows full well that he has plenty of opportunity to say whatever he
wants in the chamber, but it is not his job to drown out the member for Girrawheen while she is giving
a legitimate speech in her capacity as the elected chair of the committee.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8521
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Girrawheen, can you direct your remarks to
the report, please.
Debate Resumed
Ms M.M. QUIRK: I make the point that the member for Carine indicated that I was misleading the chamber.
I have no idea how he has any idea about the committee deliberations or what in fact occurred.
I repeat: the failure to replace these members for this inquiry is an indictment on the Liberal Party. Playing petty
politics rather than actively participating to examine such pressing policy matters is absolutely damning.
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members!
Point of Order
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I was called to order this morning in grievances when I interjected once. Government
members are interjecting —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I was calling the house to order. Thank you; I take your
point. You do not need to continue. Members, I need to hear the member for Girrawheen in silence, please.
Member for Girrawheen, please conclude your remarks.
Debate Resumed
Ms M.M. QUIRK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have four minutes.
Any assertion about how important seniors are to members on the government side of the house will now be met
with a level of scepticism and disbelief. How government members can say they care about seniors without
actively participating in what was a very comprehensive investigation is just unbelievable.
Of course, I must thank the very hardworking research staff, principal research officer, Dr Sarah Palmer, and
research officer, Ms Niamh Corbett, for their diligent and professional support of the committee’s work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Collie.
MR M.P. MURRAY (Collie–Preston) [10.20 am]: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is member for
Collie–Preston, please.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apologies, member. Member for Collie–Preston.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: I hate to miss the Preston bit.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely; I agree with you.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: Thank you very much for the call, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the National Party.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: At least I represent my area and I live in my area. Maybe that is something the Leader of
the National Party should learn!
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: Yes. It is about having a house and living somewhere does not make any difference.
I rise in support of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee report “Age-friendly WA?
A challenge for government”. I thank the very hardworking chair, the member for Girrawheen; my other
colleague Tony Buti, the member for Armadale; and staff, Dr Sarah Palmer and her helper Niamh Corbett—
although sometimes we call her other names! I thank them very much for the work they did on what started out
as a quick report. As we have just heard, as we got into it we saw the depth of problems for aged people and
certainly for aged people with disabilities. That was something that was brought to the fore. In saying that, there
is some good work being done that needs to be expanded and built upon. We need to do that because we know
the demographics of what is happening with ageing baby boomers coming on. If we do not work with that, we
will run into all sorts of problems as we go forward.
One of the major issues I had—not with the report itself, but with what was discovered—was that
non-government agencies and not-for-profit agencies were competing. They were competing for jobs within
different communities and in some cases, especially in the wheatbelt, agencies may have been located at a large
centre, but three different ones would go to a small town to service one or two people each, instead of one
agency servicing the six or seven people all at once. That is a huge cost to the community and it is not very smart
of the agencies. I see that as empire building within those agencies and work should be done to make sure it does
not happen. There should be allocated areas where a certain group can go and do its work without worrying
8522
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
about another group trying to take over. I see that issue in quite a few of the smaller country towns and I think it
is a waste of the money that has been put forward to the aged-care groups and it could be used very well
somewhere else, especially in the area of disability.
The chair of the committee talked about accommodation, and, again, there are major problems in that area. There
are some cases that I know of in which aged people, especially in Aboriginal populations, are living with
a family of sometimes up to 15 people in the one house. It is very unfair on the aged people in that community.
There is a lot of work to be done.
Going to the make-up of the committee itself, I was probably relieved in some ways that we did not have people
playing politics within our group. We did not have those people there because they would not stand up for the
aged of Western Australia. They left the room because they were under the riding instructions of the Premier.
They did not have the heart to stand up, but they did have —
Point of Order
Mr C.D. HATTON: The member is not fulfilling his obligations of reporting on —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Balcatta, there is no point of order. Member for Collie–Preston, direct
your remarks to the report, please.
Mr C.D. HATTON: He is discrediting.
Debate Resumed
Mr M.P. MURRAY: Yes, that would be exactly right. I am discrediting the people who would not stand up for
the aged people of Western Australia. They left the room because they were directed by the Premier not to
participate because they had had a tiff with the chair of the committee. How weak is that in politics when people
who were elected and put in the committee to do a job leave the room, but before they leave, they take a trip
around the world?
Point of Order
Mr C.D. HATTON: Once again, the member is not meant to be reporting on the members or ex-members of the
committee. That is not reporting to the terms of reference.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Madam Deputy Speaker —
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: Further to that point of order —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Join the queue. Member for Balcatta, if I hear any imputations of misconduct or
inappropriate actions on behalf of the members being discussed, I will call the member. At the moment I have
not, so there is no point of order.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I was just making the point again.
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: I actually thought I was in the queue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but the member for West Swan was before you, so patience.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member was behind me, so he should sit down.
I was just pointing out the interjections from the Leader of the National Party and I again ask that the
government members be treated like the opposition members and be called to order when they interject on
people on their feet.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for West Swan. I will endeavour to do my best on that front. In
the fracas I did not hear where the voices were coming from. I expect all sides of the house to abide by the
standing orders.
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you have made your point very clear; it is just that
while the member was putting a point of order, the member for Cannington was interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Churchlands. I really am able to conduct this position
myself. I appreciate your advice, but I now return to the member for Collie–Preston.
Debate Resumed
Mr M.P. MURRAY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and thank you for the protection, which I much
needed!
I was alluding to the make-up of the committee, and that I am sure I am allowed to do. The make-up of the
committee changed remarkably after a little tiff when the dummy spitters resigned from the committee and then
criticised it because they were not there. That was after they went on a trip around the world. That is after they
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8523
used $30 000-odd worth of taxpayers’ money and then did not contribute to the report. That is where I am
coming from.
Point of Order
Mr C.D. HATTON: Madam Deputy Speaker, once again the member has referred to another member who is an
ex-member of this committee as a dummy spitter, and that is just not correct. It is not parliamentary language.
I question it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Balcatta, I am listening out for imputation of improper motive and
personal reflections on the sovereign, the Governor, a judicial officer or members of the Assembly. At the
moment although I agree it is a fine line, I am not hearing that—so I do not take your point of order.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: On that point of order, I thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your ruling,
because I did not believe that “dummy spitter” was an unparliamentary term. I think it is simply an accurate
description of what occurred.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Cannington.
Debate Resumed
Mr M.P. MURRAY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will try again. What I am trying to say is that the point has been made about people who took trips and then did
not contribute to the final report. I think that is unparliamentary in itself.
Mr C.D. Hatton interjected.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: Go on; stand up again.
Not contributing to the report after using taxpayers’ money is a slight on this Parliament and this government.
That is the problem I have with that. In saying that, how good it was to have parliamentary inquiry without the
handbrakes being put on by a political group? We were able to bring a report to this Parliament that is
unbiased—a truthful report with no interference.
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Member for Eyre and Leader of the National Party, we want to
listen to the member for Collie–Preston in silence.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: I will repeat again —
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for West Swan. I have just asked members to listen to the
member for Collie–Preston in silence, and that includes you. Thank you.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: It is an unbiased and very truthful report. How can the government criticise that when it
will not participate? There is no room for the government to criticise if it does not want to sit in that room and be
part of that committee.
Mr C.D. Hatton interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Balcatta, I call you for the first time. Please listen to the member for
Collie–Preston in silence.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: What happens in committees in this political world is that if one shows weakness, one will
fail, and that is what I believe has happened with the government. It has shown weakness by not supporting the
aged of Western Australia, and that is very obvious. If the government does not want to be there, it is not going
to support the aged.
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Order!
Mr M.P. MURRAY: This is a very, very important report. How do I know? Because I am already joining the
subject matter of the report, given my age, and I see what is happening around me. Some people do not even
make it to my age, and they needed help before then. Those matters are included in this report, but did we get
any help from the government? None whatsoever. It sat there in silence, withdrew its services, took the trips and
did everything possible to try to discredit the member for Girrawheen. That is what it was about. It was not about
the aged of Western Australia—the people out in the communities who need help. The government has let down
this Parliament and the parliamentary process. It is very interesting that no-one from the government bench has
replaced those two members, but I am very happy to say that the member for Armadale has stepped up to the
plate and taken the position of deputy chair, and I am very happy to support that. The vote was unanimous; there
8524
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
was not a member who voted against that. It was a unanimous vote for the Labor Party, and what a great mob we
are!
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members!
Point of Order
Mr D.T. REDMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to ask the member for Collie–Preston to refer to the
content of the report, which is specifically what this process, under the standing orders, is designed for.
The member is getting political about the committee positions and talking about a range of things other than
what this standing order provides for, which is to report to the Parliament the outcomes of a committee report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the National Party. Member for Collie–Preston, you have
only two minutes left. We have not heard much about the report from you, and I think the house would
appreciate that.
Debate Resumed
Mr M.P. MURRAY: I am talking about how the committee works as part of the report, and I take very seriously
what the Leader of the National Party said, because we are now talking about a parliamentary process and
a report that, in some ways, is probably far better than what we would have had if the government members had
remained. The Labor Party is not going to take trips around the world for free —
Point of Order
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: I believe that the member is not talking to the report. I do not —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Churchlands, can you refer me to a standing order?
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: It is about relevance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr M.P. Murray: Which number is it?
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: You find the number. It is about relevance.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Collie–Preston, please direct your remarks to the report.
Debate Resumed
Mr M.P. MURRAY: Obviously a raw nerve has been touched and the point has been made, and the point is that
this government has let down the aged of Western Australia. It has let them down badly and it is my view that it
should participate in the committee. On the other hand, I do not mind it not participating, because it means we
can get the job done without playing politics, and provide an unbiased report on age-friendly Western Australia.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I again thank the very hardworking committee staff who assisted us and
the very hardworking chair, the member for Girrawheen, for the over-and-above work they did, because we had
to carry the load that the government would not.
DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [10.33 am]: I also rise to talk about the seventh report of the
Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, “Age-friendly WA? A challenge for government”.
I would like to start by thanking my fellow committee members: the chair, the member for Girrawheen; and the
member for Collie–Preston. It has been a joy to work with them in producing this report. During the contribution
by the member for Collie–Preston, I heard some members interject that this report was biased. It is hard to
understand how they would know if it were biased if it has only just been released, and I challenge any member
in this house to read this report and then come back and tell me that it is biased.
It was very disappointing that the former members of this committee—the members for Balcatta and Morley—
could not remain on the committee, because I think they both had worthwhile contributions to make to it. I do
not blame them; they were, of course, directed by the Premier or by the powers that be, and I think that they were
both enthusiastic to make —
Point of Order
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: I refer to standing order 92, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know that it is written
anywhere in the report that the Premier or any senior member of government actually directed that those
members resign. I do not think that is in the report.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: On the point of order, I will read standing order 92, headed “Imputations and personal
reflections”, which the member for Churchlands referred to. It reads —
Imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on the Sovereign, the Governor, a judicial
officer or members of the Assembly or the Council are disorderly other than by substantive motion.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8525
I do not believe that was what the member for Armadale was referring to in his commentary, so I think the
member for Churchlands is referring to the wrong standing order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I believe that this is becoming borderline because there is
an imputation of an improper motive in that the member for Armadale has said that there was some direction to
the committee members about their decision, so I ask the member for Armadale to be careful with the words he
uses and to focus on the content of the report.
Debate Resumed
Dr A.D. BUTI: I will be, if members do not interrupt. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I said, I think the members for Balcatta and Morley would have made worthwhile contributions, and it is
a shame that they were unable to remain members of the committee for whatever reason. It is also a shame to
some extent that they were not replaced, but as the member for Collie–Preston stated, the committee worked
very well and I think we have produced an outstanding report. The chair worked overtime on this report, as did
the staff of the committee, the principal research officer, Dr Sarah Palmer, and research officer Niamh Corbett,
who have been outstanding and who were the engine room behind the completion of this report. I thank them
immensely for their contribution.
Ageing is something that will affect all of us and, indeed, is affecting some of us already! We all know that the
demographics tell us that we have an ageing population. At this point I would like to acknowledge some friends
from Italy in the Speaker’s gallery with the member for Bunbury. Italy, like Australia, is tackling ageing issues.
I do not want to return to the politics of the government not having any members on this committee, but this is an
incredibly important policy area and it is important for the government to engage in it. Although we have
a strategic framework, which sounds great, one has to wonder whether the government is fully committed to
ensuring that the seniors’ strategic planning framework is being implemented.
I would like to focus on a couple of areas of the inquiry and report in my brief time. One is the issue of local
government. We held hearings with local government representatives and it became clear that it would appear
that the state government is pushing a lot of the responsibility for implementing its strategic planning framework
onto local governments without providing them with adequate resources. That is what we were told by local
government and we heard no evidence to the contrary. It is very difficult for local governments, who have many
demands on their plate, to try to provide the resources and programs needed to ensure that our ageing population
is properly serviced. That is one area that the government needs to look at very carefully in the report’s findings,
and seek to correct the problems that have resulted from the under-resourcing of local governments.
Transport is also an incredibly important area for everyone. I refer to an interesting quote from the report, on
page 105, by Louise Asher, a University College London researcher, who stated —
Older pedestrians are more likely to be involved in a road traffic collision than younger people due to
slower walking speed, slower decision making and perceptual difficulties. Older people who are hit are
also more likely to die from their injuries than younger people. Having insufficient time at a road
crossing may not increase the risk of pedestrian fatalities but it will certainly deter this group from even
trying to cross the road.
I think that the Minister for Local Government would be quite aware of how busy Armadale Road in the City of
Armadale is, and how difficult seniors and people with physical incapacities find trying to walk across Armadale
Road between the railway line and South Western Highway intersection. The government needs to look at that
very carefully and ensure that adequate safeguards are in place so that elderly people can walk across that area. It
is a major barrier between the residential area and the central business district shopping complex.
Another area explored in the report is the health and wellbeing of our ageing population. We held an interesting
hearing with the Department of Sport and Recreation, which has a pivotal role to play in trying to make our
environment age-friendly. It has implemented a number of programs for the ageing population. It is a shame that
the Minister for Sport and Recreation is not in this place at the moment, because it became clear that insufficient
resources have been allocated to enable the department to adequately service the ageing population. I believe that
the Department of Sport and Recreation is a key agency for the ageing population. If more resources are put into
the Department of Sport and Recreation, maybe not as much money will need to be committed to the health
department. The fitter the ageing population is, the healthier it will be. That was borne out by evidence presented
by Professor Flicker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! There are too many conversations occurring in the house.
Member for West Swan, that includes you. Thank you.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Professor Leon Flicker from the Western Australian Centre for Health and Ageing stated that it
is clearly the case that physical activity is incredibly important in the wellbeing of the ageing population. He
presented some stark statistics that I think every member in this place should listen to: an inactive male senior
8526
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
has a 25 per cent greater chance of early mortality, and an inactive female senior has a 50 per cent greater chance
of early mortality. They are alarming figures that any government that seeks to have a policy and framework for
the ageing population needs to take on board. It is incredibly important that government takes this report on
board. I find incredibly disappointing some of the interjections we heard during the contribution made by the
member for Collie-Preston, saying that this report is biased. That is absolutely absurd, because the report has
only just been handed down; how could those members say it was biased? I find it very difficult to understand
how anyone could read this very considered and thoroughly researched report and not conclude that it is calling
the government to action on a very important public policy matter in the Western Australian body politic; that is,
how to deal with the ageing population. As stated in an article that appeared in The Lancet by Dr John Beard and
David Bloom —
Finally, population ageing is not taking place in isolation. Other broad social changes are transforming
society and these are interacting with ageing to affect social and intergenerational dynamics.
Understanding the interplay between these trends is crucial if policy makers are to make the best
decisions to promote the health and wellbeing of older people.
I think that is a very cogent recognition of the importance of this area of public policy.
One of the issues repeated to us in the submissions we received, hearings we conducted, and in our trips to
Manchester, New York and Dallas for this inquiry, was the isolation of the ageing population; it is a real issue.
The other issue that I think we need to address very, very carefully is the issue of elder abuse. Elder abuse is
something that government and public policymakers have to consider, to try to find remedies and policies to
reduce that heinous crime. There needs to be a comprehensive public policy framework on the ageing
population. We all come into contact with the ageing population, either because of our own age or because we
are looking after or caring for elderly parents. The demographics tell us that it is a major public policy area that
this and probably previous governments have not given sufficient consideration to.
LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Introduction and First Reading
Bill introduced, on motion by Mr D.T. Redman (Minister for Lands), and read a first time.
Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister.
Second Reading
MR D.T. REDMAN (Warren–Blackwood — Minister for Lands) [10.45 am]: I move —
That the bill be now read a second time.
I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or
multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party; nor does this bill, by reason of its subject
matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth.
I am pleased to introduce this bill which, together with the Land Legislation Amendment (Taxing) Bill 2014,
will implement reforms to Landgate’s pricing framework for regulated products and services. Landgate provides
the state with world-leading location information products and services, and maintains a secure land titles
register for the state. In performing its functions, Landgate has a statutory obligation to act in a cost-effective
manner and on prudent commercial principles, and in a way that supports the sustainable economic management
and development of the state. The changes proposed by the bill will ensure Landgate’s ongoing financial
sustainability, reduce Landgate’s reliance on government appropriation and provide Landgate with an incentive
to deliver greater efficiencies and cost savings while delivering fee certainty to consumers.
Landgate currently generates 75 per cent of its customer revenue from regulated products and services,
predominantly from document lodgement fees and title searches. The fees for regulated products and services are
calculated on a cost-recovery basis and are prescribed in regulations made under the Transfer of Land Act 1893,
Strata Titles Act 1985, Registration of Deeds Act 1856 and Valuation of Land Act 1978. Cost recovery requires
Landgate to know its costs and to estimate property market activity and transaction volumes approximately
18 months in advance. This can be difficult. Activity levels can be subject to significant volatility, which can be
around 25 per cent in any given year and which ultimately impacts on the total costs recovered. Landgate has
high fixed costs for maintaining the land titles register, and this is not suited to recovering costs on
a transactional basis.
There is little incentive to reduce costs through efficiencies. Any reduction in cost must be passed to consumers
as lower regulated fees. As the average consumer buys a property every seven years and Landgate fees are
a small part of total purchase costs and charges, any reduction in fees has a minimal benefit to individual
consumers. If Landgate’s pricing reform is not implemented, cost savings would have to be passed on to
consumers as lower fees. Given that consumers, on average, transact on a property once every seven years,
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8527
Landgate has estimated that an individual consumer would save $7.20 based on an average lodgement fee of
$168; and 80c on an average search fee of $25. Landgate’s pricing reform will allow it to prescribe fees for
regulated products and services greater than cost recovery, and retain the surplus between the fees charged for
regulated products and services and Landgate’s costs of providing the products and services.
Giving Landgate the power to prescribe fees greater than cost recovery does not mean that Landgate’s ability to
set fees for its regulated products and services will be unconstrained. Fees will still be reviewed annually as part
of Landgate’s usual budget approval process. Any fee increase will still need to be approved by the minister and
the Economic and Expenditure Review Committee, and endorsed by cabinet. Fee regulations will still be
published in the Government Gazette and laid before Parliament. In addition, the bill contains a sunset clause.
The power to prescribe fees greater than cost recovery will come to an end on 31 December 2019, unless
extended by proclamation of the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands. Each extension can
be for a period of up to five years. The minister’s recommendation will be made following each five-yearly
review of the Land Information Authority Act 2006 and the tabling of that review before Parliament. In
reviewing the act and Landgate’s operations, the minister will have to consider Landgate’s pricing of regulated
products and services and whether Landgate has achieved operating efficiencies that would enable the fees to be
reduced or not increased. The Governor’s proclamation will be laid before Parliament to provide parliamentary
scrutiny of any renewal of the power to prescribe fees greater than cost recovery.
Since 2011 Landgate has made savings that have allowed it to hold the majority of document lodgement and
search fees steady. Increases in the consumer price index and increased wage costs have been absorbed by
Landgate. Consumers of Landgate’s regulated products and services include members of the public, business and
the wider property industry. They will not be adversely affected by Landgate’s pricing reform. The pricing
reform will deliver fee certainty to all consumers of Landgate’s regulated products and services. Landgate has
committed to hold fees payable for regulated products and services at current levels until 30 June 2018, other
than fee increases, if any, to reflect the annual change in the All Groups CPI, Perth, or in response to factors
outside Landgate’s control, such as changes to the law. Enabling Landgate to retain savings means that it will be
able to reduce the real cost of services to customers by holding increases in existing regulated fees, if any, to the
increase in the CPI, or to an amount less than the increase in the CPI.
The Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, in conjunction with the Land Legislation Amendment (Taxing) Bill
2014, will implement important reforms to Landgate’s pricing of regulated products and services. The reforms
will deliver fee certainty to consumers; provide a more sustainable and less volatile funding source for Landgate
by reducing the impact on Landgate of property market volatility; and provide an incentive to deliver efficiencies
by allowing savings to be retained and used to: reduce the real cost of services to consumers by holding increases
in existing regulated fees, if any, to the increase in the CPI, or to an amount less than the increase in the CPI;
improve Landgate’s systems and deliver better services to customers; pay an increased dividend and a higher
national tax equivalent amount to the state to support government expenditure in other areas; and invest in
capital works or other programs or strategies under Landgate’s approved strategic development plan. The
reforms will also enable the self-funding of important capture, maintenance and dissemination of location
information to government and industry; and reduce reliance on government appropriations and avoid a negative
impact on the state’s net debt position, estimated to be $21.4 million over five years if the reforms are not
implemented.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman.
LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TAXING) BILL 2014
Introduction and First Reading
Bill introduced, on motion by Mr D.T. Redman (Minister for Lands), and read a first time.
Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister.
Second Reading
MR D.T. REDMAN (Warren–Blackwood — Minister for Lands) [10.53 am]: I move —
That the bill be now read a second time.
I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or
multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party, nor does it, by reason of its subject matter,
introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. The bill needs to be viewed in
conjunction with clauses 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which amend the
Registration of Deeds Act 1856, the Strata Titles Act 1985, the Transfer of Land Act 1893 and the Valuation of
Land Act 1978 respectively. The amendments authorise each act’s prescribed fees to exceed the amount, or an
estimate of the amount, needed to recover the costs of the products and services to which the fee relates. When
8528
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
the fee is greater than the costs incurred or estimate of the costs incurred, the over-recovery is characterised as
a tax. To the extent that fees under the Registration of Deeds Act 1856, Strata Titles Act 1985, Transfer of Land
Act 1893 and Valuation of Land Act 1978 are a tax, this bill imposes a tax. Section 46(7) of the
Western Australian Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 requires a separate bill to impose the tax.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman.
TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2014
Third Reading
Resumed from 19 November.
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [10.55 am]: As I was so rudely interrupted yesterday, I will go back to
my third reading contribution on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014. I note again that for the
second time the member for West Swan left me 60 seconds on a tax bill!
Ms R. Saffioti: I am going to do that every time!
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The member will make it a habit!
I will go back over a couple of things. I forgot to ask a question about the pastoral processing. I flagged it in my
second reading contribution, but I forgot to have it clarified during consideration in detail. I refer to when
a primary product is partly processed on site. I gave the example of grapes being crushed to must, but not to
wine, but clearly must is an interim step. Is that primary production or secondary production? The other example
I gave was turning milk to whey before it is made into cheese. A milking shed is clearly part of the primary
production process and, to use those wonderful words, bodily produce, but the milking shed might also be used
for the production of whey. I talked about this in my second reading contribution, but I forgot to ask that
question in the consideration in detail stage. The Minister for Finance might think about how he will deal with
that.
I will go through a couple of issues that we spoke about. The first is that this legislation has many elements, not
only the question of primary production. I particularly draw attention to clause 24 of the bill, which amends
section 36 of the Duties Act to insert stronger language to overcome legal arguments regarding the value of
transferred mining tenements. The point that I am making here is that the Association of Mining and Exploration
Companies was not consulted in that process, yet the bill went to the gatekeeping unit. What is the point of
a gatekeeping unit if one of its tasks is not to ensure that industry is made aware of changes to laws? This is
clearly a hole in the process. As I have said in the chamber previously—I will say it again now—consultation is
not a weakness. Talking to industry and interested parties about legislation or government policy is not
a weakness; rather, it should be seen as a strength. I imagine that if members talked to industry players who are
trading in their mining tenements and titles, they would probably urge us to have a bill that allows them to
reduce the amount of taxation they pay, which is natural; indeed, any taxpayer looks to reduce the amount of his
or her tax. The government might have a very good public policy reason to maximise taxation revenue, and these
sorts of proper public policy debates are held regarding any taxation matter. But not having the conversation is
not a strength; it is a weakness. I think that the government should have consulted the Association of Mining and
Exploration Companies and other groups such as the Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association so
that interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the changes to the legislation. Given that it went to the
gatekeeping unit, I do not understand why the gatekeeping unit did not require government to talk to industry
about it.
I turn to the main portion of the bill. Clause 6 deletes and inserts a new part 3, division 3, in the Land Tax
Assessment Act and provides for the primary production exemptions. As I understand what has happened here,
the Commissioner of State Revenue came to a new conclusion on what the legislation provided, and, therefore,
the government decided that it needed to amend the legislation. This affects nine taxpayers. Quite rightly, we do
not know who they are and we should not. We should make decisions based on policy issues, not on the needs of
individuals. We are trying to come up with a scheme that allows land used for primary production purposes to be
exempted from land tax, but land used for secondary processing to be subject to land tax.
The Minister for Finance explained how the agency, through the Commissioner of State Revenue, will make that
decision. Effectively, the minister said that commonsense will prevail. The problem with commonsense is that it
is not very common! I hope that we quickly get some clarity about how we decide which parts of land are
exempt. To use the example that everyone is using, I refer to a vineyard with a winery attached. We know which
parts of the land are underneath the grapevines, so we can say that is clearly land being used for primary
production. We know which part of the land is physically beneath the winery and that that is land for secondary
production. However, some parts of the land will be used for multiple purposes and shared between both
secondary and primary production. The example I gave was hardstand. A property might have hardstand that is
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8529
used for consumables for secondary processing, but at other times of the year it may be used for consumables for
primary production. For example, it may be used for the crates that bring grapes to the winery—the picking and
storing of the grapes is clearly primary production—but that same piece of land may be used at another time of
year to store crates for storing wine bottles, or to store the wine bottles themselves, or as parking space for the
trucks to take wine away from the secondary processing. It will have to be quite quickly clarified, particularly if
we are talking about only a small number of taxpayers. I urge the Commissioner of State Revenue to make those
determinations as quickly as possible so that taxpayers clearly understand their obligations.
Some questions were asked about the exact cost impact of this bill. My understanding of the advice given to the
member for West Swan is that it will have a $3 million cost impact per annum—give or take. Maybe it is
$2.5 million or $3.5 million, but it is a very small amount of money. That is fine. I am not saying that every time
the government brings in legislation it has to massively increase taxes, as with all the other taxation bills we have
debated recently. However, if the government implements these changes and is then advised by the
Commissioner of State Revenue that the revenue is significantly different from what was expected, that would
clearly be a cause for concern in a public policy sense.
