1. law, govt and politics
2. government

Un
r
co
Parliamentary Debates
rec
(HANSARD)
ted
THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
2015
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Pr
Thursday, 26 February 2015
f
oo
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
Un
ted
rec
r
co
f
oo
Pr
<001> H/M
Legislative Assembly
Thursday, 26 February 2015
Un
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Petition
MR C.D. HATTON (Balcatta) [9.01 am]: I have a petition signed by one petitioner regarding climate change.
It reads —
r
co
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of
Western Australia in Parliament assembled.
We, the undersigned, say to national, local, and international leaders: Scientists clearly warn that risking
runaway climate change threatens our very survival, and the future of everything we love. Now we ask
the Legislative Assembly to commit to keep global temperature rise under the safe level of 2 degrees
celsius, by rapidly shifting our societies and economies to be powered by 100% clean energy. We also
call on you to urgently forge global, national and local agreements, and realistic plans, to achieve this
end.
[See petition 215.]
rec
PAPER TABLED
A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.
2015 TASTE GREAT SOUTHERN FESTIVAL
Statement by Minister for Tourism
ted
DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Tourism) [9.03 am]: This evening I will launch the 2015 Taste
Great Southern Festival, a food and wine event that celebrates the local produce and wines of the great southern
region. This is the eleventh year of the festival, which is being held over five weeks from 19 February to 29 March.
It is managed by Denmark Tourism Incorporated and features more than 60 culinary events, ranging from long-table
lunches and cooking demonstrations to degustation dinners and night markets across the subregions of the great
southern. MasterChef Australia contestant Adam Liaw and Indigenous chef Mark Olive will headline the event,
alongside local talent Anna Gare, Russell Blaikie and WA Food ambassador, Don Hancey. The media attention the
festival is expected to attract will generate valuable exposure of the region and state.
Pr
The festival highlights the region’s food and wine offering to visitors by bringing consumers and producers together
in truly stunning locations. There will be many opportunities for visitors to experience the very best of the region,
particularly in Mt Barker, Porongurup, Denmark, Katanning and Albany. Western Australia is developing a
reputation as a world-class food and wine destination because of its gourmet produce, fresh seafood and premium
wines and beverages. The state government, through Tourism WA, is working to capitalise on this and has been
developing a food and wine strategy for Western Australia. Research commissioned as part of the strategy shows that
last year more than one million domestic visitors to Western Australia actively sought food and wine experiences or
determined where they were going to stay based on the available culinary experiences. The research also revealed that
tourists are attracted to local and authentic produce in beautiful surroundings, which is why events such as Taste
Great Southern are so important.
f
oo
Taste Great Southern is proudly supported by the state government through Tourism WA’s regional events scheme,
which is funded by royalties for regions. Tourism is a vital industry for regional Western Australia. In 2014, total
visitor spend in the state was $8.3 billion, of which $3.5 billion was spent in regional Western Australia. In addition
to this significant economic impact, tourism adds vibrancy and delivers important social and cultural benefits for
many regional communities. It is the state government’s goal that the contribution of regional tourism increases to
$4.75 billion by 2020. Supporting quality regional events such as Taste Great Southern will help us achieve that goal.
CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION — “REPORT ON MISCONDUCT RISK IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT”
Statement by Minister for Local Government
MR A.J. SIMPSON (Darling Range — Minister for Local Government) [9.06 am]: On 17 February, I was briefed
by the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission on a report that the CCC had prepared on misconduct
risk in local government procurement. The purpose of the report was to describe investigations by the CCC into
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
2
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
misconduct in procurement by local governments; describe audits carried out on behalf of the CCC into the capacity
of five local governments to prevent, identify and deal with misconduct in procurement; describe a post-investigation
review of financial governance at the City of Stirling; identify concerns arising from the investigations, audits and the
review; and make recommendations about how these concerns may be mitigated.
Un
The community has a reasonable expectation that government at all levels is open and accountable, and local
government is no exception. The report found that without strong financial and governance practices, local
governments are vulnerable to fraud, corruption and other misconduct. We know that local governments regularly
negotiate large-scale commercial, residential and industrial developments and the financial stakes can be very high.
The CCC found that a range of factors contribute to the environment in which misconduct can occur. Examples
include a lack of processes, poor recordkeeping, a lack of supervision and training, conflicts of interest—such as
letting contracts to family members or friends—failing to declare gifts and a lack of audits. Specifically, the report
found that employees of all levels can exercise significant authority, often with considerable independence; they can
act independently and without direct supervision.
r
co
In 2013–14, the Corruption and Crime Commission carried out 13 investigations into allegations of serious
misconduct in local governments, with eight of those investigations revealing serious flaws in the way local
governments supervise the purchase of goods and services. The CCC concluded that there is systemic weakness in
procurement across the local government sector. This report is a wake-up call. We need to learn from these
investigations and we need to put proper processes in place to mitigate these risks.
rec
The Corruption and Crime Commission has recommended that the jurisdiction of the Auditor General be extended to
include local governments, which would bring Western Australia into line with Queensland, South Australia,
Tasmania and Victoria where respective Auditors General have jurisdiction to conduct audits of local governments.
The report further recommends that my department actively oversights risk management reviews prepared by local
governments to ensure misconduct risks are appropriately assessed. In closing, the government will carefully consider
the report’s findings to determine what measures need to be taken to address the risks identified. I acknowledge the
local governments that voluntarily participated in the review and note that all have taken steps to address identified
shortcomings and weaknesses.
In accordance with parliamentary processes, I table the document titled, “Report on Misconduct Risk in Local
Government Procurement”.
[See paper 2664.]
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I move —
ted
Authorisation of Publication — Motion
That this house authorises the publication of the “Report on Misconduct Risk in Local Government
Procurement”.
Question put and passed.
[See paper 2665.]
STATE AVIATION STRATEGY
Statement by Minister for Transport
[See paper 2666.]
Pr
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [9.08 am]: I present for tabling the government’s
“Western Australian State Aviation Strategy”, which was endorsed by cabinet on Monday, 2 February 2015.
f
oo
Mr D.C. NALDER: It is the first time that the state has had a comprehensive aviation strategy. It was developed in
consultation with all stakeholders and is aimed at supporting the economic and social development of
Western Australia through the provision of safe, affordable, efficient and effective aviation services and
infrastructure. The strategy also provides a sound framework for policy setting, future planning and investment in
Western Australia’s international and domestic air services and airport infrastructure. Aviation infrastructure at
Perth Airport has not kept pace with growth, resulting in delays and congestion for air travellers, particularly
impacting on the resource industry.
Over the past 10 years, the local government–operated Pilbara airports have been growing at average compound rates
of around 20 per cent per annum. The airports are constrained by lack of access to capital and lack of specialist airport
management expertise. Therefore, it is essential for the state to play a more active role in the aviation sector to ensure
that all air services and airports keep up with Western Australia’s development.
<002> I/D
The intended outcomes of this strategy include: timely provision of aviation infrastructure at Perth Airport through
close engagement with Perth Airport on its forecasting, master and infrastructure planning; developing the third
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
3
Un
runway through engagement with Perth Airport and the commonwealth; identification of suitable sites to plan for a
future second Perth metropolitan airport and a future second general aviation airport; meeting Pilbara airports’
demand at these nationally critical assets with timely provision of capital for infrastructure through private sector
investment; an aviation training strategy for the state to meet the need for future skills; further developing links to
interstate and international tourism markets; ensuring air services continue to regional WA on marginal air routes
through the review of regular public transport regulated air routes; and reducing the disproportionate cost of aviation
security borne by passengers at small regional airports by directly representing the state’s concerns to the
commonwealth. The recommendations in the strategy do not require additional government funding. The objectives
will be achieved within existing budgets.
WA is an enormous state covering one-third of the Australian continent, where effective transport and communication
are heavily dependent on reliable aviation services. This government’s state aviation strategy will provide a
foundation for the state to play a more active role in the aviation sector to ensure air services and airports keep up
with WA’s economic and social development.
r
co
WELLINGTON DAM — RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY
Grievance
ted
rec
MR M.P. MURRAY (Collie–Preston) [9.11 am]: My grievance today is to the Minister for Transport and relates to
licensing boats to allow people to ski on Wellington Dam. My reason for raising this issue today is that I am
concerned about the health and safety of people who will be using that dam this long weekend. A couple of thousand
people will probably be around Wellington Dam for various reasons, including skiing, which is now allowed on the
dam. I am not asking for people to be stopped from skiing straightaway; I am asking for a review at the end of the
year to look at the impact of V8 ski boats on that dam. I have already raised in this house the irony of these boats
using that dam. The small electric motors that local people have bought to comply with environmental issues are not
allowed on most parts of the dam. For many years people have fished and recreated on the backwaters of the dam
from these small dinghies with electric motors, which are now banned. Yet in the middle of the dam, people are
allowed to use a 354 Chevy, which rips up and down the dam, to ski right up close to the wall. People are also
allowed to use jetskis as long as they are towing. That would be fine if they stayed within the required area but they
do not. It was reported to me after the Christmas weekend that threats of violence were made against people who
never stayed in the ski area with their V8 boats but, instead, travelled to the backwaters where people camp for some
peace and quiet and because it is cheaper. Family groups come together and really enjoy the national park, which is
probably how it should be enjoyed. We should remember that this is part of a national park with V8 boats in the
middle of it. People are not allowed to take their dogs there but they can take a V8 boat there. I find that quite
amusing, to say the least. Some people who go to these backwaters put their boats in the water and never go skiing.
Today, many of these boats have great big sound systems called boom boxes. They drive up the backwaters at three
o’clock in the morning shining their spotlights into the camps. I am a bit concerned that someone might get shot
because of the agitation between groups of people. This happens when someone shines a spotlight from a boat—they
have boom boxes that blow most people out of the water—into these nice, quiet camping areas at three o’clock in the
morning, which is very intrusive.
Pr
One of the first photos I saw from the first weekend the dam was opened to skiing was a jetski parked alongside the
wall. That is highly illegal but no-one policed it. All these problems are associated with licensing Wellington Dam
after it was de-proclaimed a couple of years ago. At that time the Minister for Water said that the community would
have a big say on what happened on that dam. That never happened. I presented a petition to this house from 3 700
people saying, “Please do not license that area for skiing.” It is a place that people use to recreate in peace and quiet
and enjoy nature and the lovely surrounding jarrah forest. There is also the side issue of motorbikes. We have “water”
bikes—jetskis—and motorbikes in the bush that cause problems.
f
oo
All of a sudden there was a blitz. Officers from the department went up there and grabbed these people who were
using their little 10 and 12-foot boats with electric motors. What a change that made to the whole place. What made
the department say that a boat with an electric motor is not allowed on the dam, yet a boat with a Chevy motor roaring
its guts out is allowed to stay there? I do not understand the logic of that. I am asking that there be a review, in which
the community is involved, after this summer. I acknowledge that there is a shortage of ski areas, but we have one of
the best ski areas in Australia awaiting this government’s action—that is, Lake Kepwari. It is a mine void—
two kilometres long and one kilometre wide. It has been sitting there for a long time. The former Leader of the
National Party even challenged me to a swim when he was going to open it about five years ago. It has not happened.
The irony of that is that there was a blow through; we had a storm and water flowed from the south branch of the
Collie River into that mine void and improved the water. We had to do a study to work out why the water improved.
It was quite ironic. Under this government, there is no way forward.
Money is available to move that ski area to Lake Kepwari. The South West Development Commission has around
$4 million that could be used. It has been identified. It has been there for some years. I ask the minister to do a review
to see how we can phase one area out and phase the other in at the same time. There is plenty of room for ski boats
out there, and it would be a great boom for tourism in Collie. We can go forward. Chalets can be built around
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
4
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Lake Kepwari and we can have low-impact camping around Wellington Dam. I ask the minister whether he will
review Wellington Dam’s usage after summer.
Un
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [9.18 am]: I thank the member for the grievance.
I will give a bit of background on this issue first, because the member raised some points that I was not aware of.
Motorised vessels were officially permitted to operate on Wellington Dam from 28 February 2014 in line with the
state government’s election commitment to increase recreational opportunities for all Western Australians.
A comprehensive assessment to determine the dam’s suitability to safely accommodate waterskiing was conducted by
the Department of Transport. The assessment identified an area of water approximately 1.2 kilometres long and
500 metres wide in Potters Gorge that has sufficient depth to safely accommodate waterskiing. Following discussions
with both the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Department of Water, a number of measures were introduced
to promote the safe use of Wellington Dam, including prohibiting motorised vessels from operating in the majority of
Wellington Dam and imposing a five-knot speed restriction in all those areas outside the waterski area. Additionally,
a section of beach adjacent to the camping ground has been established where motorised vessels are prohibited from
operating.
r
co
In conjunction with the Department of Parks and Wildlife, the Department of Transport installed signage at key sites
on the shoreline and marker buoys out on the water to clearly articulate the aquatic use arrangements and delineate the
waterski area. The department has also published a Wellington Dam boating guide with safety information pertaining
to waterskiing. Department of Transport compliance officers conduct regular patrols of Wellington Dam to encourage
voluntary compliance with the local arrangements and other safety requirements. Overall, they have reported that the
overwhelming majority of vessel users are adhering to the new arrangements and doing the right thing.
<003> E/3
rec
The officers also report noncompliance rates, and the advice that they have provided to me is that noncompliance
rates are in line with what they see at other waterways around the state. It is not always possible for compliance
officers to be present, but they have a program to ensure that they check all the waterski areas to ensure compliance
with the guidelines.
It is my understanding that the Department of Transport received seven reports from the same person on 16 February
2015 that related to alleged noncompliance by a number of motorised vessels on Wellington Dam on the
Australia Day long weekend. These reports are currently being investigated by the Department of Transport. It is my
understanding that the Department of Transport has not received any other marine safety compliant forms related to
Wellington Dam since February this year.
ted
Mr M.P. Murray: Do you want them to load them up after this weekend?
Mr D.C. NALDER: No. I will come back to the member’s queries. If the motor is removed from a motorised vessel,
it is no longer deemed to be a motorised vessel, and that is all pretty standard. I am confident that the safety measures
introduced retain the majority of the dam for passive recreation, while delivering upon our commitment to
accommodate a wider range of recreational activities.
Pr
The question that the member asked was whether we can review it at the end of the year. I have not heard about the
other waterway that the member mentioned. I am more than happy for us to review that at the end of the year to see
whether it is the best use and whether there is a more acceptable arrangement to the broader community there. I am
happy that we undertake that. I will not promise the outcome of it at this point, but I am more than happy for us to
look at it. We are trying to accommodate a wide range of activities for a number of Western Australians, and we want
to provide waterskiing facilities for those who enjoy that water sport. I am happy for us to look at it and see whether
we can find a better outcome.
KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES — MT CHARLOTTE
Grievance
f
oo
DR G.G. JACOBS (Eyre) [9.21 am]: I thank the Minister for Mines and Petroleum for taking my grievance.
The Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Super Pit is in my electorate, and the Williamstown residents are at the
northern border of the Super Pit. However, I do not grieve about the Super Pit; I grieve about KCGM’s Mt Charlotte
underground project, which has been there, as the minister would know, for some 25 years. KCMG’s Mt Charlotte
operation includes the Fimiston open pit and the Fimiston and Gidji Roaster processing plants. The Mt Charlotte
operation is adjacent to the City of Kalgoorlie–Boulder. The KCGM joint venture owners have a project called the
Central Corridor project, or the Hidden Secret. I put it to KCGM that there is no hidden secret, but there are some
issues that I would like to take up with the minister in detail.
The Hidden Secret project is an extension of the historic pit at Mt Charlotte and will involve 665 000 tonnes of goldbearing ore at 3.56 grams per tonne—equating to around 76 000 ounces of gold—at a value of about $121 million. In
order to get this ore, there will be two drives from Mt Charlotte east. One drive, as my mining engineer son and his
wife tell me, will be a horizontal shaft, if you like, at a depth of 215 metres and 350 metres from the Mt Charlotte
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
5
Un
historic operation. The other drive will be at a depth of 415 metres and will go under the suburb of Williamstown in
Kalgoorlie–Boulder. These drives will be under residential properties. The Hidden Secret resource will be processed
by the Mt Charlotte infrastructure, with the same ventilation system. The ore will be processed at the Fimiston
processing plant and will be accessed by the Sam Pearce Decline. My advice is that trucks will drive down the decline
to pick up the ore to take it to the processing plant. The issue is with the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s
mining approval of tenement M26/131 and M26/353, project AS110740, and the referral for the process completed
under section 38(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
Two matters need closer examination. The first is the blasting vibration and the second is mine safety and mitigation
against potential collapse. The blasting vibration is about peak particle velocity and the distance from sites. There are
monitors in Kalgoorlie, but I suggest to the minister that these monitors are at distant sites. One is at Agricola and one
is at the Freemasons’ hall. The member for Kalgoorlie would know these sites. One is at the Telstra tower and the
other is at Austral Street. Reassurance is needed for the Williamstown residents; they need to know what the blasting
vibration figures will potentially be from a shaft that is 215 metres underneath the suburb and what the impacts will
be.
r
co
rec
KCGM says that independent modelling of blast vibration has indicated 90 per cent confidence that vibration levels
will be below 2.5 millimetres per second, which are similar to the current levels from the Mt Charlotte blasting
activities. These blast vibration levels are well below the regulatory limits of five to 10 millimetres per second.
Although KCGM may suggest that these levels are similar to the levels from Mt Charlotte’s blasting activities, this is
a different scenario. This drive will be underneath Williamstown, with potential blasting 200 metres underneath
residences. I have said to some of the residents, “What about that? That is pretty clear—2.5 is well below five; it has
been modelled”, and they have said that that is modelling. I suggest to the minister that these levels should not be just
models; we need some real results. The top drive, which will be at a depth of 215 metres, is already 200 metres along
the way. There are another 150 metres to go, and there is blasting going on to develop that drive. To reassure the
Williamstown residents that this is not just modelling, why do we not put some vibration monitors on the surface as
this drive is being developed so that we can get some real-time values? It is all right to read about this in self-provided
reports by KCGM, but we need some real-time results for reassurance.
ted
The other concern is with the new mining venture and the safety issues. There are open stopes. At the end of the
drive, the ore is blasted out and that creates a void where the ore is taken. There are already big stopes in the
Mt Charlotte underground project. The company has talked about retreat stoping under rock fill, which involves going
to the end, taking out the ore, creating a void and then backfilling it with rock and retreating from the drive. The local
miners who advise me have said that we need to be very sure that the pillars are maintained. The pillars are similar to
walls that hold up a roof. If the pillars in this new project are taken away, there is a potential for the mine to collapse.
There have been mine collapses in the goldfields previously, and they are not necessarily distantly historic. I want
some reassurance for the community about blast vibration and the mine safety issue in preventing and mitigating a
mine collapse.
MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Minister for Mines and Petroleum) [9.28 am]: I thank the member for the
grievance. Indeed, he has done his homework very well. In fact, he has summed up the project. The potential project
will go under Williamstown and it will be an extension of the Fimiston pit. It is an area that I know well because, as a
young child, I apparently lived there.
Dr A.D. Buti: You’ve lived everywhere in WA! Where haven’t you lived?
<004> P/2
Pr
Mr W.R. MARMION: I have. That is the benefit of being a Main Roads engineer—I got transferred to every
division in the state. I do not recall this area very well because I was two years old when I left. I cannot remember
much about it.
f
oo
In terms of the approvals process, the Department of Mines and Petroleum is required to follow two processes for this
project: a mining proposal, which deals with the mining aspects of this project, and the project management plan,
which deals with the safety, which is probably the area in which the member is most interested. In terms of the
process, the DMP received the Hidden Secret mining proposal on 7 November 2014, and it was referred to the
Environmental Protection Authority under section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act the very next day on
8 November last year. On February 15 this year, the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority requested
advice on two specific questions, but still in the process, that related to air quality aspects including dust and
atmospheric contaminants, and whether blasting activities can be adequately regulated under the Mines Safety and
Inspection Act and the Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007. The DMP recently responded to the
Office of the Environmental Protection Authority with assurances that these issues can be adequately managed
through the mining proposal and the project management plan.
In terms of the risk mitigation measures, the project involves extending the current underground Mt Charlotte
operations to mine the Hidden Secret resource by—as the member said—two, 350-metre long drives. The proposal is
utilising the existing underground infrastructure and services. Mining will be between 215 metres and 440 metres
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
6
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
below the surface. The deeper 440-metre operation is located under some of the residential properties in
Williamstown—that is correct, member. The project management plan process will require the company to submit a
safety management system for the project. This plan will include a detailed risk assessment, mining plans and ground
control management plan for the area. The ground control management plan will address ground conditions,
excavation sites, blasting requirements, seismic monitoring, which is the important issue the member raised, and
mining sequences. In terms of the vibration, the DMP considers that blasting activities can be adequately managed by
the mining proposal provisions of the Mining Act and the provisions under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act.
The mining proposal documentation, including the independent blast vibration report, has been reviewed by the DMP
Resources Safety division to provide technical comment on the geotechnical stability and blast vibration aspects of
the project. Controlled blasting and seismic monitoring will be used to manage vibration seismicity for the project.
Additionally—this is the important point—seismic sensors as well as a one-blast vibration monitor device will be
installed for the project. As the member mentioned, blast vibration modelling has indicated that vibration levels will
be below 2.5 millimetres per second, which is below the limit of between five to 10 millimetres per second.
r
co
In conclusion— I will add a few more comments—I can assure the member and his constituents that in terms of
underground mining, this is an area on which DMP is probably the world expert, particularly in gold, because we
probably lead the world in terms of our expertise and experience. I can assure the member that the assessment by the
DMP and the regulations and monitoring in place will reassure the residents of Williamstown that everything will be
fine.
rec
Dr G.G. Jacobs: The proposal has a table in it titled, “Prediction of Ground Vibration—Hidden Secret Project” that
talks about the monitor sites such as Agricola, Micro and Austral. If the drives are placed below residents and blasting
is occurring 215 metres below, the vibration levels at Agricola under the present project will be irrelevant.
The residents want to know what the potential surface vibration in Williamstown will be when blasting is happening
215 metres under them.
Mr W.R. MARMION: The model can be proved up by the blasting. The model is defined by blasting at a lower
level and the vibration is plotted for different levels of blasting—the model can be proved up as we go. In terms of the
vibration, the bigger deviations are at the source. As we get closer to the surface and further away from the source, the
vibration is less. The maximum vibration occurs at source. DMP will be monitoring this to make sure that the
modelling works. I have been advised that the vibration will not be above 2.5 millimetres per second.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: Can we put a monitor on the surface in Williamstown?
Mr W.R. MARMION: I do not know exactly where the monitors will go.
ted
Dr G.G. Jacobs: That is really important, is it not?
Mr W.R. MARMION: I will find out if it is worthwhile. DMP might say that if we put a monitor there, it will not
measure anything. If a monitor is closer to the source and it measures one millimetre per second, we know that it will
be 2.5 millimetres per second as we get further away, but I can investigate whether it is worthwhile putting one in an
appropriate place in Williamstown.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: We could get some indication now because they are blasting a development drive. If we put a
monitor above it, we could get some idea of the vibration levels and reassure the Williamstown residents with not a
model figure but a real figure.
Pr
Mr W.R. MARMION: I will talk to my department and see if we can put in a sensor that will cover the area of
Williamstown and produce the vibration level in real-time after a blast.
GUILDFORD HOTEL
Grievance
f
oo
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [9.36 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Planning about the Guildford
Hotel in Guildford. I take the minister back to what he said about a year ago. I refer to an article by Rashelle
Predovnik on the WA Today and the Echo News websites headed “State government considers buying Guildford
Hotel”. It reads —
The Western Australian government is seriously considering acquiring the Guildford Hotel as it remains in
disrepair five years after a fire gutted the historic building.