I turn to the provisions regarding retirement villages. I acknowledge that the Minister for Finance is not the
relevant minister; I think the minister responsible for consumer protection has carriage of the
Retirement Villages Act 1992. However, there is an interaction between what we are doing here and what
happens in that legislation. Under the Retirement Villages Act, costs that can be passed from the operator of the
village to the residents of the village are limited. I am unsure what the change to land tax will mean. Effectively,
we will tax land that is being banked by the developer of a retirement village—in other words, land that is yet to
be used for the purpose of the retirement village as further expansion stages or whatever might be involved. The
land that was previously untaxed will now be taxed because of a State Administrative Tribunal decision that
overturned the commissioner’s understanding of the Land Tax Assessment Act that those land tax expenses are
not to be passed on to village residents.
I used this example previously in debate about land tax. Westfield pays land tax for Westfield Carousel and
although Westfield is quite a significant landholder, the person who ultimately pays the tax is the tenant. This is
the same. Someone has to be a significant landholder to pay land tax, but some of my constituents say that they
should have to be a much more substantial landholder to pay land tax. They say that the land tax threshold comes
in too low. However, leaving that debate aside, one way or another I do not think we intend to tax the residents
of a village, but if the land tax costs for the developer of a retirement village is allowed to be passed to the
residents, that is the effect of what we are doing here—that is, we will pass on the land tax to residents of the
village. Neither the minister nor this legislation changes that, but it is still an important issue in deciding on our
support for the bill. I appreciate the minister’s undertaking that when the bill is debated in the other chamber,
that issue will be clarified. As I said, it is not of itself fatal or otherwise to this bill.
I know that the member for Gosnells wants to say a few words; he also participated in debate. I will make two
closing statements. The government’s plan is to increase taxes by 77 per cent over the period from when it won
office to the end of the current budget out years—the 2017–18 tax year. That is a very significant increase in the
tax effort in Western Australia, and by any measure we will continue to be the highest taxed state in the country.
Given the problems in the budget elsewhere, I cannot imagine that the government will give us any tax relief.
Finally, I found the minister’s behaviour in the debate refreshing. He took us seriously and tried to properly
answer our questions. The three members on our side who contributed to the debate—the member for
West Swan, the member for Gosnells and I—raised very legitimate questions and the minister responded with
answers that respected the questions we asked. I encourage him to take that attitude the next time he comes in
here, because it was not his attitude the last time we had a tax debate. With those few words, I note the contents
of the bill and look forward to the next time we can debate taxation legislation.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [11.10 am]: I rise to make a brief third reading contribution to the
Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014. I note that some useful debate has been had on a number of
issues. I want to begin by referring to the impact of this legislation on retirement villages and properties that are
generically known as retirement villages but may be covered by other legislation. During the consideration in
detail stage, I asked if the minister could tell me whether a property that is covered by the Residential Parks
(Long-stay Tenants) Act would be dealt with in the same way under this legislation as a retirement village that is
covered under the Retirement Villages Act. I am still waiting for that answer, and I look forward to the minister
providing me with that answer during his third reading response. It is a fairly straightforward question.
I note that when it comes to the amendment to section 39B of the Land Tax Assessment Act to include the words
“dwelling park land”, there is the use of generic terminology. I therefore want to know from the minister whether
“retirement village” would also include a property that people may refer to as a retirement village but is covered
by another piece of legislation. As the member for Cannington said, the carriage of matters relating to retirement
villages and properties covered by the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act is the domain of the
8530
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Minister for Commerce, but clearly there is some interplay with this legislation. People who live in these sorts of
retirement villages are always concerned about the possibility of additional charges coming their way. The
owners of the various villages of course want to maximise their profits and they do that by passing on costs to
residents whenever possible. Therefore, we need some clarity about that matter.
Another issue that I focused on during the debate was clause 6 and the definition of “bodily produce”. I put it to
the minister that people who are engaged in livestock stud production in some form are not actually making
a profit out of the sale of bodily produce—they would be if they were selling the progeny, and progeny is
mentioned in the bill—but that it is actually about genetic material or genetic code. I am still unclear whether
that definition is included in what we understand by the term “primary production”. I can think of a number of
stud producers, equine and bovine, and other animal producers, whose main centre of business activity would not
be seen as the production of bodily produce. The minister asked during the debate whether we are talking about
the semen or the eggs involved. It is not about those reproductive materials; it is about the code that is contained
within those materials. Therefore, we need to be very specific and accurate when we talk about these things.
There was another area of the debate that I found disappointing. I note the member for Cannington’s comment
that the tenor of the debate was one of cooperation and a willingness by the minister to engage and discuss and
get into issues. But I found the minister’s approach to one issue that I raised somewhat disappointing. That was
around the definition of “fungi” and the rewriting or the denial of science that the minister engaged in when he
suggested that fungi are plants. I think the minister accepts and understands that fungi are not plants, but he was
not prepared to amend the legislation to reflect what we know. That is disappointing. When we go through
consideration in detail, the opposition brings up issues and seeks to improve legislation. Surely that is a perfect
opportunity for the minister to accept an amendment to the bill, or at least to indicate that in the passage of the
legislation from this place to the other place, an amendment can be made. I note that ministers who are confident
with their portfolios are always prepared to accept that amendments can be put forward during the transition of
a bill from one place to the other. However, I am afraid the minister appeared unwilling to do that. That means
that we have something in our legislation that is factually incorrect, and that is disappointing.
Mr J.R. Quigley: That is a very good point that you make, because a minister as confident as the former
Attorney General, Christian Porter, did exactly what you said on the mandatory sentencing legislation, when he
said, “Between this place and the other place, I will have that corrected, member for Mindarie.”
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: It is interesting that the member for Butler should mention the former
Attorney General, Christian Porter, now the federal member for Pearce. I recall that when we were debating the
bikie legislation, which contained a provision that the police could hold the firearms of people who were part of
a recognised criminal gang for as long as it took to name that criminal gang, Christian Porter said that was
a ridiculous impost on the state, and he would see that that provision was amended before the bill went to the
other place. Therefore, it is clear that ministers who are confident with their portfolios are prepared to make
amendments, and those who are not confident seem to be timid about doing so. The fungi example says a lot as
well about the Liberal Party’s attitude to science. There are plenty of examples to show that the Liberal Party
does not want to engage in modern science at all.
I know that I am a couple of years older than the minister, but I am sure that if the minister did any biology in
lower secondary or upper secondary school, it would have been made plain to him that fungi are not plants. I am
sure that when the minister had his high school education—30 years ago, or perhaps 40 years ago; I am not sure
how many years ago it would have been for him—that would have been made plain to him, but he has obviously
not bothered to keep up with it since.
Mr D.A. Templeman: The member for South Perth studies mould! He is a cheesemaker from way back!
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I could not resist one comment that came through to me following the debate, and that
was what did one mushroom say about the other mushroom, and that was that he was a fun guy! I do not know
that that applies to the minister necessarily.
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): I suggest that we stick to the bill and not to comedy, member.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Taxation legislation should contain accurate terminology, and eukaryotic organisms
should be correctly defined in this legislation.
There have been some estimates around the cost of this measure to the state budget. It is not an extraordinarily
large amount of money, but it has never been explained to us whether this measure will provide financial
benefits and act as a stimulus to primary producers to go further. I think that is part of a cost–benefit analysis that
the government should be undertaking. If the government is making this sort of taxation change, it should be
aware of what the benefits to the state might be, not just the costs. That is something we might hear from the
minister in his third reading response. Otherwise, I support the legislation. I look forward to hearing from those
engaged in primary production, where they are seeking to engage in some form of downstream processing that
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8531
they feel more confident to undertake without the impost of land tax on secondary production operations on their
properties. That will be a good thing for the state and a benefit to all.
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Finance) [11.20 am] — in reply: I thank members opposite
and all those involved in the debate on this bill. I think we all concur that this is a good outcome, particularly for
primary producers in areas such as the Swan Valley. I thank all those involved who way back in mid-last year
gave their contributions in bringing this forward.
I have reviewed Hansard on the questions about what brought about the committee amendment to the bill to
extend the operation of the secondary processing exemption back to 2012–13. The member for West Swan asked
a question and was keen for me to rule out anyone from my office or the Treasurer’s office having a role in
initiating the committee amendment. I can confirm that the amendment was initiated by the Office of
State Revenue. There was concern that taxpayers who had not yet been investigated by the commissioner would
be subject to the unexpected impost of having their primary production exemption removed for the past two
years prior to the bill coming into effect. Much was made in the questioning about whether this matter had been
brought to my attention by the Treasurer or the Treasurer’s office. I can confirm that this matter was not brought
to my attention or the attention of the Office of State Revenue by the Treasurer or the Treasurer’s office.
However, the Office of State Revenue consulted with the Department of Treasury, but not the Treasurer or the
Treasurer’s office. There was also an initial question about whether there had been discussions with taxpayers or
people lobbying on the issue of making the secondary processing amendments retrospective.
A question was also asked whether it was raised in any of the submissions during the public consultation
process. I can confirm that I am not aware of any discussions with taxpayers or lobbyists on this issue. I would
like to make the Assembly aware that while the committee amendment was being considered by my department,
a written inquiry was forwarded to my office by the member for Swan Hills on behalf of a constituent seeking
assurance that the act would allow the secondary processing exemption for the two years prior to the legislation
coming into effect. This reaffirmed the concerns already raised by the department, and hence the amendments.
I would like to thank the member for Swan Hills for bringing this matter to my attention. Overnight, the
Office of State Revenue has also reviewed the public consultation submissions and found that one respondent
indirectly raised the issue by querying whether the secondary processing amendments could be made
retrospective.
I will respond now to further issues raised during this third reading debate, particularly on partial production
such as grapes to must or milk to whey. Primary production ceases at the first stage of any processing, so the
exemption will apply to primary production but not to any stage of secondary processing. With regard to the
broader consultation, I reaffirm that this is clarification of an existing law and taking back. That is why there was
no consultation with the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and why the regulatory gatekeeping
unit was consulted to ensure that it was in line with the original intent of the law.
We reaffirm the practical approach, consistent with assessments prior to 2012. Although we talk about those
hard stands, those issues have existed all the way through. It is a pragmatic approach that involves undertaking
the assessments and they will continue. We will continue to monitor the practical application of this to ensure
that it continues with the intent of what we all believe is appropriate.
The same applies to retirement villages, which we will continue to monitor as we implement the legislation.
We have always been consistent in our approach. The original intent of the law was that the land and the
surrounds involved in the process of a retirement village are, for all intents and purposes, for retirement villages.
We are trying to capture situations in which there are large tracts of land that might be used for development of
other purposes, not penalise retirement villages per se. We have amended the legislation to return it to its original
intent to ensure that the policy is encapsulated. We will need to continue to monitor the position to ensure it
unfolds, practically, in the way it is intended.
I have additional advice from the Department of Commerce, whose officers are present in the Speaker’s gallery,
with confirmation that for long-stay residential parks, the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 specifically excludes
retirement villages. Current land tax issues around retirement villages will not extend to parks, if that makes
sense. I think that is the query from the member for Gosnells.
Mr C.J. Tallentire: It is a query. I am not sure that is the answer.
Mr D.C. NALDER: We will take that up offline, but that is the advice I have received at this point.
Semen obviously carries the genetic code of bloodstock, irrespective of whether it is from sheep, cattle or horses.
This legislation is designed to pick up that bodily fluid transfer. Whether it goes far enough or should be defined
further we are prepared to discuss further. However, we believe it is picked up enough in the current legislation
to ensure it is covered as part of primary production.
8532
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
As I outlined during the debate, the Commissioner of State Revenue will adopt a pragmatic approach to the
determinant of the land use for primary and secondary production, as I explained. Taxpayers will be consulted
and rights of objection and appeal will apply if taxpayers do not agree.
With regard to the advice that fungi is not a plant, I concur with the member’s position, but the advice I received
from the department was that it encapsulated fungi to the extent that it will be treated as primary produce;
therefore, the advice I received was that it is not necessary to further clarify. I am taking that on advice.
Mr C.J. Tallentire: It will make us look silly.
Mr D.C. NALDER: As I said to the member for Cannington, we are happy to explore the other issues he raised.
I am happy to look at that further. The advice I have received from the department is that it is appropriately
picked up. That is the basis on which I have supported this amendment. I am more than happy to consider it on
the way through. As I have told the house, that is the best advice I have received to date.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the members who supported this legislation. It was first raised in 2013 as
a grievance by Andrea Mitchell, the member for Kingsley. I thank her for raising this in the house, which was
where this issue was kickstarted.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member!
Mr D.C. NALDER: Although the funding amount on the returns may not be large in the context of an overall
state budget, I can assure the members of this house that it is considerable for the nine taxpayers who have been
affected and it means a lot to them.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member!
Mr D.C. NALDER: It restores the original intent of the law and I think it is a fantastic outcome for them.
In addition to the member for Kingsley, I thank also the member for Swan Hills for his contributions and the part
he has played in pushing this outcome for his constituents.
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members!
Mr D.C. NALDER: I believe this is a great outcome for the areas of Swan Hills and West Swan, and I look
forward to the bill receiving royal assent eventually after it has passed through the upper house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council.
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 11 September.
DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [11.29 am]: I would like to acknowledge at the outset that I am not the lead speaker
on this bill, but I will commence debate for the opposition on the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014. As we all
know, various associations in our community serve incredibly important functions and roles. Having that
incorporated into certain legal protections and frameworks allows them to operate in a more efficient manner
than would otherwise be the case. The bill before us seeks to comply with the uniform legislation in regards to
incorporated associations.
In preparing to speak on this bill I came across a paper written in 2001 titled “Reforming Queensland’s
Incorporation Associations Legislation”, working paper 102, by Dr Myles—how appropriate!—
McGregor-Lowndes. He was at the Queensland University of Technology. It would appear that many of the
things stated in this paper are reflected in the purposes and motivations that have driven the bill before us. I will
quote briefly from this working paper in regards to broad policy issues. It states —
There are a number of broad policy issues that warrant consideration in any reform of the law and
administration of incorporated associations. From its inception, the Act has had as its principal
objective the facilitation of nonprofit organisations by providing a suitable legal form. This still
remains. However, the structure and administration of the Act must take account of the increasingly
important role of nonprofit organisations identified above. The broad policy issues are the national
uniformity of legislation, the reduction of administrative costs to government and the compliance costs
borne by the community, differential reporting of associations by size, resolution of internal disputes
and practice directions.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8533
I think that could have formed the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech. They would appear to be
many of the objectives of the bill before us. Whether they achieve that will be teased out in the second reading
debate and, more particularly, during consideration in detail.
The member for Mirrabooka is the lead speaker for the opposition. I made a comment to her the other day that if
I had a choice between accepting the interpretation of the member for Mirrabooka or that from a trained lawyer,
I would always go with the member for Mirrabooka. Her attention to detail is incredibly acute and of a very high
standard. I wish the member for Wanneroo good luck during consideration in detail, once the inquisitorial,
technical skills of the member for Mirrabooka gets her head and eyes on the bill. Hopefully that will ensure that
any bill that is passed by this house is what the government wants and what the opposition wants in trying to
further the performances of unincorporated associations. As we know, they serve very important purposes.
I was just going through the second reading speech. It outlines the main areas that this bill seeks to deal with.
I will briefly talk about that and then move on to the role that unincorporated associations play in
Western Australia. This bill is basically trying to repeal the current Associations Incorporation Act 1987. This is
not only an amendment bill, but a repeal bill. It seeks to do many of the things that I read out in regards to the
Queensland University of Technology paper. One area is the whole issue of the compliance requirements that
people involved in incorporated associations have to deal with. One of the main areas is the whole issue of
accountability or financial reporting. I have had some personal experience of that with some of the incorporated
associations that I have been involved with. Before I move on to that, it is actually important for an association,
for many reasons, to be incorporated. One of the most important reasons is that it provides a legal identity for
that incorporation that is separate from its members. If the association is not incorporated, the members,
individually and collectively, are the legal identity—which of course raises issues about legal liability and
financial responsibility. There is a whole body of law in regards to trying to establish trusts and gifts for
unincorporated associations. It is not an easy task. Once an association becomes incorporated, it is much easier
to establish a trust for the benefit of the incorporated association and also to pass on the gift to the incorporated
association. There is a considerable body of law in Australia, and in the common law world, about this. The
problem with an unincorporated association is that it is an aggregate of its members. As such, it does not
constitute a single identity in law; therefore, seeking to transfer property to the unincorporated association can be
a difficult task. In seeking to transfer property to an unincorporated association, that can be construed in
three different ways. One way is that it can be considered a gift to the members of the association at the date of
the gift, either as joint tenants or as tenants in common; in which case the gift will be valid. Secondly, it could be
a gift by way of a trust to the present and future members, in which case the gift will fail for infringing the rule
against perpetuities. I will not seek to explain the rule against perpetuities. The member for Butler may attempt
to do that. I do not even think we would ask the Solicitor-General to attempt to explain the rule against
perpetuities. It is an incredibly complex area; something we mere mortals would have difficulty trying to
understand. Some would consider the member for Butler not to be a mere mortal, so he may be able to explain it
to us! The third way is a gift by way of a trust for the purposes of the association. If the purpose of the
association is non-charitable, the gift will fail in infringing on the rule against perpetuities, and also the
beneficiary principle. It makes sense on that basis alone to incorporate the association because it potentially
allows a greater source of financial income by a trust being established for the incorporated association, or gifts
being given to the incorporated association. If it is unincorporated, it is rather difficult.
There are some famous cases in this respect. I am sure this will interest the government because the
Communist Party of Australia is involved in it—the case of Bacon v Pianta. It involved a gift given to an
unincorporated association. The Communist Party was an unincorporated association, and of course it did not
have a charitable purpose, which made it very difficult for a trust to be established.
On the financial aspect or on the ability to set up a trust, it is better if the association is incorporated. That is
quite obvious. There are also legal liability issues. There are many advantages in being incorporated. This bill
seeks to ensure that those advantages can be enjoyed. We have a system at the moment in which, in many
respects, it is not a massive hurdle to be incorporated, but some of the financial reporting obligations make it
difficult to function, especially if the association is made up of volunteers, which most are. One of the clauses in
the bill is about the issue of financial reporting. The bill seeks to divide incorporated associations into various
levels of financial complexity with various financial reporting requirements. A tier 1 association has less than
$250 000 in revenue per annum, a tier 2 association has between $250 000 and $1 million in revenue per annum
and a tier 3 association has over $1 million in revenue per annum. As was noted in the second reading speech,
90 per cent of associations in Western Australia have revenue of less than $250 000, so the obligations imposed
on them are important for many people in Western Australia. Under the bill, a basic financial statement will be
considered to be sufficient as a method of accounting. I know from personal experience that the whole issue of
financial reporting or accountability can be quite onerous for an association. I was the founding chair of the
Armadale Film Festival, which is an incorporated association.
Mr D.A. Templeman: It is a great festival.
8534
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Dr A.D. BUTI: Yes, it is a great festival.
Mr D.A. Templeman: There was a lot of Scandinavian interest in that festival.
Dr A.D. BUTI: There was some Scandinavian interest.
We held our first festival in, I think, 2011 and our feature film was Red Dog. We actually had the famous dog
from Red Dog. What is its name?
Mr D.A. Templeman: I know it is red.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Of course it is a red dog. Anyway, that dog actually came to the festival.
Mr D.A. Templeman: The Leader of the House had the dog on his ministerial desk! He was raving about it.
Dr A.D. BUTI: There we go. The dog came out to the festival and it was a major drawcard to Armadale. About
1 000 people were there for the screening of Red Dog. I am sure that 90 per cent of them were there to see the
red dog live.
Mr D.A. Templeman: No, they were there to see you.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Besides that fact. They can see me any day, member for Mandurah. I am out in the electorate
every day, so I am not a rare sight—I hope not!
Mr D.A. Templeman: I know that a lot of people still think you are the American President!
Dr A.D. BUTI: It is funny that the member should say that. I would like to relay two stories, if the member does
not mind, seeing that he interjected. The member Mandurah has got me going now. I was on a train one day from
Fremantle to Perth. I can assure members that the Fremantle–Perth transport experience is a lot different from
the Perth–Armadale transport experience! Of course, my type of people are on the Perth–Armadale train; that is
who I associate with more often than the Fremantle–Perth people. Anyway, I was on the train and this gentleman
got on at Claremont—it might have been Cottesloe. He was probably in his late 20s or early 30s. This is relevant
to this bill! He sat opposite me. For once the train was crowded. I notice that for most of the day the trains are
not that crowded on the Fremantle–Perth line compared with the Armadale line, but they often have more
carriages. Anyway, I will get to the point of the story. The man said, “You know, I reckon politicians stink.”
I said, “I beg your pardon?” He said, “I reckon they are dishonest. There are no good politicians.” He asked me
what I did and I mumbled a bit. He insisted and so I had to let him know. He said in front of everyone, “You
know, you look like the President of America, Barack Obama.” That was one experience. In the other experience
I was running on Canning Mills Road. I am sure that the Acting Speaker (Mr N.W. Morton) might know
Canning Mills Road in Roleystone–Kelmscott. I was running down the steep road. The member for Gosnells
actually rides up it—not once, but a number of times—as part of his training pursuits. I was running down and
a bloke riding up it on his bike went past me and then about 20 seconds later came back down. He said, “Excuse
me, are you the President of America?” I said, “Alas, no, but we have equal power!”
Mr D.A. Templeman: Just before he was knocked out by your secret security!
Dr A.D. BUTI: That is right. I said that we do exercise similar power.
Ms S.F. McGurk: Do you have a sense of rhythm?
Dr A.D. BUTI: Certainly!
He was born eight days before me, I think. His birthday is around 12 August or 13 August. I am the member for
Armadale, a backbencher in the Western Australian Parliament and he is the President of the United States.
I think the equality of power is very similar!
Ms S.F. McGurk: You were probably swapped at birth!
Dr A.D. BUTI: We might have been swapped at birth. Does the member reckon that is what happened? I was
not born in Kenya, which is what the deniers in the US Republican Party tell us when they seek to assure us that
the President was not born in the USA.
Anyway, getting back to this bill —
The ACTING SPEAKER: Good idea, member.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Mr Acting Speaker, you have to protect me occasionally from the member for Mandurah. He is
a bad influence on me!
Due to that interruption and the detour to President Obama, could I please have an extension?
[Member’s time extended.]
Dr A.D. BUTI: Getting back to the film festival, it still operates as an organisation, although I have resigned
from the committee to pursue my other career as President Obama’s double! One of the issues always was
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8535
finding appropriate people to audit the books. We were running on a shoestring budget and it was a difficult task,
so we had to try to pull in favours to have an auditor who would audit the books for free or a limited fee. I think
that this new bill, in seeking to reduce the financial reporting obligations of incorporated associations with
a revenue base of less than $250 000, is most welcome. Of course, we do not want to ensure that there is no
financial reporting, but from my reading of the bill that would not appear to be the case. There is still the need to
engage in appropriate financial reporting.
There are other parts of the bill that I think are sensible. There is an issue about the protection of privacy and
what information can be released in regards to the members of the association. I personally generally do not have
a problem with privacy in most cases, but a lot of people have a major issue about what information in regards to
their personal privacy should be able to be disclosed to others. Under this bill, association members can provide
email addresses or post office box addresses as a contact address rather than their residential address, which will
be applauded by some people.
Another issue is about duties. Of course there are duties of members of incorporated associations that have been
enunciated under common law, but the bill seeks to codify some of that in legislation, which is important. Then
there is the issue of how disputes between members are resolved. We talk about the political nature of this
chamber, but I am sure we all experience in our other lives that sometimes the politics played in other areas are
much more lethal and personal than what we experience in this chamber. Sometimes in small associations there
may be a certain person who considers the association to be their little baby and that may create intense personal
rivalry and political byplay. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that there is an appropriate way of resolving
disputes between members. I note that under the bill, if a dispute cannot be resolved, there is an avenue to go to
the State Administrative Tribunal. Although I think that makes sense in many respects, if it goes to that stage, it
can basically be considered that there is no way those two members will be able to stay in the same body.
If it has got to that stage, there is going to be a winner and a loser, and that is the end of the matter. Hopefully, it
can be resolved through a dispute-resolution mechanism before it gets to that stage, but, as I said, with differing
personalities, that may not be the case.
I want to talk a little about a couple of incorporated associations in my electorate, one of which is the
Champion Lakes Boating Club Inc, which is quite a unique organisation. Those members who venture south of
the Swan River and towards the hills—that is, the east metropolitan area of the city—will find a great area, and
some members might indeed like to venture out that way. If one travels south along Tonkin Highway and looks
to the left about 10 minutes south of Forrestfield, near the border with the electorate of Gosnells, one will see the
Champion Lakes Regatta Centre. That centre was a great achievement by the previous Labor government,
spearheaded by Hon Alannah MacTiernan, who, of course, most members would recognise as a doer. It was
a great achievement and that centre is now an internationally recognised rowing centre administered by
VenuesWest. The centre was, as I said, instigated under the ministerial leadership of Alannah MacTiernan, but
the Armadale Redevelopment Authority had responsibility for the development; I was on the board of the
Armadale Redevelopment Authority at the time and I saw that area transform from a lake that was generally dry
to this superb regatta centre.
Rowing clubs in Perth have generally been centred around the Swan or Canning Rivers, and those clubs at the
time thought, “This is beautiful; now we’ve got this fantastic international regatta centre and we want to
establish our club there.” Hon Alannah MacTiernan, as the then member for Armadale, said, “Well, you can do
that, and you can pay for that, but what I’m going to drive is a local boating club.” It has to be said—I say this
kindly, because I know many people in the rowing fraternity—that that was scoffed at a little by the established
rowing clubs. They said, “What, you’re going to have a rowing club in the City of Armadale?” It just did not sit
very well with people who were more used to the western suburbs or the banks of the Swan or Canning Rivers.
However, Alannah was adamant that that would be the case and, in her usual style, said to me, “Make sure it’s
established.” The Armadale Redevelopment Authority spent a considerable time working up a constitution, and
luckily we had the resources of the government to do it; of course, most organisations do not have the resources
that we had. We established an incorporated association that is quite unique because it has a rowing arm,
a kayaking arm, a dragon boat arm and radio sailing. It did not have radio sailing when it was first established,
but that is now another sporting area that is part of the boating club. The boating club is now an incorporated
association that has four different water pursuits, all with their own individual management committees that
come under the one association, and they are governed by the current legislation and soon by the legislation
before us, the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014, which will replace the current legislation.