WA Planning Minister John Day said there was a view developing in government that intervention was
needed.
Mr Day has asked the Department of Planning and the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority to provide
more detailed information about available options.
And this is a quote from the minister —
“We need to step in and take effective action, not to benefit the owners of the hotel but to ensure that this
important heritage building is actually protected and restored,” he said.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
7
“That’s not about bailing out private property owners, it is about protecting important heritage and it’s very
important this location is protected.
“What’s there now is becoming an eyesore and it’s unacceptable.”
Un
That is what the minister said in an article published on 7 March last year. I do not know if the minister is the most
patient man in the history of the world, but it is now nearly six-and-a-half years—it is six years, five months and three
weeks—since the hotel burnt down.
r
co
The minister was talking tough a year ago but what has actually happened? When will the minister get serious and
take some strong and decisive action to ensure that the hotel is restored? People have been waiting for far too long.
What has the minister done? What advice did the minister get a year ago from the Department of Planning or the
Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, and why is it that despite the state losing its AAA credit rating and its budget
blowouts there is still tens of millions of dollars available to titivate the city and Scarborough and other places, yet
there is nothing available for Guildford? It is time the government stepped up and did the right thing. The minister
needs to get together with the City of Swan and come up with a plan to sort out this mess, and do it now. It is now
six-and-a-half years since the building was gutted by fire and the government has just sat by idly and waited for the
owners to do the right thing. Last year, the minister said a development plan was going ahead and so forth and now
the owners have put in for a rezoning. The current proposal to rezone the site for a yet-to-be submitted planning
application is unacceptable. It is simply too high a price for the community to pay. There is no guarantee that the
hotel will be sustainable without sufficient parking. There is no guarantee that this historic hotel building will not be
subdivided from its rear parking lot. There is no guarantee that the proposed re-zoning will not result in a massive
parking shortfall severely compromising the viability of existing businesses along that end of James Street in
Guildford.
<005> K/M
rec
ted
There is every likelihood that if the rezoning went ahead, it would set the most appalling precedent for other
properties in Guildford and would essentially change the nature of this historic township. I note the Minister for
Planning made some comments about how the history of Scarborough would be preserved, and to do that the state
government is putting in $30 million, in conjunction with the City of Stirling’s $30 million; it will be a
$60 million redevelopment. There is a reference in the minister’s press release to the historic snake pit and other
things from the 1940s or 1950s. This site goes back to the early times of our colony, to the earliest Swan River
Settlement, to 1829. This was the first agricultural showground; the Perth Royal Show was actually held at the rear of
the Guildford Hotel site before it went to Claremont. That is the kind of history we have there. It was called the
Swan River Settlement because places like Guildford were settled on the Swan River. The government has recently
spent $7 million acquiring the old Esplanade Hotel site in Albany. Why is it good enough for Albany’s history and
wellbeing, but not Guildford’s? Why should Scarborough get $30 million and Guildford get nothing?
Pr
We need some action and we need it now. I note that for the Claremont Oval redevelopment in the western suburbs
LandCorp can find $16.5 million to help support the community there. Acquiring this site should not cost a lot of
money. My recollection is that it was purchased for $2 million by the current owners, but it could have been
$3 million; we are not, in the scheme of things, talking about a lot of money. I think a plan for its ongoing
preservation is needed. It needs to be done, in my view, in conjunction with the City of Swan. Just as the City of
Stirling stumped up $30 million to match the government’s $30 million at Scarborough, the City of Swan needs to
stump up for the future of this historic township within its borders. Minister, my proposal is that the state government,
potentially using the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, should step in and purchase this site and hand it over to
the City of Swan, which can use it for some community purpose. It could put parking at the rear that would service
not only the hotel or whatever goes in the building at the front, but also the rest of the businesses in Guildford, where
there is a shortfall of parking. In many circumstances, the City of Swan has pocketed the money—cash in lieu—
resulting in an absence of parking bays for some of those businesses.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Does the government have any responsibility, minister?
f
oo
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Minister for Planning) [9.43 am]: I completely agree with the sentiment that
Guildford Hotel is a very important heritage building in a very important heritage precinct in a very historic part of
Western Australia, given that Guildford, Perth and Fremantle were the first three settlements to be developed in what
is now the Perth metropolitan area, after European settlement in 1829. I stand by the comments I made a year ago that
action is needed on the site, and that if action is not taken by the owners, state government intervention should be
considered as a strong possibility. That is still the case. However, we need to remember that this site and the hotel are
privately owned, and the primary responsibility for redeveloping the hotel and restoring the building to an appropriate
use —
Mr J.H.D. DAY: If the member for Girrawheen lets me finish, I will explain the situation to her, that is, if she has a
genuine interest in getting an outcome—or maybe her only interest is continuing to interject in this place as she often
does.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
8
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
The owners have the primary responsibility to restore the hotel and ensure that it is available to the community in an
appropriate way and continues to play its role as a very significant heritage building in Guildford. My comments a
year ago may have prompted some action by the owners—I do not know whether that is the case. Government
intervention is still a possibility, but it would be a last resort—I have always had that view. It is the case that the
owners sought to extend the development approval given by the City of Swan. Initially, I had some scepticism about
that, but work is actually underway on the building at the moment—it certainly was an hour and three-quarters ago
when I drove past there. I understand that the owners are taking action to replace the roof on the hotel. Certainly,
some restoration work appears to be occurring within the building at the moment, and that is a good thing. If adequate
protection for the site is not provided and the roof is not replaced in a short period of time, I and many other people
will certainly be very disappointed.
r
co
The owners, as announced last year, entered into a lease agreement with Publican Group Australia to operate the hotel
as a hospitality venue, and in response to requests from Publican Group, an application to amend the development
approval was lodged with the City of Swan. Those amended plans provide for modification to some of the internal
elements of the building and the roof, and the conservation of the heritage fabric and reconstruction of the belvedere.
Those amended plans were referred to and conditionally supported by the State Heritage Office, and subsequently
approved by the City of in Swan in December of last year; the development approval has been extended to 30 July
this year. A building permit for the preliminary works was acquired on 20 November 2014, and I am advised that
works were commenced to prepare the building for the installation of a new roof on 26 November 2014. As I
mentioned, work is currently underway.
rec
The owner has also lodged, as implied in the member for Midland’s comments, an application to amend the City of
Swan’s local planning scheme to allow for an additional use for multiple dwellings at the rear of the hotel site. That
application to amend the planning scheme was initially considered by the City of Swan on 12 November; it had some
preliminary consultation, and on 17 December 2014 the City of Swan resolved to initiate that particular scheme
amendment to allow for multiple dwellings to be included as an acceptable use on the lot. I take it from the comments
of the member for Midland that she is not supportive of that scheme amendment.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: It is probably just going to enhance the value of the block of land for the developer, which he
might even then sell.
ted
Mr J.H.D. DAY: A decision will be made on planning grounds as to whether it is appropriate to have some
residential use on that site. Probably one of the significant aspects is the height of what would be allowed to be
developed. The City of Swan, in its initial approval for public consultation, made a decision that that it should not
exceed the height of the belvedere, which would likely limit any development to four storeys. That scheme
amendment is currently being advertised, and the closing date for submissions is 26 March. Members of the
community have until then to make submissions. I understand there is a community briefing on the proposal tonight
at Midland Town Hall for those who wish to be provided with additional information or clarification on the effects of
the amendment. The amendment has been referred to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for its advice, and
that will be provided in due course. Following the consultation period, the amendment will again be considered by the
City of Swan and then forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for assessment by the
Department of Planning, and then a recommendation by the Planning Commission to me for a final determination.
I am not going to prejudge what should occur in relation to the scheme amendment, of course, but I think as a general
observation it would not be an unreasonable thing for there to be some residential use on the site. It would fit with the
overall planning strategy, “Directions 2031”, given that it is in an area close to significant public transport and
Guildford rail station. In principle, some residential development on the site and in that precinct would most likely be
appropriate, but it depends how it is done.
Pr
<006> B/4
f
oo
The design aspects, the height and the other mutual architectural planning aspects certainly need to be very much
taken into account. In conclusion, I entirely agree that action is needed for the restoration, conservation and
preservation of the hotel. If it does not occur fully, I will be very disappointed, but some work is underway at the
moment and the planning scheme amendment will be given fair consideration.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM — MINING PROPOSAL AND PROGRAM
OF WORK APPLICATION FEES
Grievance
MS W.M. DUNCAN (Kalgoorlie — Deputy Speaker) [9.50 am]: I thank the Minister for Mines and Petroleum for
taking this grievance. I also thank the member for Eyre for his grievance on behalf of my constituents in
Williamstown. It is a matter of concern to me also. I have written to the Environmental Protection Authority and to
the Minister for Lands because a complex tenure issue is involved there.
This grievance is important because there are some principles at stake and I would like the minister to have the
opportunity to record in Hansard some of the verbal assurances I have received from his officers. The matter came to
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
9
a head in January when Dr Phil Gorey, the executive director of environment at the Department of Mines and
Petroleum wrote to prospectors about the implementation of application fees for mining proposals and programs of
work, known as POW. He advised that after 1 July the fees will be $590 for a POW and $6 950 for a mining proposal
in an endeavour to raise $2.7 million through cost recovery to implement the reform of environmental regulation,
known as the RER process.
Un
Minister, these fees will jeopardise the exploration that is critical to the future of our mining industry and the royalty
flow that is so important to our government and our people. It will also jeopardise the attractiveness of our state for
mineral exploration. When I met with representatives of DMP on 10 February, they advised me that consultation
around the RER had been happening since 2009 and that the Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association
was part of it. However, APLA has told me that it was firm throughout that there should be no new fees, that this
proposal has come totally out of left field and that it has greeted it with consternation and dismay.
r
co
The key issue is that these are up-front fees. By its nature prospecting is a very risky business, with no guarantee of
income and I fear that these fees will discourage prospectors from going bush. Many prospectors run sometimes
small, sometimes unsophisticated, businesses and some have been going out into the bush for generations. While they
are doing this, they are not on the dole and they are living in and supporting our small regional communities. They are
the lifeblood of my goldfields towns. Gold has been the driver of these communities for 120 years, but all the easy
gold has been found. Gone are the days when we could kick over a nugget, as Paddy Hannan did. The gold that is
available for discovery these days is usually in very isolated places like Tropicana or Telfer, is often covered with an
overburden of topsoil that masks the geology or is of low grade.
rec
We are sending a mixed message to our prospectors. Through royalties for regions, we have spent over $100 million
through the exploration incentive scheme which has not only the co-funded drilling component, but also streamlined
applications and approvals. It has enabled the development of databases and tens of thousands of pieces of
information. Thanks to this RFR investment, DMP is well on the way to a paperless system, which one would think
should deliver immense savings to government. However, a telling statistic is that very few, if any, prospectors have
submitted a POW online. They do not have an administration officer in town, and some do not even have a computer.
Hon Norman Moore got it right in his valedictory speech on 21 May 2013 when he said the following —
… the exploration incentive scheme, which was a National Party initiative in the 2008 election … is a very,
very important scheme. It is all about encouraging companies to explore in greenfields areas of
Western Australia. … Every mine … is finite, every ore body is finite, and if we do not find tomorrow’s
mines today, this industry does not have a future.
ted
I am told that, historically, 80 per cent of our mines in Western Australia have been originally found by prospectors.
In fact, APLA has provided me with some information from a 2002 newsletter “Datum Post”, which stated at that
time that 43 per cent of all prospecting licence titles, 15 per cent of all exploration licence titles and 31 per cent of all
mining licence titles were held by non-corporates. If that ratio was extrapolated to today, DMP would expect around
$60 million in expenditure requirements on tenements held by non-corporates. This is the problem. In isolation, the
proposed fees might not seem like much, but on top of expenditure requirements as well as dramatic increases in local
government rating of mining tenements, prospectors can see little hope of coming out in front.
Pr
As a result of the decision by the Valuer-General on the valuation of mining tenements, local government rates have
increased, in some cases, by over 400 per cent. One prospector told me that council rates on one of his ELs will
increase from $4 789 to $19 637. This is just unsustainable and will kill the industry that is not only the lifeblood of
our goldfields towns but also very much a part of our culture and heritage.
f
oo
I acknowledge that the department has advised its intention to ease the burden of the rollout by granting exemptions
for low impact works that disturb less than 0.25 hectares. However, while appreciated, this just introduces more
uncertainty. What is low impact? How is the 0.25 hectares defined? Is it the area scraped, does it include the area
where vegetation and topsoil are pushed up, does it extend as far as the dozer tracks? Prospectors also tell me that
0.25 hectares is too small to be of any use. There is also uncertainty about how often a POW needs to be submitted.
Prospectors are concerned that if, having submitted a POW and paid $590, they find nothing and decide to move on,
then another fee will be applicable. One prospector, in an email to me said —
As the rules stand now to dig the old style shaft 1mtx2mt and 10mt deep with a windlass or my modern air
winch I need to apply for a mining proposal and after July 1st that is going to cost $7000k, I hope there is
some gold at the bottom.
There must be a better way to raise $2.7 million. When I asked the DMP representatives what happens to the
tenement application fees, royalties and rent they collect, I was told it went into consolidated revenue and Treasury
would not give it back. First and foremost, these fees should fund the legislative responsibilities of the department
that collects them. Are we being asked to fund the Rolls Royce of environmental regulation when a more economical
model might suffice?
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
10
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Yesterday, the Resource Information Unit Explorers Conference noted a dramatic drop in budget allocations for
exploration. We need to encourage exploration, not jeopardise it. I ask that this decision be reviewed.
Un
MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Minister for Mines and Petroleum) [9.57 am]: I thank the member for
Kalgoorlie for the grievance and some notice of it last week. I probably should begin by acknowledging the member’s
point. I agree with the member that prospectors are the lifeblood of the industry; indeed, they are responsible for the
majority of mineral finds in Western Australia. I have received not only this grievance but also letters from
prospectors, including prospectors I have met in my role as a minister, such as one prospector who discovered the
Andy Well gold find that Doray Minerals is processing. It was discovered by a prospector, and it is a good example of
a find that has become a proper mineral proposal.
r
co
The member made the point, and I will probably emphasise it during my response, that these are very small fees in
relation to the whole operation of a program of works and also, of course, a mining proposal. Indeed, someone
applying for a mining proposal would be seeking to mine for a mineral. That is why $7 000 is quite small compared
with what is paid in other states. It relates to work undertaken by the department. It does not go to the consolidated
fund; it funds the work done by the processing in the department and it will be linked to that and, indeed, is audited.
If it is less than that, it will be reduced in future. With those opening comments, I can say that no-one likes any fees.
With any introduction of fees there will be push-back. Indeed, I can say that one sector of the industry—the
prospectors, the smaller operators—has written a number of letters to me.
I will deal first with the issue of consultation, and there has been consultation. The Mining Act was changed before
my time to allow the introduction of fees and since 2009, there has been some consultation with industry, including
the prospectors’ association. I think the prospectors’ association changes membership, so that means the people
change. I am not necessarily criticising the association; it may be that the feedback to prospectors from the
representatives on our advisory committees could have perhaps been a bit better.
rec
Ms W.M. Duncan interjected.
Mr W.R. MARMION: Possibly, or perhaps the person on the committee did not speak up as much as some of the
other industry representatives. Nonetheless, there has been consultation.
<007> T/1
ted
Indeed, the initial pricing model was around $4.8 million that the department put up to me as the minister. I basically
said, “Go back and think again.” In terms of the environmental reforms that we are putting in, the argument from the
department was that we are moving from a risk-based and outcome-focused to a process that allows more flexibility
and scope and innovation for mining companies to run their own operations in making sure they look after the
environment. The outcome will be good for the environment if they do it how they want to, rather than a prescriptive
process with inspectors from Department of Mines and Petroleum going out regularly. The counterargument is that if
that is the case, fewer resources are needed. We are looking at that, so we can implement these changes and not have
any fees. In this case, I asked them to half the money they want to recoup; rather than being an annual, I have aligned
it to an actual application fee the fee is paid only when the application is put in. I will get to some further work we are
doing on that in a minute. In terms of implementation, the member for Kalgoorlie has the figures right: it is $590 for a
program that works, which does allow for four years of activity; and the fee for a mining proposal is just below
$7 000. That lasts for the life of the mine. Once the mining proposal is put in, that is the only application fee to be
paid.
Pr
I make a quick point in relation to Queensland, which I guess is our major competitor of the states. Queensland has an
annual fee for exploration and prospecting activities—and it is over $1 800. The charge for mining activity can be as
high in Queensland per annum as $77 000. We are well under that, and we would never want to go anywhere near
that.
f
oo
I quickly touch on shire rates. That is a serious concern to me, and the figure the member gave was disturbing that
$4 800 to nearly $20 000. I have been talking to the Minister for Lands. We understand how that has happened and
we are working very quickly to resolve that. We hope to get some legislative changes through so that we have
resolved that problem before rate notices go out next year. There should be good news on that matter. That is way and
above the impact in terms of dollars of these application fees. I hope that the industry will be supportive of those
changes and a welcome reduction in fees.
Back to the impact of the fees, we have not shut the gate on the 0.25 hectare. That is what we have at the moment in
terms of minimal impact for prospectors. We worked out that. Indeed, this figure came from the advisory board: the
2.25 hectare disturbance related to about 20 per cent of applications for programs of works, and these would be
exempt from the fee under that figure of 0.25 hectare. My department and I are open to constructive comment on
what represents a low-impact application. I am receiving a lot of advice on that at the moment from my department.
I am very open on that aspect. We have not shut the gate on that, and we are working with prospectors to see whether
there can be a resolution on that front.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
11
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Membership Change — Motion
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Leader of the House) [10.04 am]: I move —
Un
That the member for Balcatta and the member for Vasse are appointed as members of the Community
Development and Justice standing Committee.
Dr A.D. Buti: Did you override the Premier?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: The member for Armadale, I think, Madam Acting Speaker, has invited me to make some
comments about the background to this nomination.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): No, Leader of the House, I am sure he did not.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Effectively he did—so I shall therefore do so. I might even make some comments that assist to
further the career of the member for Armadale, Madam Acting Speaker.
r
co
This motion seeks to fill the two vacancies that have existed on the Community Development and Justice Standing
Committee since around the middle of last year when the two government members of this committee made a
decision to resign from the committee. My understanding is that they were completely dissatisfied with the
chairmanship of the committee and the way the committee was being managed and guided by the chair.
Dr A.D. Buti: Disgraceful! Absolutely disgraceful—you are much better than that!
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, unless you would like to take a point of order, interjections are
not welcome.
rec
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Armadale! I am on my feet; I call you for the first time. It is very difficult to
protect you, Leader of the House—so can we just move to the substantive motion. Thank you very much.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah—shush!
ted
Mr J.H.D. DAY: We are seeking to fill the two vacancies that have existed, but I should also point out that the
government has not had confidence in the way this committee has been operating, in particular in relation to the
report presented around the middle of last year entitled “Review of the Police Investigation into Traffic Incidents
involving a member of Parliament”. The government in good faith agreed to the opposition having a majority and
therefore chairing one of the standing committees of Parliament after the last election when committees were being
put in place. That is in accordance with I think what has become accepted practice now over the last two
Parliaments—this one and the previous Parliament in that the government will not have a majority on all of the
committees, and, as I said, in good faith —
Ms R. Saffioti: You do with the Public Accounts Committee, actually. That was a deal the Premier did.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members!
Pr
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Well—at least in good faith, and I think the precedence has now been established that the
government of the day will not have a majority on all committees of the Legislative Assembly. It was the Community
Development and Justice Standing Committee where that practice has been put into effect, so the Labor opposition
has had three members and the government has had two members.
The report that was produced in June of last year was presented. It was not so much the fact that the inquiry was
undertaken and the highly political nature of the inquiry, but it was clearly a blatant political exercise with a
prejudged outcome and a completely unprofessional majority —
f
oo
Dr A.D. Buti: Where is your proof of the prejudged outcome?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: I will quote in a moment from responses to the report provided —
Dr A.D. Buti: Yes, but that doesn’t determine a prejudged outcome; that’s after the report. Where is your evidence
that we have prejudged it?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Armadale!
Mr J.H.D. DAY: A majority report was produced by three members of the committee and minority reports were
presented by the two government members of the committee. It does not matter quite so much perhaps what the
government has to say, although the Minister for Police tabled a response to the report in August of last year, but the
minister’s report attached responses from the Commissioner of Police and the State Solicitor, together with the
State Counsel. I think it is important to put on the record what those senior officers of the state had to say. Putting
aside whatever the government’s views may be, clearly this in an area of great political activity and interest, and I can
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
12
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
understand that. The government has a view that committees and the Parliament have a responsibility to treat with
due respect the senior officers and institutions of the state who do their job in a proper and professional way.
The Commissioner of Police, amongst other things, in his response stated —
Un
It is clear that the three members of the Committee contributing to the main report have only a rudimentary
understanding of Police investigation and response. Consequently, erroneous assumptions and conclusions
are found throughout the report, highlighting a lack of objectivity by three members of the Committee.
<008> L/3
Mrs M.H. Roberts: That is disgraceful.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Is the member saying what Karl O’Callaghan, the Commissioner of Police, said is disgraceful?
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Members! Can you bring this to a conclusion, Leader of the House.
Thank you.
r
co
[Quorum formed.]
The ACTING SPEAKER: Leader of the House, I would love this to be drawn to a conclusion.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: I can assure Madam Acting Speaker that I will certainly not take another 55 minutes.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Good.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: The Commissioner of Police, in other paragraphs in his response, stated in reference to some
conclusions on page 21 of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee’s report —
rec
The Committee has simply invented both of these conclusions. It has no evidence before it of how police
conducted the interview or how the officer felt when conducting the interview.
Further down that page, the statement is made by the Commissioner of Police —
The Committee again shows its rudimentary understanding of police investigation.
Near the bottom of the page, the Commissioner of Police states —
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
ted
There is a theme running through this report which continually suggests interference by Government in the
process of the Police investigation. This is a mischievous allegation without any apparent foundation which
impugns the reputation of those involved. The committee protects itself by using ‘might have’ or ‘may have’
to shelter behind a conclusion for which there is absolutely no evidence. In this way the Committee appears
to be manipulating facts to fit a predetermined position.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Leader of the House, you have the floor. Please draw it to a conclusion.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: It is also important, to ensure that it is on the record and to remind members, of what the State
Solicitor had to say about the committee’s report. Amongst other things, he wrote —
The Report of the majority of the Committee raises criticisms that relate directly to the SSO.
Pr
That is the State Solicitor’s Office.
Comments made by the Committee in relation to SSO legal advice and legal professional privilege are, with
the greatest respect, erroneous and misleading.
Further on, he said —
f
oo
However, the Committee has misrepresented the actual SSO legal advice given and instead relied on its own
assumptions, inferences and conclusions in relation to the Vehicle Examination Report.
There is much else that I could quote, but I will simply go to the conclusion of the letter from Paul Evans,
State Solicitor, and George Tannin, SC. Under the heading “Concluding comments”, they note —
The Committee’s most striking proposition, if it is a proposition, appears towards the end of the Report.
The review has revealed the extent to which police are constrained in doing their job by policies
and law. (Report Page 30)
This concluding comment by the Committee is perplexing and reveals an ignorance of Parliamentary history
and the role of Parliament in securing the rule of law.
The fact that the “police are constrained in doing their job by policies and law” —
That quote is from the committee —
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
13
is unsurprising, and surely to be lauded as a benchmark of any just and democratic society that values
respecting and upholding the rule of law. How could the police responsibly act otherwise?
It is baffling that the Committee would conclude its Report by apparently criticising the police for adhering
to relevant policies and laws, particularly given the Chair’s remarks in her foreword …
Un
That is what the Commissioner of Police, the State Solicitor and State Counsel had to say in response to the
Community Development and Justice Standing Committee’s report. It is not surprising that the government has a
view that this committee has not been well led. The government accepts that it is chaired by the opposition but it does
not believe that a professional and proper approach has been taken by the majority of the committee in relation to the
report that it produced. Those comments from the Commissioner of Police, and in particular from the State Solicitor
and State Counsel, are absolutely damning given that the chair of the committee —
Several members interjected.
r
co
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, please do not interject. The Leader of the House assures me that he is coming
to a conclusion. I would welcome the conclusion of this.
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, I am on my feet!
rec
Mr J.H.D. DAY: The comments made, even if members want to put aside the comments from the Commissioner of
Police, take into account the views of the State Solicitor and the State Counsel in some of the extracts that I just
referred to. They are absolutely damning comments about a report that was produced by a majority of members from
the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, which has been chaired by the member for
Girrawheen, who in fact is a lawyer, and a lawyer of some significant experience, as I understand it. If I were in that
position, I would feel very uncomfortable and highly embarrassed, given that she, and in fact the member for
Armadale, have significant legal experience.
ted
The government’s view is that it would be preferable for the chairmanship of the Community Development and
Justice Standing Committee to be changed from the member for Girrawheen to the member for Armadale. That is a
matter for the committee to consider, but that is the government’s view. The government is not suggesting that the
member for Girrawheen should not be a member of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee
but the government’s view is that it would be appropriate for the member for Armadale to take over the chairmanship
of this committee, albeit he was a member of the committee that produced the majority report. I believe it is
incumbent on members of committees of this Parliament to act in a fair manner, and to at least pay account to what
are the well-established principles of the rule of law and the role of Parliament in making laws, and in accepting the
fundamental principle that the police should not operate outside the law, because that is effectively what last year’s
majority report of the committee suggested.
I have just provided background on the government’s views about the Community Development and Justice Standing
Committee and why it has had two vacancies for a number of months. The government is now of the view that it is
appropriate to reinstate government membership of the committee, but it believes that the committee should take on
board the comments that I have made. I commend the motion to the house; namely, to appoint the members for
Balcatta and Vasse to the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee.
f
oo
Pr
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [10.18 am]: What an extraordinary diatribe we have just heard from the
Leader of the House. Although I support his motion, some matters he raised in the course of moving this motion
simply need to be addressed. One assertion made was that the government had acted in good faith when it gave the
opposition a majority of members on a committee so that the opposition could chair a committee. He said that this
was an agreement that had been reached post the 2008 election that in future Parliaments the precedent should be set
that the opposition should take the chairmanship of one committee. First and foremost, that was not the agreement
that was reached. What the Premier said when he was in opposition was that he believed that the opposition should
chair the Public Accounts Committee—the committee colloquially referred to as PAC. That is what the Premier said
when he was in opposition and when he came to government in 2008, the Premier said he would stand by that. It was
his view that we should agree from hereon in that the opposition should chair the PAC and the opposition should also
probably get chairmanship of one other committee. The Premier reneged on that commitment after the result of the
2013 state election. Buoyed by an increased majority in this house, the Premier said he no longer believed the
opposition should get chairmanship of the PAC but he said he would consider it. He considered for some time what
he was prepared to offer and, eventually, the opposition was told that one committee would have a majority of
opposition members. As the Minister for Planning identified, that is currently the Community Development and
Justice Standing Committee.
<009> N/D
That was the only committee in this Parliament that the opposition was given the majority of members on. It is not
what had been agreed to previously; it was a diminution of that.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
14
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
One of the other few things that the Minister for Planning got correct was that he said the committee reported midyear
last year. Indeed, to be specific, it reported in June last year.
Mr J.H.D. Day: I said that.
Un
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister is correct if he said that. The committee did report in June last year, so the full
context of that report and so forth were known in June last year. Guess what? The Liberal members of that committee,
the members for Balcatta and Morley, did not resign until July. What they did was go off on their overseas trip. They
participated in the committee’s inquiries in Manchester, New York and Dallas even though that was after the
Buswell report had been released and after those members had given their dissenting report. I think that the member
for Morley was more piqued with the fact that he was written up in an article in The West Australian by
Daniel Emerson and others for skipping a high-level meeting in New York with the New York Police Department to
go to his wife’s home in the state of Texas while on tour with the parliamentary committee that he quit weeks later.
I think that had a little bit to do with it. I can understand why the member for Morley might not have wanted to show
his face at that committee again. Why did the member for Balcatta pull the pin? It was all around this place that a
certain person in the Premier’s office was putting pressure on him to do so, not that he wanted to do so. Guess what?
Since then he has been complaining about his lesser income. In recent weeks people around this place have been
hearing him say that he would like to be back on the committee so he can get some more money.
r
co
Point of Order
Mr C.D. HATTON: Do I have a right of reply at all? My point of order —
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Members, points of order will be heard in silence!
rec
Mr C.D. HATTON: My point of order is that the member is discrediting individuals in their role of committee work.
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! Thank you very much, member for Balcatta; you cannot use a point of order
for a debating opportunity. If you want to debate the issue, you can stand and debate it after the fact. There is no point
of order.
Mr C.D. HATTON: Further to that point of order —
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
ted
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, silence during a point of order!
Mr C.D. HATTON: My point of order is not about debate; the point of order is that the member is not factual in
what she is saying.
The ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If you want to respond, you can respond when you have an
opportunity.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. Morton interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Forrestfield, I heard that.
Pr
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I can see why a motion has been moved today to reinstate the member for Balcatta, but not
the member for Morley, to the committee, because I know that the member for Morley is a man of some principle,
and I think he would be too embarrassed to put his name forward to rejoin this committee.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Let us look at what this article by Daniel Emerson says. It states —
f
oo
Morley Liberal MP Ian Britza skipped a high-level meeting with the New York Police Department to
go to his wife’s home State of Texas while on tour with a parliamentary committee he quit weeks later.
It was the third time since being elected in 2008 that Mr Britza has gone to Texas on the WA taxpayer.
Speaker Michael Sutherland is investigating Mr Britza going absent during the community development and
justice standing committee’s $120,000 trip last month to Britain and the US to research seniors and police
policy.
Mr Britza and fellow Liberal Chris Hatton quit the Labor-dominated committee this week after Police
Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan and the Premier claimed its June report into Troy Buswell’s traffic crashes
was biased.
But the move has prompted questions over why the pair went overseas with the committee last month if they
no longer wanted to be on it.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
15
Committee chairwoman Margaret Quirk yesterday confirmed Mr Britza, who was deputy chairman, missed a
scheduled meeting with NYPD deputy commissioner Dermot Shea on July 11.
“He didn’t even tell me, he just nicked off,” she said. “When I went down to the hotel foyer and said,
‘Where’s Ian’, the research staff said he’s gone to Dallas a day early.”
The delegation was in Dallas for a conference on the ageing between July 12 and 16.
Un
Ms Quirk said Mr Britza had been keen for the committee to attend the conference but also left that event
midway through the last day to visit an in-law in nearby Fort Worth before staying on in the US.
Mr Britza’s two other research trips to Texas, costing taxpayers $12,000, were during the festive seasons of
2008–09 and 2011–12.
Mr Britza told Channel 7 that committee research officers had told him the NYPD meeting had been
cancelled and gave him permission to leave early, a claim Ms Quirk disputed.
He defended his three Texas trips on taxpayers.
r
co
“I don’t care if it was six times,” he said. “It’s the only in-law I have. My family matter to me more than
what you matter.”
That is the full content of the article. We can see why Mr Britza would not want to put his name forward to rejoin that
committee that he absented himself from on those occasions. Of course, the claims he made do not hold water. Here
we have the following situation: the report came out in June; they do their dissenting report; they are not happy;
supposedly, they want to resign from the committee because of that, but, no, they are more than happy to go off on
the trip to Manchester, New York and Dallas —
rec
Point of Order
Mr C.D. HATTON: I have a point of order —
A member interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Points of order will be heard in silence. Member for Butler, do not move back to your
seat because you are going to interject; points of order will be heard in silence. Member for Cannington, I can see
what you are doing. I am in the chair, member for Cannington, not you.
Several members interjected.
ted
Mr C.D. HATTON: My point of order is that the member for Midland is misleading Parliament and the reason I say
that —
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, points of order will be heard in silence!
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah!
Mr C.D. HATTON: The member for Midland is grossly misleading Parliament, and the reason I say that is that it
needs to be categorically stated that when I, as a member of that committee, gave a dissenting report—I think this
needs to be said —
Debate Resumed
Pr
The ACTING SPEAKER: Sit down, member. There is no point of order.
Mr N.W. Morton interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I can hear you, member for Forrestfield.
f
oo
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It would appear that the member for Balcatta does not like me saying these things, but, of
course, they are not my words; they are words directly quoted from The West Australian. I have said nothing more
than this is what was reported in The West Australian. I read out verbatim what was printed in The West Australian,
and the member for Balcatta said he disputes that. Let him get up and speak. All I assert here is that these are the
words that were printed in The West Australian newspaper, and they were. I have quoted them directly. I will provide
that article to Hansard so it can appear on the parliamentary record. Those same members who were prepared to go to
Manchester —
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Those same members who were happy to investigate seniors and have their inquiries in
Manchester, New York and Dallas were not, however, prepared—they drew the line—to travel with the committee to
Melville and Mandurah. They were not available for that. They said, “We’ve had enough. We’re not going to
Melville and Mandurah. We have to resign! Our principle has suddenly kicked into action and we’re not prepared to
go there with that committee; we’re not prepared to go there with that chairperson. We are not going to Melville and
Mandurah with her.”
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
16
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Un
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Government members may not like this debate, but their Leader of the House effectively
asked for it. He re-canvassed every issue this morning. He made lots of claims. I do not think he got a good briefing
this morning. I do not think he has updated himself since the dissenting members’ first response on this issue in this
place.
<010> C/4
The Premier has, of course, made a lot of criticism of the Chair of the Community Development and Justice Standing
Committee; criticism that he has not recanted, yet we are seeing today an incredible backflip. Suddenly he is saying,
“Actually we do care about the conventions of this place and we are reluctantly going to put two people back on it.
We’re going to let the member for Balcatta rejoin the committee and get the few thousand dollars extra per year that
he’ll get by being a member of a committee.”
r
co
Mr C.D. Hatton: Point of order!
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: That is a fact.
Point of Order
Mr C.D. HATTON: The member for Midland is misrepresenting again and misleading —
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Sit down, please.
Debate Resumed
rec
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I look forward to seeing the member for Balcatta take on the role for nothing and not get the
few thousand dollars that committee members are paid additional to their base salary as a member of Parliament,
because if I am misrepresenting him I will apologise. If the member for Balcatta is not going to take the money, I will
apologise—no problem whatsoever.
Point of Order
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE: I refer to standing order 92, “Imputations and personal reflections”. I believe the member
is now making assessments over the member’s financial situation and motives.
The SPEAKER: Member, there is no point of order.
ted
Debate Resumed
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected.
The SPEAKER: Premier!
f
oo
Pr
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I look forward to the member for Balcatta advising the house, if he chooses to respond to
comments today, on whether he is going to get extra income by rejoining the committee or whether he is not going to
take that money. I also look forward to him advising the house on whether he had a phone call or any conversation
with a member of the Premier’s staff recommending to him that he take himself off the committee and join the
member for Morley in leaving the committee last year. I am not sure from the government’s perspective what has
changed from when those members resigned last year and why they are now prepared to rejoin the committee.
The only explanation we really got from the Leader of the House today was that after due consideration, they need to
respect the conventions of the house and are prepared to go back to the arrangement they put in place post the last
election. The fact is that the Premier, we all know, is a hothead; he gets a rush of blood to the head in a fit of pique
and he makes a statement. Of course it was inappropriate that members resign from the committee in the
circumstances. There are conventions in this house. There are occasions in which minority reports are written. There
are occasions when a member or two members disagree with the majority report of a committee. The way to do that
and the convention to handle it is to put in a minority report so that the two reports can be seen side by side—the
majority report and the minority report. That is the convention. There was no reason for these resignations—none at
all.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I think it is fair to say that the member for Morley could not work with the chair of the
committee. Frankly, if I were the member for Morley, I would not have shown my face at that committee again after
what had gone on overseas and the comments that had been made. I therefore understand that. However, it was a
political decision to withdraw the member for Balcatta at that time. I do not think he was actually keen to withdraw
but he was encouraged into that position by someone from the Premier’s staff.
Another claim was made in this place today by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House read into the record
some of the criticisms of the committee’s report by the Commissioner of Police. The central assertion in the
Commissioner of Police’s letter has been unequivocally disproven. The Leader of the House should have had a
briefing on that and if he had, perhaps he would know differently. The member for Armadale may be able to go into
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
17
Un
this matter in better detail than I can, but one of the things that surprised me when I read that letter tabled in the house
by the Minister for Police was the assertion in words to the effect that the committee could not possibly fairly
comment on something because the committee members had not interviewed the two young officers involved.
However, we know that prior to his attendance at the hearing, the Commissioner of Police spoke with the chairperson
in the presence of other witnesses to that conversation and suggested to the chairperson that there was no need to call
the individual officers as they were young officers who may be intimidated by the committee process and whatever,
and that there was nothing they could contribute or add of which he personally could not advise them. I understand
that subsequent to that the Commissioner of Police has written a letter back to the committee saying that he is very
happy to continue working with the committee in a constructive way. That is therefore the extent of his problem with
the committee, so he actually got something wrong there.
rec
r
co
There are other opinions on this matter to which the member for Armadale will refer. I was listening to the member
for Girrawheen’s very good interjection earlier when she said that there is a silk’s opinion that is contrary to the
advice that the State Solicitor’s Office gave the government. This is therefore not an open-and-shut case. I recognise
that the Leader of the House reflected on the legal careers and knowledge of both the member for Girrawheen as chair
and a committee member, the member for Armadale. Both of them are quite distinguished when it comes to law
practice. The member for Girrawheen, for example, has worked in major law firms. She worked in the Office of the
Director of Public Prosecutions, I believe in the Australian Capital Territory and potentially elsewhere. In fact she
worked for the National Crime Authority as its legal counsel for Western Australia; I think the title is regional
counsel. She did that for some years and indeed provided high-level advice to the commonwealth government in that
role. She is not a novice, therefore, when it comes to this matter. I would certainly put her opinion higher than the
opinion of a whole lot of other people. As someone who actually worked as a lawyer in the area of policing law
enforcement—she was not a commercial or family lawyer—it is an area of which she has detailed knowledge.
I suspect in fact that both the member for Girrawheen and the member for Armadale have given lectures and tutorials
at university level in these matters.
Mr J.H.D. Day: And that makes the majority report all the more surprising.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the House!
ted
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: What I will say is this. These are people with an academic background in law. They are
people with relevant legal experience in law. In my view they are both people of the highest personal integrity.
I believe that if anyone has been out of order here, it has been the Premier. He has been completely out of order in his
criticism of those individuals. He has been bullying and belligerent towards the member for Girrawheen. He takes
every opportunity to attempt to belittle her. I think that he is the one who needs to make an apology here. He has also
thumbed his nose at the conventions of this place. The Leader of the House knows this. The former
Leader of the House knows this. This was no way to behave. Withdrawing those members from the committee was a
political decision taken by the Premier, and it was wrong.
Pr
My daughter last night was preparing for a politics and law—P&L—test today. I said to her, “What topics are you
looking at?” She ran through a few of the topics with me and one of them was the separation of powers. She asked
me, “What’s executive government, Mum?” I said, “Well, that’s really the cabinet. That’s the Premier and cabinet.
That’s executive government.” I talked to her about the separate roles of executive government and Parliament, and I
hope she gets that right in her test today. However, it is a shame that the Premier does not take the doctrine of the
separation of powers more seriously. I went through it with my daughter. I said, “There is executive government,
there is Parliament and there is the judiciary, and they’ve got to be separate.” But this Premier blurs them altogether.
<011> R/2
f
oo
I think the Premier’s criticisms of the member for Girrawheen have been entirely inappropriate. His treatment of this
Parliament is inappropriate. I think with these members rejoining the committee, he should apologise to the member
for Girrawheen. I think today the Leader of the House was put in an invidious situation; he had to come into the
chamber and speak on this and try to justify the government’s backflip and why it has changed its mind. Towards the
end of what he had to say he said: “We still don’t really like the member for Girrawheen being chair of the
committee. We would prefer that the member for Armadale was chair of the committee.” I think that is the royal
“we”; I think he is speaking on behalf of the Premier there, because it is really the Premier who does not like the
member for Girrawheen being chair of the committee. We know that the member Girrawheen is pretty fearless, she
will not be intimidated and she will speak her mind. That is not the kind of woman that the Premier likes. He does not
like having a chair of that committee who is absolutely fearless, who knows her stuff, knows the law and does things
very thoroughly indeed. Government members are saying in a very mealy-mouthed way that they want the member
for Armadale. Of course he would be a very capable chair as well, but he is not our choice and the member for
Girrawheen has done nothing to justify this change. Quite apart from anything else, the member for Armadale wholly
endorsed the report and actions of the committee.
Dr A.D. Buti: It wasn’t her report, it was our report.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
18
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Exactly; the majority report was signed off by three members, and the member for Armadale
was part and parcel of that along with the member for Girrawheen. I can only assume that when it comes to the
Premier, it is personal about the member for Girrawheen, because there is no argument that the member for Armadale
had a different view, came to different conclusions or in any way disagreed with the committee’s report. They were
his findings as much as they were hers.
Un
Since the departure of the Liberal Party members, I am told that the committee has conducted another 10 hearings,
considered another nine submissions and 11 supplementary submissions as well as having actively participated in the
writing up of that work. The committee has got on with the job. I think that the Premier thought that he could
potentially intimidate the member for Girrawheen to drop her bundle and think: Well, we will just not do much. Quite
to the contrary, this committee, under her leadership, has got on with the job. The committee is holding hearings,
receiving submissions and writing reports. I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House because the
committee should have representation from both sides of the house.
rec
r
co
I will leave it for a couple of my colleagues to make the remarks here, but let us be very clear that this is an enormous
backflip by the Premier. We know that on occasion he just loses his lolly, he takes his ball and he wants to go home,
and in a fit of pique he said, “You guys have got to resign from the committee. The Liberal Party shouldn’t participate
on this committee anymore.” That is wrong. They are individual members of Parliament who have an individual
responsibility on that committee and they have to make individual decisions about that. I look forward to hearing the
member for Balcatta explain why he left the committee and is now prepared to come back on, because there is no
change to the chairmanship or to the Labor members on committee. The only potential change is that we now know
more about the committee’s recommendations and how right they were. The committee was right on several aspects
that the commissioner was not right about and it was right on matters of points of law. This is an embarrassing
backdown for the government. The government should be embarrassed about both of its members who wrote the
minority report on that committee. In particular, I think the member for Balcatta needs to make an explanation. I hope
that the Premier will not let his ego get in the way and he will have some considered reflection on his behaviour in
this matter, and perhaps he will think about the way that he has treated the member for Girrawheen in this Parliament
and make a sincere apology.
ted
DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [10.46 am]: I also support the motion before the house and I look forward to having the
member for Balcatta back on the committee and also the member for Vasse. I think the committee will work better
with five members. I am surprised by the Leader of the House’s comments today. I think the Leader of the House is a
person of high morals and he is well respected in this house. I would have expected those comments to have come
from the Premier. It is a shame that the Premier is not here today, because I want to ask him whether he or his office
pressured the member for Balcatta and to a lesser extent the member for Morley to resign from the committee.
Did the Premier or someone from his office put pressure on the members for Balcatta and Morley to resign from the
committee? My assumption is that if the Premier answered that question in the negative, he would be misleading
Parliament.
The Leader of the House talked about the police commissioner and State Solicitor’s responses to the report. Their
responses to the report had many holes in them. The police commissioner mentioned in his response and also in his
media comments that the majority report had no credibility because there was a minority report. That is a really
interesting interpretation of how the committee system works.
Mr J.H.D. Day: I do not think that was his reasoning.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: There was no minority on that one.
f
oo
Pr
Dr A.D. BUTI: The member should listen to all the police commissioner’s comments to the media. He said that we
cannot have confidence in the report because there was a minority report, and that committee members cannot even
agree among themselves. The most famous High Court case in the last 100 years is Mabo No 2, which was a decision
split four–three. On that logic, we cannot have confidence in the Mabo decision. Of course, the Premier is part of the
despicable government response to the Mabo decision back in 1993 that sought to override the recognition of native
title. But luckily the High Court struck that down seven–nil.
Dr A.D. BUTI: There was no minority on that one; that judgement was seven–nil. The idea that because there was a
minority report the majority report has no substance is a silly interpretation of how the committee system works and it
is a silly interpretation of how the court system works. I think the police commissioner and State Solicitor’s responses
also stated that we did not follow precedent. The committee is not a court of law and it does not have to follow legal
precedent. The responses did not show where we did not follow legal precedent. One of the responses also made the
argument that we did not properly read the law on parliamentary privilege vis a vis legal professional privilege. There
is legal advice that fully supports the committee’s decision that parliamentary privilege overruled legal professional
privilege. There is legal opinion to that effect.
<012> J/4
Mr J.H.D. Day: Was it really necessary to release the names of the witnesses?
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
19
Dr A.D. BUTI: I think the names of the witnesses were pretty well known. As far as I am aware, we were not the first
to disclose the names of the witnesses, but that is quite an immaterial fact to the report, in any case. The
Leader of the House also made the statement that we had a predetermined outcome to the report and that there was a
presumption of bias. All five committee members, including the member for Balcatta and the member for Morley,
agreed to the terms of reference. They did not see the terms of reference as being biased.
Un
Mr J.H.D. Day: I didn’t say that.
Dr A.D. BUTI: They did not see the terms of reference as being biased and there was no predetermined outcome to
this report.
The Commissioner of Police mentioned in his comments that the committee used language like “may”, “shall” or
“could have”. Yes, that is the language we used, because that was the appropriate language to use.
Ms M.M. Quirk: If it were predetermined, we would have used “absolutely”.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Exactly right, member for Girrawheen. We would have been more absolute in our determination.
r
co
rec
I turn now to the issue with regard to the member for Balcatta. The member for Balcatta was a very enthusiastic
member of our committee, and is now rejoining it. On the overseas trip we took, one could not doubt his enthusiasm
and dedication to the various tasks that the committee undertook; of course, one could not say the same of the
member for Morley, and that is probably one of the reasons why he is not back on the committee. The member for
Balcatta has always been a very enthusiastic member of our committee, and that goes to further evidence that the
Premier or his office bullied or put pressure on the member for Balcatta to resign. That is a disgraceful act by the
Premier. The committee system has a special significance in our parliamentary system; that is why we are not allowed
to talk to each other about deliberations of our committee—it is confidential. For the Premier or someone from his
office to seek to put pressure on a member to resign because they did not approve of a report is a disgrace, an absolute
disgrace.
ted
Let us now go to the chair of our committee, the member for Girrawheen. The Leader of the House made a number of
assertions or allegations today about how the chair of our committee goes about the business of chairing our
committee. In any committee meeting that we have held, whether a committee hearing, agency hearing or inquiry,
there has never been a time when one could criticise the way in which the chair has chaired the meeting, inquiry or
hearing—none whatsoever. It would be interesting to know whether the member for Balcatta or the member for
Morley have criticisms of the way in which the member for Girrawheen has chaired the committee. They may
disagree with her or other committee members’ findings in respect of the so-called Buswell inquiry, and that is fine,
but that does not go to prove that the member for Girrawheen did not appropriately chair a meeting.
The Leader of the House made some quite disparaging comments about the member for Girrawheen, and he is far
better than that. I would expect that sort of thing from the Premier, but I think the member for Girrawheen is owed an
apology for the accusations or allegations that the Leader of the House made with regard to the way in which she has
chaired this committee.