In the seven minutes I have remaining, I am going to advertise another association that I am involved with that is
currently in the process of incorporation; I do not think this legislation will get through the other place before the
end of the year. We went through the prospective constitution of this association the other day and it is going to
be called Dignity Western Australia. It has a very interesting purpose, which is to celebrate the dignity and
abilities of all through a shared journey, while supporting ongoing community inclusion. Basically, the idea
behind Dignity Western Australia is to advocate for the inclusion in the general community of people with
8536
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
disabilities. I should at this point mention the initial committee, which consists of me, Prue Hawkins,
Yvonne Timson, Katrina Montuat, James Martin, Jackie Jarvis and Tim Hammond; I think we will also be
looking for two or three other people to join. When the committee is incorporated, members on all sides of
politics will be invited to become members, but the idea is to have a parade around March 2016, not unlike the
Pride Parade, which has been a major force in trying to get the community to be supportive and inclusive of
issues in the gay and lesbian community. The idea behind this body and the march is to celebrate people who
have disabilities and to look at their abilities and the potential they can offer rather than the barriers. It will be for
the whole community to come together; that is the idea behind Dignity Western Australia. We had a meeting on
Tuesday and we were going through our constitution, which is basically a pro forma constitution. I do not think
that this legislation will change it that much, but it is the issues around financial reporting and resolving disputes
between members that cannot be resolved internally that are very important. That is my plug for Dignity Western
Australia, and I urge all members to join up. There will be a fee of $25 for unemployed people, $50 for other
individuals and $100 for organisations. It is not a political forum, but a forum that will seek to advance the issue
of disability rights and engagement with the community.
I did not realise that I have only three minutes left, so I will not go on about other committees in my electorate.
I am sure we have all had experience of being involved with incorporated associations, so we all know that we
need to do anything we can to make the functioning and legal requirements more streamlined and less onerous,
while ensuring that the duties and accounting procedures that management committees need to comply with are
sufficiently strong to ensure proper financial behaviour. Without incorporated associations, many of the things
that occur in our communities would not occur. We rely on not-for-profit organisations to do many of the things
that governments or church or religious groups did many years ago. They still do those things, but not to the
extent that they used to.
It will be interesting to see how other members contribute to the bill before us. I will be very interested to hear
from the member for Mirrabooka during consideration in detail. The member for Wanneroo will have to be on
his guard and have his and his advisers’ mental faculties working at 100 per cent to ensure that he answers the
numerous questions that I am sure will come from the member for Mirrabooka. I may be a sidekick in that
exercise, along with other members on this side of the house.
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [12 noon]: I thank the member for Armadale. I am the lead speaker on the
Associations Incorporation Bill 2014 and I am looking forward to amply contributing to the debate. The member
for Armadale was very kind in his comments; I am not sure whether I will quite live up to that expectation, but
I am sure he will assist me in consideration in detail.
The Associations Incorporation Bill 2014 enables the incorporation of not-for-profit organisations. It is quite
interesting that we call them associations because, effectively, they are not-for-profits, to be truthful. This bill
allows for the non-commercial activity of organisations in Western Australia. I am relying on the third edition of
A.S. Sievers’ Associations and Clubs Law in Australia and New Zealand to put on record the following —
Once a certificate of incorporation has been issued, the members of the unincorporated association
become members of the incorporated association and the association becomes a body corporate which
has perpetual succession and a common seal. An incorporated association has the power to acquire,
hold and dispose of real and personal property and is capable of suing and being sued in its own name.
…
Limited liability
In normal circumstances the members of an incorporated association will have limited liability so that if
the association becomes insolvent they will not be liable to contribute towards paying the debts of the
association or the costs of its winding up.
But we know associations as groups of people in our community. Those might be the technical aspects of how
associations are described, but we know them as groups of people, the make-up of which may change, who come
together. They hold a joint commitment to delivering to the community, and they base that on their mission and
purpose. They are our cultural communities, our sporting groups, our community garden groups, our residents’
associations and our P&Cs; they are also the community legal services or the housing advocacy associations that
we utilise to assist our constituents. Associations are not-for-profit organisations where members can participate
in the governance of their organisation through annual general meetings, appointments to management
committees and just general work in those associations. We rely on management committee members to carry
out their duties honestly and with reasonable care.
An oft-heard lament in our communities is the lack of volunteers to take up the cudgel of running the local club,
sporting or community organisation that benefits so many by providing activities such as sport to our children or
activities for our seniors. It concerns me that this bill’s complexity and inclusion of duties such as business
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8537
judgement for members of the committee, reflective of the Corporations (Western Australia) Act, will not
enhance the capacity of our local associations such as sporting clubs to attract members to the committee.
The Associations Incorporation Act has been in force in Western Australia since 1895; it was one of the first
acts, along with the legislation enacted in South Australia. Tasmania, the ACT and Northern Territory followed
in the 1960s, and Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales in the 1980s. Until the 1990s many organisations
operated as unincorporated associations, but they have increasingly sought incorporation as a source of
protection from liability. One of drivers of that is a story that the member for Gosnells will appreciate—the
decision of the Supreme Court in City of Gosnells v Roberts. In that case an unincorporated polocrosse club
conducted its activities on City of Gosnells land, and during the off-season the horses agisted on that land. One
night a horse escaped through a poorly kept fence, and Roberts and his pillion passenger collided with it on an
unlit road. They sued the owner of the horse, Gosnells council and individual past and current office-bearers of
the club. The initial judge’s 1994 decision was to find against the office-bearers of the club—members can
imagine that would have cause great consternation; that was overturned only because it was off-season. Had it
been on-season, they may have been in difficulties. That case soon became a salutary example of why
incorporation is needed to protect office-bearers from personal actions.
Before the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014, on meeting the not-for-profit eligibility criteria—which include
purposes such as educational, charitable, benevolent, artistic, cultural, sport, amusement, political or improving
the community and complying with a list of matters to be included in their rules—an association could be
formed and operate with little intervention from the commissioner. It could be said that the commissioner was
simply an administrator of the associations that were incorporated under the act. It appears that under this bill the
fundamental role of the commissioner has changed, such that the primary role is now that of a regulator of the
associations. I put to the parliamentary secretary that the commissioner’s role has fundamentally changed under
this bill, moving from an administrator to a regulator. Further, I put that the provisions of the bill have
a prescriptive intent versus the previous guidance principles. That is evident in the expanded provision around
rules.
There were 56 894 not-for-profit organisations in Australia registered with the Australian Taxation Office in
June 2013. According to edition 5256.0 of the “Australian National Accounts: Non-Profit Institutions Satellite
Account, 2012–13”, they generated more than $170 billion a year in income and employed more than one
million people. Sixty per cent of not-for-profits are currently incorporated associations, 12 per cent are
unincorporated associations, and 14 per cent are companies limited by guarantee. The 2014 Australian Institute
of Company Directors’ “NFP Governance and Performance Study” that we all had put on our desks recently
detailed these figures. It collated survey comments that illustrated a move from incorporated associations to
companies limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act, as the federal law was more settled. This report
states that many more of our organisations are going to the federal jurisdiction as companies limited by
guarantee.
In volume 29 of the Australian Journal of Corporate Law 2014, Kim D. Weinert aptly described incorporated
associations as “the collective action of individuals, which is largely voluntary and motivated by altruistic
goals”. Such altruistic goals encompass integrity, being free of self-interest and impropriety, and a reliance on
public trust and confidence. Currently, the management of committees of association have significant freedom
and autonomy on how best to manage their associations. Without a doubt, the committee members and
participants of these organisations want to comply with reasonable frameworks that enable them to operate
efficiently and effectively, as is certainly outlined in the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ 2014 report.
However, the questions must be asked: Will this legislation before us enhance or constrain that, particularly in
small micro-organisations? Will it give members the assurance they need that their involvement and liability is
protected by the act and its provisions or will it make it so technical and laden with responsibilities that it
actually increases the burden and discourages grassroots participation? How will this bill ensure that
membership, which is at the core of these organisations, is not restricted by management or staff for the purposes
of control, and is capable of growing without undue internal conflict? I understand that not all clients or users
can be members, but certainly what we want in incorporated associations is what is at the core—members. This
legislation cannot go through without proper support, education and resourcing. Without that, organisations will
be confused by what is a greater legislative and regulatory burden.
Associations encompass many organisations in our community, from sporting clubs to community groups.
I would like to mention one in my area, and particularly note the passing of a great contributor to that
association. The Nollamara Westminster Action Group recently saw the passing of Cynthia Maton, who was
a founding member of the original Eastdene Circle Action Group. Eastdene Circle was largely a Department of
Housing area, and the department’s allocation of difficult residents resulted in social problems that needed
addressing. Cynthia was a woman who just got things done; a quiet achiever, without a bad word for anyone.
I respected Cynthia greatly for her dedication to her community and making it as good a place to live as she
could. Her capacity to act on her convictions, not simply complain, and to work for a solution made her
8538
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
a one-in-a-million human being. I was grateful to have Cynthia as part of the community I represented. She gave
me enthusiastic encouragement to strive for the best for our area. She is greatly missed. May she rest in peace.
Cynthia Maton certainly was the human face of associations that have the capacity to govern themselves and that
just want to get on with the job. They do not want to be burdened with having to meet procedures and processes;
they just want to get on with the job of improving their area. The Nollamara Westminster Action Group
fundraises for, supports and participates in many events in the area, including Harmony Day. However, like
many organisations, it has difficulty finding new blood to take over. The Balga Action Group, for example, faced
a litany of procedural requirements to meet incorporation and discontinued recently.
I turn now to the specifics of the bill. I thank the officer who briefed us. As we all know, this bill has been some
years in the making and there is general stakeholder fatigue. The 2006 green bill states that its genesis was in
1996 when the Minister for Fair Trading approved a review of the Associations Incorporation Act 1987.
The green bill was a result of responses to the consultation paper. It is interesting to note that the green bill
morphed into another review, which was held via the commission’s website. The review does not appear to have
taken written submissions as far as I can ascertain; certainly, it is no longer available and cannot be searched.
That seems a bit odd, despite the major changes between the green bill and the bill before the house. One of the
major changes between the two bills that people should be aware of is that the green bill argued that it would
improve the incorporations process by removing specific eligibility criteria for the purpose or objects of an
association so as to broaden the range of not-for-profit associations that may become incorporated. The bill
before the house, on the other hand, increases eligibility criteria and recommends modernised specific eligibility
criteria and the removal of the restrictions on the associated trading so long as the not-for-profit character is
maintained. The question is: why the change from removing the eligibility criteria in the green bill to
maintaining, building and increasing it in this bill?
Further, the bill will replace the act. Certainly there are new provisions and the bill is much bigger than the act,
but many of the clauses are replicas of sections in the act; indeed, the bill does not radically depart from the act.
Given that this legislation has so much common law attached to it, it seems strange and somewhat concerning
that there is a new bill, because new bills come with new interpretations. If the government is just replicating
many of the provisions in the bill, I would have thought that it would have done that with the green bill. It added
provisions for dispute resolutions, duties and exclusions of members and committee members, access to records,
financial reporting by stratas and an increased capacity for the commissioner and the State Administrative
Tribunal to resolve conflicts. I believe that this bill has changed the process involving the commissioner and the
role of the commissioner. Why do we need new legislation when there is so much common law around it? Is it
because the former was difficult or because there was a particular need, or is it simply that this is easier for
people to understand? I do not think that that is the case because the bill in itself will create complexities for
incorporations associations.
When one compares the size of the green bill with this bill, one has to ask how it will simplify the situation for
incorporations associations. The bill has gone from 50 pages, 48 clauses and one schedule to 154 pages,
211 clauses and four schedules. Given that it is about the operation of organisations, what are the legal
implications of completely rewriting the act with respect to the interpretation of common law? It is not as though
this bill adopts federal model legislation, because there are still major differences between the
Western Australian bill and the legislation in other states. For example, I refer to the Victorian Associations
Incorporation Reform Act 2012. As revealed by Kim Weinert, whom I quoted before, in the article “Legal duties
as a part of the governance framework for incorporated associations: A comparative analysis” there is a lack of
consistency across Australian jurisdictions. That leads me to ask—the parliamentary secretary and I have had
this discussion across the floor—what is the current status of federal negotiations around harmonised law? If we
do not address this, people will come through in the corporations act under unlimited guarantee.
In April 2011, federal Treasury released a final report on the national not-for-profit regulator, which found
significant stakeholder support for the goals of harmonisation and simplification of reporting requirements, as
well as a proportionality of regulation with potential efficiency gains that result from a centralised regulation
process. Subsequent to the report, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission was established and
the Australian Research Council study that I talked about earlier reported that directors supported the retainment
of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission despite the federal government’s intention to abolish
it. I ask the parliamentary secretary: How does the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission
interplay with the Western Australian commission? Is it now the primary regulator or will the commission
become the primary regulator? What discussions are going on between the two bodies to ensure that our
not-for-profits and incorporated associations are best and well served and that there is no duplication? Given that
duplication seems to occur when the not-for-profits do not have a charitable status, and given that the
“Curtin Charities 2013 Report” indicated that religious activities made up 25 per cent of charities and that
13 per cent operate in more than one state, duplication is counterproductive to the goals of the organisation and
the bill.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8539
Associations under the bill have at the core of their operation a not-for-profit objective that is outlined in
clause 4, which provides for clubs, societies and other groups to be formed for any lawful means that does not
result in association members making any profit from its activities. This bill will allow associations to trade and
for them to derive income, which will then be used to support the objectives of the organisation. I am quite
concerned about that. It is not as though there was not previously an implied capacity to raise money for the
purposes of the organisation. When one looks at the second reading speech, there is a question about the
organisations trading for operational income. The bill also includes provisions for payment to committee
members in good faith. This concept is not defined in the bill and has a wide application that needs to be further
investigated at the consideration in detail stage. Not-for-profit organisations have two common entity choices:
either to be administrated under state and territory laws as incorporated association or regulated by the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission as a company limited by guarantee. It appears that most
not-for-profits operate as incorporated associations and become an Australian registered body so that they can
operate in multiple states or they choose to establish separate associations in each state or territory in which they
wish to operate. This seems very cumbersome and fraught with potential risk and duplication. Further, as
identified in the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ report, about 30 per cent of not-for-profits receive
their income from the federal government and 23 per cent receive their income from state governments. How
does the new bill minimise the duplication and financial reporting burden when most charitable organisations
will be greater than the $250 000 mark and receive government funding? I am concerned with this bill’s
complexity to operate under the model rules and that it has a number of complex provisions. Many groups
incorporate to gain funding from the Lotteries Commission of Western Australia, government agencies or other
funding sources. The model rules, which are, effectively, the organisation’s constitution, seem overly
burdensome. For example, the model rules for membership require written application and nomination and could
be contrary to a community idea of their organisation when they adopt membership.
During his second reading response, I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary would clarify what the
situation is with the model rules and the process for consultation. Will organisations that have rules that are
compliant with the 1987 act be able to maintain their current rules or will the model rules simply apply?
My understanding—I would be happy to be told differently—is that they do not mirror the rules but that they
comply with the 1987 act, but the act is quite complex. If they are found not to comply with the act, the model
rules will apply. An information document for Jackson McDonald shows that all associations, unless the
commissioner grants an exemption—even those associations that are exempt from complying with the
requirements of the current act—will be required to ensure that their rules are compliant with the new act and
contain those matters to be addressed as set out in clause 22 and schedule 1 of the bill.
Organisations that may have been operating perfectly well under previous acts and in accordance with their
constitution and their rules, which is one and the same, will now be forced to adopt another set of rules if they do
not comply. What additional support will the government offer the large number of small incorporated
associations that do not have resources, skills and knowledge in this area? Victoria has Justice Connect, formerly
known as PILCH, the Public Interest Law Clearing House. Justice Connect is a not-for-profit organisation that
provides a specialist legal service for Victorian not-for-profit community organisations. It provides low-cost
training, free legal advice, law reform and advocacy on systemic issues around the regulation of the
not-for-profit sector. As we all know, Senator Brandis, the federal minister, is now changing contractual
agreements for funding so that many organisations funded under the federal government cannot do any systemic
advocacy. It would be interesting to know whether that will impact on this organisation. It is necessary to have
an organisation such as Justice Connect that has the capacity to look at systemic issues. The organisation’s
website shows a number of issues that it has been able to take a lead on, particularly when asked to by the
Victorian government.
If an organisation does not comply with these rules, they will apply to it regardless. We previously did not have
penalties for noncompliance, and it is concerning that the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014 not only
introduces new penalties but also substantially increases existing penalties. The penalty for not disclosing
a material personal interest will increase from $500 to $10 000. The bill introduces a fine of $10 000 for not
performing the duties of an officer with care and diligence. The rules will now have to be available to members,
and the penalty for breaking that law will be a $2 750 fine. We previously did not have that provision in the act
at all; it was only in the schedule, and the organisation could determine how those rules would be made
available.
The explanatory memorandum states that the bill provides a framework. When one thinks about a framework,
one thinks of an almost skeletal supporting structure of a building. This bill is anything but skeletal. This bill will
replace the act, and it is large. The main changes require associations to have dispute resolution, and many other
aspects are considered. I will go through some of those changes and make comments on them.
The bill requires associations to have a dispute resolution process to enable unresolved disputes to be heard by
the State Administrative Tribunal. It is not clear in the legislation what that will cost. Indeed, the clause states
8540
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
that there will be costs, but it obviously operates on the basis of what SAT charges. I fully support having
a dispute resolution process. For example, at a local school we had a dispute with the parents and citizens
association in which the complainant was right; the P&C’s constitution did not comply with the act. The parent
was right in their concern, but they could pursue their concern only through the Supreme Court. Because they
had access to lawyers, that is exactly what they did; they constantly served legal documents and legal advice on
the P&C about how it was operating under its constitution. The P&C could not change its constitution because
the constitution was a Western Australian Council of State School Organisations constitution, which has to go
through the Minister for Education. This parent was right; the P&C’s constitution did not comply with the act—
probably pretty much no P&Cs’ constitution complied—but he made life pretty terrible for many people in the
organisation. I have spoken about this in the house before. There is a silver lining to every cloud; a lot of parents
joined the P&C because this parent was making life difficult for the president and a number of office-bearers.
The constitution breached the Associations Incorporation Act because it did not include the requirement for the
P&C to give notice as per schedule 1, clause 8, which reads —
The time within which, and manner in which, notices of general meetings and notices of motion are to
be given, published or circulated.
In effect, this provision means that the community has to be notified before the general meeting about a motion
to buy netballs for the netball team, for example; the matter cannot simply be discussed and decided on the night.
This bill does not change that. An executive will not be able to make decisions other than on matters about which
they have previously notified through a notice of motion. The overwhelming majority of P&C members were
happy with the operation of the P&C and its meetings process. A P&C member raised that with the
Department of Commerce and the dispute escalated to the point at which the parent requested that the
Department of Commerce wind up the P&C on the basis of the breach. It caused havoc and consternation, and
the government provided little assistance to the P&C to respond to the legal action being waged against it, and
particularly the president. She was left to bear her own costs to respond to the legal action being taken by this
parent because the P&C is an association separate from the school.
Mr R.H. Cook: Didn’t WACSSO help them out?
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: It helped a bit, but WACSSO was limited in its capacity to get legal advice because legal
advice costs a lot of money. The Northern Suburbs Community Legal Centre helped it out a couple of times and
I received free legal advice from a law firm I have associations with. Meanwhile, the P&C was confronted with
a particularly onerous issue. Given that example, I support a proper dispute resolution process. I want the
parliamentary secretary to assure me, so that I can assure the P&C, that that particular case—of which the
department would be aware—would come under the dispute resolution process, given that the error was in the
constitution required by the rules adopted by WACSSO and the minister and imposed upon the P&C. I want to
know whether a dispute resolution process can fix that.
Further, the requirement for procedural justice in amalgamations was demonstrated recently through concerns
raised by a member of Better Hearing Australia WA with the Department of Commerce and me. I am pretty sure
that this person has also raised this issue with the parliamentary secretary. This person is not my constituent—
they are a constituent of the member for Nedlands—and they were concerned about amalgamations. The changes
to procedural justice in amalgamations are welcomed, but I just want to put this matter on the record. Again the
Department of Commerce would be well and truly aware of this issue. It has the details; I have letters. I want to
know whether the new amalgamation provisions will address these concerns.
This Better Hearing Australia WA member was distressed about the amalgamation process with
Telethon Speech and Hearing. She maintains that it was done without the consent of members and that members
were not notified at the special general meeting in 2002 that wound up Better Hearing Australia WA and
transferred its assets, which were quite considerable, to Telethon Speech and Hearing. The member felt that the
WA branch of the organisation, which had been in operation since 1946, was left without significant
assets—I think a building that it owned, probably somewhere in central Perth—due to the dispute. Now Better
Hearing Australia continues to operate in a reduced capacity under the federal organisation’s umbrella—the
organisation no longer has a separate state branch—without the benefit of the assets, as they have consequently
transferred to Telethon Speech and Hearing. I do not want to get into the dispute because I was not there.
Although the member of that association, the woman who came to see me, credited the officers at the
Department of Commerce as endeavouring to find a resolution, the difficulty was that Better Hearing Australia
was hamstrung because the process had progressed to a certain point and the legislation did not give the
department recourse to investigate. Therefore, the only avenue for Better Hearing Australia WA members, if
they wanted to pursue it, was costly litigation in the Supreme Court.
The letter from the department outlines that this member of the association raised a number of potential issues,
including: the legal capacity of the commissioner to remove documents from the association’s public record, the
possibility that the person lodging the document with the commissioner did so knowing that the document
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8541
contained false or misleading information, and the option of civil action being taken by any party that had
suffered loss as the result of the alleged incorrect process undertaken by the association.
The commissioner wrote back to this particular person and said that the commissioner has no statutory function
to remove documents from the public record of the association unless ordered to do so by a court. That means
that the person would need to take legal action. The commissioner went on to say that this is because the
commissioner’s role in the context of accepting documents for lodging under the act is an administrative one.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is: under the new provisions for amalgamation, will the
commissioner’s role remain an administrative one, or will it become a role that has a greater regulatory aspect to
it?
The inclusion of the provision that the commissioner may require public notice of an application for
amalgamation is welcome. I ask the parliamentary secretary to outline whether any consideration was given to
making that compulsory. When associations are formed and organisations are brought together through an
amalgamation, I believe that, because it is so contentious, a compulsory public notice would be more
appropriate.
The bill provides also for disputes to be brought to the State Administrative Tribunal. That is a welcome addition
to the legislation, because it will ensure that not only the dispute resolution is affordable, but also, I assume,
there is an evidentiary aspect to it and SAT can look at the merits of the matter. I am interested to know from the
parliamentary secretary what the costs will be for dispute resolution at SAT and whether that will come under
the general provisions relating to legal costs and application costs, and whether SAT will have the capacity to
look at the merits of the matter beyond just the legal specifics.
Another very good provision in the bill is that the commissioner will be able to apply to SAT for the
appointment of a statutory manager to administer the affairs of an association in which there is serious
dysfunction. The parliamentary secretary may or may not be aware—certainly the Minister for
Local Government is aware—that I have raised in this house the issue of the Mirrabooka Multicultural
Child Care Centre. The committee of the incorporated association that was operating that childcare centre
became dysfunctional, and suddenly the staff were told that for the next couple of weeks there would not be
enough money to continue to pay them. Imagine what it would have been like for the staff at that centre, who
were looking after children. Everything seemed to be going okay, and suddenly there was no money for the next
couple of weeks to pay their wages, and also there was no money for any redundancy payments that they may
have accrued. The parents at this centre, who had had nothing to do with the dysfunction of this organisation,
which had been run into the ground and suddenly did not have the funds to even support its staff, then had to
form a committee, and the chair of that committee—a parent who had never before sat on a committee—had to
front up at the Fair Work Commission to talk about the winding up of this organisation so that the union that was
representing the workers could apply to the commonwealth for redundancy payments. It is, therefore, absolutely
welcome that the commissioner will now be able to apply to SAT for the appointment of a statutory manager.
It also absolutely welcome that this bill provides a simple process for the winding up of associations. I have
spoken in this house before about the Balga Action Group process. That was a longwinded and machinated
process. It was extraordinarily hilarious for the members who were winding up this body, because they would go
in there and say, “Right; now we have been told by the department that we have to do this and this and this”, and
people would just follow that process and come together for meetings to do that. So this is a good thing, and we
welcome it, because the process needs to be simple. A simple process is the best process for these small
organisations.
One of the core things that have been said about this bill is that it realigns the Western Australian incorporated
associations legislation with the legislation in other jurisdictions. Although that is interesting, it is not true. Can
the parliamentary secretary advise me whether this bill is more in keeping with the New South Wales
2009 legislation and subsequent amendments, or the recent Victorian 2012 legislation and subsequent
amendments? There is an interesting table in Associations and Clubs Law in Australia and New Zealand. That
table goes on for four or five pages, and they are all in roman numerals, so I will not call them out, but I am
happy to give it to the parliamentary secretary. That table shows that there are massive gaps not only between the
provisions in different states, but also different states have different definitions and different ways of doing
things. One of the holes that we are fixing in Western Australia is the tiered audit rules. We have had a hole
there, and Tasmania has a hole. Yes, we are doing things that are consistent with legislation in other states, but
there is no realignment between this legislation and the legislation in other states. The greatest criticism of what
we have been doing in this process since 1990, or whenever, and then in the 2006 green bill, is that we have
missed the boat. The commonwealth has gone through a whole lot of Productivity Commission reports and other
processes to look at not-for-profit organisations and charitable institutions in Australia. This state should have
taken the opportunity to harmonise and make sure that our legislation was consistent with the legislation in other
states. We have done that with the consumer affairs legislation. It is the same department. I would have thought
8542
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
that, ding, a light bulb would have gone off and they would have said, “We have done this with consumer affairs,
so we can do this with the Associations Incorporation Bill.” But, no, that is not what has happened with this bill.
One example of how this legislation is different from the legislation in other states is the provision to increase
the duties of committee members. In the New South Wales legislation, that is found in sections 31 to 33; in
Queensland, in sections 65 to 70, and 122 to 124; in South Australia, in sections 31 to 32; in Tasmania, it is not
in any section; in Victoria, it is in section 29A to 29D, in Western Australia, it is in clauses 21 and 22, but we
know that all that states is that committee members should not vote when they are compromised; in the
Australian Capital Territory, it is in sections 65 to 111; in the Northern Territory, it is in sections 31 to 33, and in
105; and in New Zealand, it does not exist at all. The parliamentary secretary has said that this bill is about
realignment. It is not. All it does is provide some consistency in that we will have provisions similar to those in
other states. If the object of the bill is to make it easier for incorporated associations to operate in this state and
across borders, more work needs to be done on the national level when a national agenda is being pursued.
The PilchConnect report in Victoria asserts that not-for-profit associations must deal with at least 20 types of
legal structures and 11 regulators. In addition, if they have charitable status, eight different approvals are
required to conduct national fundraising. I ask the parliamentary secretary: is this also the case in
Western Australia? Do we know what legal structures and regulators govern our incorporated associations? We
have had enough time to work that out. We have had a few years. We should have been able to work that out.
We have completed the national rail safety legislation and the national consumer affairs legislation, in
accordance with the Council of Australian Governments’ National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless
National Economy. Does the government not think the associations deserve that as well? How is it that
incorporated associations—our not-for-profit organisations doing things for our community—are not afforded
the same seamlessness? The Associations Incorporation Bill introduces a system of three-tiered minimum
financial reporting and accountability based on revenue per annum. The first tier is less than $250 000, the
second is $250 000 to $1 million and the third is more than $1 million. It is consistent with the
Corporations (Western Australia) Act for limited —
Mr R.H. Cook: Companies.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Yes, limited companies. No; not limited companies, but I will get to that.