Mr J.H.D. Day: I was referring to that particular inquiry and drawing on the comments of the State Solicitor and the
Commissioner of Police.
Dr A.D. BUTI: This raises an interesting point, does it not? What happens in the committee is confidential, so how
would the Leader of the House know how the member for Girrawheen chaired the committee?
Pr
Mr J.H.D. Day: I talked about general leadership, and was drawing on the comments —
Dr A.D. BUTI: But how would he know that? Has the Leader of the House received information from the member
for Balcatta or the member for Morley?
Mr J.H.D. Day: The evidence was the comments of the State Solicitor and the Commissioner of Police.
f
oo
Dr A.D. BUTI: No, I do not think so. The State Solicitor and the Commissioner of Police did not talk about how the
chair conducted the hearings—not at all. The Leader of the House could only have found out that information —
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Members! The member for Armadale has the floor. He is perfectly
capable of taking up this argument.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Given the comments that the Leader of the House has made about the way in which the chair has
handled or conducted the inquiry, he could have obtained such information—if there ever were such information, it
would be erroneous— only if he had received a leak from the member for Balcatta, which I am sure did not happen
because he is a man of high integrity, or the member for Morley. That is the only way he could have received that
information, unless he made his own assumptions based on no fact, which would be ironic because he has tried to
criticise the findings of our report as being based on erroneous assumptions. The Leader of the House must be very
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
20
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
careful; he is very well aware of the operation of confidentiality of committees, and he also knows of celebrated cases
in which people have breached their confidentiality obligation.
Un
The member for Midland mentioned that after the so-called Buswell report, this committee engaged in a number of
agency hearings and inquiries. We undertook a very important inquiry into ageing and we handed down the report last
year. We are still waiting for a response from any government minister. I think that the Leader of the National Party
sent us some correspondence about a reply that he is working on, but we are still waiting for the government’s
response to the recommendations and findings of our report on ageing. For the Leader of the House to come into this
house today and move a motion to have the member for Balcatta rejoin the committee and the member for Vasse join
it, and to then use that as an excuse to try to engage in a further attack on the chair of the committee is, I think, quite
disgraceful, and it is unbecoming of the Leader of the House. If we are talking about precedent, this is not how the
Leader of the House operates; it is how the Premier operates. I hope the Premier has not bullied the Leader of the
House, as he has surely bullied the former members of this committee. This committee has engaged in some very
important work since the last election, has made some important findings and recommendations in various reports and
has held a number of agency hearings, and there has never been any criticism of the way in which the committee has
operated or of how the chair has handled those hearings. She has the absolute support of me and the other Labor
member, the member for Collie–Preston and I think, overall, she has the confidence of the two former members of the
committee. I am sure that the member for Balcatta would be very keen to rejoin the hearings of our committee. It is a
fantastic committee, chaired by a person who works very hard and has an incredible grasp of committee procedure
and the legal system. I ask the Leader of the House to please not continue with the bullying activities that the Premier
engages in on a daily basis. We stand by our report.
r
co
<013> I/M
rec
In the end, Leader of the House, the court of public opinion determines whether that report has validity. He should go
out there and ask people: do they actually believe that a possible reason for the former member for Vasse behaving in
an erratic manner was that he had a headache? That is one of the reasons the police commissioner gave. It is quite
interesting.
Let us go back to the report, which is quite interesting. The response to the committee’s report from the police
commissioner and the State Solicitor was that they could not prove conclusively that he may have been influenced by
alcohol. There could have been other reasons; he might have had a bad headache.
Mr M. McGowan: He probably did the next day.
ted
Dr A.D. BUTI: Yes, he probably did the next day. There is a thing known as circumstantial evidence. Many people
are sentenced and serve long terms of imprisonment as a result of circumstantial evidence. We cannot exclusively
eliminate other possibilities. That does not mean that on the balance of probabilities, if we were not in a criminal
court, it is beyond reasonable doubt. I would say that if we were in the court of public opinion, it is beyond reasonable
doubt that it would agree with the findings of our committee. We would get the same response if we asked people in
St Georges Terrace, Adelaide Terrace, Kalamunda, Armadale, Balcatta or Morley whether they agree with the
findings of the so-called Buswell report or the minority reports or the possibility that the former member for Vasse
had a headache and that is why he was driving in an erratic manner.
Mr F.M. Logan: He’s just writing notes. He’ll get up.
Pr
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [11.01 am]: I was expecting the member for Balcatta to rise because I know
that he said on a number of occasions through points of order that he wanted to have a say. I did not think I would get
up before the member for Balcatta.
Mr F.M. Logan: Plus the money.
f
oo
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Okay. I look forward to his contribution. Perhaps he can tell us how Wimbledon was last
year, which he visited as part of his committee trip. Was it good at the tennis? I have not been to Wimbledon; I am
sure it is a lovely place to visit. Maybe he could help us with that. I want to congratulate the member for Balcatta on
showing his steely determination. I congratulate him on his unbending moral compass. That unbending moral
compass led him to resign from the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee because he said he
would not work with the member for Girrawheen as Chair. That unbending moral compass is taking him back onto
the committee to work with the member for Girrawheen. I am told that over the millennia, the earth’s magnetic field
swaps occasionally from one end of the world to the other. My daughter is a geologist. She says that if we examine
the rocks, it demonstrates this reversal of the magnetic fields in the world. Perhaps that is what happened with the
moral compass of the member for Balcatta that let him off the committee—the magnetic morals took him one way
and then led him back onto the committee because the moral compass took him in the other direction. We have seen a
180-degree change.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Do not mention the money. That is not his motivation. That would not be overrunning his
moral compass. The member for Balcatta cannot be bought for $8 500 a year. I imagine it would cost a lot more than
that.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
21
I am also glad that there has been criticism of the committee’s report into what we will call the Buswell matter. In
fact, it was not an inquiry into Mr Buswell; it was an inquiry into the police’s response to Mr Buswell getting
pissed—getting drunk. I take that back.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member! Please watch your language.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, I apologise. He was getting drunk and crashing his car repeatedly in Subiaco.
Un
Mr P. Papalia: How many crashes did he have?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The member for Butler is probably in a much better position to answer that because I know
that he has given a detailed explanation about the journey around the corners and back up the road on a previous
occasion.
r
co
Something was missing from the committee’s report. I understand that the police reported that they knew that
Mr Buswell had been driving the car because his fingerprints were on the car. I wondered why the police knew what
Mr Buswell’s fingerprints looked like. That was never canvassed in the report. I think the report was inadequate
because it did not examine all the issues that were brought to the attention of the community.
Mr F.M. Logan: I wonder why that happened.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I do not know. That is the point. I think the committee was lacking in its performance
because it did not examine that issue.
Mr F.M. Logan: Were the former Treasurer’s fingerprints on record?
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I do not know any of the details but I understand that the police commented on that. They
knew that the former minister’s fingerprints were on the car but the committee never examined whether that indicated
that the police already had his fingerprints and, if they did, what were the circumstances that led them to have them?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This debate is about the appointment of two members to a committee.
The content of one of the committee’s reports is starting to be a bit marginal in this debate. I would like you to return
to the motion please.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I understood that that was a significant component of the Leader of the House’s contribution
to the debate—the performance of the member for Girrawheen and the contents of the report. I will not canvass the
review. I am making the point about why I was at the point that I was at.
ted
I think it is good that the new member for Vasse is going onto the committee. The great thing about committees is
that they provide an opportunity for bipartisanship. I made a minority report on an inquiry in the last Parliament; that
is, the Economics and Industry Standing Committee’s investigation into matters relating to franchising in
Western Australia. People should be prepared to make a minority report if they wish to comment on a particular issue
of principle. I suggest to the member for Vasse that she does not take the view that a minority report should be about
politics. That is my view of the minority report that led to the situation we are in today. Clearly, that minority report
had no value because it was a politically inspired report.
f
oo
Pr
The Premier has attacked the member for Girrawheen’s performance as chair of the committee a number of times.
I want to make a point about the chair of that committee, who was a significant component of the Leader of the
House’s contribution today. I am fortunate to have been friends with the member for Girrawheen since about 1985.
I first met her when she was working in the commonwealth Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Canberra.
Even though she was a new lawyer, she had a senior function in the DPP and worked directly for the commonwealth
DPP. Let us understand that working in the office of the commonwealth DPP is a very important role. That role does
not just include prosecuting people over car parking fines; it is a senior function, effectively working directly for the
DPP. Here in Western Australia, she spent a number of years in a senior counsel role at the Australian Crime
Commission, which was Australia’s premier crime-fighting body. When other members were doing noble things,
such as running small businesses, teaching in high schools or working for a trade union, the member for Girrawheen
was fighting organised crime in Australia. She did not have to get here to demonstrate her commitment to community
safety and fighting organised crime; she did that as her life’s work.
It is a bit rich for members to attack the integrity of the member for Girrawheen. I am sure that being a dentist is a
noble profession, but fighting bikies and being threatened by them, as the member for Girrawheen was in a former
occupation, is not something to be sniffed at.
<014> P/D
The attack on her integrity is unacceptable in any circumstance.
Mr J.H.D. Day: I referred to that report and I gave the evidence.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The evidence is not there, unfortunately. I agree that it was inadequate because we do not
know what the circumstances or the whole issue around the fingerprints were.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
22
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Mr J.H.D. Day: I was not questioning her integrity by the way.
Un
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Minister, you are. I am glad that the minister is starting to back down. I look forward to the
Premier coming in here and making the same remark. I look forward to the Premier joining the minister in
acknowledging the integrity of the member for Girrawheen. If that happens, it will be great; it would show some
integrity from the Premier, but I do not expect it. In September last year there was also criticism of the member for
Girrawheen when she went through and pointed out the inconsistencies in the Commissioner of Police’s criticism of
the report. I will not delay the house unnecessarily and read it, but the Hansard of 8 September last year shows that
the member for Girrawheen pointed out the situation regarding the police commissioner’s commentary.
The community has a long history of understanding the importance of the Westminster system of government. As an
analogy, during the Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland, the former Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen was asked in his
evidence to explain the concept of the separation of powers, and he was unable to do so. Sometimes that is what
happens in our Parliament; some people are confused about the role of the Westminster system. I point out to
ministers that commentary about the Westminster system is included in the Ministerial Code of Conduct, so I urge
them to look at it. One of those concepts is the idea of the separation of powers. What does that actually mean?
It means that each role of government is separate and does its own business. We make the laws, the executive runs the
administration, and the courts determine what the laws mean. Each party is best at doing its job when it does its bit
properly, and that is what that parliamentary inquiry that has become so controversial was about. It was about the
Parliament exercising its proper functions. I noted a point of order from my good friend the member for Victoria Park
on 14 August when he pointed out to the Premier standing order 249. I urge members to look at standing orders 249
and 252. It is the Parliament’s job to decide who goes onto a committee; it is not the government’s role.
r
co
Dr A.D. Buti: Or who comes off.
ted
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Or who comes off. It is not the government’s role, it is the Parliament’s role. Parliament
would be meaningless if the executive simply said, “This is what we want”, and Parliament bends over and does
whatever it is told. That is not the way it should work. The member for Girrawheen is the sort of parliamentarian
whom members want to chair a committee such as that; she is prepared to stand up to any amount of bullying. No
wonder the member for Balcatta wants to rejoin the committee. He knows that in the member for Girrawheen he has
the sort of leadership that a parliamentary committee needs. The member for Vasse is very lucky to be joining a
committee with such an outstanding chairperson as the member for Girrawheen. The member for Vasse will do well
to listen and talk to the member for Girrawheen. The member for Vasse will learn a lot from the member for
Girrawheen because she is a great servant of the people of Western Australia, and she demonstrated that through the
whole process of that so-called Buswell inquiry, which of course was not an inquiry into Mr Buswell; it was an
inquiry into the response of police.
Pr
My next comment about that whole saga will be my last comment in this contribution. I was listening to the radio on
the day that the story broke all those months ago. The police commissioner went on radio with Paul Murray in the
afternoon and gave an explanation about why the police did not respond in the way that people might have expected
at the time. I had no reason to doubt what he was saying. Interestingly enough, member for Forrestfield, a caller rang
up from Forrestfield and said—I do not remember his exact words—something like, “It’s just unfair; it’s a
conspiracy.”. Paul Murray said, “Hang on; come on; it’s a bit early to be saying there’s a political conspiracy.”
The caller said, “No, no, not a political conspiracy; it’s a conspiracy. If that had happened in Forrestfield, the cops
would have kicked the door in.” One of the problems with this whole saga is that many people in my community and
in the communities of all of us think that the police should have done more at the time—not because it involved
Mr Buswell, but because some guy was driving around drunk and crashing into cars, and that is the fundamental
problem. If the member for Girrawheen has been able to expose some of the problems that led the police not to do
what the community expected, she is to be congratulated.
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [11.16 am]: I am happy to join in this
consideration in considerable detail of this motion moved by the Leader of the House, who might have, in light of
subsequent events, taken a different course of action this morning. The motion reads —
f
oo
That the member for Balcatta and the member for Vasse are appointed as members of the Community
Development and Justice Standing Committee.
It is a straightforward motion that could have been moved with limited debate and limited comment, and I must say
very loaded comment, from the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House chose to do the opposite. He chose to
turn the issue of membership of two members of the house of a parliamentary committee into a partisan attack.
As part of his strategic genius in deciding on this course of action, he based it upon a report conducted into the actions
of Mr Troy Buswell, the former member for Vasse. It was strategic genius to raise the most controversial issue of the
past year and use it as an assault on the opposition. I am a keen military historian and one the key lessons that I have
always learnt is, “Don’t ever attack Russia.” Yet we have Napoleon sitting on the other side. I can just imagine him
with his hat on, his arm in the sling, sitting on the horse and going through the snow with the big band behind him,
and the Cossacks attacking. We have Napoleon over here, Madam Deputy Speaker—a strategic genius. Someone else
did it, but I know we are not allowed to compare people with the other individual who made that mistake as well; I
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
23
will not compare him with the other person who made that mistake. We have Napoleon as the Leader of the House,
camped in Moscow. There is no food, the troops are revolting, and he has decided to launch his counterattack based
upon the conduct of the member for Vasse, as he formerly was. What a great strategic decision. If I were the
Leader of the House, I would adopt the other course, which is to sit there quietly, as he normally does, and hope that
everything goes well.
Un
<015> B/3
r
co
However, he has adopted this course, so now it is incumbent on us to examine what the Leader of the House had to
say and the government’s strategic approach. Leader of the House, two members want to join the Community
Development and Justice Standing Committee. The current member for Vasse is, I must say, a breath of fresh air
compared with the former member for Vasse. She seems like a decent person and I am sure that membership of this
committee will be a good experience for her and a chance to learn about government actions and get across a range of
activities in the community development and justice areas. That is a good thing. Committee membership is important
for members of Parliament and I hope it will be a good and worthwhile experience for her. I might also add that we
should always remember that we are members of Parliament, elected by the people of the state. We are not elected to
sit here and accept everything that is bowled up to us. We are not elected to sit here and accept whatever decisions
government agencies, departments or the executive make. We are elected to question, to speak out and uncover issues
and, potentially, injustices. That is our role. One of the reasons the committee system was established was to delve
into the actions of government agencies and uncover where mistakes might have been made.
rec
I was a member of a committee for about a year or two. It was a worthwhile experience because we engaged a little
more in the actual running of government rather than sit in this place and let everything happen around us without any
involvement or any capacity to question the heads of government agencies. The heads of government agencies should
be questioned by parliamentarians. We should have that opportunity. That is our role. We are elected; they are not
elected. Members of the Liberal and National Parties should not forget their role. Heads of agencies are not elected.
By and large, in my experience, they do a good job and are hardworking. They work under a lot of stress and a lot of
pressure and juggle many issues. We are elected and our role is to hold them to account. That is what standing
committees are for.
The Leader of the House launched an attack on the conduct of the member for Girrawheen in that committee. Of the
five standing committees of this house one is chaired by the opposition. That committee elected to examine the
actions of the police in relation to the most controversial issue in the last couple of years.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Quite rightly.
ted
Mr M. McGOWAN: As the member for Hillarys interjected, quite rightly. Considering what I have said about the
committee’s role, was that committee wrong to do so? I do not think so. I did not want to launch an attack on the
former member for Vasse, but he has kind of forced me into it. He has gone off and got his life outside this place,
although I understand he is standing outside the chamber right now, so it is an unlucky coincidence. I did not want to
get into him; he has gone and can no longer defend himself in this place. His parliamentary career is over. His career
was controversial at times and I wished him all the best for his future, but you raised this, “Bonaparte”; you raised it!
Mr J.H.D. Day: I did not raise anything about the former member for Vasse.
Pr
Mr M. McGOWAN: The Leader of the House raised the issue, so he cannot expect us to sit here and not respond.
The most controversial issue last year was that former member’s actions. I would have thought it was reasonable to
conduct an inquiry into the police conduct and its investigation into the actions of the second most senior elected
official in the state to find out what happened and why he was not breathalysed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I think you need to return to the motion at hand, please.
I have given that direction to other members, so I am being consistent. This motion is about the election of members
of a committee.
f
oo
Mr M. McGOWAN: I take your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but whoever was in the chair did not issue that
instruction to the Leader of the House when he delved into the operations of that committee and those concerning the
member for Vasse.
Mr J.H.D. Day: I spoke for 10 minutes about why there was a vacancy on the committee and the government’s view
about the report.
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order members!
Mr M. McGOWAN: I come back to the appointment of these two members.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr M. McGOWAN: If a similar circumstance arose, I would expect these two members to want to inquire into the
police conduct during that matter. The two and a half million ordinary citizens of Western Australia would want to
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
24
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
know why the second most powerful person in Western Australia was not charged with a drink-driving offence, why
he declined to be interviewed in relation to a drink-driving offence and why he was not interviewed on the night in
question about a drink-driving offence. Their view is they would have been. That is a significant issue in the
administration of justice, and this committee is a justice committee. I therefore hope those members, particularly the
new member for Vasse, would want to conduct a similar inquiry to that which was conducted by this committee.
Un
They are important questions and I do not think we have yet got to the bottom of it. Should a similar circumstance
arise with the current Treasurer, I hope this committee, with the new member for Vasse, would want to inquire into
why that person was not charged, why they refused to give evidence, why they were not questioned on the night in
question and why the facts came to light only two weeks after the events had occurred. That is what I hope that
committee, with the new member for Vasse on it, would want to investigate.
The Leader of the House raised the internal deliberations of the committee. In his address, he talked about the conduct
of the committee’s internal deliberations. From my limited experience on a committee, the internal deliberations of
the committee should not be known by others; they are meant to be private.
r
co
Mr J.H.D. Day: They are.
Mr M. McGOWAN: Why did the Leader of the House know about the internal deliberations of that committee?
Mr J.H.D. Day: I don’t.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the House!
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order members!
rec
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you for the first time.
Mr M. McGOWAN: Anyway, Madam Deputy Speaker, on all those questions —
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
ted
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr M. McGOWAN: — I hope the new committee will have the confidence to delve into those questions if the
Treasurer were to fall into that trap.
I want to raise one of the issues raised by the Leader of the House. He referred to the police commissioner’s report
who, in his response to the committee’s deliberations, was very unhappy about the fact that the committee did not call
the officers involved in the inquiry on the evening in question. The member for Girrawheen informs me that in a
conversation she had with the police commissioner prior to the conduct of the inquiry into the deliberations, the
commissioner asked the committee not to call them because they were junior officers and it might be too much for
them to go through such a process. The member for Girrawheen tells me that she accepted that request from the police
commissioner along those lines.
Pr
<016> L/1
I find it unusual that the Commissioner of Police’s submission, consequent to the inquiry’s deliberations, would be
critical of the committee following his verbal advice to the member for Girrawheen. I find that unusual. I do not
understand why the police commissioner would criticise the committee for doing what he asked it to do. I thought that
point needed to be made as genuinely as possible about that set of events.
f
oo
Coming back to the committee members, I wish the members for Balcatta and Vasse all the best. The member for
Vasse will be a new member of the committee. Good luck to her. The member for Balcatta is being recycled back
onto the committee. I am sure he may have lived and learned in the period since his resignation from the committee.
After his outrage at its conduct, he is now going back onto it. I hope he enjoys the deliberations of the committee in
the future and I hope he reads the standing orders about what points of order are meant to be about. I look forward to
his contribution to this debate.
MR P. PAPALIA (Warnbro) [11.31 am]: Like the Leader of the Opposition, I had been reluctant to revisit the sorry
tale surrounding the behaviour of the former member for Vasse that subsequently led to his sacking, resignation and
departure from Parliament. As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, the matter has been raised by the Leader of the
House in this debate in a pretty inappropriate and completely unjustified attack on the member for Girrawheen.
I would like to place on record at the outset that I have absolute confidence in the integrity of the member for
Girrawheen. Not only is she undoubtedly a learned individual in the law, but she is also a highly responsible and
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
25
Un
honest individual who always conducts herself in an appropriate fashion, particularly when it comes to leading the
Community Development and Justice Standing Committee in its inquiries. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I found
it unusual to hear the Commissioner of Police make comments, immediately upon revelations about Mr Buswell’s
behaviour, to the effect that it would be unlikely that Mr Buswell would be prosecuted for drink-driving. It was
unusual to hear those comments when such a short time had elapsed between the revelation of the incident and the
police commissioner going into the public domain.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member. Can you direct yourself to the motion at hand.
r
co
Mr P. PAPALIA: Addressing the matter at hand, as I said, I was reluctant to revisit this matter. Now that it has been
raised again by the Leader of the House—by the government—in a completely inappropriate fashion, I must place on
the public record some information that I do not believe has previously been put in the public domain. I am sure the
police commissioner and others will be listening. I expect they will respond appropriately now that they are aware of
this information, which I became aware of in October last year—some time after Mr Buswell’s departure from his
role, and hence my reluctance to raise it. I can now tell the house that on 24 October last year, I was at a function
celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Royal Western Australia Regiment. At that function I met a gentleman who I
had served with in the Special Air Service Regiment many years ago—a man whose integrity I trust absolutely. This
man has close personal knowledge of the two witnesses to Mr Buswell’s behaviour on the evening in question. They
are the two individuals who raised it with the media, who rang the police and whose recordings were played publicly
in the media. At that time they gave the description suggesting that the individual looked like Mr Buswell. I will refer
to a report in the media relating to the Commissioner of Police. I am not sure of the actual date. I believe it was three
days post the incident involving Mr Buswell damaging some cars. The police commissioner responded publicly about
the event. I will get that date for Hansard. Sorry, it was two weeks subsequently.
Point of Order
rec
Mr J. NORBERGER: I really struggle to see even the remote relevance of this in consideration of the motion.
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Points of order are to be taken in silence.
Mr J. NORBERGER: I cannot for the life of me see the relevance of where the member for Warnbro wants to take
this. It has nothing to do with the motion at hand. I know the Deputy Speaker has made rulings in relation to this
previously —
ted
Mr J.R. Quigley: What standing order?
Mr J. NORBERGER: I do not need a standing order number to make a point of relevance.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Joondalup. There is no real point of order.
Debate Resumed
Mr P. PAPALIA: I refer to the comments by the Commissioner of Police that were referred to by the Leader of the
House in his contribution. I refer to exactly the same reports and exactly the same comments that the
Leader of the House referred to. The police commissioner said —
“The original complaint, it seems to me, hasn’t been closed off properly. The original complainant was not
interviewed and had made allegations, so today I’ve asked police officers to follow up those allegations.
Pr
f
oo
I can tell the house, and the people of Western Australia, that I was informed on 24 October last year that at that point
in time, many months after the investigation and many months after the Commissioner of Police had made this public
statement, those two individuals have never been interviewed by police. The two individuals who had the most
knowledge about the behaviour of the former member for Vasse—according to my information, from an individual
whom I trust implicitly—were never interviewed by police. If that is the case, that is a disgrace. That is confirmation
that the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee’s report, a committee led by the member for
Girrawheen, and seconded by other members of this place, was entirely appropriate. The condemnation of the police
inquiry was entirely appropriate. It was completely accurate. It shoots holes and raises many questions in the
argument proffered by the Leader of the House today that he somehow believes the member Girrawheen should
resign. If those two individuals were not interviewed, I believe the Community Development and Justice Standing
Committee, reconstituted with government members, should look at this entire incident again. It should once again
hold an inquiry into the police investigation. It is essential that if the two eye witnesses who were driving some
10 metres or so behind the drunken Mr Buswell on the evening in question were never interviewed in the police
investigation, it is a disgrace. I am sorry; I have great respect for the police commissioner and I have respect for the
police of Western Australia, but I share the committee’s view of this inquiry: it let down the people of Western
Australia.
As I say, I am relying upon hearsay. I can provide the name of the individual to the police commissioner, if he wants
it. I have not sought his approval to name him in this place, so I will not. But I can give the name of the individual
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
26
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
who spoke to me, who is a close friend of the people who were in the vehicle. I can give that to the police
commissioner. I welcome any contact from any reopened investigation into this matter.
Mr J.R. Quigley: Perhaps you could give it to the chair of the committee, too, and the committee could have a look
at it.
Un
Mr P. PAPALIA: I have no doubt that the individual who raised this matter with me on 24 October, of his own
volition, would be happy to speak to any inquiry. He would probably be more than willing to speak —
Mr J.R. Quigley: Would he talk to Balcatta?
Mr P. PAPALIA: I do not know about him, but he would be more than willing to speak to the chair of this
committee because I think he would respect her in the same way that everyone on this side of Parliament does, and
the other side should. It was a disgraceful attack today. It was shameful that the Leader of the House led it. I am sure
he is regretting it. I am certain it is the work of the Premier —
Dr A.D. Buti: Where is the Premier?
r
co
Mr P. PAPALIA: He has cowardly departed the chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Watch your language, member for Warnbro.
Mr P. PAPALIA: He departed the chamber in a cowardly fashion. He has failed to stand here and confront the
consequences —
<017> N/D
Withdrawal of Remark
rec
Mr J.H.D. DAY: It has been a wide-ranging debate, but I think the comments just made by the member for Warnbro
regarding the Premier’s behaviour are unparliamentary.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it does rate as a personal reflection under standing order 92.
Mr P. PAPALIA: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Debate Resumed
Several members interjected.
ted
Mr P. PAPALIA: That aside, to push the no doubt reluctant Leader of the House into that role of headkicker, which
he does not fit into comfortably, and then depart the chamber raises a few questions about the character of the person
who did that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Leader of the House!
f
oo
Pr
Mr P. PAPALIA: I will finish my contribution with a reflection on two things. Only today I raised the matter of, as I
understand it, the two witnesses never having been interviewed. That is a pretty good argument for revisiting this
entire inquiry, or at least revisiting the police investigation. I also have to say, on reflection, that the fact that the two
investigators never appeared before the committee, on the advice of the Commissioner of Police, is another reason the
committee should question whether it needs to revisit this whole matter. There are two powerful reasons why we need
another inquiry into this police investigation. If it is shown that the original witnesses were never interviewed and we
also know that the police commissioner advised that the investigators not be interviewed, those are two serious gaps
in the inquiry. It is not the committee’s responsibility; it is not its fault. It is just a consequence of circumstances and
advice from the police commissioner. Maybe now is the opportune time, now that we have a fully reconstituted
committee, to consider another inquiry. Nevertheless, I will finish with the observation that it was a disgraceful attack
on the member for Girrawheen. It was unjustified and, coming from the side of the house that for many, many months
defended the behaviour of the former member for Vasse, it is laughable.
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [11.42 am]: I am not surprised in any way by the personal attack on the Chair of the
Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, as launched this morning by the Leader of the House. It is
totally unsurprising. The Liberal government has a history in Western Australia of attacking those independent fact
finders with whom it wishes take issue. For example, in the course of the last two years we have seen a substantial
attack upon the independent judiciary of Western Australia, because the government takes issue with independently
arrived at decisions. The default position of this government is that if an independent fact finder makes a call that is
adverse to the government’s interests or perceptions, it does not deal with the issue; it just attacks that person. This is
why I think people become a little cynical. The issue before the chamber this morning is the nomination, and
apparently the acceptance of the nomination, of the member for Balcatta to rejoin the committee. The member for
Balcatta has an explanation to offer this chamber, because, as was pointed out earlier in debate this morning, at the
time of his resignation, it was a matter of high moral principle that he had to resign. He interjected on the member for
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
27
Midland on more than one occasion seeking to raise points of argument camouflaged as points of order. As the chair
pointed out, he has, and will have, his opportunity to meet the strict and severe criticisms of him.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Member for Butler, there have been about six speakers since I spoke, and he is still making no
attempt to get up and address the points.
Un
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: That is what I am inviting him to do, because at times the people of Western Australia express
cynicism at parliamentarians acting in their own interests. Here we have a member of Parliament putting before this
Parliament and the people of Western Australia the high moral principle that he could no longer in good conscience
serve on a committee chaired by the member for Girrawheen. I do not know whether the member for Balcatta
appreciated at the time that he was going to take an eight per cent hit to his pay—that is the remuneration for a
committee member, as you and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker. An invitation has now been put by the government
to the member for Balcatta: “Would you now like to go back onto the committee and we’ll organise 30 shekels for
you? You can betray your principles like another man did on the evening of the Last Supper; you can sell out on your
principles. You can become one of the Denarians and you can sell out your principles for 30 shekels.” I suppose I am
being a little unfair on the member, because I have done my research and 30 shekels today equates to about $435.
I am sure the member would not betray his principles for $435; in fact, it is thousands of dollars that he wants to
clutch, more than Pilate had on offer on Shrove Tuesday.
r
co
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Butler! I think you are really straying into a personal reflection on the
member for Balcatta.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am not; I am seeking his —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are imputing improper motives under standing order 92.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
rec
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call you, member for Albany, for disputing my call.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will not go there again, but if I am wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker—I see the member for
Balcatta has been taking notes—I now invite him to stand up and say that what I am putting is false. He now has a
moral imperative. He either stands up now to meet this criticism of what I am saying, that he has no moral principles,
that he is selling out on his moral principles—he can stand up and meet this now —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Butler, again, you are making personal reflections. We will you please
refrain from that.
ted
<018> C/4
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will refrain from it, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, this issue goes back to the trial of
James I, members will remember, who remained mute in the Great Hall. The member for Balcatta can go back and,
like James, be condemned by his silence, or he can rise in his defence. They are the two options. Thank you,
Madam Deputy Speaker. It is over to you, Mr Balcatta!
f
oo
Pr
MR C.D. HATTON (Balcatta) [11.49 am]: I stand here actually in dismay and with disappointment at the appalling
statements made today by opposition members. Today there has been a host of mistruths and Parliament has been
grossly misled. Opposition members have willingly attacked my integrity. I must say that one truth I heard today from
the opposition was when an opposition member, and I believe a number of other members, actually said that my
integrity is intact. But on this particular issue that opposition members have brought up today, they seem to have
centred on one small inquiry. They have gone on and on about it and have attacked my integrity on this particular
inquiry. I therefore want to put the opposition debate into some context that we in this Parliament can understand
better and that perhaps the broader Western Australian public can understand. I want to do that because on these
committees we represent the people of Western Australia. There is no doubt that when I was a member of the
Community Development and Justice Standing Committee there were occasions in my committee work when some
things happened with opposition members of Parliament that were not representative of the people of
Western Australia. Those things happened in that inquiry particularly when members from that side of Parliament
were unable to stick to the terms of reference. By not doing that, they compromised the integrity of not only
Parliament but also senior public officials by denigrating them, putting them down and making the public of
Western Australia believe that they were not doing their job.
I do not want to talk just about that inquiry today. I want to put some context into what the Community Development
and Justice Standing Committee work was about. The committee inquires into a range of very valid social issues:
Aboriginal affairs, child protection, citizenship, corrective services, disability services, road safety, police, seniors and
volunteering, and several other things—19 different areas. I am proud to have been a member of that committee
because I was so proud of the input I gave to what was done on the reports on inquiries that were delivered before my
departure. However, it was how it was done that I was not proud of. If we put a time line to it, our committee “In Safe
Custody” inquiry looked at Aboriginal deaths in custody; we reported on the inadequate accommodation services for
people with disabilities in Western Australia; we reported on the toll and trauma on WA emergency staff and
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
28
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
volunteers, which I do not think I got to complete; and there was the topical investigation into a member of
Parliament—things were going pretty well until the time of that investigation. The conclusion of that investigation
was tabled in Parliament at about the same time as two other inquiries of this committee commenced. One inquiry
was into the provisions for seniors in Western Australia and the other was into good police models for
Western Australia. Apart from the inquiry into the member of Parliament, we were working towards producing some
good findings and recommendations for the people of Western Australia. I therefore went on with my committee
work and worked very hard, as has been attested to today. My integrity towards those issues was very solid.
On continuing that important work and after doing some overseas inquiries, I came back to Parliament and, on
reflection, I thought very deeply about the way that the report on seniors and the report on the police model would be
delivered in the future. That is because, on reflection, I thought that the committee had been compromised.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah!
r
co
Mr C.D. HATTON: It had been compromised by committee members on the opposition side of Parliament.
The political bias shown in that inquiry —
Mr F.M. Logan interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Cockburn!
Mr C.D. HATTON: The political bias shown in that inquiry from that side of Parliament and the bullyish behaviour
at times of the chair of that committee —
Several members interjected.
rec
Withdrawal of Remark
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, he is impugning the integrity of the member for Girrawheen.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Balcatta, I ask you to withdraw.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Withdraw, you coward!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon! Member for Midland, I call you for the first time.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: It is acceptable.
ted
Mr J.H.D. DAY: I think the member for Midland needs to withdraw that comment.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Further to that point of order, we had a ruling. I actually made the same point of order myself
in the past couple of days and I was told that that term was not unparliamentary. So, I now feel free to use that term
given the ruling we had from an earlier Chair.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: On that point of order, that was during the debate on the mandatory sentencing bill and the
Chair at the time was the member for Southern River, who specifically permitted the term to be used.
Several members interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Member for Mandurah.
Mr J.R. Quigley: What about him!
Pr
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: One at a time. I am sorry, I am just not that capable of calling several people. Member
for Mandurah, I call you for the first time. I was taking advice on the point of order and my advice is that personal
reflections, words like “cowardly”, can be delivered in very many ways. With the vehemence it was delivered today, I
think it should be withdrawn.
f
oo
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order
112, “Dissent from Speaker’s ruling”. I think you might want some further consultation on this matter because I
certainly will be looking at that standing order very closely in the next couple of minutes if you insist upon asking me
to withdraw this. Maybe you were not in the chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the member for Southern River
was in the chair and that term was flung at our side of the house with equal vehemence, but I do not think that we can
sit here in Parliament and have one standard for the government and another standard for the opposition. So at this
stage I would ask you to reconsider your request to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Midland. I made my ruling and I ask you to withdraw.
Dissent from Deputy Speaker’s Ruling
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [11.59 am]: I move —
To dissent from the Deputy Speaker’s ruling.
[The Speaker resumed the chair.]
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
29
<019> T/2
Un
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [12.00 pm]: The functioning of the Parliament of Western Australia needs to
continue with the consent of the chamber. We cannot have a functioning Parliament when we have completely
opposite rulings from one day to the next. When we were being accused of being cowards, of being in bed,
effectively, with criminals and of being as soft as butter on criminals, most of us in this chamber copped that, even
though those statements were all untrue. Even though all those statements were false, lies, dishonest and untrue, we
copped that because the member for Southern River was in the chair, and those were the terms that he permitted to be
used in the chamber. Yesterday, we had this whole question about “ass” and whether members can call somebody an
“ass”, meaning donkey, and that is okay, but not “arse”, meaning backside, and that is not okay. I do not know
whether the member for Riverton would cope with that ruling. This is just not acceptable. This chamber cannot
function with this type of situation. If the member for Southern River continues on the panel and does not resign,
where are we to stand? He allowed the term “coward” to be used in respect of all the members on this side of the
chamber, including me, yet today, with a different member in the chair, we are not allowed to use the exact same
word. This is not an acceptable functioning of the chamber; we cannot allow this to happen. The chamber can
function only with the consent of those here, and we cannot allow the idea that it all depends on who is in the chair at
that particular moment. That is not the way this place can function; there has to be consistency.
r
co
We are prepared to respect the Chair, as we did when the member for Southern River was sitting there allowing the
member for —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cockburn! Leader of the National Party! I now want to hear the member for
Cannington.
ted
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: We cannot have a functioning Parliament when Liberal members make a comment about the
Labor side of Parliament, they yell and scream and say “Oh, it’s true! We’re allowed to say that ’cos it’s true!”, but
when we say the exact same word under the exact same circumstances about a member of the Liberal Party, it is no
longer permitted, it is no longer allowed, it is no longer the way it is to operate. We cannot have a functioning
Parliament in that circumstance. That is not even getting to the situation of the bullying of the Premier; I have not
even got to that. The hectoring of the member for Girrawheen has been the subject of the debate here today; not
because it was part of the resolution moved by the Leader of the House, but because it became part of the debate
when he raised it. Then a series of Liberal members moved points of order saying that that was not part of the debate,
and yet the Leader of the House had included it. And the Deputy Speaker, acting in the chair at the time, directed
members on this side of the chamber to refrain from discussing the performance of the Chair on the basis that that
was not part of the resolution even though that had been the basis of the conversation by the Leader of the House.
We cannot have a functioning Parliament without the consent of both sides of the chamber. Both sides of the chamber
need to consent, otherwise it will not work. It is not about the numbers when it comes to the Parliament, and that is
half the problem here. Half the people in the chamber on the other side do not understand what they are being paid to
do in this chamber. I was interested and had a look at the member for Balcatta and his contribution to the Parliament.
Ninety-two occasions in two years the member has made a contribution; most of those were questions.
Point of Order
Pr
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Mr Speaker, this motion that was moved by the member for Midland is to dissent from the
Deputy Speaker’s ruling. It is not about the wider debate; it is simply about whether the Deputy Speaker’s ruling
should be dissented from. Any debate needs to be confined to that particular motion.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: On the point of order, I am making the point that the decisions of the Chair have to reflect
the values of the chamber. That is the point I am making and I am trying to make that very clear to the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I am getting confused, because you are speaking about somebody speaking for 82 times or
something. Come back to the point, thank you.
f
oo
Debate Resumed
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: This chamber needs to be respected by its members and currently it is not being respected by
its members. Otherwise, why is it that the member for Southern River rules that calling people a coward is okay—it is
part of the debate, he says—and yet when a Labor member uses the exact same word, it somehow now becomes
unparliamentary? That is not the way this chamber can function. We cannot function if we do not know what the
limits are.
Now, I am one of the rascals in this chamber—I sail close to the wind, but I make it clear that on every occasion I
have been asked to withdraw, I have. That is not reflected on the other side of the chamber. We have this situation
where we are called names, we are called these outrageous slurs, and that is acceptable. Even as late as now in this
debate I have had members do that exact thing from that side of the chamber. When I said that a member had called
us cowards, there was a call of, “That’s right! That’s true!” When during this discussion I say I am accused of being
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
30
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
in bed with criminals, they say, “You are!” That happened during this discussion. Then people wonder why we
dissent from the ruling of the Chair. We cannot have a functioning Parliament where this sort of behaviour occurs.
It is a constant failure of leadership in the chair and in this chamber and it cannot be allowed to continue. I made a
very, very considered contribution to a debate last year regarding the handling of question time. On this occasion this
dissent, Mr Speaker, is not about your ruling, but the points that I made at that time are as relevant today as they were
when I made them last year. The chamber cannot allow this sort of situation. Now, if the member for Southern River
was wrong to do what he did when he was in the chair, then there is only one course of action. He should resign from
the panel of Acting Speakers. He should never be permitted to sit in the chair again. Never, never, never, never!
We cannot have the situation, if the Parliament today endorses the position and the ruling of the Deputy Speaker, but
does nothing about the incompetence that was reflected the other night; we cannot allow this situation to occur. If the
dissent ruling is defeated today, then the member for Southern River has no choice but to resign his position on the
panel of Acting Speakers.
r
co
I do not need to tell you, Mr Speaker; you know the long history of the fact that the carriage of a dissent ruling is
considered a vote of no confidence in the Chair. You know that very well. We can go through the history if you want
and I will get guidance from the Clerks and I will read out all the occasions that happened. If the dissent is not carried
in the Deputy Speaker today, then the member for Southern River must, in accordance with precedent in the
Westminster Parliament going back for hundreds of years, resign from the panel. That is the only way that this can
happen. Let me make it clear: if the dissent ruling passes, the Deputy Speaker has to resign. They are the only two
ways that can happen today. If the dissent ruling passes, the Deputy Speaker resigns; if the dissent ruling does not
pass, the member for Southern River must resign because I bet he will say he has integrity.
<020> R/M
rec
I bet he will say that he has the right spirit to be involved in these things. The Parliament cannot function when the
opposition does not know from Tuesday to Wednesday to Thursday what is acceptable in the chamber. The one
conclusion that can be drawn right through this issue is that what Liberal Party members do in the chamber is
acceptable and what Labor Party members do in chamber is not acceptable. That is why we are dissenting from the
ruling. On Tuesday it was okay to say “coward”, but on Thursday it is not okay to say “coward”. On Tuesday a
Liberal member could say “coward” and that is acceptable, but on Thursday members cannot say “coward”.
Mr N.W. Morton: It was a Labor member who said “coward”.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: No, it was not; it was a government member.
ted
Mr N.W. Morton interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Forrestfield, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: There is no question that after the word “coward” was permitted by the chair that we used the
word “coward” for the rest of the debate. The member for Midland used “coward” today, because we were allowed to
use it by the member for Southern River. It is very, very clear that that is the way that it happens.
Mr C.J. Barnett: This must be the biggest issue in Western Australia; it is silly.
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members! I do not want to hear from the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition, I want to hear
from the member for Cannington.
Pr
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The Premier said that it is just silly to have a functioning in Parliament. That is the problem;
he does not understand the Parliament’s function. The Parliament’s function is not to make him feel better, it is to
hold the executive to account—that is what our job is. I did not make the member for Cottesloe the most unpopular
Premier in the history of Western Australia; he did that himself! I bet one of the reasons —
Mr F.A. Alban interjected.
f
oo
The SPEAKER: Member for Swan Hills, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Cannington, just
remember that this is a speech on the dissent from a ruling of the Chair.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I do not remember the last time that this resolution was moved. It is not a minor decision to
move a dissent from the ruling of the Chair. It is about how this Parliament will function. Will this Parliament
function properly and do its duty to hold the government to account or is it simply going to be a bully pit for
intimidation by the most unpopular Premier in the state’s history? The current incumbent is the most unpopular
Premier in Western Australia’s history. There has never been a Western Australian Premier as unpopular as the man
currently holding that office. We need to know that this Parliament can function in the way that it is supposed to in
order to hold the government to account. We have to know from one day to the next that the rulings from the Chair
will be consistent to do that. The use of the word “coward” was allowed by the member for Southern River in the
chair on Tuesday, but it has now been ruled unparliamentary by the Deputy Speaker. If the resolution is carried, of
course, in accordance with precedent, the Deputy Speaker will resign. If the resolution is defeated, the member for
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
31
Southern River will have to resign his position on the panel of Acting Speakers. Those are the only two outcomes of
this debate.
Un
MR D.T. REDMAN (Warren–Blackwood — Leader of the National Party) [12.14 pm]: I want to speak against
the dissention motion. Somebody told me that today represents the tenth year that I have been a member of
Parliament. We could go right back over all the debates in my short time in this place and we could cut holes through
all sorts of decisions. If we wanted to compare what was said on one particular day with another day, we could do that
over the lifetime of the Parliament. The challenge for the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and all the Acting Speakers is to
try to keep a course of debate such that we can have a good Parliament and get on with business to make good
decisions and judgements for the people of Western Australia. I have seen, even in the debate this morning, with a lot
of leeway from the Chair, the opposition taking the time to raise a whole lot issues, but nothing today departed from
anything I have seen over the last 10 years. For members to question the good running of Parliament is fundamentally
wrong. The respective Chairs have actually held good Parliament. We have had a chance to have good debates, and I
am sure that a decision will be made. But to raise something like this and use little nuances that might happen to try to
say that that is a foundation of the fundamental breakdown of how this place is run is fundamentally wrong.
r
co
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [12.15 pm]: I will briefly contribute to this
motion to dissent from the ruling of the Deputy Speaker. Today’s proceedings and the reason that this has happened is
because the Leader of the House in moving that two new members be appointed to a parliamentary committee
decided to make a partisan attack.
Mr J.H.D. Day interjected.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the House.
ted
rec
Mr M. McGOWAN: To make his attack he decided to use last year’s committee report into the most controversial
political issue in this state last year. What did he expect would happen? The Leader of the House has been a member
of Parliament for 22 years, but he could not foresee that we might get upset about that. The Leader of the House
should use his brain before he does things in the future. The second point I want to make is about the management of
this house. Without naming any members in particular, the role of Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Acting Speakers is
normally for senior members of Westminster Parliaments. Ordinarily, these are people who have seen the ebb and
flow of the lower house chamber for many years. The roles are an acknowledgement of long service and members’
knowledge of the way that the place works. It is acknowledgement that a member understands the standing orders, the
precedents and that the opposition has an important role in a parliamentary democracy. Those are the normal
procedures in Westminster Parliaments.
I want to point out a few members of this house who have long experience in this place: the members for Pilbara,
Hillarys and Eyre. None of those members are Acting or Deputy Speakers, but maybe they should be, because they
have seen this place in operation and they understand the historical precedents and that debates are to undertaken and
conducted with fairness. I will go back through our history. Hon Fred Riebeling was here a long time before he
became Speaker. Hon George Strickland had been in this place a long time before he became Speaker. I must say
George Strickland was a very fair, very experienced and very knowledgeable Speaker.
On the issue at hand today is the use of the word “coward”. The definition of coward is “a person who lacks courage
in facing danger, difficulty, opposition or pain. A timid or easily intimidated person”. The Deputy Speaker ruled that
that was an unparliamentary word. I guarantee—I am getting the research done now and maybe it will arrive —
The SPEAKER: Premier.
Several members interjected.
Pr
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected.
The SPEAKER: Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition.
f
oo
Mr M. McGOWAN: I refer to one issue for the week. What about what the Premier said about Dr Capolingua and
her management of Healthway?
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, this is about dissenting from the ruling of the Deputy Speaker. Please
come back to that.
Mr M. McGOWAN: That is the definition of “coward”. I am getting research done and if it arrives in time I will use
it. But I will lay you London to a brick—I will stand up and apologise if I am wrong—that that word has been used
on numerous occasions by government members and was not required to be withdrawn on many of those occasions.
<021> J/M
I would say to the house that there needs to be consistency in rulings, otherwise this is what is going to happen.
Perhaps the government needs to consider the experience of the members it appoints to positions in this place.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
32
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Leader of the House) [12.20 pm]: The government most certainly does not
support this motion of dissent from the Deputy Speaker’s ruling. I will not speak at any length except to briefly
defend the actions of the Deputy Speaker. It was me who took the point of order in relation to the comment called out
across the chamber by the member for Midland to the member for Balcatta; I think her words were, “Withdraw, you
coward.” It was my view that it was delivered in an unparliamentary manner; it was not appropriate use of the phrase.