It is consistent with the provisions in the Corporations (Western Australia) Act for not-for-profit organisations.
The bill encourages self-reporting rather than requiring organisations to lodge financial statements. I assume this
is based on the view that tier 1 organisations have less risk, but as pointed out in the Australian Institute of
Companies directors’ report, income is only a proxy measure of organisation size and risk, and not-for-profits
operating in a high-risk area will need governance practices that are commensurate with the nature of the
activity. It uses the example of the emergency services brigade incorporated association working in a volunteer
group. That group could have an income of less than $10 000, yet must have a governance system that ensures
training, supervision and management and insurance coverage to meet the risk, thus requiring high financial due
diligence. It seems to me that the government has said that in the financial risk space, it will look at the risk base,
but it will not look at the risk base in any other areas, just these financial tiers and not at how organisations
operate across the board.
When we talk about the categories, we are talking about revenue per annum. My question to the parliamentary
secretary is: what does that entail; is it income or expenditure? I googled it and it tells me that for not-for-profit
organisations, annual revenue may be referred to as “gross receipts”. This revenue includes donations from
individuals and corporations, support from government agencies, income from activities related to the
organisation’s mission and income from fundraising activities, membership dues and financial investments such
as shares in companies. That seems to be a bit odd, really, so I would like to hear a definition of what “revenue
per annum” entails. We have all been to annual general meetings; it is AGM season. I have been to five AGMs
in the past couple of weeks, so I have seen the annual reports and looked at which tier applies to them. In my
survey of five, 60 per cent were tier 3; 20 per cent, tier 2; and 20 per cent tier 1. This goes against the idea that
90 per cent of organisations operate on less than $250 000 a year. We are saying that 90 per cent of the
organisations this bill will apply to will fit into the tier 1 category. The problem I have with that is that the
provisions in the bill seem to cater to the 10 per cent of organisations operating in tiers 2 and 3, financially, by
placing on the 90 per cent governance restrictions that actually apply to tiers 2 and 3. I hope that makes sense.
The government is saying to a tier 1 organisation that it is such a small organisation it does not have to comply
with onerous financial responsibilities, but it must comply with onerous governance responsibilities. I think that
is interesting.
From my research, I understand that there is no single public searchable registration of Victorian not-for-profit
associations. I am interested in how the Commissioner for Consumer Protection can be certain that 90 per cent of
organisations fit within tier 1. There is no register in Victoria. I am not assuming; I tried to look for one and
I could not find one in Western Australia. On the basis that the government is telling me 90 per cent of
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8543
organisations in Western Australia are tier 1, can the parliamentary secretary give me a list of the
WA incorporated associations in WA? Is it listed on a website; and can it show me that that figure of 90 per cent
is correct?
Mr P.T. Miles: There are privacy issues.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: They are incorporated.
Pages 5 and 6 of the PILCH report suggests that 120 to 150 not-for-profit organisations in Victoria are
incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act. A big lump is still unincorporated. VicSport suggests
there are about 80 000 unincorporated clubs with two million participants working as volunteers.
Parliamentary secretary, what are the figures in WA? He must be able to get that from the Western Australian
Department of Sport and Recreation. How many unincorporated clubs are operating in WA? If, indeed
90 per cent of WA associations operate on less than $250 000—I have already asked this question—why do they
have to meet such arduous regulatory requirements outside the specific financial requirements.
In the 2010 submission to the Victorian government, PILCH summed up my concern that the legislative
framework is not focused on the many small micro-incorporated associations and on assisting the unincorporated
associations to gain that vital legal protection. Many small organisations rush towards incorporation for public
liability and volunteer insurance purposes. In addition to gaining grant funding, they find themselves caught up
in a regulatory maze of compliance while they pose low regulatory risk.
I have here a note that reads, “Maybe it’s just that the multitude of tier 1 associations are not having AGMs or
I am not being invited to them”, because of my survey of five. I think it is the former; they are not having
AGMs, not the latter, because I am sure I would be invited!
Mr R.H. Cook: They wouldn’t dare have an AGM without you!
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Yes; that is right.
Although the three-tier financial reporting system is welcome, this should be mirrored in a more simple
registration and rules regime for tier 1 organisations to reflect how they operate. Does the parliamentary
secretary think clause 23 will give the commission the capacity to make provisions for micro associations? Will
undue hardship include overly prescriptive provisions that cannot be met by small organisations? Additionally,
with increasing reliance by the state government on not-for-profit sector associations to deliver government
services through privatisation, as does the Disability Services Commission, how will the government ensure that
it links the process of reconciling grant funds with a three-tier financial reporting system, or will there be
different reporting mechanisms? For accounts to be reconciled, they need to be audited, but if an organisation is
a tier 2 organisation, it does not need to be audited for the purposes of incorporation. The same must apply to
lotteries grants. Has the commissioner assured themself that the reporting standards will satisfy the
Lotteries Commission of Western Australia and government agencies, or will this mean more red tape: here is
what makes me exist and here is what I have to do to pay for me to exist.
On the protection of personal privacy, the bill means that members’ residential postal addresses need not be
recorded in a register of members. I have to say that I have seen this in action when Ishar Multicultural Women’s
Health Centre introduced provisions to its constitution to comply with that provision. It was impossible to
explain what was happening. People thought that Ishar was trying to give them their information, not protect
their information. English was not the women’s second language; lots of people were translating what was being
said. They had had three meetings leading up to the many constitutional changes. Ishar just had to say, “Trust us;
we will not release your information”, even though the constitution states that they have to give the centre
authority to do it if we are going to give it to someone else. I cannot remember the actual wording; it is
convoluted. In fact, the wording of a lot of this is convoluted.
The member for Armadale paid me a great compliment, but I am really a micro manager because I look at detail.
The difficulty with this bill is that many of the clauses are difficult to understand and quite convoluted. This bill
does not contain simple language; it does not contain any of the principles of simple language. I am not
apportioning blame to the parliamentary secretary, because the genesis of the wording is in the green bill. By the
way, I think the green bill has passed us by. We did not address this in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or
2012. Meanwhile, Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and the commonwealths were all addressing it. All
these things passed us by. We did not ask whether this was still contemporary. It seemed like it was
contemporary. I want to know how the protection of personal privacy will prevent nuisance campaigners from
undermining the organisation. I think that is the intent, but I want to know how.
I refer to the codification of duties and responsibilities owed by committee members. The current act has no
codification of common law, although a committee member is required to disclose a pecuniary interest and
participate in the consideration, but not vote. The green bill did not have codification of these responsibilities
either—the common law duties of care; of diligence to act; to act in good faith, in the best interests of the
association and for a proper purpose; to not misuse position or information; and to prevent insolvent trading.
8544
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
A breach of duties requires an intent element that is unlikely to be satisfied if a person has acted in good faith.
A business judgement rule and reliance defences are also available. The Jackson McDonald brief outlines that
the bill introduces and imposes these laws broadly.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
[Continued on page 8555.]
INTEWORK
Statement by Member for Balcatta
MR C.D. HATTON (Balcatta) [12.50 pm]: Today I rise in Parliament to recognise and acknowledge one of the
state’s largest service providers of skilled development, employment, respite and training for the disabled—
Intework. Intework has several offices; one of those is in my electorate of Balcatta. At the invitation of the chief
executive officer, Ms Fiona Beermier, I recently had the opportunity to visit Intework. In the area of disability, it
can quite often be difficult to provide the right service at the right time. However, Intework recognises each
person as an individual with different needs, allowing for the delivery of flexible, holistic and unique programs,
achieving the best fit for people with disabilities to realise their potential. I was particularly impressed with the
Lifeskills Plus program. This program provides a range of exciting developmental and interactive activities and
opportunities through community and centre-based activities. Lifeskills offers a diverse selection of support
options based on developing skills for independence and community living. Programming is strongly influenced
by individual choices, community resourcing and carer needs. Intework also offers programs such as respite
services, a holiday program, training services and an Aboriginal engagement program in conjunction with an
Australian disability enterprise for supported employment, and disability employment services for open
employment. By visiting Intework, I was able to learn more about the organisation and the outstanding programs
it offers. It is important to promote people with disabilities as valued members of society and to encourage
inclusive communities. That is exactly what Intework does. I would like to thank the CEO, Ms Fiona Beermier,
for her invitation to visit Intework, and I congratulate her and her staff on their work.
EDMUND RICE LIONS’ MULTICULTURAL FOOTBALL TEAM
Statement by Member for Mirrabooka
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [12.52 pm]: I congratulate the Edmund Rice Lions’ multicultural football
team. The team attended a wind-up at Herb Graham Recreation Centre on Saturday night. Football is a sport that
has cultural dominance in Western Australia. This national sport is constantly winning over new fans. Combine
such a favoured sport with a great organisation such as the Edmund Rice Centre and there is a recipe for success
in the Edmund Rice Lions. Before and since being elected in 2008 as the state representative for the
Mirrabooka area, Edmund Rice Centre staff and volunteers have warmed my heart and impressed me with their
dedication, hard work and practical programs to support people in the area. This is best represented by the
Edmund Rice Lions’ multicultural football team. The Lions’ program goes beyond just a team sport by building
on the participation to reach for the sporting goals of determination, commitment and success, and to translate
these qualities into life skills. This is developed through the support of leaders at all levels, from brother Jim,
who drives the bus, to the Subiaco Football Club, the West Australian Football Commission and, of course,
“mama” Chris Ward, as well as Joe Moniodis and, last but not least, Bella Ndayikeze.
The team’s 2014 season was enriched by the likes of Kelvin Barney, the 2014 Young Lions captain, who
sacrificed his love of soccer to commit wholeheartedly to the Young Lions. Bonhuer Chubahiro encouraged his
fellow players to achieve their best. The whole playing group demonstrated the importance of commitment to
a team. They met the challenges and earned the respect of their teammates by accepting responsibility when the
training was tough and arduous, and led by example.
I congratulate all the Senior Lions, particularly Abuldfai Atai, who was their captain in 2014. He never gave up
despite personal trials, tribulations and disappointments. The passion for the game was demonstrated by
Jerry Sowood.
PERTH PRIMARY SPEAKERS’ AWARD NIGHT
Statement by Member for Perth
MS E. EVANGEL (Perth) [12.54 pm]: On Thursday, 25 September, I was honoured to host the 2014 inaugural
Perth Primary Speakers’ Award night held at Trinity College. Each of the primary schools in my electorate was
represented by one student. Students on the night were Armani Williams, representing Aranmore Catholic
Primary School; William Copping, representing Highgate Primary School; Zohra Davis, representing
Kyilla Primary School; Bridget Ellis, representing Mount Hawthorn Primary School; Charlotte Bridge,
representing North Perth Primary School; Hannah Parker, representing Sacred Heart Primary School; and
Willem Lamers, representing Trinity College. I congratulate all students on their outstanding presentations.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8545
Special congratulations to equal first place winners North Perth Primary School’s Charlotte Bridge who spoke on
“Sport—It’s not all about winning” and Trinity College’s Willem Lamers who spoke on “Entomophagy—Are
they really creepy crawlies?”. Collectively, they walked away with $3 000 in prize money for their schools,
$150 dinner vouchers for each to enjoy and perpetual trophies for the schools to display. Special mention also
goes to Sacred Heart Primary School’s Hannah Parker on winning second place for her speech “The Almighty
Medicine—yes ... laughter!”
We were honoured to have Hon Peter Collier, MLC, Minister for Education, as our special guest and
Emeritus Professor David Black, Professor Sally Sandover and Mr Mike Keiller as our exceptional judging
panel, and I thank them all. Finally, special thanks to principals and deputy principals Margaret Williamson and
Adriana Coniglio from Aranmore Catholic Primary School, Cristina Sandri and Barbara Iffla from Highgate
Primary School, Carol Selley from Kyilla Primary School, Dale Mackesey and Jane Gillies from
Mount Hawthorn Primary School, Karen Lockyer and Sharon Downsborough from North Perth Primary School,
Chris Dunning from Sacred Heart Primary School and Ivan Banks and Martin Tucker from Trinity College.
LOCAL HERO AUSTRALIAN OF THE YEAR AWARD — STACY DUNBAR
Statement by Member for Butler
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [12.55 pm]: I rise to give parliamentary recognition to Stacy Dunbar and our
congratulations on her being nominated for WA’s Local Hero Australian of the Year Award, sponsored by the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Stacy, of course, initiated the Pledge for Nate campaign to
have people pledge not to drink and drive after a drunk driver left the road and smashed into her house, killing
her beloved son Nate when he was about eight months old. Since then, of course, Stacy has had a baby daughter,
Eve, who is eight months old and has another child, Kai, who is about eight years old. Stacy has never been
a bitter woman. She has approached her tragedy positively and led the Pledge for Nate campaign. It is
a campaign that the government was all too ready to come on board with. It took every photogenic opportunity
to be seen with Stacy in promoting the campaign against drink-driving. However, I criticise the government’s
miserable decision when Stacy asked for 50 metres of barrier protective fencing to go outside her house where
her new baby sleeps in the same bedroom that Nate was killed in. The government could not come up with
50 metres of protective fencing. What a disgrace. I urge the government to review its decision. It has been happy
to get on board with Stacy and use every opportunity to be seen with her to promote this campaign, but then
refuses any protective fencing outside the bedroom. It is absolutely disgraceful.
BAYSWATER CITY SOCCER CLUB
Statement by Member for Morley
MR I.M. BRITZA (Morley) [12.57 pm]: I am very proud as the number one ticket holder of Bayswater City
Soccer Club to share some of the club’s great achievements in the 2014 National Premier Leagues season.
Bayswater City Soccer Club was formed in 1980, as a result of a merger between Lathlain Meazza and
Rosemount Juventus becoming Rosemount Meazza. In 1981, Rosemount Meazza merged with
Bayswater United to become Bayswater Inter. In 1995, Bayswater Inter changed its name to Bayswater City, and
merged with Stirling Panthers to become the Bayswater City Panthers. This merger lasted until 2003 when the
name Bayswater City returned. This season, the club won four trophies: NPLWA champions, Night Series
champions, Coolridge Cup champions and the NPLWA League champions. This is the first time any WA state
level club has won a clean sweep of the four trophies on offer in the same year. These wins have created history!
I would like to congratulate president Gerry Maio and the whole management team and committee on this
fantastic accomplishment. Bayswater manager, Chris Coyne, made this comment after the recent WA final: “I’m
so proud of the boys. I couldn’t ask more of them. We’ve had a tough year, a tough journey but the
professionalism in carrying out the game plan in the final was fantastic.” I close by saying that the journey has
not finished. We are still fighting to get lights for this club, which is worthy of them.
BRUCE ROBERTS — COLLIE
Statement by Member for Collie–Preston
MR M.P. MURRAY (Collie–Preston) [12.58 pm]: Earlier this month, Bruce Roberts ended his long stint at
Collie’s Griffin Coal mine and has hung up his steelcapped boots. After 45 years, Bruce has retired and
I congratulate him on not only his longevity of employment with the same company but also his outstanding
commitment to the Collie community. Bruce began at Griffin Coal as an apprentice boilermaker–welder and
finished up earlier this month, remaining a mainstay in the workshop over the entire 45 years he worked there.
Bruce recently told me that in his first week at work, the Griffin manager picked him up for work to make sure
he was on time. How things have changed. Among his colleagues, he is well respected for his work ethic and his
strong values for protecting workers’ employment conditions and rights, and of course no-one could escape his
wry sense of humour.
8546
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
I will attempt to list some of the contributions and public service positions Bruce has held over the years, which
include: Shire of Collie president and councillor, instigating many of the changes we are now seeing; member of
the Coal Futures Group; member of Collie shire sports council advisory committee; and member of the
Coal Miners Welfare Board of Western Australia. Beyond these he has also been a strong ALP supporter and has
held the positions of president and secretary of the ALP Collie branch. I was also fortunate to have Bruce as my
campaign director in 2001 and he helped immensely in allowing me to be elected to this place. Bruce is
a low-key, unassuming fellow; really, the term “quiet achiever” surmises a perfect description of him. I wish
Bruce all the best in his retirement and know that the Collie community stands behind me to thank and
acknowledge him for the many, many achievements he has made for our town. Thank you, Bruce.
Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE AMENDMENT BILL 2014 — DRAFT
954.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
I refer to the government’s draft bill to amend the Aboriginal Heritage Act and the petition presented to the
member for Pilbara and me by senior Aboriginal leaders from across Western Australia today. As the petition
states that “traditional owners have been excluded from helping develop the processes that change the way the
Aboriginal Heritage Act was administered”, will the Premier today commit to amending his proposed changes to
ensure that Aboriginal people are involved in a meaningful way in the protection and management of their
heritage?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
The Aboriginal Heritage Act is overdue for amendment. The government is committed to protecting genuine
Aboriginal heritage sites, but there is a backlog of 16 000 to 19 000 applications, I think, in that area. Probably
90 per cent of those applications will involve no Aboriginal heritage at all. The minister is proposing a system
that will accelerate the process of assessing Aboriginal heritage sites. I think that is in everyone interests—rather
than having delays over approvals in areas where there are no Aboriginal heritage sites. There has been an issue
about consultation. The minister is looking at that. The current program is that he will introduce the amendment
bill to the Aboriginal Heritage Act next week.
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE AMENDMENT BILL 2014 — DRAFT
955.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. I note the Premier’s statement that the amendment bill will “accelerate the
process”. Will he at least ensure that somewhere in that draft bill, where there is no mention of traditional owners
of land, there is an involvement of Aboriginal people in the management and protection of their heritage?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
There is as a matter of course.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: But not in the act—not in your draft.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The procedure is there.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: It is not.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, this is not a debate; it is a question.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The bill is yet to be introduced.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: That is why I am asking whether you will at least make sure.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member should wait. The bill will be introduced next week. In cases of genuine
Aboriginal heritage sites or sites that may be in dispute —
Mr B.S. Wyatt: You do understand there’s no reference to it.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do but —
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the first time. You cannot run question time
where you ask a question and then you make commentary all the way through the answer.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The minister will introduce the amending bill next week. It is about having a timely
process, not having unnecessary delays, which run into the thousands, ensuring that genuine Aboriginal heritage
sites are protected and, if they are in dispute, they are properly assessed—and Aboriginal people will be
involved.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8547
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Not according to your act.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The amendment bill will be introduced next week.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY
956.
Mrs G.J. GODFREY to the Minister for Housing:
Can the minister tell us what the government is doing to reduce red tape and, accordingly, increase the supply of
affordable housing?
Mr W.R. MARMION replied:
I thank the member for Belmont for a very good question. She is a strong supporter of our affordable housing
strategy and, indeed, provision of good quality, affordable —
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time. You cannot run question time like
this.
Mr W.R. MARMION: As I was saying, the member for Belmont is a strong supporter of our affordable
housing strategy and, indeed, a strong supporter of quality, affordable housing delivered by way of new housing
in her electorate.
Red tape does impact on the cost of building houses, as anyone who has spoken to the industry would know, and
hence their affordability. My department reviewed its procurement process back in 2011 to see what it could do.
The existing process was a request for tender process. It was very cumbersome and prescriptive and required
a lot of work by the tenderers. The department decided to trial a proposal for an expression of interest process.
This process has delivered some very good results. The old process tied the builder up by providing materials
that were outdated or inefficient and did not deliver an affordable house. An expression of interest process is
a bit more flexible for the builders. It has allowed builders to procure goods and services fit for purpose—hence
lower costs. It has significantly reduced the documentation, both to the department in developing the request for
proposal document, and also the amount of work done by the tenderer, so it has reduced the overhead costs.
Online availability of the documentation has streamlined the process, resulting in time savings and hence
on-costs.
The new process has encouraged new entrants into the market. People who could not spare the time or cost of
going through the request for proposal process have now entered the market—hence more activity, more
proposals and reduced tender prices. Other aspects of the EOI process have been very useful; for example, we
have learnt that we can put out higher volume contracts. Economies of scale are now being delivered by putting
out contracts not just for one or two houses but maybe four or five or six or seven units. That has dropped the
unit price of a house, hence their affordability. Another very important outcome of the EOI process is that it has
allowed builders to submit proposals with different building products—hence prefabrication and modular
design—which is an innovation brought about by the industry. All in all, the EIO process has greatly reduced
unnecessary documentation and red tape and has resulted in more affordable prices for our houses. One of the
programs that the department had—the shared equity EOI process—has delivered 722 properties. We are trying
to achieve 20 000 by 2020, at no cost to the government. Indeed, it won the Premier’s prize for excellence in
public sector administration.
I would like to conclude with an update on the status of the 44 Cottier apartments. Thirty of the 44 apartments
are currently occupied and another 10 are on hold for government offices. In the space of about three or four
months, we have nearly filled the whole 44 apartments.
HOUSING — JUNCTIONS DEVELOPMENT — SOUTH HEDLAND
957.
Mr F.M. LOGAN to the Minister for Housing:
I refer to the Department of Housing’s pre-purchase of 38 apartments within the Junctions development in
South Hedland and $19.6 million of taxpayers’ money currently parked in a trust account.
(1)
Why has the government once again underwritten a private sector speculative property deal?
(2)
Is interest being earned on the trust account; and, if so, who is receiving it?
(3)
What does the government intend to do with the 38 apartments once constructed?
Mr W.R. MARMION replied:
I thank the member for Cockburn for the question.
(1)–(3) The Junctions project is on hold. It will not go ahead unless the market improves. Indeed, there is
money in a trust fund. The interest is not being earned by anyone but us. The project will not go ahead
unless there is a demand for houses in the area.
8548
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
HOUSING — JUNCTIONS DEVELOPMENT — SOUTH HEDLAND
958.
Mr F.M. LOGAN to the Minister for Housing:
I ask a supplementary question. What will the minister do with the money that is sitting in the trust account if the
project is not going ahead?
Mr W.R. MARMION replied:
The Treasurer has just advised me that it will not last long!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cockburn!
ESPLANADE HOTEL SITE, ALBANY
959.
Dr G.G. JACOBS to the Minister for Lands:
Can the minister please update the house on recent progress to the very vexed question pertaining to the old
Esplanade Hotel site at Middleton Beach, Albany?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
Before I answer the question, I would like to welcome to the public gallery Mr Yin and David Lui from
Kimberley Agricultural Investments, all the way from Kununurra. Of course, we are talking about the other end
of the state here. Also up in the public gallery is Mr Ni from Shanghai Zhongfu. I welcome them to the
Western Australian Legislative Assembly.
I thank the member for Eyre for the question and, of course, his interest. It is a shame the member for Albany is
not here, because he is a staunch critic of this government’s activity in trying to resolve the old Esplanade site in
Albany which, as members know, has been redeveloped about five times since the late 1800s. It has also been
neglected for the past eight years. It has lain desolate and has become quite an eyesore; in fact, it has been the
recipient of a number of people’s socks over a period of time. It is a huge concern for the people of Albany. This
morning the Premier and I announced that the state government has reached agreement with the owners to
purchase the Esplanade site, which is a fantastic outcome. That follows the Premier’s promise to the people of
Albany last year that the state government would do something about the problem. Despite a lot of criticism
from the member for Albany, who was critical about —
Several members interjected
The SPEAKER: Member for Collie–Preston, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Girrawheen,
I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: Members opposite need to remember that this is a privately-owned property. It was not an
easy step for government to take. Clearly, the government made a decision based on the public interest. I might
add that this calls out to the member for Albany to sort out all those issues that are dear to him in Albany. The
government has actually done something about this through its development agency LandCorp. We have
negotiated the agreement to purchase the land for $7 million, with $3.3 million of the purchase price coming
from royalties for regions funds, and there will be an additional $1.5 million of royalties for regions funds to
improve the potential of the site through road realignment and subsequent landscaping. The following process
will be a very strong engagement with the City of Albany and, of course, the people of Albany to ensure that
what has historically been the jewel in the crown in the Albany community will have a chance of becoming the
jewel in the crown once again. I would love to have a question from the member for Albany, but unfortunately
he is not here. This government intervened and supported calls from the local community to do something about
an eyesore that has been there for some time.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Collie–Preston, I do
not want to hear from you again.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: This government has been committed to resolving the issue, and it is now active. We look
forward to a site that will hopefully have a level of mixed development, including commercial and residential,
and that over time will become the jewel in the crown for Albany.
ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL — STAFFING
960.
Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
Before I begin my question, on behalf of the member for Warnbro I acknowledge representatives of the
Endeavour Primary School community.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8549
I refer to the loss of 140 FTEs, or 110 jobs, at Royal Perth Hospital, including cleaners, patient care assistants,
orderlies and catering staff, many of whom have worked at the hospital for more than 30 years.
(1)
Despite the minister’s assurances that all staff would be looked after, why is he slashing jobs rather than
finding new opportunities for these people in the Department of Health?
(2)
Is it not true that if the government had not privatised hospital services at Fiona Stanley Hospital, these
staff would be looking to transfer to that new site rather than being thrown onto the job market after
decades of looking after Western Australian patients?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
(1)–(2) Once again the member is not telling the truth. I do not know why I have to say that so many times. He
asked a question about this just a month or so ago.
Mr R.H. Cook: That was nurses.
Dr K.D. HAMES: It was staff at Royal Perth Hospital; it is the same for all staff. Permanently employed staff at
Royal Perth Hospital are guaranteed to have their job or, as members heard from the government announcement
not too long ago, a redundancy package is being brought in. That is still being fine-tuned. The government has
announced there will be a redundancy package.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected
Dr K.D. HAMES: They do not have to take redundancy. They can keep their jobs and they will be found a place
somewhere within the health system. Anyone who is permanently employed within the system is guaranteed
their job. In the past, some staff were given contracts. Remember that under a Labor government there would not
be any staff left at Royal Perth Hospital, because it was closing it as a tertiary hospital.
Mr R.H. Cook: Who’s not telling the truth now?
Dr K.D. HAMES: I said “as a tertiary hospital’. If the member for Kwinana had not been talking to the member
for Bassendean he would have heard that. The Labor Party wanted to close Royal Perth Hospital as a tertiary
hospital and most of the staff would have gone somewhere else—the whole lot of them. That would have
depended, of course, on what remained, because during the election campaign it went from a general practitioner
clinic to a waitlist surgery centre and we never actually got to the bottom of what Labor was going to do if it did
shut it as a tertiary hospital. This government has retained Royal Perth Hospital as a tertiary hospital with
450 beds. Think how grateful all the staff who work, and who will continue to work, at the hospital are to us
compared with what they would be if the Labor Party was in government.
ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL — STAFFING
961.
Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister guarantee that they will keep not only their jobs, but also the
wages and conditions they currently enjoy under their present enterprise bargaining agreement?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
I am not in charge of the direct employment of staff, but my understanding is that under contract terms, people
who have certain conditions of pay, which are the same in all our hospitals, will get the same pay if they move to
the same substantive position in other hospitals.
HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA — GRANTS PROGRAM
962.
Mr F.A. ALBAN to the Minister for Heritage:
I note that recipients of the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s 2014-15 heritage grants program were
announced recently. Can the minister inform the house about the important program and its value in assisting
with the conservation of heritage properties in Western Australia?
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr A.P. JACOB replied:
I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question and acknowledge him as a very strong advocate of heritage
in Western Australia.