I took the point of order, but naturally I would have accepted the decision of the Deputy Speaker if her ruling was that
the comment could stand. She had in fact already called the member to order, if I recall correctly, in relation to the
fact that interjection had occurred.
r
co
I agree that it is highly preferable that there is consistency across the chamber in rulings from the Chair, but over the
history of this Parliament, there is always going to be some variation, particularly when we have different members
acting in the chair. It is also the case that the context of the comment and the vehemence with which the comment is
delivered also needs to be taken into account. The Deputy Speaker took advice from the Clerk and made a ruling.
In my view, there is no way, from what I saw and given the overall circumstances, that the Deputy Speaker was
acting in a partisan manner at all. The decent thing for the member for Midland to have done would have been to
simply accept the ruling, as most members do, including most members of the opposition. They accept the rulings of
Chairs when they are asked to withdraw. I do not believe that the Deputy Speaker was acting in a biased or partisan
manner at all, and this motion most clearly should be rejected.
Division
Question put and a division taken with the following result —
Mr D.J. Kelly
Mr F.M. Logan
Mr M. McGowan
Ms S.F. McGurk
Mr P. Papalia
Mr J.R. Quigley
Ms M.M. Quirk
Mrs M.H. Roberts
Ms R. Saffioti
Mr C.J. Tallentire
Mr P.C. Tinley
Mr P.B. Watson
Mr B.S. Wyatt
Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)
rec
Ms L.L. Baker
Dr A.D. Buti
Mr R.H. Cook
Ms J.M. Freeman
Mr W.J. Johnston
Ayes (19)
Noes (34)
Mr J.H.D. Day
Ms W.M. Duncan
Ms E. Evangel
Mr J.M. Francis
Mrs G.J. Godfrey
Mr B.J. Grylls
Dr K.D. Hames
Mrs L.M. Harvey
Mr C.D. Hatton
Dr G.G. Jacobs
Mr R.F. Johnson
Mr S.K. L’Estrange
Mr R.S. Love
Mr W.R. Marmion
Ms L. Mettam
Mr P.T. Miles
Ms A.R. Mitchell
Mr N.W. Morton
Mr D.C. Nalder
Mr J. Norberger
Mr D.T. Redman
Mr A.J. Simpson
Mr M.H. Taylor
Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)
ted
Mr P. Abetz
Mr F.A. Alban
Mr C.J. Barnett
Mr I.C. Blayney
Mr I.M. Britza
Mr G.M. Castrilli
Mr V.A. Catania
Mr M.J. Cowper
Ms M.J. Davies
Pairs
Mr J.E. McGrath
Mr A.P. Jacob
Pr
Mr M.P. Murray
Ms J. Farrer
Question thus negatived.
Motion Resumed
The SPEAKER: The member for Balcatta.
Withdrawal of Remark
f
oo
MR C.D. HATTON (Balcatta) [12.26 pm]: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The Deputy Speaker made a ruling with regard to the member for Balcatta. The member for
Balcatta accused the member of the Girrawheen of being bullying in her role as chair of the Community Development
and Justice Standing Committee. Further to that, the Deputy Speaker asked the member for Balcatta to withdraw. I do
not recall the member for Balcatta actually withdrawing.
The SPEAKER: Member for Balcatta?
Mr C.D. HATTON: May I speak on that, Mr Speaker?
The SPEAKER: No. If you were asked to withdraw, will you please withdraw.
Mr C.D. HATTON: Are you asking me to withdraw that?
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
33
The SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr C.D. HATTON: Okay, I withdraw that.
Debate Resumed
Mr C.D. HATTON: Mr Speaker, on withdrawing that, I would like to say that I used that terminology —
Un
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Sorry, I was just talking to the Clerk. From what I understand, that comment has been withdrawn.
Member for Balcatta, carry on, please. Are you finished, member for Balcatta?
Mr C.D. HATTON: No, I have not. In withdrawing that, I must say that it was in the context of —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: You have withdrawn; please move on.
r
co
Mr C.D. HATTON: Okay, moving on.
I stated that the committee work that I was involved in covered a broad range of social issues—very important ones—
that I believe are necessary to be involved with. The committee had already handed down a number of reports, of
which I am very proud, and we were reporting on the inquiry into the police response to a member of Parliament.
However, as I said earlier, we were also entering into an inquiry on seniors and ageing in Western Australia, and the
police model that we are introducing into Western Australia. Yes, I travelled with the committee on the
recommendation and negotiation of that committee to look into two other inquiries that are very important to
Western Australians. I did so proudly and with integrity, as has been stated by members of the opposition; I did my
work, and I did it very well.
rec
Then, upon returning from that important committee work, I had reflections about my dissenting report on the
previous inquiry, and deep reflections on whether I could report without being compromised on the two future
inquiries.
<022> I/M
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
ted
I made a decision on whether my contribution to the committee was compromised by the behaviour of committee
members. After one inquiry, I spoke to the research officers about the behaviour of committee members. On one
occasion I confronted the chair and the committee members, stating that I was not happy with some of the behaviour.
That is on the record.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, do not yell across the chamber. If you want to interject, please ask
and see if the member on their feet wants to take an interjection, otherwise I will call you.
Point of Order
Mr P.B. WATSON: The member is talking about situations that occurred in a committee. He is not allowed to do
that. We cannot talk about committees.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Member, just remember the rules relating to committees please and do
not contravene them.
Pr
Debate Resumed
Mr C.D. HATTON: On reflection, I felt compromised in being able to contribute to the committee as I had done on
previous inquiries. I made a dissenting report and then decided that my committee work could not continue.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
f
oo
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Balcatta, I have asked you once before to seek permission to interject, not
just to yell across the chamber. Can you please do that in this house.
Mr C.D. HATTON: Committee work is very important to me. When I resigned from that committee and when I
wrote a letter to a certain authority in Parliament, I always declared that when the dust had settled I wanted to
recommence my committee work, hopefully on that committee. Obviously, it has not settled because opposition
members cannot let go of it. I am willing to return to that committee and serve, along with the member for Vasse,
giving it the balance that it needs and the integrity that it deserves and not allow political bias to creep back into it.
Today’s debate, led by the opposition, has again been appalling. Members have misled Parliament through some of
their attacks on me by saying that I was influenced by the Premier or his department. I can categorically state, as I
have before in Parliament, that I was not phoned, it was not discussed and there were no appointments. I felt that the
committee had been compromised. I felt that it would be very hard to work on seniors and ageing and the inquiry into
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
34
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
our police model. There is good work to be done. It needs to be recognised that we need two more committee
members to give the committee balance with members from both sides of Parliament.
Un
I want to talk about some truths, not mistruths. I am glad that my integrity has been supported today by the
opposition. I was not influenced by the Premier or anyone else in my decision making. I did feel compromised and I
felt that the committee was compromised. I was not happy with the conduct of some people but I will not talk about
those people because I have been told not to. I was disappointed at the attitude sometimes that was maybe brought out
in the media—this was directed by someone, though I do not know who—about the integrity of our senior public
officers. However, I am very willing to contribute to this committee for the people of Western Australia and for the
integrity of this Parliament. Today’s debate has again, unfortunately, been a bit of a witch-hunt. This reconstituted
committee, with the member for Vasse on this occasion, may get back on track. I am willing to help it do that.
rec
r
co
MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys) [12.35 pm]: Oh, God, no. He may not help us, not in this instance. I am probably
one of the longest serving members in this chamber, together with the Premier, the Leader of the House and the
member for Dawesville, although the member for Dawesville had a gap when he lost his seat in 2001. I have seen
how this chamber has operated in the last 22 years. If the Leader of the House had simply moved the motion that two
members be appointed to the Community Development and Justice Committee and let it go at that, we would
probably have saved two and a half to three hours of vitriol and debate in this chamber. I would suggest that the
Peta Credlins in the Premier’s office put the Leader of the House up to it, telling him to have a whack at the member
for Girrawheen again as she deserves it because the committee she chairs came down with a report that had adverse
findings; it reflected adversely on the former member for Vasse. The Premier should have carried out a proper
investigation into what happened rather than being aware of a cover up. He says that there was no cover-up. There
was a cover-up for at least two weeks until a member of the public came forward and informed the media about these
cars that had been smashed up. He said it looked like he saw the member who was the Treasurer at the time. If that
member of the public had not come forward, the former member for Vasse would probably still be the Treasurer in
this house and probably would have brought down the last budget.
ted
I commend that committee for carrying out that investigation. I found it extraordinary—I have a lot of respect for the
Commissioner of Police; I worked with him closely for four years—to read the sort of phrases that he used in his
response. I think one of the words he used was “unhinged”, which was mentioned in the committee report. I believe
that that is almost a contempt of Parliament. The other comments were from the State Solicitor and counsel; once
again, they are debatable. The committee has the absolute right to present whatever report it deems necessary. In this
instance, it had three Labor members. It is the only committee that is dominated by Labor in this chamber. It came
down with a report that had adverse findings. It has a right to do that. I have respect for both the member for Balcatta
and the member for Morley; I have known them both for some time. I think the new addition to the committee will be
fantastic. New blood and a fresh face—they are the sorts of words that the Premier used in other instances—will be a
welcome change. I wish the member for Vasse well on that committee.
Committees are very important instruments of Parliament. When anybody reflects on a committee, I believe they are
in contempt of Parliament, whether it be outside Parliament or inside Parliament. We have heard some denigrating
remarks. I feel absolutely ashamed to be on this side of the house and hear some of my colleagues, including the
Leader of the House, denigrate members of a committee, in particular, the chair. I have known the chair for a long
time; we have crossed swords in this chamber on many occasions. We have different points of view on certain things
but I respect her and I think she respects me, even when I was the minister. To denigrate her is unparliamentary.
<023> P/1
f
oo
Pr
I have known the Leader of the House for 23 years. I have the utmost respect for him. I do not believe for one minute
that of his own volition he would come into this chamber and make the denigrating comments that started this ball
rolling and that started the arguments on the other side of the house. I do not blame members from the other side of
the house. If I and most of my colleagues were over there, we would be saying exactly the same thing because it is
not parliamentary. It was a very simple motion—that two members be appointed to that committee, and that is the
way it should have gone, but it did not. Members started criticising other members. I do not criticise them. If I was the
manager of opposition business—I was in that position for quite a few years—I would be doing the same thing; I
would be making a meal of what I think were disgraceful comments. I have been there, done that, been over here,
been over there. I have rebounded backwards and forwards across the chamber so I know what it is like on both sides
of the house. Unfortunately, comments were made by somebody whom I respect highly. I have even suggested that he
would be a good Premier. I have offered to move a spill motion and move that he become the Premier because I
believe he is a very good man and I respect him enormously. I am very disappointed that he let himself down this
morning and let his emotions run away from him. I suggest that he was influenced by other people to make
unparliamentary and denigrating remarks against a member of this house.
MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [12.40 pm]: I rise to speak after that very sensible contribution from the member
for Hillarys. I have a sneaking suspicion that this motion has not gone as planned. I know that the member for
Hillarys is right. I like the Leader of the House. We like the Leader of the House. We think he would be—like the
member for Hillarys said—a good Premier. He would be considered, popular, fair, reasonable, and stable—not
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
35
Un
erratic. Clearly, what happened today was that this fella from Cottesloe jazzed up the Leader of the House: “You need
to get in there, John, and give them all a performance. Give them some of that “50 Shades of Day”. Get on in there
and give the opposition some of that “50 Shades of Day””. After watching the Leader of the House for some years, I
know that his political tastes are conventional. The political tastes from Cottesloe are unconventional, which is why I
know that this “50 Shades of Day” performance was not him. The member for Hillarys was quite right when he said
that the Leader of the House has been put up to it. I know that the Leader of the House has to come in occasionally to
do the Premier’s dirty work if the Premier drops a little bomb and takes off for lunch. I know he must do that. The
Leader of the Opposition summed it up perfectly—except he is wrong on one thing: I do not think that the leader of
government business is Napoleon because Napoleon sits two seats down. Poor old John Day is the junior officer
staring out across the —
Point of Order
Mrs G.J. GODFREY: The member for Victoria Park is not addressing two members on this side by their correct
title.
r
co
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): I quite agree with the member. Member for Victoria Park, you need to
address people in this chamber by their seat, thank you.
Debate Resumed
Mr B.S. WYATT: You are quite right, Madam Acting Speaker.
The leader of government business is the junior officer staring across that Russian tundra, wondering why his Premier
keeps saying, “Surge forward; we will get there. Moscow is in sight.” I do not hold the Leader of the House
responsible for any of this. As I said, we know what is going on here. The Leader of the House has to do the dirty
work for the big fella from Cottesloe occasionally—I get that. That is obvious.
rec
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, refer to other members in the house by their seat.
Mr B.S. WYATT: But what I understand is this —
Mrs L.M. Harvey interjected.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Is the minister reading out a media statement?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: I was just saying that this sounds like a leadership pitch. The member would make a wonderful
Leader of the Opposition.
ted
Mr B.S. WYATT: No, no, no. Thank you for that interjection. I am disappointed that the Treasurer is not here
because now that we know the Minister for Health is on his way out—mentally checked out some time ago, but
physically on his way out—there is this deputy issue going on in the government. I know that the police minister is
desperate for that position, and I also know that the Minister for Emergency Services and the Treasurer are desperate
for that position. But we all know the real issue: when will the Leader of the House take over the premiership? That is
the real issue. The Minister for Police should stick to reading her media statements; I think that is her strength. Law is
certainly not her strength, as the member for Butler showed. I hope the Attorney General has spoken to the minister
now and corrected her on a couple of points of law.
f
oo
Pr
Sorry about that interjection, Madam Acting Speaker, I come back to the issues at hand. We cannot get ourselves into
a position in which the government of the day can bully outcomes on parliamentary committees. I will come to the
member for Balcatta in a minute. The reason we have standing orders is to protect Parliament from the authority of
the executive. That is why when a committee tables a report, a committee member is entitled to table a minority
report whenever they like—as the member for Balcatta did back then; I know that report did not make a complaint
about the member for Girrawheen, but the member tabled that minority report. The government must respond to
committee reports. I expect a robust government response when the government is being critiqued and when the
Commissioner of Police is being critiqued and found wanting. The Commissioner of Police is not a shrinking violet;
he is a powerful political player in his own right and I expect a response. But I do not expect the government of the
day to bully outcomes in the parliamentary process. Government members are not conservatives if they agree with
that. They are reactionaries, not conservatives, if they think that is a fair outcome and the way that the parliamentary
system is to be used. I note, by way of passing, what is going on with Gillian Triggs in Canberra. I suspect that a toxic
element is entering the conservative movement in Australia because when Independents, whether they be individuals
or Parliament, critique the government of the day, there is an audacious smash back on the system. It is not a
response—we saw the response—but an attack back on the system. Government members are not conservatives but
reactionaries. They are beating up on the system that their political philosophy is apparently there to protect and
preserve. The member for Hillarys was bang on when he made that point.
I for one was thinking that the member for Balcatta should sit down and not get up because he has found himself in a
position most wanting. I do not think that anyone believes for a minute that he was not badgered into quitting from
that parliamentary position last year with the member for Morley. The member for Balcatta got up earlier today and
said that he found himself on a committee that “compromised the integrity of the Parliament”. He was worried about
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
36
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
“political bias”. That is why we have minority reports. Those issues are raised and let the system sort it out. But the
member chose to quit, and he will forever be held to account that his reflections in his dissenting report conveniently
took place after he had travelled the globe. That is something for the member to explain, because ultimately some
time passed between his angst and worries and the time he quit. During that time, he spent a lot of money travelling
the globe. Ultimately, that is for the member to have to answer for. What was that Premier?
Un
Mr C.J. Barnett: I am just talking to my colleague.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Right; okay. Members opposite should stand for themselves—they are either conservatives or
reactionaries. We support the motion.
Question put and passed.
LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TAXING) BILL 2014
Cognate Debate — Motion
r
co
On motion by Mr D.T. Redman (Minister for Lands), resolved —
In accordance with standing order 169, that leave be granted for the Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2014
and the Land Legislation Amendment (Taxing) Bill 2014 to be dealt with cognately, and that the Land
Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 be the principal bill.
Second Reading — Cognate Debate
Resumed from 20 November 2014.
<024> B/3
rec
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [12.50 pm]: I rise to speak to the Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and
the Land Legislation Amendment (Taxing) Bill 2014. I begin by indicating that the opposition will support these bills,
although we have a number of issues to raise. However, we believe that our support is important to the funding
arrangements for Landgate.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
[Continued on page .]
CITY OF STIRLING — INTEGRATED CYCLING STRATEGY 2015
ted
Statement by Member for Mirrabookafor
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [12.51 pm]: Cycling is important to the residents of the Mirrabooka electorate.
The City of Stirling recently released its draft Integrated Cycling Strategy 2015, which gives an opportunity for the
community to discuss safe cycling and in particular commuter cycling in the area.
f
oo
Pr
I have previously raised in this place the lack co-ordination and capacity for cyclists commuting to Perth from my
electorate. This disorganisation disadvantages both local residents making short bike trips as well as cyclists passing
through the area on their way to a destination. I welcome the City of Stirling strategy and its recommendations, and
agree that its focus should be on investing in and delivering much-needed cycling facilities, but they need to extend
beyond the beach and heritage suburbs of the City of Stirling and into Mirrabooka. For example, while getting
cyclists from Alexander Drive to the beach, the recently constructed Reid Highway bike path dangerously and
repeatedly swaps from one side of the road to another. In several spots in the electorate, sections of a shared path end
suddenly, forcing riders onto the road or onto footpaths where conflicts arise with pedestrians or motor vehicles.
Existing shared paths are often obstructed by bus shelters, signage posts, and vehicles. Paths are damaged, littered and
uncared for. These issues not only constitute a threat to cyclist safety, but also create an obstacle to cycling
participation in the area. It concerns me that the substance of the City of Stirling cycling strategy appears to deal with
recommendations of action that can be undertaken only by, or in conjunction with, the state government. I
acknowledge that the strategy points out the extremely low levels of spending on cycling. I support the comments the
strategy makes regarding Alexander Drive.
NATIONAL PARTY CENTENARY — BLOOD NOSE POLITICS
Statement by Member for Kalgoorlie
MS W.M. DUNCAN (Kalgoorlie — Deputy Speaker) [12.52 pm]: When I was elected the first female president of
the Nationals in 2004 and our predicted demise was on the horizon, I was determined to see our party reach its
centenary and its history recorded, which it has been in a book that is now finished called Blood Nose Politics. The
title comes from a quote by Brendon Grylls that our supporters do not expect us to win every battle, but they do
expect us to get a blood nose trying. The project took 10 years and almost fell over with the sad passing in quick
succession of John Saint and Heather Dreyer, who were recording oral recollections and researching early history
respectively. Through a mutual friend, I met Dr Lenore Layman, who also believed in the importance of this project
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
37
Un
and offered to help me finish it. We engaged Associate Professor Bobbie Oliver and Dr Ron Chapman to complete
key periods of the party’s history. Lenore filled in the gaps, putting great time and effort into embedding herself in the
party and learning how we tick. She is an amazing person and we would not have managed without her. I am thrilled
to see it finished. Thanks to a whole range of people, especially those who provided photographs, documents,
campaign material and donations and to the parliamentary history society for the work it does in recording the oral
recollections of retiring members. I must note the dedication of Heather Giles, Hilda Turnbull, Roma Strahan, Jill
Sounness and the keen eyes of Ian Robertson, Ron Aitkenhead, Hendy Cowan, Matt Stephens, Ron Elphick and John
Paterson for proofreading. Madeleine de Pierres did the final graphic design. Congratulations to all those who have
been a part of the achievements of one of the longest surviving political parties in Australia. My best wishes for the
next hundred years and more blood noses!
ASCOT KILNS — RESTORATION
Statement by Member for Belmont
<025> L/1
rec
r
co
MRS G.J. GODFREY (Belmont) [12.53 pm]: Those who know my electorate will know that the condition of the
Ascot kilns has been an ongoing problem for local residents for many years. In December last year, I received some
welcome news from the Minister for Planning’s office when I was advised that negotiations had been finalised
between the Western Australian Planning Commission and Ascot Waters Joint Venture to relinquish the joint
venture’s rights over the land on which the Ascot kilns are located. These complex negotiations were the main reason
the restoration of the kilns and potential site development has been at a standstill for such a long period. This
agreement means that the Department of Planning can now take responsibility for the kilns site and work on a plan
that will allow for the redevelopment of the area and a financially viable level of conservation of the kilns. I am now
looking forward to the next step of this process, which will be the community consultation stage. On behalf of
Belmont residents, I would like to thank Minister Day and his office for their assistance with this issue.
CLARKSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL
Statement by Member for Butler
ted
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [12.55 pm]: It is easy to see that something has changed in a very positive way at
Clarkson Community High School. Visitors to the school see very pleasant grounds and well-maintained facilities.
The school has a quiet atmosphere, with students in school uniform working productively in class. A walk around the
school during class time shows a school busy at learning. During break times, the school has a positive energy with
students interacting and playing. It is the sort of place where students want to be with their friends and peers. The first
step in the transformation was a vision that all students should be invited to be partners in the school. This started as a
policy of cooperation and respect for everyone. It encouraged students to consider everyone in the school. Change
was incremental but not a circuit-breaker. The driver for change was a vision of what students could achieve in a
supportive school. The breakthrough was the invitational education program fostered by the principal, John Young.
Mr Young saw that students would only feel they were true partners in the school when the school was genuinely a
place that invited them to engage in learning. Invitational education is based on five simple elements to engage
students as partners in a school. These elements are people, places, programs, procedures and policies. The motif for
the invitational education program is a starfish. This symbolises five powerful limbs that can be used alone or in
conjunction to achieve change. It sounds simple but it is a very powerful synergy. Student engagement has improved
consistently to the extent that student suspensions for misconduct are on a sharply downward trend. Student
attainment is also improving and the majority of students complete vocational education and training qualifications
that prepare them for productive careers. Australian tertiary admission rank standards are rising and enrolments in
ATAR courses are expanding.
Pr
BEAUMARIS COMMUNITY CENTRE — EBOLA CRISIS FUNDRAISING
f
oo
Statement by Member for Wanneroo
MR P.T. MILES (Wanneroo — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.56 pm]: Late last year I attended a community
event at the Beaumaris Community Centre to raise funds for the fight against the Ebola crisis in West Africa. As we
are all aware, the Ebola virus is still a huge health crisis. To date, there have been more than 20 000 cases and 8 000
deaths in nine countries. The fundraiser took the form of an auction, with prizes donated by various businesses and
individuals. Just over $5 000 was raised from this auction, which was a tremendous result. I would like to thank
Mr Aaron Sawmadal and Mr Neil Beyan from the African–Australian community for all their hard work in
organising this event. I would also like to recognise Hon Cheryl Edwardes and Aaron’s workmates at Atlas Iron for
giving their wholehearted support to this event. The money was given to the Australian Medical Association, which
has directed the funding to the most appropriate organisations in West Africa.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
38
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
CAT HAVEN — GETTING 2 ZERO
Statement by Member for Maylands
Un
MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [12.57 pm]: This week I visited Cat Haven in Shenton Park and met with its chief
executive officer, Roz Robinson. In 2014, Cat Haven had its best rehoming rate ever. Seventy-four per cent of cats
surrendered were rehomed to “new forever” homes. This was a 14 per cent increase on the previous year. It is a real
credit to the whole of the Cat Haven team, including staff, volunteers, foster carers and supporters. Cat Haven is a
member of Getting 2 Zero, a national cat action plan that seeks agreement on the need for common legislation to
make it easier for communities to manage the welfare of domestic cats, and to introduce breeding legislation and
policies in line with ethical approaches. Getting 2 Zero reflects the Australia-wide desire to achieve a zero rate of
euthanasia for unwanted companion cats. Cat Haven’s rate of euthanasia for December 2014 was down to 12 per cent
and the overall rate for 2014 was 24 per cent. Adoption rates at Cat Haven increased by 34 per cent for the whole of
December. The number of cats surrendered to Cat Haven during 2014 increased but this may be a reflection of the
new Cat Act 2011 as people struggle to comply with it and choose to surrender cats when they cannot afford the
compliance costs. On the approaching Labor Day long weekend, Cat Haven hopes to adopt out for free all adult cats,
to cope with the high number of cats in the shelter. The cats are all health-checked, sterilised, microchipped and
vaccinated. Remember that a decision to adopt has consequences. People should make sure that adoption is discussed
with family before offering a home.
r
co
Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm
<026> Q/4
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
rec
CRIME STATISTICS — SEXUAL ASSAULT
88.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics crime statistics released last week.
Is the minister aware that Western Australia is number one among the states for sexual assault?
(2)
Is the minister aware that the rate of sexual assault in Western Australia increased from 0.3 per cent of
population in 2012–13 to 0.5 per cent of population in 2013–14?
(3)
Can the minister explain why sexual assault in WA is far above the national average and increasing under
her watch?
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
ted
(1)
Pr
(1)–(3) I am aware of a range of different reports that come across my desk to do with crime and law and order, and
particularly offences that are reported in each state. Member for Midland, with respect specifically to sexual
assault, I would need more time to delve into those figures and I would probably seek some further advice
from police on their analysis of what that ABS data actually means. What has been happening in Western
Australia—I would be interested to know whether that is recent sexual assault or historical sexual assault—is
we have seen a significant jump in reports of historical sexual assault in Western Australia as a result of
royal commissions, and various other inquiries that have occurred in this state, into historical sexual assault
as a result of child abuse and other incidences.
CRIME STATISTICS — SEXUAL ASSAULT
89.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police:
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
f
oo
I have a supplementary question. I am not referring to historical sexual assault, but to the rate in 2013–14, which is
the highest of any state in Australia. I again ask the minister whether she has any explanation why WA is so far above
the national average for sexual assault.
As I said previously, for a specific area and a specific category of crime from an ABS report, which might —
Ms M.M. Quirk: It’s not shoplifting, minister.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Exactly, member for Girrawheen; thank you for that interjection. What about shoplifting?
What about theft? What about armed robbery?
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, put your name down if you want to ask a question. Do not digress,
minister; just deal with the question.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
39
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: For me to understand every single category of offence that gets reported in the ABS data and
to be able to stand in Parliament without a moment’s notice to specifically interrogate fluctuations in every area of
criminal offending is a real stretch.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Aren’t you the Minister for Women’s Interests as well?
Un
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: If the member for Midland wants to place her question on notice, I will give a detailed
response.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: You should know the answer; you should care about it!
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: If the member for Midland —
Mr J.R. Quigley: You don’t even care about the victims!
The SPEAKER: Member for Butler, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Midland, let the minister
answer.
ted
rec
r
co
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: If the member for Midland actually wanted to understand what was happening with sexual
assault in Western Australia, she would take the time to put the question on notice and to give some consideration to
the victims of those crimes before she tries some political pointscoring at their expense.
ESPLANADE HOTEL SITE, ALBANY
90.
Dr G.G. JACOBS to the Minister for Lands:
Will the minister please update the house on the progress of the redevelopment of the former Esplanade Hotel site at
Middleton Beach, Albany?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
I thank the member for Eyre very much for the question. Indeed, progress is happening on the Middleton Beach site
in Albany.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: It is really pleasing to see the member for Albany put his hand up, because when the Premier
made a commitment to the people of Albany that if the owners of the Esplanade Hotel site did not do anything about
it, then the government would, the member for Albany said at that time that it would not happen. I think he even said
that it was a thought bubble. Typical of people on this side of the house and of this government, we make things
happen. At the end of last year, the government announced that it was very close to securing a deal with the owners of
the site, and since then—in fact, in December—LandCorp finalised a deal for the settlement of the site. LandCorp
purchased the Middleton Beach site, which is fantastic.
Mr P. Papalia: A million dollars.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: Absolutely, member for Warnbro. It would be great if it had the member for Albany’s
support—which I hope it has, member for Albany—because at a cost of $7 million, including $3.5 million of
royalties for regions funds and a further $1.5 million of royalties for regions funds to help value add and uplift the site
to make it more attractive to the private sector for development, this is a fantastic outcome for the people of Albany.
For too long they have been saying that this site is an eyesore. It is an iconic part of Albany and is what the people of
Albany considered in the past to be its jewel in the crown, and I am sure that it can again be the jewel in the crown for
Albany.
We have in mind a mix of shops, cafes, bars, a boutique hotel and even some residential accommodation, but what is
really important is that we engage strongly with the local community. A consultation process is in place at the
moment, the first phase of which has been an online survey. Already there have been 484 visitors to that webpage—
225 people have registered for more information and 113 people have completed the online survey. I am sure that one
of those 484 people is the member for Albany. I am sure that he would be pretty keen to find out that we are doing
something in Albany, because we know the history of his performance in this regard.
There is also going to be workshops and an online forum, so there will be heaps of opportunities for local groups,
those who have a strong interest in what happens on that site, to feed back into LandCorp so that when we develop
the final plan, with the support of the shire, we will have something that once again will be the jewel in the crown for
Albany.
CRIME STATISTICS — CAR THEFT
91.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police:
I again refer the minister to the ABS crime statistics released last week.
(1)
Is the minister aware that Western Australia is number one amongst the states for car theft?
(2)
Is the minister aware that the rate of car theft in WA increased from 0.9 per cent of population in 2012–13 to
1.1 per cent of population in 2013–14?
(3)
Can the minister explain why car theft in Western Australia is almost double the national average and
increasing under her watch?
f
oo
Pr
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
40
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
I thank the member for Midland for this question.
Un
(1)–(3) We have been aware that there is a problem with car theft in Western Australia and we have put together a
team of police officers who are specifically targeting that particular issue. We have also entered into a joint
arrangement with the RAC and with some of the international motoring organisations to implement a brandnew scheme in Western Australia, which is a GPS tracking scheme. This scheme will allow people to have a
GPS tracker fitted to their vehicle that they can link to their iPhone to put a secure shield, if you like, around
their vehicle. If that vehicle escapes from that shield, it will alert the people who have that mobile phone and
also the police about where that vehicle is. We have some strategies and innovations in that area of car theft
that we are trying to address to drive down the rate of theft.
r
co
We also know that in many cases car theft in Western Australia is linked to home burglary and that people
break into homes specifically to steal car keys. Members will be aware that there is legislation before this
house around recidivist home burglars, in which we want to change the three-strikes laws and get those
people behind bars after they commit three offences.
<027> H/3
I expect that once this legislation comes into place and we put prolific offenders behind bars, we will see a
significant drop in the number of both home burglaries and car thefts, particularly in those instances in which
they are so intrinsically linked.
CRIME STATISTICS — CAR THEFT
92.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police:
rec
I have a supplementary question. Is it not the case that only 300 cars in the whole state have been fitted with that
technology; and, how does the minister expect that to make a difference?
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
Perhaps the member for Midland was not listening to what I said. I said it was a trial. We trial the technology first —
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Let’s not go too fast then!
ted
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Oh, for goodness sake, like it is a surprise! Of course, we do a trial with new technology to
work out how effective it is, whether it can be rolled out across regional areas, whether there will be constraints such
as mobile phone black spots, for example. Of course we are having a trial. We want to make sure it works before we
roll it out, member for Midland; that is being sensible.
STATE ECONOMY
93.
Mr A. KRSTICEVIC to the Treasurer:
In recent times the Leader of the Opposition has constantly talked about diversifying the economy. Can the Treasurer
tell us how the Liberal–National government has strengthened the Western Australian economy over the past seven
years?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
f
oo
Pr
I thank the member for the question; it is a very relevant one. I answered a similar question about this last week, but I
will expand on it a bit more. The Leader of the Opposition stood out in mid-January decrying the growth of
unemployment. He said we were warned, and that unemployment was rising while employment was declining and
that the economy lacked diversification. I answered part of that and, in actuality, during 2014 employment in Western
Australia grew by 3.3 per cent, relative to the national average of 1.4 per cent, which is pretty good. I asked Treasury
to prepare some figures. These things can be measured in different ways. About 38 000 additional jobs were created
in Western Australia during 2014. Yes, there was a sharp reduction of about 7 400 fewer jobs in the mining sector and
in related transport and logistics, which is significant. However—this is relevant because many of the areas the
Leader of the Opposition decried us investing in were the real drivers of growth last year and now—11 500 additional
jobs were created in professional scientific and technical fields. We have heard from the mob opposite that there have
been cuts and reductions in education and health, but there was an increase of 11 500 additional jobs. In hospitality
and recreation—vibrancy issues—11 300 extra jobs were created. In real estate, which is a real growth area, 7 400
extra jobs were created and 6 700 in retail. This is rather impressive, because it shows the breadth of the economy and
it reinforces the policies we put in place in each of those areas to reinforce the private sector to create employment
and, I might add, the public sector, because the public sector dominates in education and health. We are doing a
beautiful job. However, we are facing headwinds out there. Households are very nervous and are saving like mad.
The household saving rate is almost 20 per cent, whereas 10 years ago it was almost zero. The reason for that is that
households are nervous because a lot of things that are happening, including the slowing mining sector, lower
commodity prices and the Abbott government is trying to overcome the legacy of Gillard and Rudd.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
41
Several members interjected.
Un
Dr M.D. NAHAN: When we got hit with a sharp drop in revenue, what did we do? We did not panic. First, we
fought for and have continued to fight for a fair share of the goods and services tax. Importantly, that is a tax that we
already pay. We want a fair share of the tax we already pay—not a new tax, but a fair share of the GST we already
pay. Second, we are driving efficiencies in the public sector. The member for Victoria Park said that we never do it;
everybody else decries us when we do it, but that is what we doing. We are keeping taxes and charges to a minimum.
We are keeping the pressure off small business and households. Up to now, the opposition has been hiding in the tall
grass; it has not been poking up or saying anything. But yesterday the shadow Treasurer came out with a policy
initiative.
Dr A.D. Buti: No, he didn’t.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: He did!
Several members interjected.
r
co
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Member for Albany, you are not to shout out like that. I call you to order for the
second time. The Treasurer has one minute to wind this up.
Point of Order
Mr P.B. WATSON: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Sorry, member for Albany! I apologise. It was the member for Armadale. The Treasurer has one
minute to wind this up.
Questions without Notice Resumed
rec
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The shadow Treasurer was asked how he would address this. He made it quite clear that he wants
to have a dialogue with the Western Australian public to impose a new broad-based land tax—not to replace existing
taxes —
Point of Order
Dr A.D. BUTI: I ask for your ruling on a member who is deliberately misleading Parliament. It would be quite
obvious to someone who looked at the transcript that he is misleading parliament.
ted
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr M.D. NAHAN: He asked to have a dialogue with the Western Australian public.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I have called you to order twice; do not temp fate.
Pr
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Importantly, this new broad-based land tax would not replace existing taxes such as stamp duties
and others, it was to raise more money. If a government wanted to kick the guts out of households and the economy,
that is what it would do; it would impose a broad-based land tax on the family home. The member for Victoria Park
wants to have a dialogue with the Western Australian public. Have it, mate! Our answer is: no way! I wonder what
the Leader of the Opposition thinks about this.
CRIME STATISTICS — BREAK-IN INCIDENTS
94.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question without —
f
oo
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: This time it is the member for Albany. Members for Albany and Warnbro, the member for Midland
is trying to speak.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. I again refer to the Australian
Bureau of Statistics crime victimisation statistics, which were released last week.
(1)
Is the minister aware that Western Australia is number one among the states for break-ins?
(2)
Is the minister aware that the rate of break-ins in Western Australia increased from 4.4 per cent of population
in 2012-13 to 4.8 per cent of population in 2013-14?
(3)
Can the minister explain why break-ins in Western Australia are almost double the national average and
increasing under her watch?
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
42
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
Un
(1)–(3) I am surprised that the member for Midland is persisting with this particular line of questioning. Members in
the house would probably be interested to know that Western Australia has a very good report in making up
ground for the previous Labor administration, which let law and order go to hell in a handcart. Referring to
recent sexual assault in Western Australia, in 2007-08 there were 100.3 victims per 100 000. In 2013-2014,
there were 88.8 per 100 000. Let us go to dwelling burglary. What was the rate under the member for
Midland’s watch? It was 1 209.1 victims per 100 000. That is actually break-ins to houses, so more victims.
The number of total offences against the person under the watch of our government with our law and order
agenda is down 7.6 per cent and the total offences against property are down 33 per cent. The member for
Midland is being selective in the parts of the ABS to which she referred.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: You haven’t read it! What would you know?
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Midland to order for the second time.
r
co
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I said that I was aware of the report, but I have not memorised every category of offence. Let
us look at domestic assault in Western Australia. According to the report we are down 28 per cent from 2013. Let us
look at victims —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Butler, I call you to order for the second time. Member for Warnbro —
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Midland, I am on my feet.
rec
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The number of victims of armed robbery is down from 47 400 per 100 000 to 26 600 on our
watch, member for Midland. I think we are doing pretty well in that area. The member is not asking me a question
about that data. We have the lowest youth offender rate in the country because of the work of this government.
<028> A/D
I am proud of our record on fighting crime.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
ted
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the first time. Minister, wind it up, please.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I will be having a look at the ABS report for when members opposite were in government, and
I will be looking to see exactly where we sit with respect to their performance in that law and order space.
I am proud of our performance. We have an additional 550 police and police auxiliary officers coming into the
system, on top of the 500 from 2008. We have a new policing model that we have rolled out throughout metropolitan
Perth, which has seen us drive down crime in south east metro significantly, and we have increased the number of
prosecutions as a result of that new policing model in south east metro by 16.3 per cent. We are heading in the right
direction in this state. Members opposite cannot stand it. But I am proud of it, our team is proud of it, and we are
going to maintain the rage.
95.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Police:
Pr
CRIME STATISTICS — BREAK-IN INCIDENTS
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
f
oo
I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister accused me of selectively quoting from this report. I therefore
ask: why is the minister not aware that in 10 out of the 10 categories that are reported in this report, we are above the
Australian average; and why is the minister not aware that in seven out of the 10 categories in this report, crime is
increasing in Western Australia?
I do not think the member for Midland was listening to where we have come in this state on the watch of this
government. I say again: overall, total offences against the person are down 7.6 per cent, and total offences against
property are down 33 per cent.
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Midland, I call you to order for the third time.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: We are heading in the right direction. We have got good, strong, tough legislation coming into
this Parliament and being debated at present, to try to address our prolific offenders and get them behind bars. That
will further drive down our crime rate. We are heading in the right direction, and we will continue to do so.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
43
MINING INDUSTRY — GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
96.
Mr S.K. L’ESTRANGE to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum:
Can the minister please update the house on how the state government continues to support a strong mining industry
in Western Australia?
Un
Mr W.R. MARMION replied:
r
co
I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. As people in this room would know, junior miners play a very
important role in our economy. They provide key jobs and opportunities for people in Western Australia. They
employ 4 000 people, and with a multiplier of four, that means that 16 000 people rely on the junior iron ore miners
for their income. They also provide other benefits to the Western Australian economy, because apart from the
royalties that they pay, they pay $50 million in payroll tax, and the Treasurer is very pleased about that. Another
important role that the junior iron ore producers play in our economy is that they pick up the lesser grade and smaller
iron ore deposits, which would otherwise be stranded and not developed, and the taxpayers of Western Australia
would then not benefit from the payroll tax and the royalties and the jobs that are generated from their input.
rec
Everyone knows that the iron ore price is around $US63 a tonne, down from the heady days of $US135 a year ago,
and that is placing a lot of pressure on the viability of some of our junior miners. What has the government done? We
have not just sat back. We have listened to them. We have now developed a temporary assistance package for junior
miners, and that is run through my Department of Mines and Petroleum. They need to meet certain criteria, and there
is also a probity audit. They need to meet financial viability criteria and community benefits criteria, and, of course,
they need to show that they are making inroads into reducing their costs. The package provides a 50 per cent rebate
on the royalty that they are paying, over a 12-month period, and the conditions on that are that it must be repaid
within a two-year period. The other aspect is that the assistance package will remain in force, provided the Australian
dollar price of iron ore remains below $A90 a tonne. The guidelines for junior miners were put on the DMP website
in December last year. A number of junior miners have approached my department and are being assessed at this
moment, and some of them will be successful in due course, probably in the next few weeks.
This government is very proud to be stepping up to the plate and supporting junior iron ore producers, because they
provide jobs to Western Australians and economic benefits to the taxpayers of Western Australia, including income to
the state government.
CRIMINAL LAW (MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACCUSED) ACT 1996 — “MENTAL IMPAIRMENT” —
DEFINITION
ted
97.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY to the Minister for Police:
I refer to the definition of “mental impairment” as contained in section 8 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired
Accused) Act 1966, which defines mental impairment as “intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or
senility”.
(1)
Why will the minister not let the courts take this into account when sentencing an offender under her new
home burglary legislation?
(2)
If the minister’s home burglary legislation was as important to her as portrayed, why has it not been the
highest priority for debate this week, and when will it be brought on?
Pr
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
f
oo
(1)–(2) I thank the member for Butler for this question. This question comes back to the amendment on the notice
paper to our home burglary legislation, put there by the member for Butler. The member for Butler is correct,
in that currently the law sets out a standard for dealing with people with mental illness and determines
whether those persons are criminally responsible to stand trial. Under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired
Accused) Act, when the offender at the time of the trial has a mental impairment that renders them unable to
understand the nature of the charge, the requirement to plead, and the purpose of the trial, they are deemed
not fit to stand trial. Therefore, they would not be affected by the member for Butler’s amendment.
Section 27 of the Criminal Code provides a defence for an offender who can prove that at the time of the
offence, as a result of mental impairment, they were not capable of understanding what they were doing, and
they could not control their actions or know that what they were doing was wrong. Those people would not
be affected by the member for Butler’s amendment. The member for Butler’s amendment, put simply,
provides an avenue for people who do not satisfy the existing provisions of the Criminal Code to avoid a
mandatory penalty, purely on the basis of mental impairment. Under our laws, if people are deemed fit to
stand trial—bearing in mind they have already satisfied the test of those other provisions of the code—they
will be treated equally; and, if convicted, they will be subject to a mandatory penalty and will be penalised
equally.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
44
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
Our legislation has been put in place in this state to provide relief for the victims of crime. Those minimum
mandatory sentences are there for us to reset the baseline to ensure that those victims of crime can see that
those violent offenders are placed behind bars for a long time, thereby protecting the community from the
actions of those offenders. That is why that legislation is in front of this house, and I look forward to seeing
that legislation debated. I put it to the member for Butler and to the Labor opposition that it is not going to
satisfy the community of Western Australia if they sit there and say, “Well, we don’t oppose it.” They either
support the legislation or they oppose the legislation. That is how it works in this place. If they do not agree
with the legislation as constructed, vote against it! Vote no! That is what this place is all about. I look
forward to hearing their views and seeing them vote,
CRIMINAL LAW (MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACCUSED) ACT 1996 — “MENTAL IMPAIRMENT” —
DEFINITION
98.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY to the Minister for Police:
r
co
I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister has not brought that legislation on, and given that she does not
understand the issues regarding mental impairment, is it not about time the minister passed oversight of her home
burglary legislation to the Attorney General, who by Governor’s proclamation is the minister responsible for the
Criminal Code?
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
Once again, I know that members opposite do not like mandatory penalties, and I know they do not want this
legislation. We will continue to debate this legislation in this house, and we will hear their views. But they will not be
brave enough to vote against it.
<029> F/M
rec
They will talk against it and run it down, and stand on the side of the offenders rather than the victims but, when push
comes to shove, members vote with their feet in this place.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Butler, I call you to order for the third time. Member for West Swan, I call you to order
for the second time.
HEALTHWAY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — RESIGNATION
MR N.W. MORTON to the Minister for Health:
ted
99.
I refer to the Premier’s comments that the details of the resignation of the executive director of Healthway would be
made public. As the minister responsible for Healthway, can the Minister for Health provide information to the
house?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
First, I would like to apologise to the opposition. I was welcoming the King and Queen of Norway on behalf of the
state earlier on, and had a pair. I inadvertently arranged it until three o’clock, but I always intended to be back for
question time, so that the opposition might have been able to ask me some questions. I apologise for that.
[See paper 2667.]
PERTH STADIUM — MEMBERSHIPS
100.
Mr P.B. WATSON to the Minister for Sport and Recreation:
f
oo
Pr
The Premier made a commitment that he would seek legal advice on the agreement between Healthway and the
executive director and, if possible, table that advice. I am the minister responsible, so that becomes my responsibility.
In tabling this document, I point out that there were three and a half years to go on the executive director’s contract.
This payout is in line with normal public sector conditions, which is approximately a year’s salary plus entitlements. I
also point out that the executive director is directly employed by Healthway, so I have had no involvement in this
negotiation, but for the information of the Parliament and the people of Western Australia I table this document.
I refer to reports that the Minister for Tourism wants approximately 10 000 seats at the new Perth Stadium
quarantined for tourism purposes.
(1)
Does the minister agree that 10 000 seats should be set aside for tourism?
(2)
Will the minister confirm that there will also be stadium memberships; and what does the government
believe will be the maximum number of stadium memberships?
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
(1)–(2) I thank the member for his interest in the new Perth Stadium. It will be a fantastic facility for the state of
Western Australia. It will be a 60 000-seat stadium for everyone in Western Australia. It will be absolutely
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
45
Un
fan first, with large seats. I have had a look at the seats. It will have 1 000 television screens and integrated
transport. We have been talking about that with the Minister for Transport. There will also be food options
and views across the Swan River. This is a fantastic project. It will provide a stadium. I know the member is
interested in the Australian Football League and ongoing negotiations, and my answer today is that those
things are being negotiated through the appropriate channels. The Minister for Tourism and the Premier have
made previous comments about the number of seats that will be available in that space, and the figure of
10 000 seats has been mentioned. However, as I said, these things are still being negotiated by the most
appropriate people to do that. It is ongoing.
101.
PERTH STADIUM — MEMBERSHIPS
Mr P.B. WATSON to the Minister for Sport and Recreation:
I have a supplementary question. Will the minister confirm that there will be stadium memberships; and what is the
maximum number of stadium memberships the government believes is appropriate? I did not ask whether it had been
done. What number does the minister think is appropriate?
r
co
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
That was rather unparliamentary.
The allocation of tickets —
Several members interjected.
rec
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, thank you. I call you to order for the second time. I call the member for
Victoria Park to order for the second time. Member for Butler, if you continue to interject, more particularly when I
am on my feet, you will be sent for a rest.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: This is a good-news story. This is fantastic for the state of Western Australia. The allocation of
tickets, as I said previously, is part of the ongoing negotiations with the users and the operators, and, once appointed,
we will make that —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the third time.
102.
ted
TRANSPORT — INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
Mr J. NORBERGER to the Minister for Transport:
Yesterday the minister stated that the Liberal–National government has an excellent track record when it comes to
delivering infrastructure on time and on budget. Can the minister please provide the house with some examples?
Mr D.C. NALDER replied:
I thank the member for the question. Since coming to office in 2008, the Liberal–National government has set a very
high benchmark for delivering projects on time and on budget. I will give examples of a few. For the member for
Eyre, a $120 million port access road was delivered on time and on budget. The member for Perth will know that
widening the Graham Farmer Freeway to three lanes was completed on time and on budget.
Pr
Ms J.M. Freeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka, I call you to order for the first time.
Ms J.M. Freeman interjected.
f
oo
Mr D.C. NALDER: We widened the Kwinana Freeway, Leach Highway and Roe Highway on time and on budget,
much to the pleasure of the members for Jandakot and Bateman. We were not simply satisfied with delivering
projects on time and on budget; we challenged ourselves. With greater efficiencies and better management, we
delivered projects to a first-class standard while finding time and capital savings.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka, I call you to order for the second time. I think you have made your point.