The heritage grants program is one of the key ways that the Liberal–National government provides assistance to
private owners of state heritage–registered places to undertake urgent conservation works on those properties.
Through this grants process, grants of up to $100 000 are available to private owners on a competitive basis and
on a condition of a minimum level of matched funding so that we at least leverage a doubling of the
8550
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
government’s initial investment. In 2012 the Liberal–National government increased the heritage grants program
for the first time since 1996 by around 25 per cent, pumping an extra $1 million over four years into the
program. This year 43 projects were awarded a total of $1.3 million in grants, including 11 metropolitan projects
and 32 regional projects, which will leverage some $3.3 million of investment into heritage conservation works
in Western Australia. Some of the more prominent places that have received grants are: Holy Trinity Anglican
Church in Northampton, which received a $27 000 grant to restore damaged stained-glass windows; the
Kellerberrin Post Office, which received a $58 000 grant to repair cracking throughout the building; and
Cronshaw’s Store in Bunbury, which received the maximum $100 000 grant to rebuild masonry turrets, repair
the facade and reconstruct balustrades. I picked up an interjection earlier from the member for Girrawheen about
the Guildford Hotel. She will probably be very happy to know that the grant process has also included
a $100 000 —
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected
Mr A.P. JACOB: I will get to Albany in a second, member for Girrawheen. Just wait—Albany is next.
I will just touch very quickly on the Guildford Hotel. A grant of $100 000 has been given for restoration of the
belvedere, a key point on the corner of that well-known property. That grant is leveraging a six-time multiplier;
over $600 000 is being invested in that belvedere.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: I’ll be pleased when we see the Guildford Hotel restored—not before.
Mr A.P. JACOB: Obviously, member for Midland, the grant is paid only on restoration. That is a key project.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, you can put your name down and ask your own question. I call you to
order for the first time. Minister, a short version, please.
Mr A.P. JACOB: Certainly, Mr Speaker. I will just very quickly go on to Albany, since that was also raised.
One of the things we were able to do with this year’s grant program was to bring forward $300 000 of the grants
program and specifically target it at Stirling Terrace in Albany. This is a very good example of how the
community at large gets a tangible benefit out of this heritage grants program. The grant was provided for the
dozen or so properties in Stirling Terrace, which were largely built in the late nineteenth century through to
1911. The reason this is significant —
Ms S.F. McGurk interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Fremantle, put your name down if you want to ask a question. I call you to order
for the first time. I call the member for Wanneroo to order for the first time. Minister have you finished?
Mr A.P. JACOB: I have not even got to explaining Albany yet, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: A short version please.
Several members interjected.
Mr A.P. JACOB: I will address my comments to you, Mr Speaker. I would love to answer a question on the
warders’ cottages and the great work that has been done there, but member for Fremantle will not ask it.
Stirling Terrace was the heart of Albany when the Anzac fleet sailed. We were able to bring forward $300 000 of
that grant and see those 12 properties in Stirling Terrace restored as close as possible to the historically accurate
street front that would have existed there, and provide a magnificent backdrop for the tens of thousands of
Western Australians and other Australians who descended on Albany earlier this month to commemorate the
departure of the Anzac fleet. It is a great example of where not only private owners and the state get benefits
from our history, but also the broader community benefits from this great grants program.
STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FUND
963.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE to the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the minister’s continued inaction on establishing the Pilbara strategic conservation fund, even though
contributions to the fund are a condition of multiple recent ministerial approvals, and both the Environmental
Protection Authority and the mining companies —
Mr N.W. Morton interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Forrestfield, I call you to order for the first time. Carry on, member.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: The fund is supported by both the EPA and mining companies. They agree on the
need for the fund.
(1)
Why is the minister yet to establish this fund when millions of dollars has already been committed and
not collected from companies such as Fortescue Metals Group, Hamersley Iron, and Iron Ore Holdings?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
(2)
8551
Could this money be used for conservation programs in the Pilbara right now, if the minister had
established the fund?
Mr A.P. JACOB replied:
(1)–(2) I have had this question many times from the member for Gosnells. I think we explored it at length in
estimates, and my answer remains the same: we remain committed to that fund.
Mr C.J. Tallentire: Sixty million dollars; $40 million outstanding —
The SPEAKER: Member for Gosnells, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr A.P. JACOB: Yes, that is all correct, and that fund is a condition of those ministerial approvals. As
a condition of the environmental approval of those major iron ore projects, the proponents are required to
contribute to that fund. That condition will remain, and this government will implement it. Having said that, this
is an opportunity for a substantial investment of tens of millions of dollars into Pilbara conservation outcomes,
and it is vitally important that the fund has the most robust governance structure around it, and that it is targeted
and delivers the maximum conservation benefit. The requirement for those funds is locked in, but we will work
to make sure that we get how we spend the money and how we structure the fund absolutely right. Those sorts of
funds only come around once.
STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FUND
964.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE to the Minister for Environment:
I have a supplementary question. I last raised this issue with the minister six months ago. He has had six months
to collect at least $30 million or $40 million. Why has he not done it yet?
Mr A.P. JACOB replied:
My answer remains the same.
Mr C.J. Tallentire interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Gosnells, I call you to order for the second time. Minister, do you want to answer
that?
Mr A.P. JACOB: My answer remains the same. The requirement for contributions to those funds —
Mr C.J. Tallentire interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Gosnells, I call you to order for the third time.
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: While the member for Gosnells was asking his question, and questions are normally
asked in silence, the Leader of the National Party and other people interjected more than once. I note that they
have not been called to order. I am just asking why is there not some balance here.
The SPEAKER: I will watch the Leader of the National Party, thank you very much.
KIDSPORT PROGRAM
965.
Mr C.D. HATTON to the Minister for Sport and Recreation:
I understand that the excellent KidSport program has recently reached a significant milestone. Can the minister
update the house on the positive impact that this excellent program is having on families across the state?
Mr T.K. WALDRON replied:
I thank the member for Balcatta for the question, and for his interest and drive as part of this program. As many
members will be aware, the Liberal–National government embarked on the KidSport program back in 2011, in
partnership with local government—I want to recognise the terrific role played by local government—under
which families could access up to $200 a year per child for fees for sporting clubs. I am very pleased to
announce that the KidSport program was a recent winner of the Premier’s Award in the category of
strengthening families and communities. The good thing was that it actually tied for the award with another great
program, the Camp Kulin program in my electorate, which is doing fantastic work with at-risk kids and kids
going through trauma. It is a fantastic program.
As at the end of October, the department has advised me, some 52 400 vouchers have been distributed since
2011, and 21 137 so far this year. In excess of 36 000 children are now involved in the program, and over
$8 million of funding has been accessed. These 36 000 individual kids, who may not have joined a club
previously, are now able to participate. If it were not for this program, they would not have known what it was
like to be part of a sporting club, for not just the physical and mental health benefits, but also the social benefits,
which help the mental health side of things—just being part of a team, part of a club and part of an extended
8552
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
family. We are very proud of the fact that 46 per cent of those children—over 16 000—have not been members
of clubs before, which is an outstanding figure. There are 130 local governments participating. I think Westonia
was the latest shire to sign up, so we just about have the whole state covered. The local government regions with
the biggest participation are Wanneroo, with seven per cent, Mandurah, Stirling and Swan, with six per cent
each, and Rockingham with five per cent, so we are really helping kids in those areas. Over 2 400 sporting clubs
are involved, along with 390 referral agencies—schools, community organisations and government agencies.
Eighteen per cent of participants are Aboriginal, 10 per cent are from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds, and six per cent have a disability, so the program goes right across the community.
We have been doing an evaluation, because we want to make sure that the program is still delivering what it
should deliver. We have around a 90 per cent satisfaction rating across local governments, clubs and referral
agencies; 90 per cent of parents feel that the program teaches kids about respect, commitment and responsibility,
so parents are really noticing this; and 95 per cent of the referral agencies feel that this program is keeping kids
away from antisocial behaviour. We are proud of the program. I will keep the house updated. I thank everyone
on both sides of the house for their support.
PERTH INTERNATIONAL GOLF TOURNAMENT
966.
Mr P. PAPALIA to the Acting Minister for Tourism:
I refer the minister to the precarious future of the Perth International golf tournament.
(1)
Is it true that the tournament failed to attract a major sponsor and is therefore financially unviable?
(2)
Is it also true that no agreement has been reached on the tournament going ahead next year?
(3)
What has the government done to retain the tournament, which is one of the very few remaining major
events in the WA calendar?
Mr J.H.D. DAY replied:
(1)–(3) Clearly the event happened this year, about four weeks ago. I am not sure whether the member was
there. I was unable to be there myself, but I understand that it was a successful event. I understand that
future funding is under discussion, or certainly was at the time of the tournament a few weeks ago.
Clearly—I am sure the member would agree—there is a need to ensure that taxpayers’ funds are used
wisely and that there is value for money. I am not saying that there will not be if the support is
continued, but the last advice I have is that negotiations on future events have not concluded.
Mr P. Papalia: It’s not a sponsor this year!
Mr J.H.D. DAY: This year? If that is the case, I was not aware of that. The event clearly happened and
I understand that it was a very successful event.
PERTH INTERNATIONAL GOLF TOURNAMENT
967.
Mr P. PAPALIA to the Acting Minister for Tourism:
I have a supplementary question. Can the acting minister guarantee that the Perth International golf event will go
ahead next year?
Mr J.H.D. DAY replied:
I can guarantee, in the reasonably short remaining time in which I have responsibility for this portfolio, that
a very careful assessment will be made to ensure that taxpayers’ funds are used wisely and appropriately and to
ensure that Western Australia has a range of international events that will help to promote the state and to attract
visitors to the state, such as is happening this weekend with the Margaret River Gourmet Escape. I am sure the
member for Dawesville would prefer to be speaking about that event at some length, as he has certainly had
a strong interest in establishing it, and from all accounts and from my observations it will be an outstanding
success.
PORT AUTHORITIES — AMALGAMATIONS
968.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI to the Minister for Transport:
The state government is creating four regional port authorities to streamline operations for port users. Can the
minister please provide an update to the house on the amalgamation of regional ports?
Mr D.C. NALDER replied:
This is another piece of work in which the government is taking action and getting on with business. The
Ports Legislation Amendment Act 2014 was passed last financial year, having received royal assent on 20 May
2014. It has seen the amalgamation of seven ports into four regional ports. This amalgamation has concentrated
the commercial acumen across those ports and has allowed them to bring a regional focus to strategic and port
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8553
development, which is a very timely and important action for improving and facilitating trade throughout the
state. The next phase of the amalgamation, with draft legislation to be considered in 2015–16, will transfer the
responsibility of overseeing marine safety at 12 regional ports from the Department of Transport to these new
regional ports. Once fully implemented, this will rescind the department’s direct involvement in the operation of
these 12 ports with a full handover to those regional ports. Although the current government’s arrangements
have served the state well, they are about ensuring that we concentrate that commercial acumen to these
additional ports to facilitate growth right across regional Western Australia.
PERTH CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL — SUBCONTRACTORS
969.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer:
I refer to works on the new Perth Children’s Hospital being managed by Strategic Projects.
(1)
Has the department received any complaint from subcontractors regarding non-payments?
(2)
What processes are available within the Department of Treasury for subcontractors to complain of
non-payment?
(3)
Do recommendations arising from the government’s construction subcontractor investigation apply to
subcontractors working on Department of Treasury–managed projects such as the new children’s
hospital?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
(1)–(3) That question has been asked of me from the upper house and from this house, so this is the third time,
and I gave a good answer each time. I have received no complaint about subcontractor issues at
Perth Children’s Hospital, and I have checked with the people at Strategic Projects. The problem we
had about two years ago with the failure to pay subbies was with Building Management and Works on
diffuse, smaller projects valued up to $100 million, and we addressed them quite effectively at that time
and put in a range of measures including transparency of bank accounts. Each special project differs
from public–private partnerships, which the state is not involved in very much, to Perth Children’s
Hospital, which involves a subcontractor. John Holland and other major contractors and subcontractors
are responsible for those arrangements. If there is any issue of late payment that might impede the
development of the project, they have a requirement to inform Strategic Projects, and I have been
informed that there has been no delay to payments. There might be some contractual issues, but that is
an entirely different matter.
PERTH CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL — SUBCONTRACTORS
970.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer:
I have a supplementary question. The Treasurer made the point that there has been no complaint. What process is
available within the Department of Treasury for subcontractors to complain?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
The relationship with Strategic Projects is with the contractor—in this case John Holland.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: So, is there a process?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: John Holland has a contractual arrangement. The subbies relate to John Holland. That is the
process.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The process is that John Holland is the head contractor. The relationship with
Strategic Projects is with John Holland.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: It’s nothing to do with them!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I am not saying that.
The SPEAKER: Member for Midland!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The member for Midland should let me answer, please. If she wants to answer it, she should
stand up and do so, or make it up! I will go back to the issue. If the member wants me to answer the question,
I will.
The issues are that the contract is with John Holland; John Holland then subcontracts various aspects to other
organisations. Of course, Strategic Projects has a very close oversight of the project. It is one of our iconic
projects. It is a $1.2 billion construction of a major hospital for children in this state, so we watch it very closely,
8554
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
and they have dialogues. As I have said twice before, members opposite—one in the upper house and one in this
place—asked me about it, so I asked them whether there had been any complaint about the lack of payment other
than contractual issues, and I was informed no.
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN YOUTH AWARDS
971.
Mr A. KRSTICEVIC to the Minister for Youth:
I understand that the Western Australian Youth Awards are being held at the Perth Convention and Exhibition
Centre tonight. Can the minister advise the house about this important event and tell us about the finalists in the
various award categories?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON replied:
I thank the member for Carine for his question.
The member is right. For the benefit of members, I stood in this house in April and spoke about Youth Week.
When I first came into this job last year, having the Youth Awards at the end of Youth Week in April was a great
event to end the week. However, in reality because the nominations were open during January and February
there was a very low turnout in youths nominating themselves because of school holidays and the university
break; so this year we have pushed the date back. We have done some fantastic work with the Youth Affairs
Council of WA. Almost 100 nominations came in and 26 finalists will be there tonight for the Youth of the Year
award. There are some amazing individuals from all over the state. Among some of the finalists is a young
mother, a filmmaker and a producer. We also have a young girl named Jenna Woods from Gosnells who is an
inspirational example of how young people can turn their life around. She became pregnant at 16 years of age
and, despite having little formal education or career, she went on to enrol in building programs at university and
is at a turning point in her life now. She recently represented Western Australia at the National Indigenous Youth
Parliament and will soon become chair of the Save the Children Youth Leadership Roundtable. It is one of the
amazing things that youths are doing in our community.
Also this year YACWA has worked very closely with the department. In years gone by, the Youth of the Year
award was a certificate and a free airline ticket from a sponsor to anywhere in the world. That is also in line this
year, but also with the hard work of the department we will allocate $10 000 for the winner to access for travel to
anywhere in the state as Ambassador for Youth in Western Australia so that they can get out to regional areas
and speak about what being the Ambassador for Youth is all about.
I look forward to tonight’s presentations. As I said, there are 26 finalists and I look forward to announcing the
award for Youth of the Year.
ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES — CLOSURE
972.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
The Premier claimed last week that a remote community was costing $85 000 per person for the provision of
municipal and essential services.
(1)
Which community was the Premier referring to?
(2)
Exactly how did the Premier arrive at the figure of $85 000?
(3)
Is the cost of services per person the basis upon which the Premier will be deciding which communities
will be closed?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
(1)–(3) The state government will not be closing communities as such. The issue is: for which communities will
we be able to continue to provide essential services? It will not restrict people going back to lands—it
will not. That has always been the position. We have to work progressively through communities in
a sense to see which ones are considered viable over the long term—some communities may even be
normalised into townships—and which ones for which we will continue to provide essential services.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, that is the term used in local government.
Again, I stress that there is going to be no restriction or barrier on people going back into those lands or to those
areas; they will do that as they wish.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: With respect to the figures I quoted, they related to a particular community—information
supplied to me. As I said at the time, I have no intention of naming the community.
Several members interjected.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8555
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I made that point at the time, that I would not name the community, and I will not name
the community, because I am not going to do what perhaps the opposition thinks I might be doing or what they
seem to be doing; I am not going to wander around and target communities and tell them, “You will be closed.”
We will go through this carefully over coming years.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: There are over 100 communities with an average of five people, and another
70 communities with an average of 15 people—yes, they are not viable. The point I made is that there are issues
in providing education and health, and many are isolated, so it goes beyond water and power supplies. What are
the opportunities for young people? There is no work. There is no opportunity to succeed in life. That is the issue
that has been forced upon us by the federal government decision. We will do it properly. We will do it
progressively. We will talk to those communities and we will work our way through it.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: When are you going to talk to them?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Member for Victoria Park, there is a difference between this government and the previous
Labor government—lots of differences.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: One big difference is that when there is a difficult issue and a problem, this government
will walk up to the issue and deal with it. I give members one example. A legacy of the Labor government was
lead pollution in Esperance, which it literally tried to hide under the carpet. It was this government that went in
and dealt with that. Here is another issue—this time amongst Aboriginal communities—and we will go in and
deal with it. The approach of the Labor Party is to cause stress and tension. I have put the issue out there publicly
so that Aboriginal people, regional towns in the Kimberley and the Pilbara, and the wider population of
Western Australia know that we have a very difficult social issue to deal with. Labor would have ignored it.
ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES — CLOSURE
973.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. I note that the Premier stated that he has put the issue out there publicly. At
what point will Aboriginal communities be consulted about the issue that he has put out there publicly?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
From now on, Mr Speaker.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [2.42 pm]: I rise to continue my contribution to the debate on the
Associations Incorporation Bill 2014. At the same time as I was speaking about this legislation earlier today,
I received an email, which I probably should have received earlier, but bureaucracy being what it is sometimes in
both areas, I did not. The email is from the Irish Club of WA about its concerns about the Associations
Incorporation Bill and its impact on clubs such as its club. Attached to the email was feedback from Clubs WA.
The parliamentary secretary would have, and would have seen, both of those documents. I think it is interesting
that a lot of the concerns that I raised in the debate on this bill are in those submissions to the parliamentary
secretary. One of those concerns is that the provisions of this bill are very much for the tier 2 and
tier 3 organisations and that small clubs such as the Irish Club, which has a voluntary committee and operations,
will find it very difficult to comply with the provisions. Indeed, page 4 of the document that would have gone to
the department, the minister and the parliamentary secretary states —
The current framework of the Bill is, in our view, suited to professional and industry bodies and large
not-for-profit entities.
It goes on to state —
For Club’s such as our, this Bill does not minimise administration and compliance costs, it increases
those costs.
The things that I have talked about give me some confidence in the issues I raised.
8556
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Point of Order
Mr P.T. MILES: Mr Speaker, it is very hard to hear the member on her feet, because running discussions are
going on.
The SPEAKER: Members, please.
Debate Resumed
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: The member for Girrawheen is indicating that I am being very noisy in her ear, so she is
questioning whether I can be heard. I was trying to talk over the noise.
The Irish Club also pointed out that the penalty system, which I also raised, going from a penalty of $500 to
around the $10 000 mark, is quite onerous. The Irish Club and the Clubs WA submissions suggest a tiered
system. The Clubs WA submission states —
Is there an opportunity to range fines based on the financial tiers so that the larger fines will apply to the
larger tiers?
Clubs WA also raised the issue of contacting members by email and at postal and residential addresses. I want
the parliamentary secretary to confirm that a postal address equals a residential address when there is no
post office box for membership. That aspect of the issue I raised is quite interesting. Other issues were raised by
Clubs WA and its submission goes through some of the clauses. We can discuss that in consideration in detail.
Coming back to the issue of codifying duties and responsibilities owed by committee members, I pointed out that
the current act does not have a codification of duties and the green bill did not have a codification of duties, but
this new legislation will have the codification of common law duties. That increases the aspects of common law
requirements on committees, and that may have an impact on small committees. Common law is established by
the courts, and I want to know what particular case law the bill relies on when it codifies the duties. Is it
Hazelhurst v Wright in 1991? On page 146, Sievers states that, in effect, the duties that the bill codifies are the
same as those that that apply to corporations. I note that there is similar legislation in South Australia, I think—
no, it is Victorian legislation. The Victorian legislation that codifies duties has footnote references to the
Corporations Law, which, basically, is very much what this associations incorporation legislation does by
including those high-level, business responsibilities and duties in this legislation. If the Victorian legislation that
also codifies duties for members of committees has put footnote references to the Corporations Law because that
is the living law or the changing law that applies, will the omission of similar Corporations Law responsibilities
in the WA bill result in officeholders not being fully informed of their responsibilities?
It also prohibits certain persons from being members of a management committee of an association. People are
not to be members of a management committee if they have been bankrupt or convicted of an indictable offence
in relation to the promotion, formation or management of a body corporate, likewise if they have been fraudulent
or convicted of an offence in relation to the duties of officers or a management committee and members with
respect to incurring debt. All these things will be very difficult for people to ascertain. What will people do when
they join a committee? We have all been on management committees. Will we just have to tick a box on a form
saying that none of those apply to us? The codification of duties will be put in place, and as part of
a management committee it will be our responsibility to have all this knowledge about how a management
committee works, so how do we ensure that someone has not misled us in this regard? This goes back to the fact
that so much of the Associations Incorporation Bill focuses on tier 3 and tier 2 organisations and not where it
should be focused, which involves the 90 per cent of people who are in tier 1 financial organisations. The
question that must be asked is: how will small clubs and associations police this? One assumes that the criteria
will be self-selecting. A person will be asked to sign a document and that will cover the committee.
The bill also removes restrictions on associations’ trading, in which profits go back into activities that further the
association’s objects and purposes. The minister’s second reading speech stated that it is —
… important to recognise that some trading activity among not-for-profit organisations is important for
their financial self-sustainability, especially if they are used for the delivery of government-funded
community services.
I have been reading the book by A.S. Sievers, Associations and Clubs Law in Australia and New Zealand, with
that in mind. In terms of trading organisations, it is generally accepted that the broad definition of
not-for-profits —
… would not prevent an incorporated association from running stalls or other fund-raising functions as
a means of raising money to support its principal non-trading objects.
For example, op shops. How does this go beyond that? The primacy of this act is non-commercial associations.
How do we ensure that it does not go beyond this, and what does the minister mean by “used for the delivery of
government-funded community services”? Is this about large not-for-profit organisations, to which the
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8557
government is privatising services, being able to reap taxpayers’ money to make a profit for running and
growing their own organisation? Will this allow organisations that get funding from government to take it over
into the next year? What does the minister mean by “especially if they are used for the delivery of
government-funded community services”?
MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [2.52 pm]: I feel like clapping after listening to the member for Mirrabooka.
I think she covered every possible aspect. I am wondering what could I possibly add to the debate.
Mr R.H. Cook: Another hour and a half for the member for Mirrabooka to finish her speech.
Ms L.L. BAKER: Yes, I would like to hear more from her—she is still in full swing with this. I would like to
talk about this Associations Incorporation Bill 2014, which has been a long time coming. Members may
remember that I ran the Western Australian Council of Social Service for seven years before I got elected and
moved jobs. I fondly remember the debates, consultations and the many dialogues with the Consumer Protection
Division at the time over this review—initially the green paper, the white paper and all its forerunners. This idea
has been long festering in the back of many government’s minds. It is interesting to note that none of us in
government—neither the previous government nor us—managed to get it to the point that this government has
now got it to. I am personally very grateful to see it come through and I know that the sector is very grateful as
well.
Along the way, the definition of “not-for-profits” has changed. I think this debate started 17 years ago and the
world of not-for-profits looked very different from what it does today. However, the reason for government
choosing to partner with not-for-profits remains the same in many respects. The government still looks for
a cost-effective means of service delivery. It still looks for an effective partnership that is grounded in the
community and it still looks to capitalise on those things that the community sector, the human services sector,
the charity sector and the not-for-profit sector do exceptionally well, which is work with people on the ground to
deliver services. A lot of this journey has not seen community groups focus on their corporate structures or
whether they reflect good business practice. Going back 17 years ago, the debate was—and still is for some of
us—about what does “not-for-profit” mean and whether it is an effective or appropriate definition of the sector.
Any title that starts with a negative has been criticised many times. Why would something be called “not”
anything? I remember that Dinosaurs program from a long time ago that used a kind of post-modernist theory
and was about a little baby dinosaur that called his father “not the momma”. It is kind of the same thing; if we
start giving something a negative title, it puts a certain description around it and lacks a definition. The sector is
really about strengthening the client base and about ploughing back through the community amazing intellectual
and knowledge resources, and that is what we love about it and why we work with it. Terms such as “human
services sector” and “community sector” are just as applicable; they are interchangeable, I guess. In trying to
move from where the sector was, with many local community organisations delivering services, and as the
government emphasis around the economics of funding the sector has changed, so too has the demand on the
sector for accountability, transparency and professionalism. I would argue that the community sector or the
not-for-profit sector should not be treated like a corporation, because it simply is not a for-profit trading entity. It
is myriad little agencies that all have their feet deeply in the roots of their community. They are there to do good
stuff, not to have an extractive view of their contribution or to look for what they can make out of the
community, but to look at what they can give back to the community.
When the consultations were being progressed around this area, one supporter of the not-for-profit sector that
I worked very closely with over the years is a private business called Harding and Associates. I am sure many
people here, if they have not heard of Noel Harding, would be impressed by the level of dedication and
commitment that he and his organisation have shown to delivering excellent services in the not-for-profit sector.
Noel has worked very closely with the various governments, departments and individuals who have attempted to
reform this piece of legislation, and he has shown immeasurable patience in putting up with the changes. He is
a fantastic guy and the sector owes a lot to the commitment he has shown to improving the financial practices in
the community sector and ensuring that we had strong audit principles in place. One of WACOSS’s core
business principles is to help the sector to develop its governance practices. This was when organisations had
constitutions under the Associations Incorporation Act, but did not do so much strategic planning or long-range
visioning, and did not perhaps look so much at performance indicators or the kind of things that we have been
able to take from the corporate sector without taking the greedy bit. Those things have developed the profile that
WACOSS now offers the community sector. A lot of the governance initiatives are embedded in this legislation.
I applaud that; it is very good. The way that this bill introduces or recognises the three tiers and tries to allow the
small agencies more flexibility in how they report, but still demands that they report in some fashion, particularly
to their membership base, is laudable.
It is a challenge working with a sector that covers a broad range of matters. I suspect that is why the legislation is
so big. It deals with everything from the little emergency relief provider that works out of the neighbourhood
church to Anglicare and the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research. Some of the amazing institutions in
hospitals are set up as not-for-profits. Some of these entities are massive. Some of them have been around for
8558
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
over 100 years. I remember celebrating the 100-year anniversary of some of the charities in Western Australia in
my time at the Western Australian Council of Social Service. They are very strong contributors to the economy.
They employ a lot of people and they do a lot of good. This legislation will recognise their capacity to have some
level of trading, but it will be wrapped in a community enterprise model. It will be wrapped in
a company-limited-by-guarantee notion that that is okay, as long as the organisation is trading for the benefit of
its shareholders, its membership base or the community it represents, because it is keeping the outcomes it is
delivering very close to the shareholders or those who will benefit from them. I would say that this is more of
a generative style of business operation than an extractive style, which would separate profit and involve
shareholders, who are a very long way from the centre or heart. That is not a function of community enterprises
or charities, and it never should be.
There was always a lot of debate around the reform of the federal Charities Act, and of course the church
prevented that reform for a very long time because of the changes to tax laws that were threatened at the time.
However, that reform was implemented some years ago. Many big charities have trading arms that are very
profitable for members, and that should be recognised and supported. That model of operation does not suit
everybody and it does not return a benefit to every charity, but when it operates effectively, some of these new
inclusions will help. The accounting system for a tier of over $1 million is a very good system and sounds like
the way to go. Self-reporting by tiny organisations will be encouraged, rather than lodging financial statements.
There will also be personal privacy protections and conditions around the release of members’ information.
One of my most fond memories early in my appointment as CEO of WACOSS was when an individual member
of WACOSS, whom I will not name for reasons that will become obvious, contacted me to seek access to the
membership database. I had just come back from working internationally, so I had to do a quick legal check on
the status of such a request. I got very familiar with the legislation that preceded this bill and the issue of
membership details. I found that I certainly was not obliged to hand over the membership list, and that was a
good thing. However, I was obliged to let the person come in, sit in the office and read through the list, and if
they had wanted to take a copy, they could have taken a copy. That particular individual had been convicted of
murder and had had a severe psychotic illness for many years. I know that the Acting Speaker
(Ms J.M. Freeman) knows exactly whom I am talking about. That person’s sole purpose in trying to get the
WACOSS membership list was to write to everybody and lobby for a position on the board. Fortunately, I was
able to find out the facts of the matter and dissuade that course of action without any personal injury. They were
heady days! The protection of the privacy of the membership database is extremely important, but people should
have access to a limited range of information; there is no doubt about that. These organisations need to be quite
transparent. They work in the community and they need to have the trust of the community, so they need to be
transparent in many ways and this is one of them.
One of the really strong points that we have been waiting a long time for is the codification of the duties and
responsibilities of committee members and a description of who should not be on a committee. That is not a bad
idea. Should that be embedded in legislation or put in the regulations? Governance and board roles change over
the years. As I said at the beginning of my presentation, 17 years ago the role of board members would have
been vastly different from their role now. It probably would have been quite offensive to apply to the role of
a board member 17 years ago the language that we apply to the role of a board member now. I think it would
have been more appropriate to have the flexibility of regulations. I understand why the definitions have been put
in the bill, but we need to be careful about those definitions and how we use them, because they will be subject
to cultural change over time and we should be flexible about that. Certainly, it is very important to define what
a treasurer does and, in particular, the issues around liability. A lot of us would have been around when the
insurance debacles went on in the community sector and everyone was panicking about having to shut down
community groups so that they did not play ball or have a barbecue in the park. I suspect that
a Labor government was in office at the time.
Mr C.J. Tallentire: Labor helped resolve the problems.
Ms L.L. BAKER: Yes. Who was the Premier? Was it Geoff? I think it was Geoff Gallop. I think the insurance
package he sewed up for the community sector had a lot of government involvement. Again, that was a laudable
initiative, but it simply had to happen. The sector could not have managed without the government stepping in
and helping at a very trying time when people were panicking about insurance.
Some board members of larger agencies may know their liability as board members, but members of tiny
organisations might be less likely to know what they are and are not liable for. I remember speaking to board
members of quite large organisations who were blissfully ignorant of the liability they carried, particularly the
financial risk involved. When we started to develop board training at WACOSS, it was done with a special
emphasis on understanding things such as codes of conduct, insurance liability and declarations of conflicts of
interest, because people were unaware of those matters. Seventeen years ago when this work was started, those
kinds of concepts were on the horizon, but they certainly were not played out as we have seen them played out in
many organisations.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8559
We as a community have gotten a lot wiser, and I think the changes flagged in the Associations Incorporation
Bill recognise the maturity in the community sector about these things. The changes also recognise that the
relationship between the community sector and government has changed on a number of levels. Most
specifically, as I referred to earlier, the contracting regimes have changed the nature of not-for-profits.
I remember presenting a paper called “Cannibalise or Collaborate” to the Australian Council of Social Service
conference when I headed WACOSS. It was at the start of the federal and state government changes to the
contracting regime that introduced competitive tendering and a market model. That brought with it some huge
challenges for the community sector. On the one hand, the government was demanding efficiencies.
[Member’s time extended.]
Ms L.L. BAKER: I feel as though I have only just started.
The government demanded that the community sector become more businesslike in its contracting with
government. The Western Australian Council of Social Service spent many years putting together a structure
around contracting that delivered the government of the day and the community sector a win–win outcome. That
had not been done by the end of my term as executive director. However, the former executive director of
WACOSS, Shawn Boyle, had managed to get government to index government contracting. Most government
departments legally require community funding to be indexed, but funnily enough that has never been actioned
by the Department of Health. I think it manages to fly blissfully in complete negation of the government’s
legislation and, as it were, puts its middle finger up to government policy—if that is not an unparliamentary
thing to say.
The government forcing the community sector to collaborate has resulted in amalgamations. It is not easy to
amalgamate two not-for-profit organisations. Starting goal and mission alignments and those kinds of things are
part of the journey. The process needs to be gone through and not enough is yet done to help not-for-profit
organisations manage that collaboration. Probably more could be done, and funding organisations such as
WACOSS to do more training on that would be a good thing. However, the sector has been rationalised, and, for
me, that is a bad thing. I do not think that the community sector should be rationalised, and I hope that will start
to turn around soon, because the community connection has been lost. When bigger agencies are funded and are
asked to find subcontractors to do the work that the government was doing, the subcontractors end up with
a very scaled-down version of the money, because it has had to go through the bigger agencies that take the
larger slice of the money. This leaves the little agencies left at the bottom, struggling to get enough money to
operate effectively. We are left with the notion of either finding an agency and collaborating with it to work out
how to bring the mission in line with another not-for-profit organisation, or cannibalising them. That has
happened before. Governments have forced bigger agencies to consume smaller agencies in order to get
contracts. That competitiveness has occurred and it is not good, in my view. I think the diversity of a sector is
part of its richness and is a reward base for government.
There are a number of very good advances in this bill. I thank the minister for the briefing, and I thank Sarah and
Melissa and those other people who briefed me. It seems like that happened a while ago and I am pleased that
the bill has hit our desks and we are now able to discuss it.
Before I finish, I want to mention the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ report “2014 NFP Governance
and Performance Study: Examining governance practices and opportunities in Australia’s NFP sector”, which
was mentioned by the member for Mirrabooka and which all members have received a copy of. The foreword of
that report states that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2012–13, 57 000 economically
significant not-for-profit organisations generated over $107 billion and employed more than one million people,
or about eight per cent of the workforce. That is pretty impressive. The report that has come across our desks is
AICD’s regular look at not-for-profit governance and performance. It comments on some interesting things that
are on the minds of not-for-profit organisations at the moment. The report refers to collaboration and mergers
being on the agenda, and states that directors and not-for-profits have a very positive attitude toward that, but it
also flags that there are problems with how that is being progressed and that mergers need to be supported. Some
of the figures in the report show that 30 per cent of the boards that were surveyed—a couple of thousand
agencies were surveyed—said that they had discussed or taken action to merge with another not-for-profit last
year. More than 50 per cent of the 259 directors of not-for-profits in social services, particularly the large
not-for-profits with incomes over $10 million or those operating in the social service, development or housing
sectors, said that their boards had discussed mergers. Similarly, over half the 62 directors in development and
housing had discussed a merger. The main reason for considering a merger was to improve existing services,
which is a very interesting comment.
The community sector has sometimes been accused of being unprofessional or not effective at delivering its
services. But the sector is prepared to look at its operations and constantly seek to align its strategic direction,
mission and performance outcomes with what the clients of the services require. I have always believed that if an
executive of an organisation is not fully reviewing its operations every two years, it is not leading an
8560
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
organisation effectively. It is interesting that that was acknowledged in the report. Twenty-seven per cent of the
organisations surveyed said that they had considered a merger to be more attractive to funders. Who are the
major funders of not-for-profits? It is the government. If about 30 per cent of funding on average comes from the
government, they are doing that because we are forcing them to do so. I am not sure whether that is a good or
a bad thing. I remain to be convinced that that is the best way forward.
I also want to mention the chapter of the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ report titled “Certainty in
government policy is needed”, which states —
Responding to change and uncertainty in government policy is a top priority.
Maintaining or building income, diversifying income sources and clarifying strategy are still key
priorities … but many boards now have to meet these challenges in an environment of widespread
change in government policy.
Today there has been talk about the red flags that are going up around the federal government’s withdrawal of
effort in many communities. That is extremely troubling, because all the good work that has occurred in the
community sector over the past 10 to 15 years has been to bed down an operating model that is effective for the
community sector. Now the federal government is saying, “That’s really nice, but bugger you! We are just not
going to fund you anymore because we have changed our priorities.” Every government has a right to change its
priorities. That is what governments do: they get elected and they bring in their own priorities, but I do not think
it is good to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We will rue the day if there is further fragmentation,
marginalisation or narrowing of the community sector because of what is happening. The fragility of
volunteerism is also concerning. We should be mindful that in such a busy world volunteers are sometimes hard
to find. To keep them interested in what is being done and to keep them as part of an organisation, they need to
be offered some structure and support. If funds are being withdrawn, that support is likely to dry up, and that
would be very bad. It would put one hand, if not two hands, behind the back of not-for-profits.
In closing, I say to government that forcing change on the not-for-profit sector by forcing mission drift or
realignment is not the best way ahead, and it would be a sad day to see the not-for-profit sector narrowed or
weakened. We should be bolstering that work and making sure that the resources are there for the work to be
done effectively, through this kind of bill, which will hopefully be the last one for at least another 17 years. Let
us see. The member for Wanneroo is probably ruing the day that he accepted this gig as parliamentary secretary.
But a very worthwhile thing is being done, and it is the product of many governments and many people who are
very passionate about the community sector. There are many people who are deeply committed to its
advancement and want to see it with a clear work environment, with transparency for the public, and with
a steady, strong hand at the helm. I think the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014 has a lot to offer on all those
counts, and I look forward to listening to other second reading debate contributions and to consideration in
detail.
MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.19 pm]: I can very faithfully, and I think
confidently, assure the member for Maylands that it will not be another 17 years before we review this
legislation, because the one thing we know is that there will continue to be change, particularly in the
not-for-profit and volunteer sector, and we will continue to need to update the frameworks in which they operate.
I begin by commending the member for Mirrabooka on her contribution to the debate. I think it was a very well
considered and researched presentation to the chamber, and I am sure you agree with me, Acting Speaker
(Ms J.M. Freeman), that it was a very good contribution to the debate!
I have been anticipating this legislation more than any other member in this chamber—more than the member for
Wanneroo; the parliamentary secretary—and I will explain why. It goes back to 25 November 2010. I remember
that date because it was the date I got my first piece of legislation through this place. I was approached at about
mid to early 2010 by the Australian Medical Association, which, members may or may not be aware, runs an
association called the Medical Defence Association of Western Australia. The Medical Defence Association
provides insurance products to members of the AMA—doctors mostly, of course—in relation to malpractice
suits and other such things. It was concerned that it was having to move quickly, because of commonwealth
legislation, from the Associations Incorporation Act to the commonwealth regime. In every other state, there was
a mechanism by which the minister could simply make that transfer. I think the way it went was that in
Western Australia we had no such mechanism. In my naivety, I said, “That’s all right; I can put up legislation
that would do this. I’m sure the government won’t mind. We can just put it up there, and if the government
doesn’t do it, we can just put this legislation forward.” The AMA, being much more seasoned warriors I think,
was somewhat chuffed and amused by my youthful enthusiasm at the time. It said, “Go for it, Roger! That’s
great; see what you can do!” I put this legislation up. It was a small change to the act. It simply allowed the
minister to allow organisations to migrate to the federal regime. I put it up with great enthusiasm and fanfare in
my second reading speech, and the government explained to me, “No, we will not entertain your legislation.”
I thought: But why ever not? This is commonsense.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8561
There was a serious aspect in that at the time the medical insurance industry was undergoing great consolidation.
Whereas small insurance companies were operating around the country in different states, one of the larger
players was actually the Western Australian version of the Medical Defence Association. In positioning itself in
the marketplace, it was actually consolidated with, I think, the South Australian body and one other association.
It was saying to me that hundreds of jobs were on the line because, obviously, in consolidating it had to work out
where it positioned its outfit. It was saying that unless it could migrate to the federal regime quickly, it would
have to relocate its offices from Perth to, I think, Adelaide. Literally hundreds of jobs were on the line, so it was
quite important legislation from that point of view—simple and technical as it was, and thoroughly boring to
anyone who was not involved in the discussion. The government said, “No, we’re not going to do it.” I wondered
why ever not, and the government said it was because it had major changes to the Associations Incorporation Act
pending. “Any moment now we’re about to bring forward major changes to the legislation—any day now. So,
you, young Roger—young member for Kwinana—you can wait; there’s no need to proceed.” Here we are,
almost exactly three years to the day.
Mr D.J. Kelly: You don’t look any older!
Mr R.H. COOK: Thank you, member for Bassendean. That is why I continue to use my campaign posters from
2008! I think it is important to have that youthful exuberance in our campaign posters. For almost three years to
the day we have been waiting for this legislation to come forward, so that we can say, “At last; here it is!”
But, of course, time was running out. It was 25 November and it was the last day of the parliamentary sitting.
Most members at that stage assembled dutifully in the courtyard of Parliament House being entertained by
members of the press gallery at the pre-Christmas media drinks. All was fine above the water, but underneath the
water the ducks of parliamentary democracy, so to speak, were kicking like mad because the AMA was
determined that this legislation would get through. “Give up all hope”, I think was the advice we gave the AMA
because we could not take legislation from go to whoa in the space of 24 hours. “Watch us”, said the AMA. If
any member ever doubts the power of the AMA in this state, mark my words carefully now: in the space of
24 hours it managed to propel a piece of legislation through not one but both houses of Parliament, and to have it
signed off by the end of the day. Even mighty, immovable forces such as Hon Norman Moore were unable to
stop the momentum of the AMA when it decided it wanted to put changes to the Associations Incorporation Act
through Parliament inside 24 hours. Apparently, the honourable member was heard grumbling under his
breath—perhaps not so inaudibly—“Who the hell are these people to tell me what we’re going to legislate just
before Christmas?” Of course, as anyone in this place who aspires to be the Minister for Health will learn, the
AMA has extraordinary influence when it comes to such things, and it got through my first piece of legislation
ever to go through the houses of Parliament that was moved and sponsored by me. It was put through on that
day, and it was all achieved within 24 hours. It was a great moment, but no more than maybe two or three people
were in this place at the time. In the chamber at the time were, I think, the Acting Speaker at the time; the
member for Nedlands, who was the responsible minister, and me, because everyone else was out there
undertaking the solemn duties associated with pre-Christmas drinks! However, we passed this legislation on
time, and, as I said, we managed to save lots of Western Australian jobs in the process.
I have been waiting for this day because the government assured me that this legislation was “coming in any day
now” in November 2010. Here we are in November 2014, and I am very pleased to see that it has hit the decks at
last. Although this stuff might seem a bit technical in nature—it may not be the stuff of great interest to members
of the public—it is really important legislation. It will facilitate an untold amount of volunteer and professional
activity in the form of P&Cs, sporting groups, large groups, small groups, volunteer organisations, service
organisations, recreation organisations, craft groups, hobby groups and religious groups. A large amount of
activities that go on in our community are usually driven or guided by the Associations Incorporation Act. I note
the member for Mirrabooka’s comment that this legislation began in 1895. This is a grand old activity of
government in Western Australia. It ensures that we facilitate this incredibly important work that goes on in our
communities.
There are three really crucial elements of a healthy society. One is that people have fair jobs in a fair workplace.
The second is equality of opportunity so people can get those jobs and have opportunities in life based upon their
hard work rather than race and position in society and so forth. The third element that underpins a healthy
society is a strong, healthy, cohesive, nurturing, supportive and empowered community. One of the key vehicles
of that are the associations that live and breathe in our communities for not only the services that they provide
but also the strong positive community experiences they provide through the volunteers engaged in work in these
associations. They help each other, help people in the communities, socialise in these organisations and consider
themselves part of communities. A very important element of this is good governance. Good governance is one
of those things that we often take for granted. Many people, particularly those of us in this place, are involved in
many of these organisations. Before we came to this place, often our backgrounds included being involved in
volunteer and not-for-profit organisations in our communities. A lot of the strengths around the governance of
these organisations are taken for granted.
8562
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
One of the very informative experiences of my life involved working in Aboriginal organisations, in which a lot
of the experiences and socialisations around good governance have not been part of their lived experience. Many
members will be aware of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, which is like another level of
an incorporations act that helps Aboriginal organisations manage themselves in a way that is consistent with
their cultures and values but maintains accountability. These Aboriginal organisations are incredibly important to
the prosperity of the communities in which they serve.
A now famous study that came out of Harvard University called the Cornell Studies, essentially, looked at
successful Indigenous or First Nation communities across North America to work out what were the successful
ingredients of those communities and what were the characteristics of those communities that were prosperous,
economically well off and progressive as opposed to those communities that were failing and not achieving their
economic or community advancement or the progress they wanted. Many people would be forgiven for thinking
it is because communities have lots of minerals on their reserves or in the areas in which they live. Many people
would be forgiven for thinking it is because communities have casinos operating in their lands, or have seas in
which they can fish, or other self-evident opportunities of economic advancement. The Cornell Studies
discovered that the thing that was most important to whether a community was successful and had social and
economic advancement was the good governance that was incorporated in the running of those communities.
The issues around the economic opportunities were not self-evident; it was the way they managed those on an
ongoing basis. Those communities that invested in good governance and incorporated that good governance in
the way they managed their communities were the ones that were successful. Although we often take for granted
the skills and culture that drive good governance in our community in these organisations, we should never
underestimate the importance of this act in underpinning that good governance because good governance creates
good and strong communities. I believe that the existence of strong communities is the other element that makes
a good society. Strong communities are about organisations that can come together when they have a need,
service, want or recreation around which they want to organise.
I am struck by a recent experience I had. I was approached by a number of veterans in the community who
wanted to preserve a piece of defence infrastructure in Kwinana—that is, a radar facility that was constructed on
hills behind Medina and Calista. This radar station was part of a national network that existed during the
Second World War. All that is left now are a few concrete bunkers and the stumps of some of the radar towers.
This is a very important piece of our cultural heritage and our history. This group of people wanted to preserve
it. I add as a footnote that Mrs Tonkin, the wife of a former Premier of Western Australia John Tonkin, was one
of the radar operators at this facility. We came together and said that we needed to preserve this facility. The
veterans said they needed to set up an organisation because they needed an incorporated body in order to receive
support from Lotterywest to get the grants to undertake what was considered to be an important aspect of this
work, and to do a business case around the elements needed to preserve the facility. We downloaded the model
rules for the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 and the whole project came to a halt. Although these people
were imbued with much enthusiasm and strong support for preserving the cultural heritage of the community in
which we live, they were not so enamoured with the idea of wading through 20-odd pages of rather large and
intimidating models of rules and regulations associated with the setting up of an incorporated association. We
come to the nub of what the member for Mirrabooka was saying.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr R.H. COOK: If we say that 90 per cent of incorporated associations in Western Australia are tier 1s, it
makes sense that we craft legislation that is more in keeping with the needs of the tier 1s. I think we run the risk,
with the Associations Incorporation Act, of creating a framework in which we have large organisations—I think
the parliamentary secretary mentioned the RAC in his second reading speech—on the one hand but very basic
organisations on the other. I think that disparity or that vast scope of organisations will only increase. In an
increasingly changing environment involving social media and different ways that people link up change, the
infrastructure needs that these community groups have to operate will change very rapidly as well. We may
envisage an association as a group of people may be sitting around a small table, usually inside a large, cold
community centre hall, trying to confirm the minutes of the last meeting. They may be struggling to find two
members who were at the last meeting and may not have a mover and a seconder to confirm the minutes and all
the ongoing problems they face. To a lot of young people who are looking to organise in our community today,
all this stuff is complete tosh. It is stuff about which they do not care. It is irrelevant. They think it is too difficult
to deal with. They wonder why they cannot just get on and organise.
Ms J.M. Freeman interjected.
Mr R.H. COOK: That is right. Thank you, member for Mirrabooka—a voice off in the distance. They consider
it irrelevant, and the difficulty associated with following all these procedures outweighs what they consider to be
the benefits of the outcomes from undertaking these particular activities. We continue to drive this stuff
underground. It strikes me that we need to find some way so that, in the words of the member for Mirrabooka,
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8563
the commissioner of incorporated associations is not the regulator but rather the facilitator of these things.
I continue to experience small organisations coming to me and saying that it is simply impossible to run.
I will give another example. Small organisations need a place to meet. It may not be appropriate for them to meet
in someone’s house, so they try to find a place where they can meet. They go to the local council and ask to meet
in the local hall. The council says that, as an incorporated organisation, it will incur the usual fees associated
with hiring the hall, which is perhaps $6 an hour for a certain time, plus $4 for every hour thereafter, but it will
also need to have public liability insurance. People will ask, “Public liability—what the hell’s that? Should we
get that? I guess we need it. What’s that?” The organisation needs public liability insurance to the tune of
however many millions of dollars. We find these organisations running around chasing their tails with all these
regulations and obligations, and we lose the essential element of what they represent, which is the great
community resource of enthusiasm, community spirit and volunteerism. They get run over by the obligations
associated with being an incorporated organisation.
Other organisations in the community are doing amazing work. I think of the Kwinana Early Learning Centre,
the Kwinana Knights Football Club, ably led by its president, Bill Tregear, and other sporting organisations
around the community. They do an amazing job on behalf of the community, but they have much more resources
to draw upon because they have bigger incomes and club facilities. The Kwinana Knights have their own
facilities, and heaven forbid the day that they relinquish those facilities to the City of Kwinana, because then the
club will be crushed by the booking fees and other things that go with running an organisation that does not have
control over its own infrastructure. These organisations tend to have more resources and can look after
themselves. I am sure this legislation will go a long way towards facilitating their lives and making their job
simpler, but I worry about what might be called start-ups—that is, organisations and associations of the future, of
which we will not be the beneficiaries, because they will be just run over by the modern obligations imposed by
this legislation.
I know that in my speech there has tended to be a bit of a contradiction in terms. On one hand I am saying good
governance is very important, and on the other I am saying let us not overburden these organisations with too
much regulation. However, in that is the balance that we need to strike. I told the member for Maylands that we
will be doing this again in 17 years, but I think we will be doing this again inside five years, because we will find
that the disruption to our lives of the new digital age will so change the facilitation of collective community
action that we will continually need to update the framework in which these organisations operate.
Mr P.T. Miles: The member also indicated that this incarnation has taken 17 years or so to come to this point,
and some of its terminology is out of date.
Mr R.H. COOK: That is right, we are moving very quickly, and this is always the problem with legislation, is it
not? By the time we get to encapsulate many of the modern-day principles in legislation, those modern-day
principles become yesterday’s practices. We will be at it again.
It is a matter of striking that balance, but I want to emphasise to the government that we should not overly
burden these small organisations. Perhaps we need to be looking in the future at two acts of Parliament—one that
facilitates those large organisations, which I think have been referred to in this legislation as tier 2 and
tier 3 organisations, and one that might be called the “Associations Incorporation Act lite”, for the small
organisations, which may come and go, but that is the nature of the world in which they operate. As we know,
things continue to speed up.
Judging from the second reading speech and the contribution of the member for Mirrabooka, the government has
done a reasonable job in trying to craft new legislation around the modern reality for associations. However,
I add my caution about the needs of modern organisations. I note, for example, that there is capacity for disputes
to be resolved through the State Administrative Tribunal. My word of caution there is that, although SAT is
striving towards a situation in which people are able to resolve issues that would otherwise be considered by
action in the courts of petty sessions, in a non–court like environment, there is a danger that some associations
may be caught up in that process as internal dispute resolution simply becomes an exercise in going to
arbitration, rather than organisations having to strike these things. I note, from the contribution of the member
for Maylands, that organisations often have very difficult times in resolving these disputes because of the way in
which they conduct themselves. I remember a recent experience of one association that works in the mental
health sector. A member of the organisation wanted to access the membership records of the organisation for
what they considered to be perfectly legitimate and democratic reasons, but because of the difficult sector in
which the organisation operated, it had to take a very careful approach to protecting the privacy of its
membership. On one hand it had to respect the rights of the member to have the membership records, but on the
other hand it had to respect the rights to privacy of the rest of the membership, and to make sure the situation
was resolved amicably and did not escalate. We need to make sure that the incorporation legislation works in a
flexible way to accommodate these organisations. As I said, maybe one day we will be contemplating splitting
8564
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
this legislation into a couple of pieces of legislation or providing for regulations for tier 1 organisations so that
the framework in which they operate can change more flexibly.
I will make the point in my final couple of minutes that these organisations almost always rely on the hard work
of volunteers. Kwinana is very blessed with an extraordinary core of volunteers from the community who run
these organisations, providing good services, important facilities and great outlets for community members.
However, that culture of volunteerism is under threat because people are increasingly caught up in their working
life, particularly fly in, fly out workers. Whereas, before, mum or dad might have been able to dedicate a lot of
time to the local sports association, increasingly that is becoming more and more difficult. Dad or mum might be
working up in the mines, which means that the other parent is busy taking care of the kids and other things; and
when mum or dad comes back from the mines, they are too tired to consider carrying out work in the community
beyond their immediate family. We are therefore losing a massive component of that volunteer base in our
community. Sporting groups for young children in particular are the ones missing out. This is important
legislation but it is stuff that we must view very carefully.
MS S.F. McGURK (Fremantle) [3.50 pm]: I too rise to make a contribution on the Associations Incorporation
Bill 2014. Like other speakers before me, I have marvelled at the member for Mirrabooka’s command of the
minutiae contained in this bill and I thank her for her work and her contribution so far. I imagine that she will
give the parliamentary secretary a run for his money at the consideration in detail stage and I hope he is
prepared.
Mr P.T. Miles: I was on the committee with the member for four years!
Ms S.F. McGURK: So, the parliamentary secretary will know what he might be up for!
I want to make a number of points about this bill. The first is about an issue that has been raised by other people.
However, what struck me when I was reading the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech was the
length of time it has taken for this bill to come before the house. I understand that some work for the green paper
was done under the previous Labor administration and that the green paper was released in 2006–07, but only
now, in late 2014, do we have the bill before the house. I note from the Department of Commerce website that it
was not until November this year that consultation concluded on the model rules for associations. It does,
therefore, seem to have taken a long time to get to this point. I do not know why that is the case. In the second
reading speech, the parliamentary secretary talked about the number of organisations covered by this bill, the
importance of those organisations and the importance of modernising the legislation for the governance of those
organisations, yet it has taken this administration a long time to bring the bill before the house.
Notwithstanding that, I welcome any change to associations operating in my electorate that makes their work
easier and that facilitates and assists the work of volunteers in often not-for-profit organisations. I refer to parents
and citizens associations and parents and friends associations at schools, and the many sporting and community
organisations. I am reminded that volunteer work may involve P&Cs and P&Fs and may also involve school
councils and not-for-profit boards in the aged care and community sectors. A raft of organisations operate
throughout our community to which we are all indebted and whose absence we would feel very keenly if they
were not with us. The government therefore has a responsibility to assist those organisations and to make sure
that the framework of rules that apply to them assists them, and at the same time give protection to the people
covered by the organisations and the people working with them.
Those sorts of initiatives that have been already identified seem to me to be commonsense. They include
a reduction in the number of financial reporting requirements for organisations that operate with funds of less
than $250 000 a year, the encouragement of self-reporting for organisations with a lower turnover, the protection
of personal privacy to give comfort to people who become involved in those organisations, and the removal of
restrictions on trading associations whose profits go back into the association. All those initiatives seem to make
a lot of sense. Also, writing the legislation in plain English and gearing it towards the organisation it is regulating
and seeking to serve can only be a good thing. I note that the government believes that about 90 per cent of
organisations operate with less than $250 000 a year and they will therefore not be required to get an
independent audit but to keep basic financial statements. That seems to make a lot of sense.
As I said, although the work of these organisations in our communities is widespread and much relied upon, the
reality is that a number of those organisations in our modern society are struggling for a range of reasons. Before
I stood to speak, the member for Kwinana began to list the challenges of the reduction in volunteerism and
I wondered whether it is because of a culture of reduced volunteerism that might feed on itself. However, it is
more likely to be because the life of working people is changing. One partner in a family might work away in
a fly in, fly out arrangement, as the member for Kwinana said, but there might also be an issue of housing
affordability with couples feeling that they both need to work, and so on. There is a range of reasons for why
fewer people are participating in those organisations and, again, that is all the more reason why the governance
and legislation that relates to those organisations should be responsive to their needs, and should assist and not
hamper their work.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8565
The modern-day struggle for clubs in society is no more apparent than it is in some sporting clubs in my
electorate. Leaving the Fremantle Dockers aside, sporting clubs from Western Australian Football League clubs
down the line have had varying levels of community participation compared with past years. Some sporting
clubs seem to be doing well. The statistics show, for instance, that soccer continues to have a very high rate of
participation. The Australian Sports Commission report on the trends in participation in sport, titled “The future
of Australian sport: Megatrends shaping the sports sector over coming decades”, identified soccer as one form of
organised sport that is not declining in membership. I was surprised that it did not refer to netball—but it did not
refer to netball. Apart from that, the report identified that there is a clear trend towards declining levels of
participation in organised sport. As I said, that has become very obvious in the clubs that I have a lot to do with
in my electorate. Many of those sporting clubs either own or control bars or clubrooms, and some of those
facilities over which the clubs have control are quite substantial holdings. They either own those holdings or
have leased them over time, and that creates an extra burden for their organisation. Owning or leasing them has
been very profitable for them, both in organising their members and in ensuring that there is a place for their
members to meet and socialise, but it can also create an organisational burden for them in modern times. The
two WAFL clubs in my electorate, South Fremantle and East Fremantle Football Clubs, have been forced to
consider co-locating because of ageing infrastructure. In the face of popularity, glamour and the hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of dollars held by the AFL, those WAFL teams have struggled to attract the number of
attendees at games, let alone club members, that they have had in years past. Having said that, anyone looking
for a great, relaxed family atmosphere to watch a quality football game could do a lot worse than going along to
a local WAFL match, whether it be the Bulldogs or the Sharks. I would not bother with any of the other WAFL
teams, of course!
Mr R.H. Cook: What a shameless promotion of local teams!
Ms S.F. McGURK: I would not bother with any of the others, but people could do a lot worse than go along to
one of those games because they really have a great atmosphere. I think that those clubs recognise that and are
trying to look at strategies to attract more families, because it really is a great afternoon, particularly at
quarter time and half-time, when the kids can get out on the oval and have a kick and run around.
The East Fremantle and South Fremantle Football Clubs, because of their ageing facilities, have taken the
initiative, which they announced during the winter season just gone, to have discussions about co-locating,
hopefully at the South Fremantle Football Club. It was a very difficult task to notify their members, particularly
for the East Fremantle Football Club.
Mr D.J. Kelly: Have they actually made that decision?
Ms S.F. McGURK: They have made a decision to enter into discussions, and are currently looking at the
feasibility and possible alternatives of moving to South Fremantle. East Fremantle Football Club reminded its
members that it actually won more premierships while it was at the South Fremantle Football Club—that is
where it originated—than it has at Shark Park, so it might actually be better for the club to relocate and it is
trying to talk it up as much as it can. It really is a great idea. East Fremantle Football Club was struggling with its
infrastructure and the Town of East Fremantle does not have the resources to put money into that facility or the
park around it. I congratulate both clubs on taking a leadership role in their organisations and saying that if they
want to be vibrant for the next few decades, they will to have to look at making a significant change. They know
that other WAFL clubs have done that and that it has been very successful.
Another club is in the mix at South Fremantle Football Club—the Dockers. The Dockers club has a lease over
the clubrooms and use of the oval. I think it is important for the state government to play a role in those
negotiations. Of course, the state government has committed money to the new Cockburn sports facility, to
where the Dockers hope to relocate. It seems to me that if the Dockers club is to relocate to that facility, it needs
to release some of its grip on the South Fremantle Football Club and ensure that that facility is available to not
only WAFL clubs, but also the Fremantle community. Those discussions have commenced and, as I said, they
sound very positive to me, but there is definitely a leadership role for the government to play in those
negotiations.
While I am speaking about WAFL clubs, it is worth commenting on the funding uncertainty that currently
surrounds those clubs due to not knowing about the management of the new Perth Stadium and what that might
mean to the funding of WAFL clubs and the effect that will have on the important development programs that
those clubs are doing in their own catchment and regional areas. All that has created a lot of uncertainty for
WAFL clubs and I think that the onus is on the state government to ensure that those clubs are assisted and that
there is as much certainty as possible, whether it be with the facilities—I have spoken about those issues at
Fremantle—or the funding for those organisations, which will be crucial.
In relation to the viability of clubs in my electorate, another issue worth commenting on—I spoke about WAFL
clubs being proactive—is the initiative of two sporting clubs and a community club in Fremantle that have
recently announced their desire to co-locate. The Fremantle Lawn Tennis Club, Fremantle Bowling Club and
8566
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Fremantle Workers Social and Leisure Club have agreed to enter into an arrangement to relocate to
Fremantle Park, which is where the bowling and tennis clubs are now. The issue is securing government funding.
The Fremantle workers and tennis clubs celebrate their centenaries this year, so it is quite fitting that the
leadership of those clubs—I note also the leadership of the bowls club—have taken a very forward-thinking
approach and have said, “Look, we have three separate club facilities and we are all struggling. If we look at
co-locating and building some new clubrooms, we can have a much bigger and better facility and perhaps attract
more people to use our clubrooms and sporting facilities.” I really commend the leadership of those clubs for
taking that initiative, and I wish them all the best. I understand that the City of Fremantle has made an
application to the Department of Sport and Recreation to secure some funding. The city and the three clubs
would also contribute some funding. For instance, the workers club has put on the market its building on
Henry Street, in the west end of Fremantle. I am not sure whether the sale has been secured yet, but the building
is on the market. The proceeds of the sale will be the capital that the club will use to put into the new project.
One would not have thought it a natural fit for a west-end workers club, with a very rich history over decades
and a strong association with trade unions and a connection with Labor, to work with a sporting club, but the
club realised that unless it took the initiative, it would not be viable in the future.
[Member’s time extended.]
Ms S.F. McGURK: I will quickly mention the history of the workers club. A couple of weeks ago the club had
its centenary and I was there for the launch of a booklet to mark the occasion. In 2011, a general meeting of the
club was convened and told that it was likely that receivers would need to be called in, that the club would need
to lose its liquor licence, and that perhaps thought needed to be given about what to do about the ownership of
the premises. However, over the past two years, under the leadership of Don Whittington and Ruth Belben, and
some very hardworking people, the west-end club now boasts 800 members and a vibrant activity scene,
certainly every weekend and on a couple of weeknights. It has been a fantastic turnaround. Again, the leadership
of the club realised that although they could increase their membership and secure a better financial footing, it
could not really sustain that into the future unless it was in partnership with other groups. That is why they have
entered into this hopeful arrangement of a shared facility with the tennis and the bowling clubs, and all strength
to them.
There clearly is an issue of viability—I am sure other members of this house experience it—in some of the
community clubs, particularly the sporting clubs, within their electorates. Just last week I visited the
East Fremantle Bowling Club, which is one of three bowling clubs within my electorate. The membership of that
bowling club is declining and the leadership there is looking at what the alternatives are for their organisation.
I hope I can provide some assistance to them. Clearly, the membership is ageing and some of the traditional
attractions of organisations such as bowls clubs might not be what they once were. Having said that, I was
interested to see a report that was done in June this year for a member of the Legislative Assembly in Victoria,
Jane Garrett, the member for Brunswick, called, “Keeping the ball rolling: Helping community sports clubs stay
viable in today’s world”. This report looked at some of the issues that some small sporting clubs and
organisations might be dealing with. I found it to be a useful read. It basically centres on one particular bowling
club, but it draws out a number of themes in, for instance, the trends of sport that I referred to earlier.
In the 2013 Australian Sports Commission report that I referred to earlier, “The future of Australian Sport:
Megatrends shaping the sports sector over coming decades”, one of the megatrends is fewer people going into
organised forms of sport and a trend towards individualised forms of sport. We need to recognise that trend. For
instance, the Australian Sports Commission report states that 60 per cent of the population do not participate in
any organised physical activity, while running, cycling and walking have seen large increases in participation.
Although we need to recognise that trend, it is worth noting the social capital that comes along with organised
forms of sport. If we let go of some of our sporting clubs or any club in our communities, we let go of them
easily at our peril. The report initiated by Jane Garrett states —
Increased membership of sporting clubs leads to additional societal benefits that independent physical
activity does not achieve. Sporting clubs facilitate the development of social capital. The central
premise of social capital theory is that social networks have value.
The idea is that it is worth investing in the future of Australia’s grassroots sporting organisations because they
bring a range of benefits to local communities and society as a whole. Although people may not see bowling as
especially sexy, bowling clubs are a great example of that; they attract older people to a social environment,
people who otherwise might be disconnected from our community, and it is a form of sport that is very
accessible. If we simply let those organisations go and say that that is just the way of the future, we do so at our
peril. I certainly hope that I can work with those organisations that are struggling to see what the future will be
for them, and find ways to assist them to either work in cooperation with other clubs—to relocate or co-locate
might be one model—or look at other alternatives. The report initiated by the Victorian member for Brunswick
outlined some of the experiences of a bowling club within her electorate that undertook many initiatives and
perhaps loosened up some of the arrangements around that club to attract a younger and more vibrant
membership.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8567
There is one other issue that I want to briefly raise and to which other people have referred. I do not know
whether the Australian Institute of Company Directors knew that we were debating this bill, but it was certainly
fortuitous to have its study on not-for-profit organisations,“2014 NFP Governance and Performance Study”,
arrive on my desk this week. Perhaps like many members, I have been a beneficiary of the Australian Institute of
Company Directors training. I did its company directors course a number of years ago and the number of issues
that it raises in this national report on not-for-profits is pertinent. I think other members have already referred to
this report in this debate. This AICD report makes the point that there are 57 000 economically significant
not-for-profits in Australia generating over $107 billion per annum and employing more than one million people.
This particular questionnaire that looked at the governance issues facing those not-for-profits was answered by
2 700 directors. It is a sizeable study into a significant sector and it is very pertinent when we look at this bill
before us, which is about trying to assist those sorts of organisations, while operating under the protections of the
law and making sure that they are separate legal entities with those protections.
Three issues struck me from the AICD report. I have already mentioned one of those examples within my
electorate about the Western Australian Football League clubs and the co-location of a couple of smaller
sporting clubs with the Fremantle Workers Social and Leisure Club. One of the issues that this AICD report
refers to is that collaboration and mergers are on the agenda for not-for-profits. The trend that this report has
identified is that not-for-profits show a high degree of collaboration. The results of this survey reveal that
not-for-profits are actively collaborating and partnering with other not-for-profits to deliver services across the
sector, and it notes the trend that slightly higher proportions of not-for-profits are collaborating with
organisations with a turnover of less than $250 000 a year. It is good to see that there is a trend towards doing
that. Those organisations can only benefit from discussing and sharing either physical resources or intellectual or
strategic resources amongst themselves. Mergers are being considered by 30 per cent of the boards being
considered in the AICD report.
Another point worth noting from the national AICD survey is that education services are the largest single sector
of not-for-profits in terms of income and employment reach. When this survey looked at the priorities of school
boards, for instance, it identified not only managing the school’s reputation but also funding uncertainty as a key
issue facing those schools. I know that this includes not only government schools but also Catholic and other
independent schools. It is important to consider the school councils and the parents and citizens associations and
the sorts of issues that come before them. I note in particular that funding uncertainty is a key issue for those
organisations, which is an issue that has been much debated in this house.
Finally, another point highlighted in this survey that I thought was quite pertinent to the bill is that certainty in
government policy is needed. Responding to change and uncertainty in government policy is a top priority for
those organisations surveyed. It is relevant to this bill because we need to make sure that the change in the law
and the regulations that apply to associations is clear to those organisations. This national survey also refers to
the broader policy changes that are occurring, particularly at a federal level, in a range of reforms in education,
aged care, disability services, health care and social services. Certainty in government policy is needed. The
survey refers to those trends, but it is on trend to some of those issues closer to home in my electorate around
support for organisations such as Western Australian Football League clubs and whether the state government
can play a role in assisting those organisations with funding certainty in their location, just as it can in assisting
school communities with education funding certainty.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [4.20 pm]: I rise to speak to the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014. It
gives me a chance to reflect on the importance of the not-for-profit, non-government organisation sector in the
Western Australian community. Other members have given some indication of just how diverse this sector is.
I draw a general distinction between those organisations of a not-for-profit nature that are focused on service
delivery and those that are involved in advocacy. My experience has been very much in the advocacy sphere. It
was a wonderful career opportunity for me to work in that sector. It amazes me that young people who are going
through the school system and are entering university sometimes overlook the opportunities that are afforded in
the not-for-profit, non-government sector. I think that is a shame. It is a sector in which people are not
particularly well paid, but I do not think people go into the not-for-profit sector for payment; indeed, I will come
to the issue of how this sector thrives on and derives its energy from the passion of its volunteers. The sector is
built on volunteerism. Those people who are lucky enough to gain a position of paid employment in that sector
have the opportunity to work with people who are their mentors and guides, but they are there because they are
passionate about a particular issue or subject.
There is a distinction to be made with those organisations that are service focused rather than advocacy focused.
When I think of the social services sector, I think of the career of my colleague the member for Maylands and
her leadership of the Western Australian Council of Social Service and the programs delivered by that
organisation and the many affiliated groups of WACOSS that provide services such as emergency relief. Indeed,
in my electorate, there are some excellent organisations that provide food hampers to families that may be in
such financial difficulty that they cannot even afford to go to the local supermarket and buy essential foods, so
8568
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
they turn to a little organisation that can provide them with support. Even a little group such as an emergency
relief organisation can benefit from this structure as an incorporated body. There is no obligation on an
organisation to become an incorporated body. Sometimes when a group is that small, it may not need the
formality that comes with incorporation. That formality involves issues such as calling an annual general
meeting, holding meetings and forming a committee. Those sorts of administrative tasks can be somewhat
onerous and burdensome, but they become essential when an organisation wants to display good governance and
openness and accountability. When it wants to put forward a grant application to government, Lotterywest or
another funding body, it needs to demonstrate that it has a constitution, which I see is described in the bill as
a set of rules. The idea of a model set of rules is very sensible. Indeed, that is the current situation. A body that is
considering incorporation can download the model constitution from the website and, when necessary, adapt it to
its needs.
These governance arrangements are important for a sector that is growing and becoming increasingly important
in our society. I have often asked myself what has led to the rise of the non-government sector, especially on the
advocacy side. That is the experience I had when I worked at the Conservation Council of Western Australia and
I was lucky enough to be the director. It strikes me that 30 or 40 years ago, there was not the same opportunity
for a non-government organisation. One of the reasons we have seen the rise of the non-government sector,
especially in the advocacy sphere, is that universities no longer play that role. When there was an issue of some
environmental concern with a proposal by government to develop a region in a certain way, to install a particular
industry in an area or to develop some piece of infrastructure, the media in particular would ask an academic for
an independent comment. I do not see the academic sector fulfilling that role of independent commentator as
readily as it perhaps once did, and that is one reason we have seen the rise of the non-government sector. The
non-government sector does step into that role and is prepared to enrich public discourse, research topics when
necessary and provide forthright, uncompromised, independent commentary. The importance of that is great. We
know that many people have vested and pecuniary interests in seeing a particular project go forward and we need
something to balance that. Of course, employees of public relations companies can speak on behalf of the
well-heeled and the well-funded and put forward the case for their particular project, and that will always
happen. The media run their line fairly faithfully. When a resources company wants to present its arguments for
a particular project to go ahead, the public relations people within or contracted by that company will present the
case for the project in a very clear, smooth and professional manner. But we need something to balance it, and
that is where the not-for-profit advocacy groups are so important. They do not have anywhere near the resources
of the resources sector or, indeed, an infrastructure partnership group or a property developer. Nevertheless, the
public discourse is enriched by ensuring that those advocacy groups are in a position to make their comments
known.
I heard the member for Maylands make the comment that it is unfortunate that the NGO sector derives its name
from a negative. If we were to look for another name for the sector in general, it could be around the
volunteerism that is at the heart of the sector and that drives so many organisations. I think of the environmental
organisations that I have been closely involved with such as the Wildflower Society of Western Australia and the
knowledge in that group and its understanding of and research into the flora of Western Australia. All of us now
know that Western Australia is endowed with something like 14 000 plant species and has one of the richest
floristic diversity suites in the world. It is exceptional. That knowledge may have come partly through the
academic sector, but it has been driven in no small measure by the competency, enthusiasm and passion of
groups such as the Wildflower Society of Western Australia. It continues that work. It continues to do such
things as flora surveys when plants are in flower. It then links up with and provides information for the public
and submissions for environmental assessments run by the Environmental Protection Authority. It is very
important work.
There are other groups such as the Urban Bushland Council WA, which is dedicated to the protection of
bushland in the urban setting. Bushland in the urban setting is constantly under threat from urban development—
the desperate need that we have to find more land for urban development, for housing—and from
mismanagement, neglect, the dumping of rubbish and the sometimes unwitting and sometimes intentional
lighting of fires in urban bushland. Then there is the downward spiral, the general degradation and flammability
from greater weed incursion, which then locks the land into a cycle of a fire every single year, and a piece of
bushland is lost before we know it. The Urban Bushland Council advocates for those areas and has been
instrumental in the development of the Bush Forever sites as part of government policy, and it is constantly
advocating for Bush Forever sites around the Perth metropolitan area to be protected. It is a tough campaign and
it would not have got as far as it has had it not been for volunteerism and the passion that people in the
Urban Bushland Council have brought to the public discussion. I note that the Liberal Party developed the
Bush Forever concept through Perth’s Bush Plan and the former planning minister Graham Kierath who first
introduced it into this place in 2000. But it has gone on thanks to people in a group such as the Urban Bushland
Council. Those people have also conducted incredible research into the importance of fungi. I mentioned fungi
in another debate on a taxation bill today. They have established the vital need for micro-organisms, especially
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8569
fungi, in the reproduction and the propagation of many plant species that occur throughout the
Perth metropolitan area. That is off the back of a volunteer group pushing for research. People had a bit of
a hunch; they had been involved in some academic work and they realised that a whole lot of work could be
done. They pushed for funding, got the funding and then got the necessary experts in to further that study. That is
the kind of passion we get when working with the NGO sector. It results in a very broad vision. I contrast that
with relying on the academic sector to provide commentary on matters and ideas for further research. There is
a tendency in the academic world to focus on and specialise for doctoral theses, to narrow down into one very
detailed, specific area of research. The NGO sector balances that out beautifully when it pushes for things to be
seen in a broader context. We have great examples of that in Western Australia.
I note, however, that the NGO sector is under threat in Western Australia and right across the country. There are
those who do not like the enrichment of public discourse that comes with the NGO sector. I have seen the reports
of the federal counterparts of our Liberal Party colleagues opposite pushing for groups such as the
Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Network of
Environmental Defender’s Offices to lose their charity status. Currently, if people want to make a financial
contribution to those groups through a system known as “deductible gift recipient”, they can claim a tax
deduction. That is, of course, a great advantage to those groups. It means that if a person makes a $50 donation
to the Wilderness Society, it can be claimed as a tax deduction. Indeed, anything more than a $2 donation can be
claimed as a tax deduction. But there are those on the right of Australian politics who do not like that and who
feel that it is unreasonable that those groups get a tax break and are able to receive money via deductible gift
recipient status. If those people were to have their way, they would deny Australia the wisdom that comes
forward and the quality of debate that is enriched. It would skew the debate to one side so that only the
well-resourced and those with pecuniary interests are able to control the debate. We are ensuring that we enrich
the debate and balance it in some way by enabling groups such as the Wilderness Society and the
Australian Conservation Foundation to be involved in our public discourse by having the benefit of tax
advantages, a very important thing. When one bears in mind that most of the effort of those groups comes from
volunteers, it does not seem like much to allow them that break.
As members can tell, I am passionate about this sector. I have great faith in it. The legislation is important and
I do not want the sector compromised by poor governance. That is why I am keen to get into the detail of this
legislation and to look at how it will ensure that we maintain or improve the quality of governance, because
I know there can be problems when an incorporated association has run its course, its job is done and a particular
campaign has been run, and the membership has more or less evaporated.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I am concerned that sometimes an organisation will have run its course, but a couple
of people will keep the name of the association and use it almost as a megaphone to project their combined
voices beyond their own voices as individuals, and that somehow is distorting. There need to be checks in the
system to ensure that associations that are not active, not holding annual general meetings and not meeting are
not being somehow hijacked and that their name is not being used in vain, so to speak. I am not sure that this
legislation will provide for that. I note, however, that the legislation does a good job of checking the credentials
of an organisation when it is about to be set up and that there is opportunity for people to comment on and to
express concerns about an organisation, although it is not entirely clear to me how people will hear about an
organisation when it is being set up. I note that clause 9 is titled “Request for refusal of incorporation”. If
somebody saw a group and they suspected that it was not genuine in its intent, they would have the opportunity
to voice some concern or criticism of it. There are other measures that enable the Commissioner for
Consumer Protection to rule a particular group ineligible. If the commissioner had some doubts about the nature
of the group’s activities, he or she would be able to refuse it incorporation; indeed, clause 11 is titled “Refusal of
incorporation”.
We have these measures in at the front end, but I am not sure that the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014—
I stand to be corrected on this—deals with the problem of a group that has had a very successful existence and
made a sterling contribution to our society, but is perhaps comings towards its natural end. We could even
envisage a situation of it perhaps being hijacked in some way. What happens then? How easy is it? I know there
are provisions for people to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal, which strikes me as a complex process
and maybe one that will not quickly react to a difficult situation. I hope other provisions allow people to flag that
an organisation—an incorporated body—is no longer genuine and is perhaps being used in a way that is not
quite correct, without having to go to that extra extent of going to the SAT. Maybe it is the case that the SAT is
a straightforward, simple process for concerns that people might have about incorporated bodies, but I am not
clear on that either. Again, I look forward to hearing some more information presented.
Another issue—I heard the member for Armadale make the point, too—is that we are in a very political
environment here and we have our passionate debates. But when people are involved in community
organisations to which they have volunteered enormous amounts of time, when there is a falling-out, it can be
8570
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
really rough. It can be, I think, probably more feisty and there can be more upset than we would ever see in this
place because it is dealing with people’s passions. It is dealing with their real beliefs in such a close and personal
way. We are lucky in that here we are passionate in our work and beliefs, but somehow the process almost
depersonalises things; whereas with a volunteer organisation or incorporated body, the personal nature of it is
very, very intense. I am not sure whether the legislation tackles that. Members could well ask: how could
legislation ever be developed to deal with people’s passions when they can be so intense? I recall a situation—
this is a matter of public record—back in about 2005 when we had volunteer enthusiasm for keeping cane toads
out of Western Australia. We had two groups: the Kimberley Toad Busters, based up in Kununurra, and the
Stop the Toad Foundation, based down here in Perth. In theory, they were doing the same work, and raising
money and awareness, with the same objective of keeping cane toads out of Western Australia. Unfortunately, a
conflict arose between the two groups. They were passionate and really had a shared goal, but it did lead to a
high degree of upset and meant a distraction from their main task. It meant that people—in this case it was
corporations—who were prepared to throw in rather large amounts of money to support this cause said, “Oh,
we’re not sure about this. Why would we put money into this campaign when there is tension between two
groups? It could look bad for us.” It just spoilt things. I think we had problems because the governance
arrangements were not solid enough. I understand there will always be situations that arise, but I think there were
cases there —
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Excuse me, member; there is a little bit too much noise in the
chamber. This is too important an issue, and I am listening.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: When passions are high, that needs to be respected and supported with the best
possible governance arrangements. That is what I am hoping to see in this legislation, because it is a way of
preserving the integrity of the whole sector. If we have the governance arrangements and structures right, we can
make sure that the integrity of our non-government sector remains strong.
I want to acknowledge some of the community groups–incorporated bodies in my area. I heard the member for
Fremantle talking about the sporting organisations in her electorate and how they all work under this
incorporation arrangement, and how important they are. That made me think of the great undertakings of
organisations such as Thornlie Bowling Club, Gosnells Bowling Club, Gosnells football club and
Gosnells Croquet Club; they undertake tremendous work. Increasingly, they are taking on development projects
that are of quite a significant scale in financial terms. I know Thornlie Bowling Club has some serious plans for
the development of some new clubrooms that will be a real boost to the area and provide a function facility. We
are talking about a project that could be in the $2.5 million to $3 million range, and that is a big undertaking for
a community organisation. Again, we need the right structures in place to ensure that everything is properly
organised and there is a real legitimacy about the way the organisation runs.
That leads me to another thing that I have seen creep into some organisations—that is, the crossover. There is the
starting point of an organisation being solely a volunteer group, but then somebody who is on the committee—
possibly even the president—says that the organisation needs a paid person. I think that can often be a good
formula that can work really well if a committee oversees an executive officer or a chief executive officer and
the committee does the hiring and firing. But I can see problems when there is a crossover—when the CEO is
also on the committee or a person who is the paid staff of the organisation is also a member of the committee.
That kind of conflict of interest is very dangerous, and I think it is a risk. I am not sure the bill before us really
attempts to deal with that, but, again, I stand to be corrected and I look forward to going into the detail of it.
Mr W.J. Johnston: Did you know that up until 10 years ago, the RAC used to elect its people at its AGM? It
does it now by postal vote. One year they had to get the staff out of the office to come to the AGM because they
did not have a quorum, and that is a multimillion-dollar organisation.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Yes. Problems can arise and it is incumbent on us in this place to make sure that those
sorts of conflicts of interest that the member for Cannington raised do not compromise the integrity of
incorporated bodies. It is very important that there is clarity and integrity.
In the remaining time I want to acknowledge an organisation that was, I think, the very first community
organisation–incorporated body that I joined when I was living in York in the wheatbelt in 1995—the
River Conservation Society. That group continues to this day. It is a tremendous organisation that started with
a focus on landcare-type work—tree planting, river restoration work and monitoring of the pools along the
Avon River such as the Gwambygine Pool and other pools. There have been some really great initiatives, and
some great projects and research have come out of the work of the River Conservation Society. I wanted to
acknowledge the passing of the organisation’s founder. I was at the funeral this week of Dr Cicely Howell, who
did a tremendous job in creating the River Conservation Society. She and her husband, Tony, who passed away
two years ago, were the real backbone of the organisation. It is a real challenge for an organisation such as the
River Conservation Society to ensure that it continues. It is reforming, reshaping and refocusing on being a body
that commissions research and works with academics to get them to come out and do more research on different
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8571
natural attributes of the Avon River. That is great work. When I was on that committee—that was my very first
experience of being on a committee—Cicely was the chair of the organisation. Other members of the committee
included Sir William Heseltine, who was the secretary to the Queen, and Judge Chris Pullin, who has since
served on the Supreme Court bench. Cicely was able to assemble an amazing array of people. I remember
feeling quite daunted being on the committee with these very experienced people who knew everything about
how a committee should be run. It was a great training ground for me and certainly an insight into how
a community organisation should be run at its most effective. It was a great honour. It was with sadness but
a privilege to be at Dr Cicely Howell’s funeral on Monday this week.
I look forward to going into this legislation in greater detail and seeing it help further enhance the integrity of
a really great and very important sector in our community.
MR P. ABETZ (Southern River) [4.51 pm]: I would like to make a contribution to the second reading debate
of the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014. This bill has had an incredibly long gestation period. I remember the
review of the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 beginning in the 1990s. That was in the days of the
Richard Court government. I was involved in that review through my involvement with the Association of Heads
of Churches of Western Australia. A very significant consultation process was undertaken. I want to commend
the staff of what is now called the Department of Commerce. I am not sure what it was called in those days;
I think it might have been the Department for Consumer Protection. They certainly took a lot of time to consult
different groups—getting different sporting groups together and consulting with them on what they needed. Then
they spoke to church groups and various other groups. They were very much aware that a bill that deals with
incorporated associations needed to deal with a range of different scenarios. I want to commend them for the
good work they did. Recommendations were made following the consultations.
I understand that a further desktop review of the act was undertaken in 1997. When the Gallop government came
to power in 2001, the review was not progressed for some time. If I remember correctly, a green bill was
released for further public consultation in 2006. Again, I was involved in the consultations around that. We drew
attention to a number of things, such as the different tiers for the different associations. The green bill referred to
the capital assets of the associations. We argued, successfully, that it should be on the turnover rather than on the
capital. For example, an inner-city church with a very small congregation may well have a couple of million
dollars’ worth of assets but its turnover may just be $100 000 a year. I am glad to see that that is incorporated in
the bill before us today.
Upon my arrival in this place, through the trust placed in me by the voters of Southern River in 2008, I made
repeated inquiries—I think I may have even done a grievance at one stage—about what was happening with the
Associations Incorporation Bill that was supposed to be coming. I kept being told that it was coming and finally
it has come. That is good news.
One of the things that I was well aware of before coming into this place was that many incorporated associations
run into difficulties because often a group is started by a group of people who are passionate about their area of
interest and they run the show the way they want to run it. Then, after a while, a group of people within that
organisation who are not so happy with the direction of things decide to nominate for president, secretary or
what have you and all of a sudden we get a takeover. The old guard is most upset and they refuse to hand over
any of the records—bank accounts and that sort of thing. As a result, what does the new committee do? In times
past, all the Commissioner for Consumer Protection could say was, “Well, they are breaking the rules; that is
true. Go to a lawyer. Go to the Supreme Court.” Most lawyers would require at least $10 000 or $15 000 to even
start looking at it. It was often easier just to walk away and start all over again with a new association. I believe
that the bill before us today will alleviate a lot of that kind of behaviour because rogue office-bearers will no
longer be able to be rogues with impunity. I have seen and been told of situations in various incorporated
associations. If committee members were part of a corporate body involved in those situations, they would end
up in jail for fraud but because no-one in the association had the resources to challenge them; it went unpunished
and unresolved.
I have been involved in incorporated associations. The earliest one that I can remember being part of was the
Organic Gardening and Farming Society of Tasmania back in 1972. I was one of the founding members while
I was still at university doing my agricultural science degree. I have also been a long-term member of the
Volkswagen Club of Western Australia. Each of our local churches is an incorporated body. As a pastor of
churches, I have served as chairman of the governing committee under the Associations Incorporation Act in
both Victoria and Western Australia. I fully appreciate the issues of compliance.
The reality is that the 1987 act virtually had no compliance requirements. I do not believe that that was
a satisfactory situation. Victoria in the 1980s already had much higher compliance requirements than
Western Australia. Over time I have been called upon to try to assist people in various situations who felt very
aggrieved because the committee was not following the constitution of their organisation. I tried to resolve those
kinds of issues. I certainly have some firsthand experience of the issues that face incorporated associations.
8572
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
I have recently taken on the chairmanship of Jade Lewis and Friends Inc, a not-for-profit group that does
excellent work with prisoners, particularly in Bandyup Women’s Prison. Jade Lewis and her team are doing
a fantastic job helping women in prison and also once they get out by supporting them with mentors and so on
and helping them to stay on the right path.
Mr M.P. Murray: I agree very strongly.
Mr P. ABETZ: I thank the member. I will pass that on to Jade.
I want to mention some of the positives in this bill and then also some little concerns that I believe perhaps need
to be addressed. I believe that incorporation provides an association with very significant benefits. Earlier
someone mentioned a court case in 1994 with some pony club in the Gosnells area involving someone being
sued. The court case would have left those people and that association very exposed in terms of liability. Being
an incorporated body certainly gives members of that association very significant protections. Although that
gives that protection—if you like, a right to those people—I believe that in society, rights always come with
responsibilities. Part of that responsibility is complying with what is expected of an incorporated association. For
example, I dealt recently with a situation in a fairly large incorporated body. Some of the members came to see
me because they felt that they had been very unfairly dealt with because the committee had made decisions
pertaining to them. I asked them what the minutes said, and they replied that the committee had said that it does
not keep minutes, so there is no record. I went to the association president and said, “Surely what these people
are telling me cannot be true; surely you must keep minutes.” The reply was that the committee had not kept
minutes for over 10 years; it was considered a waste of paper. Good grief, does that work? That is a pretty
significant organisation. The bill now before the house requires minutes to be kept and provides penalties for not
doing so. Financial records have to be kept for seven years. That type of thing is very positive.
There are now also clear penalties. For example, failure by a management committee member to declare
a material personal interest can result in a fine of up to $10 000. Obviously, if it is a tiny group, I cannot imagine
a magistrate imposing the maximum fine, if such a matter ever went to court, but just having those significant
fines in the legislation acts as a very strong incentive for office-bearers to do the right thing. For example, in the
scenario I mentioned before, in which an association old guard is thrown out at an annual general meeting and
then refuses to hand over the records, in the past the new committee was powerless to do anything about that,
unless it was willing to go to court. Now, under the new bill, all that will be necessary is a phone call to the old
guard committee members to convey the fact that they cannot hold on to the records. If they do, the
commissioner can take action and initiate proceedings. I am sure that long before the matter gets to court, the old
guard committee would be handing over the papers. Clause 44, dealing with the duty of care and diligence, and
clause 45, dealing with the requirement to act in good faith and so on, are very positive aspects of this
legislation.
Clause 54 deals with failure to make the register of members available to other members. Some clubs have been
renowned for doing that because they did not want members writing to all the membership to complain about
something, so they refuse to let those members access the membership register. Now, the committee will no
longer be able to withhold that information, and there will be pecuniary penalties if it does so. I think that is
great.
I will just pick up on the comments made by the member for Gosnells about groups that have had their day and
can be hijacked for the name or title. My understanding of this legislation is that once a group no longer holds
annual general meetings, it must be wound up, which would bring it to its conclusion. I understand that at one
stage the Department of Commerce did a check on associations and discovered literally thousands of defunct
incorporated bodies that were still on the books but had not operated for years.
Ms J.M. Freeman interjected.
Mr P. ABETZ: Yes; in fact, the Department of Commerce has the constitution of every incorporated body on
file for public access.
The other very positive provision that I see in this bill is clause 60, which will allow the commissioner to call for
a general meeting if there is a dispute in an association about whether things have been done properly. He can
order a meeting to be held to let the membership decide what the outcome should be. That is very positive.
The structure of tier 1, 2 and 3 organisations in the bill is very commendable, and should serve us well.
I am conscious of the time, and that people want to get home, so I will try to keep it a little shorter than what
I had intended. I refer now to a few concerns that have been raised with me, including by Noel Harding, whom
the member for Maylands mentioned. He is a man with whom I have worked quite closely. Back in the days
when the goods and services tax was introduced, he was the chief author of the manual for not-for-profit groups
and churches on how the GST would work for them. He has been very generous in the time that he has given to
the not-for-profit sector, and he has contributed very freely. One issue that needs to be addressed is in clause 24,
which deals with the restrictions on the distribution of surplus property. The issue with that is that, for example,
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8573
if a local church were to be no longer viable, due to demographics or whatever, it would sell its property and shut
down, and may decide that, rather than giving that money to another church, it would set up a trust to fund youth
work, for example, in other churches. Is that permissible under these rules? It is something that needs a little
clarification. It would seem that the commissioner may approve variations under clause 25 of the provisions
implied by clause 24, so I think it does allow for that, but it would be good to have some clarity on that. When an
organisation is wound up, its assets have to go to another charity or whatever. For example, in the
Anglican Church, I understand that the property is actually held in the name of the archbishop, which could
create some technical issues.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Which archbishop?
Mr P. ABETZ: If it is the Anglican Church, it would have to be the archbishop of the Anglican Church.
The other point that I want to draw to the attention of members is clause 64(4), which mentions accounting
standards but does not state exactly which accounting standards. Noel Harding, as an accountant, believes that it
is imperative that the word “applicable” be inserted in relation to the accounting standards, and that the
regulations then need to specify what the applicable standards are. Under the Australian accounting standards,
even the smallest groups would have onerous reporting requirements, and I do not think that was the intent of the
legislation.
There is also an issue in clause 89 that perhaps needs a little comment. The clause is headed “Removal of
reviewer or auditor by resolution”, and the words “As soon as possible” in subclause (4) need clarification, but
we can deal with that in consideration in detail.
One of the other very significant issues I want to raise is that of dispute resolution. It is great that every
constitution will have to contain a dispute resolution process and that the State Administrative Tribunal will be
a backstop as the place for people to go if they cannot resolve a dispute. However, one concern posed to
Noel Harding by the Baptist Union of WA and the Australian Association of Christian Schools was that if
a dispute of a theological nature is raised, the proper procedure is followed and a decision is made, the member
can go to SAT if they are unsatisfied with the decision.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr P. ABETZ: The State Administrative Tribunal would then be in the position of having to decide
a theological issue that relates to that particular organisation. I do not think that is a satisfactory situation.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary, when he replies to the comments made in the second reading debate, will be
able to address that question and how it might be dealt with.
Several members interjected.
Mr P. ABETZ: Another issue has emerged from one of the organisations in my electorate about the dispute
resolution process. The organisation has a dispute resolution process in its constitution and a person decided to
initiate that process, but the committee proceeded to expel him from the association. It therefore said, “You are
no longer a member. You have no right to use the dispute resolution process.” I hope that there will be some
provision in this bill to prevent that kind of misuse of the powers of a committee. I hope that a person will still be
able to go to SAT and have the dispute resolved there; otherwise, I believe that will be an abuse of process.
Given the time, perhaps I should conclude my remarks, it being Thursday afternoon and everybody rather itching
to get home. I will conclude my comments there and leave the rest of the debate for the consideration in detail
stage.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr J.H.D. Day (Leader of the House).
House adjourned at 5.12 pm
__________
8574
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
PUBLIC SECTOR — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2913.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Transport; Finance:
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?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
Albany Port Authority
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Broome Port Authority
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Bunbury Port Authority
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
2 days
(ii)
14
(iii)
Bunbury, Sanctuary Resort
(iv)
$7 415.35.
Department of Transport
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) 7.5 hours; 15; 140 William Street, Perth WA 6000; $11 487.
4.5 hours; 1; Cisco Perth office, 10/225 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000; $0.
3 hours; 1; Convention and Exhibition Centre, Perth; $0.
3 hours; 1; 140 William Street, Perth; $0.
7.5 hours; 1; Pan Pacific Hotel, 207 Adelaide Terrace, Perth; $665.
Esperance Port Authority
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Department of Finance
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
1 day; 1 day.
(ii)
7; 6.
(iii)
University Club of Western Australia, Crawley WA; Dumas House, West Perth WA.
(iv)
$4 451; $3 674.
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8575
Fremantle Port Authority
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
Mid West Port Authority
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
1 day, 1 day.
(ii)
12; 11.
(iii)
Agriculture Department, Geraldton; Master Builders Association Geraldton.
(iv)
$1 268.70; $2 082.50.
Main Roads Western Australia and the Office of Road Safety
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) Two consecutive days ; Eight; University of Western Australia Club; $21 465.
Two consecutive days; Eight; University of Western Australia Club; $19 938.90.
Two consecutive days; Eight; University of Western Australia Club; $17 138.90.
Two consecutive days; Nine; University of Western Australia Club; $7 854.36.
Pilbara Port Authority
(a)
Dampier Port Authority (11/3/14 to 30/6/14) — No
Port Hedland Port Authority (11/3/14 to 30/6/14) — Yes
Pilbara Ports Authority (1/7/14 to 10/9/14) — No
(b)
(i)
One day
(ii)
5 senior executives and 6 board members.
(iii)
University of Western Australia Club (UWA), Nedlands.
(iv)
$2 014.
Public Transport Authority
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) 7.5 hours; Nine; 140 William Street Perth; $2 748.89.
6 hours; Nine; Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre; $19 151.
OFFICE OF SHARED SERVICES — SERVICENET
3023.
Mr W.J. Johnston to the Minister for Finance:
I refer to the response to Question on Notice No. 2784 and the attached table providing details on expenditure on
the Office of Shared Services per annum, less the cost of providing ServiceNet, and I ask:
(a)
what was the function or purpose of ServiceNet; and
(b)
how much was spent on the provision of ServiceNet for the following financial years:
(i)
2013–2014;
(ii)
2012–2013;
(iii)
2011–2012;
(iv)
2010–2011;
(v)
2009–2010;
(vi)
2008–2009;
(vii)
2007–2008; and
(viii)
2006–2007?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)
ServiceNet has operated as the Western Australian Government’s Internet Service Provider since 2003.
The Department of Finance continues to operate ServiceNet. It provides agencies with a highly secure
8576
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
firewall protected ICT network which allows agencies to connect to the Internet and execute
interagency data transfer. It also manages contracts with the private sector to aggregate the procurement
of Internet bandwidth and to support its ICT environment.
(b)
$31.081 million was spent as follows:
(i)
$3.947 million
(ii)
$5.219 million
(iii)
$4.550 million
(iv)
$3.788 million
(v)
$3.773 million
(vi)
$3.927 million
(vii)
$2.827 million
(viii)
$3.050 million
GOVERNMENT TENANCIES — KARRATHA
3035.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Finance:
(1)
Can the Minister please provide an outline of all tenancies for Government departments, agencies or
authorities in the city of Karratha, detailing:
(a)
the Department, agency or authority occupying the space;
(b)
the size of the office space;
(c)
the rent paid per square metre;
(d)
the address of the tenancy; and
(e)
the date of expiry of the lease?
(2)
Is the department or Minister aware of any tenancies of government departments, agencies or
authorities in Karratha that are not managed by the Department of Finance?
(3)
If yes to (2) which organisations are they?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(1)
Please refer to Q2701(b)
(2)
Yes
(3)
Department of Corrective Services; Department of Fire and Emergency Services; and Department of
Water.
DEPARTMENT OF SPORT AND RECREATION — APPROVED GRANTS
3039.
Ms R. Saffioti to the Minister for Sport and Recreation:
Can the Minister provide the breakdown of all approved Department of Sport and Recreation grants by date,
recipient, purpose, amount and suburb and grant type for the:
(a)
2011–2012 period;
(b)
2012–2013 period; and
(c)
2013–2014 period?
Mr T.K. Waldron replied:
(a)–(c) [See tabled paper no 2399.]
ROADS — HYNES ROAD AND AUSTRALIND BYPASS INTERSECTION
3043.
Mr M.P. Murray to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the intersection of Hynes Road and Australind Bypass of which two people have been killed and
numerous near misses reported and ask:
(a)
what work is scheduled to be undertaken to have the intersection redesigned so that it is safer for those
using it;
(b)
if work is to be undertaken on the intersection what would be the timeline for the works to commence
and be finalised;
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8577
(c)
will traffic lights be installed at the intersection;
(d)
has consideration been given to make Hynes Road a light vehicle/local traffic only road with heavy
haulage trucks having to use Raymond Road or the Port Access Road; and
(e)
will a slip lane be installed for entering traffic to merge on to the Australind Bypass Road?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)
No work is currently scheduled to redesign the intersection; however the intersection will be redesigned
and reconstructed as part of future stages of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road Project.
(b)
There is no current timeframe to undertake major reconfiguration works on the intersection
(c)
There are currently no plans to install traffic signals at the intersection.
(d)
No. Restricted Access Vehicles are currently not allowed to use Hynes Road.
(e)
There are currently no plans to install slip lanes at this intersection.
TRANSPORT — PHOTO ID CARD — OLDER APPLICANTS
3060.
Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Transport:
(1)
How many applications for photo ID card by persons over sixty years of age have been made
since 1 July 2014?
(2)
How many photo ID cards have been issued to persons over sixty years of age have been made
since 1 July 2014?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(1)
550
(2)
546
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY — CONCESSION REVIEW
3115.
Ms M.M. Quirk to the Treasurer:
I refer to the Minister’s announcement to conduct a review of concessions and ask:
(a)
who is conducting that review;
(b)
are there terms of reference for the review, and if so, what are those terms of reference;
(c)
is there a target amount of savings which the Minister wants to achieve;
(d)
when will the review be concluded; and
(e)
is it intended to consult stakeholders or representatives of groups likely to be impacted by any changes
to concessions?
Dr M.D. Nahan replied:
(a)
The review forms part of the Grants and Social Concessions priority area evaluation noted in the
2014–15 Budget (see 2014–15 Budget Paper No. 3, pages 53–54). The evaluation is overseen by
a Directors General Steering Committee (DGSC) comprising senior representatives from across the
public sector, supported by the Department of Treasury’s Program Evaluation Unit.
(b)
Terms of reference exist for the DGSC. Responsibilities of the DGSC are to:
take ownership of the evaluation;
provide those directly involved in the project with guidance on evaluation direction and priorities;
address any issues that have major implications for the project;
ensure the project scope remains focused on achieving the agreed evaluation outcomes;
ensure efforts are appropriate to stakeholder expectations, while also managing these expectations;
reconcile and resolve any differences in opinion and approach in the conduct of the evaluation;
monitor and report on project progress to those responsible at a high level, such as Cabinet (where
necessary);
approve key outputs delivered by the project working group such as the Evaluation Plan and Evaluation
Report; and
endorse the final Evaluation Report prior to it being submitted to EERC and subsequently to Cabinet.
8578
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
(c)
No specific savings targets have been identified for the review.
(d)
The review is anticipated to be concluded in time for consideration by the Government as part of
the 2015–16 Budget process.
(e)
Subject to the outcome of the review findings, the Government will make a decision on the appropriate
level of consultation required.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE — PREPAID FUNERALS
3120.
Ms M.M. Quirk to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Commerce:
I refer to a report on prepaid funerals currently with government, and ask, what measures is the Minister
intending to take to protect the funds held for prepaid funerals:
(a)
if the Minister intends to take measures, what is the time frame; and
(b)
if no measures are to be taken, why not?
Mr P.T. Miles replied:
(a)
The report, which is still under consideration, recommended that a limited Code of Practice under the
Fair Trading Act 2010 be introduced to regulate the prepaid funeral sector and to provide certainty as to
the treatment and investment of prepaid consumer funds. However, the report was not strongly
supported by the Regulatory Gatekeeping Unit as most pre-paid funeral providers are
Australian Funeral Directors Association members who already abide by a Code of Practice that largely
addresses the issues recommended in the report, and few complaints are received about the funeral
industry.
(b)
Not applicable
ROADS — REID HIGHWAY WIDENING — ERINDALE AND DUFFY ROADS
3123.
Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Transport:
Can the Minister advise when the widening of Reid Highway between Erindale Road and Duffy Road will
commence and when is it expected that the work will be completed?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
Award of contract for the Reid Highway duplication (Erindale Road to Duffy Road) is scheduled for late 2014.
Commencement of works on site is scheduled for early 2015, with completion of works scheduled for the first
half of 2016.
MAIN ROADS WESTERN AUSTRALIA — ROAD SAFETY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
3139.
Mr R.H. Cook to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the Main Roads Western Australia’s Road Safety Audit Corrective Action Report,
dated 25 November 2012, specifically recommendations 7.1 through 7.13 inclusive, and I ask:
(a)
of these recommendations, which ones have been implemented;
(b)
of the recommendations that have been implemented, on which date did each one occur; and
(c)
for each of the recommendations that are yet to be implemented, what plans are in place for them to be
completed?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)–(c) If the Member is able to provide the location of the specific Road Safety Audit Report he is referring to,
we may be in a better position to provide a response.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT — BUS ROUTE 513 — SERVICES
3146.
Mr P.C. Tinley to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the 513 bus route that runs between Fremantle and Murdoch and ask for each of the years 2012, 2013
and to 1 October 2014:
(a)
what was the average daily number of passengers that travelled on this service;
(b)
how many services were provided each weekday;
(c)
how many services were provided each weekend;
(d)
on average, how many buses have no passengers each day; and
(e)
on average, how many buses have no passengers each weekend?
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
8579
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)
The average daily passengers (by day type) for the Route 513 bus service are as follows:
2012; Weekday 1157, Saturday 444, Sunday 282;
2013; Weekday 1143, Saturday 467, Sunday 283; and
2014; Weekday 1116, Saturday 424, Sunday 281.
(b)
The number of weekday Route 513 bus services are as follows:
2012; 68;
2013; 68; and
2014; 70.
(c)
The number of weekend (by day type) Route 513 bus services are as follows:
2012; Saturday 31, Sunday 28;
2013; Saturday 31, Sunday 28; and
2014; Saturday 31, Sunday 28.
(d)
None
(e)
None
PUBLIC TRANSPORT — BUS ROUTE 513 — BOARDINGS
3147.
Mr P.C. Tinley to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the 513 bus route that runs between Fremantle and Murdoch and ask:
(a)
how many service kilometres are allocated to this route;
(b)
what was the average daily passenger boardings on this route since 1 June 2014;
(c)
what was the total number of passengers in each week since 1 June 2014; and
(d)
of those in , how many passengers used:
(i)
Smartrider; and
(ii)
cash fare?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)
325 970 annual service kilometres.
(b)
1 027 on weekdays, 387 on Saturdays and 296 on Sundays.
(c)–(d) [See paper tabled no 2400.]
PUBLIC TRANSPORT — BUS ROUTE 513 — CHANGES
3148.
Mr P.C. Tinley to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to changes that were made to bus route 513 and ask:
(a)
why was the route 513 changed;
(b)
what public consultation occurred prior to the change in route;
(c)
what is the additional cost of service kilometres for the new route;
(d)
how many houses were serviced by the route prior to 1 June 2014;
(e)
how many houses are serviced by the revised route post 1 June 2014; and
(f)
how much faster is the new 513 route compared with the previous route?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)
The Route 513 bus service was changed to reduce the travel times for the majority of passengers and to
minimise service duplication with the new Route 512 bus service.
(b)
Transperth staff members were present at the following times and locations to discuss the proposed
service changes:
Murdoch station on Thursday 20 March 2014 from 10:00am to 2:00pm.
Kardinya Park Shopping Centre on Saturday 22 March 2014 from 9:00am to 1:00pm.
8580
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 November 2014]
Phoenix Park Shopping Centre on Thursday 27 March 2014 from 2:00pm to 7:00pm and
Saturday 29 March 2014 from 9:00am to 1:00pm.
(c)
The new Route 513 bus service requires 17 809 less annual service kilometres, representing a saving of
approximately $90 000 per annum.
(d)–(e) Transperth catchment analysis evaluates the spatial catchments of bus routes, not the number of
households. The introduction of new Route 512 bus service combined with the improved Route 513 bus
service covers a much greater catchment area than the area covered by the old Route 513 bus service.
(f)
Most trips had their runtimes shortened with the introduction of the new Route 513, with the greatest
time saving being 7 minutes.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT — BUS ROUTE 513 — HALE HOUSE
3149.
Mr P.C. Tinley to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to changes that were made to bus route 513 and the limited deviation to Hale House on Waverly Road and
ask:
(a)
prior to the change in route 513, how many 513 buses serviced Hale House residents on weekdays;
(b)
prior to the change in route 513, how many 513 buses serviced Hale House residents on weekends;
(c)
since the change in route 513, how many 513 buses service Hale House residents via Romeo Road on
weekdays and at what times;
(d)
since the change in route 513, how many 513 buses service Hale House residents on weekends and at
what times;
(e)
is the Minister satisfied with this level of service to residents of Hale House, and if so for what reason;
(f)
does the Minister expect that this deviated service will continue after its trial;
(g)
when will the trial of the limited deviation come to an end and who will make the final decision about
its expansion or otherwise; and
(h)
will there be public consultation before any further changes are made to the Hale House deviation, and
if not, why not?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)
65
(b)
31 on Saturdays, 28 on Sundays.
(c)
4; at 9:05am, 11:26am, 12:10pm and 1:24pm.
(d)
Nil
(e)
Yes. Hale House residents have access to several bus services, including the high frequency
Bus Route 940 service on Waverley Road and new Bus Route 512 on Romeo Road.
(f)
A decision has not yet been made about the Bus Route 513 Romeo Road deviations.
(g)
Transperth is monitoring the use of all bus routes serving Hale House and plans to review the success of
the Bus Route 513 Romeo Road deviations in early 2015.
(h)
Changes will be made based on patronage and in the context of other services available to Hale House
residents.
ELLENBROOK — SWIMMING POOLS
3178.
Ms R. Saffioti to the Premier:
I refer to the Liberal party commitment to build two swimming pools in Ellenbrook and ask:
(a)
when will construction of these swimming pools commence; and
(b)
when will these swimming pools be completed and open to the public?
Mr C.J. Barnett replied:
(a)–(b) Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 2561.
__________