Mr D.C. NALDER: There was a saving of $6.4 million on the Greenough River Bridge, for the members for
Geraldton and Moore. We saved $2 million in the widening of the Mitchell Freeway northbound from Hepburn
Avenue to Hodges Drive. Another $5.4 million was saved on the long overdue Reid Highway–Alexander Drive
interchange, and another $5 million was saved on the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka Avenue interchange, in the
electorate of the member for Morley. We were not satisfied with just coming in under budget; we wanted to challenge
ourselves further.
Ms J.M. Freeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka, I call you to order now for the third time.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
46
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
Mr D.C. NALDER: The Geraldton southern transport corridor stage 2 was delivered four months early with a saving
of $11 million. Not only were these projects on time and on budget, or only under budget, we are now under budget
and ahead of time. For the member for Belmont, the work on Great Eastern Highway between Kooyong Road and
Tonkin Highway was completed three months early and saved $13.5 million. Unlike the poor rail record of the
Labor Party, we extended the Joondalup line to Butler three months early and a saving of $30 million. Labor’s poor
project management saw the Mandurah rail line delayed for years with a cost blowout of $250 million. With the Perth
City Link, we sunk the rail line in the city six months early with a saving of $3 million. Member for Swan Hills, we
have duplicated Reid Highway from West Swan Road to Great Northern Highway, completing the project one month
early with a saving of $6.5 million. The Liberal–National government has set a high benchmark on working these
projects, doing them efficiently and effectively, and I look forward to updating the house on further projects that we
are undertaking for this great state.
103.
(2)
Mr D.J. KELLY to the Minister for Water:
r
co
(1)
WATER CORPORATION — ASSET SALE
Given that the Water Corporation board has cited the government’s proposed asset sale program as a
potential threat to its financial viability, and that the government has no public endorsement to sell Water
Corporation assets, will the minister now rule out the sale of the Water Corporation’s metropolitan
desalination and wastewater treatment plants?
Will the minister now abandon her decision to sell the Water Corporation’s engineering and construction
division, with its 150 job losses?
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
<030> E/M
rec
(1)–(2) The government has been very clear in this place, and outside, that the Water Corporation is not for sale, and
will not be sold. The asset sales process is continuing, and that is something I will not comment on until it
reaches its conclusion. In relation to the engineering services and construction division, I have explained to
the member and made public statements to the effect that the organisation has shifted from a record level of
investment. We have shifted from a significant construction period in which we have droughtproofed Perth
and the interconnected system.
ted
We are now shifting into an operation and maintenance mode. I assume that members opposite would not have us
employing people who no longer have work to carry out. It is still a significant investment in our capital works going
forward, but it is not at the level it has been at for the past 10 years, because we have worked very hard to
droughtproof this state to make sure that when people turn on the tap, water comes out. No, I will not be considering
that. That process has commenced, and I await an update from the Water Corporation on how that goes.
WATER CORPORATION — ASSET SALE
104.
Mr D.J. KELLY to the Minister for Water:
I have a supplementary question. Does the minister now regret describing on radio the 150 job losses as a
compassionate decision, when all the staff I speak to talk about it as a kick in the guts?
Pr
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
The member is referring to an interview I did about this matter, I think, at the beginning of this year or last year.
Mr D.J. Kelly: No; it was two weeks ago.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: It was not two weeks ago.
Mr D.J. Kelly interjected.
f
oo
It is a compassionate decision by the Water Corporation, because of the way it is putting this out to the market. Some
people who currently work for the Water Corporation may have a small number of jobs to do for the immediate future
because, as I have said, we are moving from a significant investment in construction to one of operation and
maintenance.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: That is right; absolutely. If it packaged up into a process whereby somebody takes on that
business, they will have the opportunity to continue to work for longer than they would have at the Water
Corporation. I think that is compassionate. It is providing them with ongoing job security. Some people will come out
of this process without a job. The Water Corporation is behaving entirely appropriately and is managing its
employees very compassionately. I know it is, and the member would be aware of it because unions have been
involved in this process.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
47
BILLS
Assent
Message from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills —
1.
Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014.
Un
2.
Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014.
3.
Alcohol and Drug Authority Amendment Bill 2014.
MINISTER FOR POLICE
Criminal Law Amendment (Home Burglary and Other Offences) Bill — Personal Explanation
MRS L.M. HARVEY (Scarborough — Minister for Police) [2.42 pm]: Under standing order 148, I seek to make a
personal explanation.
r
co
The SPEAKER: Proceed.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I want to make it really clear in my response to the member for Butler’s question that when I
was talking about the amendments on the notice paper, I was referring to the amendments that we have made as a
government not having any substantial effect on the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 and the
rights of those people who fall under that act, nor on people who fall under section 27 of the Criminal Code. For the
benefit of members opposite, the reason that I am in charge of taking the legislation through this house is that I now
represent the Attorney General in the Legislative Assembly.
rec
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE — CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (HOME BURGLARY AND OTHER
OFFENCES) BILL 2014
Motion
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [2.43 pm]: I move —
That debate resume on government order of the day 3.
ted
In support of my motion, the Premier said on Tuesday last week in his speech to Parliament that the Criminal Law
Amendment (Home Burglary and Other Offences) Bill 2014 was of the highest priority. On Tuesday this week, the
Minister for Police said that the home burglary legislation is the government’s priority. The Minister for Police has
sought the opposition’s support to bring on this legislation. We have moved this motion to bring the debate back on
this afternoon. I point out that the Premier said that it has the highest priority, but it adjourned the debate after one and
a quarter hours, and we have been told that it is not the government’s intention to return to it today. So we have
moved that debate resume on order of the day 3.
Question put and passed.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (HOME BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES) BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 24 February.
DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [2.44 pm]: It is interesting —
The SPEAKER: Premier! I want to hear the member for Armadale.
Pr
Mr C.J. Barnett: You’ve got two hours.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Get on with it.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Premier, stop being a bully, because that is what you are!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
f
oo
Dr A.D. BUTI: It is very interesting, as I get up to contribute to the debate on the Criminal Law Amendment (Home
Burglary and Other Offences) Bill 2014, that the dictatorial Premier tells us that we have only two hours to debate
this incredibly important legislation that has been brought to this house by the Minister for Police. It is interesting that
the Premier has stated that we have only two hours and that we should support it. During question time, the police
minister pleaded with us to oppose this legislation. This legislation has been brought before this house purely as a
political stunt. The police minister has been snookered by the member for Butler. She cannot get over the fact that we
will vote for the legislation.
Dr A.D. BUTI: In my maiden speech in this house, the Premier tried to bully me. He did not succeed then, and he
will never succeed, because I take advice only from people I respect, and I do not respect the Premier.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
48
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Ms E. Evangel interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Perth, I do not want to hear from you.
Dr A.D. BUTI: It is interesting that last year in a debate in this house, the Leader of the House —
Mr N.W. Morton interjected.
Un
The SPEAKER: Member for Forrestfield, I call you to order for the second time.
Dr A.D. BUTI: If I were the member for Forrestfield, I would have felt quite slighted about his contribution the other
day.
The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, please.
Dr A.D. BUTI: On 12 November 2014, the member for Warnbro was on his feet when there was an interjection by
the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House said to the member for Warnbro —
r
co
Are you able to commit to your side not engaging in a law and order auction in the lead-up to the next
election?
I repeat —
Are you able to commit to your side not engaging in a law and order auction in the lead-up to the next
election?
rec
The member for Butler gave a guarantee that we would not engage in an auction on law and order, but that is what
this government attempted to do before the last election. That is what the legislation before the house is all about. It
was part of the government’s law and order auction to try to wedge the opposition, but it is not going to succeed.
Even though we will support this legislation —
Mr J. Norberger interjected.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The member for Joondalup will not be laughing after I have referred to some figures, so he should
just hold off on the laughter.
<031> K/1
ted
The government’s advocacy of mandatory minimum sentencing is interesting. There is a philosophical argument to be
had about whether one should agree with mandatory minimum sentencing. Where is the evidence that mandatory
minimum sentencing will decrease crime? There is a paper written by the Heritage Foundation in the United States,
which of course is a conservative think tank, titled “Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments
for and Against Potential Reforms”. In the conclusion to the case for and against, the article states that there is no
empirical evidence that imposing mandatory sentencing will reduce crime. Who in this Parliament honestly believes
that someone who engages in home burglary and then commits a despicable violent crime against the resident will
think, “I won’t do this because I may be subject to mandatory sentencing”?
f
oo
Pr
How absurd, police minister. Where is the evidence that minimum mandatory sentencing reduces crime? Where is it?
The minister, in her contributions to debates, has never provided evidence that it reduces crime. The minister may say
to us that after she brought in mandatory sentencing for assaults on police officers they were reduced. This Heritage
Foundation article states that the introduction of mandatory sentencing passes the discretion from the judiciary to the
prosecutor. Many police officers have stated that they have reduced the charge against an offender because they do
not want to go down the line of that person being charged with an assault against a police officer. The then
Attorney General brought in the legislation as a result of the public outcry over the assault against the police officer
with the surname of Butcher, but that legislation would have had no effect on that case because the defendant was
found not guilty of assault. How could legislation that imposes a mandatory sentence for the assault of a public
official have changed that situation? The court found in that situation, rightly or wrongly—there was an argument that
it was the wrong decision—that the defendant was not guilty of assault against a public official. Therefore, that
legislation would not have had any effect on that result.
As to the argument that mandatory sentencing making our community safe, I am not sure how that actually works.
People who commit these despicable crimes do not act in a rational manner. When they are committing these crimes,
they are not thinking: there is a law on the statute book that states that if I am convicted, I will end up with a
mandatory sentence. The Heritage Foundation article states —
Furthermore, they contend, mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime. As University of Minnesota
Law Professor Michael Tonry has concluded, “the weight of the evidence clearly shows that enactment of
mandatory penalties has either no demonstrable marginal deterrent effects or short-term effects that rapidly
waste away.” Nor is it clear that mandatory minimum sentences reduce crime through incapacitation.
The article states that imposing a lengthy prison sentence may actually increase the criminality of the offender.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
49
Un
The member for Butler, the lead speaker on this side, stated in his contribution that the current legislation under the
Criminal Code imposes severe penalties on someone who engages in a violent assault during a home burglary
situation. There was no need to bring in this legislation; it has been done purely for political purposes. The cat was let
out of the bag by the Leader of the House last year when he said, “Are you able to commit to your side not engaging
in a law and order auction in the lead-up to the next election?” We did not engage in one before the last election; it is
always the other side of the political spectrum that does that. The police minister is so upset that she was pleading
with us in question time to vote against the legislation! That is what she said: “Vote against the legislation”! Then the
Premier was saying, “You make sure you vote for the legislation”! That was when the Minister for Police was out of
house, but the police minister wants us to vote against the legislation. Does the Minister for Police want us to vote for
or against the legislation?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: I want you to vote authentically with the rhetoric of your debate.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Authentically? What does that mean?
Several members interjected.
r
co
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, quiet. Have you finished, member for Carine? I want the comments
through the Chair, member for Armadale.
[Member’s time extended.]
rec
Dr A.D. BUTI: The minister really wants us to vote against the legislation for whatever philosophical reason we may
have. She wants to use this legislation purely for political purposes. It is very interesting that in the article written by
Dan Emerson in today’s The West Australian the Attorney General did not seem to give the minister much support at
all, did he? The Minister for Police says that she now has responsibility for the Attorney General in this house.
Leader of the House, when was that relayed to this house? Mr Speaker, I ask for a ruling on this: when portfolio
changes occur, is it not incumbent that this house is given —
The SPEAKER: Look, it is not for me to answer that right now, so just carry on with your contribution.
Mr J.H.D. Day: By way of interjection, my recollection is that the Premier normally tables a statement on that, so
just go and check Hansard.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Did he? Okay, we will go and check.
ted
I can tell the Leader of the House that, although today has not been his finest in this Parliament, it would be better for
the government if he had control over Attorney General matters rather than the police minister; the police minister
cannot even control her own portfolio, let alone control the portfolio of the Attorney General.
A number of articles have been written on mandatory sentencing that clearly show that although very strong
philosophical and emotional arguments can be made for mandatory sentencing, the evidence that it makes a safer
community is just not there. It might give the perception of a safer community, but the evidence that it actually
creates a safer community is just not there. The only motivating force that drives this police minister is politics. This
Minister for Police has never, ever had an intellectual drive behind anything she has done in this house—ever. She is
purely driven by politics; that is all she has ever been driven by. There is no philosophical base to any of her
arguments. But let us look at the arguments that are often utilised to justify mandatory sentencing.
Pr
I refer to an Australian Institute of Criminology report on mandatory sentencing by Declan Roche. The first argument
made is crime prevention, which I presume the minister will argue is the main driver behind the Criminal Law
Amendment (Home Burglary and Other Offences) Bill 2014. The minister will argue that “mandatory sentencing
prevents crime through incapacitation and deterrence”; however, the evidence is that it is not a deterrent. Rational
people do not break into homes and commit violent assaults; they just do not do that. The people committing these
crimes are not acting on a rational basis, so they are not thinking about the penalty that will be imposed.
f
oo
Another issue is incapacitation. The minister may argue that by having mandatory sentencing in place, we will be able
to put a person away for a set period—therefore, they cannot commit a crime. Obviously, while they are in jail, they
will not be able to commit a violent crime—although it would be hard to argue that no criminality takes place in the
prison system. However, the current legislation that covers home invasions and violent offences in a home invasion
situation imposes severe penalties. The minister is saying that we want to take away the ability of a judge to decide on
the sentence; we want Parliament to decide. Parliament, of course, has the ability to impose mandatory sentencing,
but strong reasons have to be provided to interfere with the judiciary. The reason should not be political advantage; it
should be that it would make society safer.
<032> S/1
As the member for Butler stated, one of the consequences of mandatory sentencing is that when a person is charged
with an offence that will have a mandatory sentence, they may more than likely not plead guilty; they will seek to
fight the charge. That has a number of consequences. As mentioned by the member for Butler, one of those
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
50
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
consequences is the victim, who has had a traumatic experience, may be forced to relive the situation in a court in
which they may face strong cross-examination by the defence lawyer.
Concerning the issue of deterrence in this Australian Institute of Criminology article, I quote —
…mandatory sentencing relies upon misconceived assumptions about the deterrent effect of punishment.
Sherman —
Un
He is a criminologist —
argues that “(f)or too long democratic societies have assumed that all punishment has a general deterrent or
preventive effect. But criminology has increasingly disproven that assumption” …
r
co
Deterrence assumes that people are rational actors who weigh the costs and benefits of committing a crime
before deciding whether to commit that crime. However, much crime is impulsive and to the extent that there
is any deliberation, “(f)or people who see no attractive options in the legitimate economy, and who are
doubtful that they will live another ten years in any event, the threat of an extended prison stay is likely to be
far less threatening than it would be to a well-employed person with a family” …
Turning to the issue of cost, how cost-effective is mandatory sentencing? Interestingly, this article refers to a cost–
benefit analysis done by the RAND Corporation in the United States. It estimates —
…every million dollars spent on California’s three strikes law would prevent 60 serious crimes, whereas
providing parent training and assistance for families with young children at risk would prevent 160 serious
crimes, and giving cash incentives to induce disadvantaged high school students to graduate would prevent
258 serious crimes.
There is a bit of justice reinvestment there, member for Warnbro.
rec
So, arguments for deterrence do not stack up; arguments for cost effectiveness do not stack up; and arguments for
incapacity do not stack up. I quote from the article again about the argument for being consistent—that is, having a
consistent system —
ted
While mandatory sentencing sounds like it could achieve consistency, for a number of reasons it in fact does
not. Firstly, the inherent imprecision in statutorily defining offences means very unequal offenders can
receive the same sentence when convicted under mandatory sentencing. Secondly, the mandatory sentences
may encourage judges to circumvent the mandatory penalties imposed by legislation. Thirdly, rather than
eliminating discretion it simply displaces it to other parts of the criminal justice system, most notably,
prosecutors. Discretion is unavoidable in the criminal justice system.
It could be argued on democratic grounds that if the community is crying out for mandatory sentencing, that as a
democratic institution, we should respond to that. No doubt, that is a legitimate argument. But one should also look at
empirical evidence and reason to avoid making a situation worse and it should be. The article concluded —
Pr
Mandatory sentencing is claimed to prevent crime, introduce certainty and consistency into a criminal justice
system lacking in those qualities, and reflect community condemnation of crime. Available evidence
suggests that mandatory sentencing can deliver modest, but expensive crime prevention. The large
government investment required by mandatory sentencing laws would arguably return a much greater yield
in terms of crime prevention if it were invested in prevention policy in areas such as education. Critics also
argue that crime prevention by selective incapacitation is a difficult task laced with uncertainty and
inconsistency which is done particularly poorly by legislation that imposes punishment automatically on the
basis of prior offending. Moreover, they argue that the policy of selective incapacitation is morally
questionable, particularly as it routinely disadvantages the poor and marginalised.
In June 2011, the Law Institute of Victoria produced a paper on mandatory minimum sentencing. Part of the
executive summary reads —
f
oo
The overwhelming evidence from Australia and overseas, however, demonstrates that mandatory sentencing
does not reduce crime through deterrence nor incapacitation, and may lead to increased crime rates in the
long run, as imprisonment has been shown to have a criminogenic effect.
Mandatory minimum sentencing leads to inconsistent sentencing results through the imposition of sentences
that may be disproportionate to the gravity of the offending.
In this case, the penalty that would be imposed is not disproportional to the violent crime, but the current legislative
system that we have will ensure that is the case; we do not need to bring in this legislation. Further —
Mandatory sentencing regimes do not remove discretion from the criminal justice system, but shift that
discretion away from judicial officers, and on to police and prosecutors.
This is an interesting point —
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
51
In jury studies, where jurors are asked which sentence they would impose on a convicted offender, more than
half of the jurors suggested a more lenient sentence than the trial judge imposed. Further, when informed of
the actual sentence imposed, 90% of jurors said that the judge’s sentence was (very or fairly) appropriate.
Mandatory sentencing regimes exacerbate court delay, especially in the County Court —
The equivalent to the state county court is the District Court here —
Un
as offenders contest charges in order to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence.
The motivation for an offender to assist the authorities with their investigations is also removed.
“Closure” for victims of crime will be delayed under the government’s proposal, as more matters will be
contested. Victims of crime will also be subjected to the rigours of cross examination as offenders seek to
avoid the mandatory minimum penalty.
The proposal —
r
co
Of mandatory sentencing —
will have a significant impact on the costs of judicial administration, policing and legal aid funding, as more
matters are contested.
The proposal will result in burgeoning costs in relation to housing more prisoners, for longer.
rec
That report was from the Law Institute of Victoria. It is interesting that the police minister brings this bill before the
house, but which crime, minister, has increased over the last five years in Western Australia more than any other
crime? The minister remains silent. I may be wrong on this, but it is an incredible increase. In the last five years,
family violence has increased by nearly 77 per cent. Where is the minister’s legislation on family violence? What is
the minister going to do to help the victims of family violence?
Ms E. Evangel: You’re such a bully!
Dr A.D. BUTI: A beautiful interjections there, member for Perth.
<033> P/1
ted
Where is the minister’s legislation to assist family violence victims? Before the last election, the minister’s
government promised GPS tracking in regards to domestic violence. The government has not introduced this. In the
last Parliament, this side of the house introduced legislation to increase the mandatory sentencing to 20 years’
imprisonment for people who were convicted of a killing under section 281 of the Criminal Code in a family violence
situation. Members on this side wanted to increase the mandatory sentencing from 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Who opposed it? It was the minister’s side of the house. It is the number one law and order issue in Western
Australia. There has been a 77 per cent increase in family violence charges—reportable assaults—in Western
Australia in the last five years. Members opposite have been silent on that issue. For your interest, member for
Perth—I think she would be interested in this—in those five years during which it has increased 77 per cent, over
70 per cent of the victims in each of those years have been female. Furthermore, on average about 10.5 per cent, in
each of those years, have been children. A 77 per cent increase in family violence in five years, and between 80 to
83 per cent each year have either been a woman or a child.
Pr
Does the member for Perth not think that that is a very important law and order issue? The member’s government has
done nothing; it has remained silent. Where is the legislation with regard to that issue? One would think that that
would be the number one law and order issue on which this government would seek to bring in legislation to try to
prevent it from happening. This government has brought in nothing. We brought legislation into the last Parliament
that member’s opposite opposed.
f
oo
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): Order, members! Member for Armadale, you are directing
comments to the member for Perth. The member for Perth has interjected enough. Can the member for Armadale talk
to the Chair? Thank you.
Dr A.D. BUTI: It is interesting that the Minister for Police talks about providing a safe environment for the
community or about trying to reduce crime. Of course, home invasions that result in a violent assault are disgraceful
and terrible, and they receive a substantial public profile and a lot of media. The Minister for Police thought this was
a good political issue to take up and the government has gone forward with it. However, the government has
remained silent when it comes to family violence. As I have said numerous times, the Minister for Police is not purely
responsible for tackling family violence. I have always stated that she is only one part of the cog of government with
regard to family violence. It is a very complex issue, but one on which the minister is an important cog in that wheel
of ministerial responsibility. We will never get rid of family violence, but one would think that when we keep talking
about law and order, the government would seek to address the crisis that we had. If a crime increases by 77 per cent
in five years, one would think that a government would see that as a critical issue that must be addressed.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
52
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Mrs L.M. Harvey: I agree that it is a serious issue but I cannot do it justice by responding to a request by way of
interjection on a complex policy area like domestic violence. I know that the member understands that I work with the
Attorney General and also the Minister for Child Protection, Hon Helen Morton, on domestic violence and family
violence matters, but I really cannot do it justice by responding through an interjection.
Un
Dr A.D. BUTI: All right, but as I said, and I think the minister will also agree that I have always said that it is not her
sole responsibility and that it is a complex issue. However, my criticism still remains that we are now two years into
this Parliament —
Ms L.L. Baker: Seven years.
ted
rec
r
co
Dr A.D. BUTI: Seven years of this government but two years into this Parliament and the government has not
introduced any significant reform to fight family violence. A promise was made at the last election and the
government has talked about honouring an election commitment by bringing this legislation before the house, but
why is it not honouring its commitment with regard to the GPS monitoring? I do see that as being as complex as other
areas are because we already have GPS tracking for sex offenders. If we can have that, why can we not have GPS
tracking for people who have a strong probability of committing a domestic violence crime—for example, with
people who have breached violence restraining orders? I do not understand that minister. I am sure that the minister
thinks that a crime of family violence is abhorrent—I have no doubt that she does—but I am concerned by the politics
being played by bringing this legislation forward. There is no doubt that this is an important issue, but the current
legislative framework that we have under the Criminal Code can deal with this. If a person commits a home burglary
and then commits a serious assault, the current system will deal with them. The Premier has not been able to identify
which judges have been lenient on people who have been found guilty of a home invasion coupled with a violent
assault. The current legal system deals with that. However, there is a crisis before this state when it comes to family
violence, which has a human, social and economic effect. A report instigated by the commonwealth government in
2009 by KPMG found that family violence cost us $13.6 billion, and it will cost another $2 billion over the next 10
years if we do not address the matter. I urge the minister to not play politics with law and order. The minister’s
colleague sitting next to her, the Leader of the House, made an interjection to the member for Warnbro last year: “Do
we promise not to engage in law and order at the next election? You bet we promise we won’t engage in it. We didn’t
last time.” However, we also will not be wedged on one issue. The government has sought to wedge us on this issue
and it has failed, so it is incumbent upon the government to give us the empirical evidence that shows that this
legislation will reduce crime. The government has not been able to do that. Members opposite can make philosophical
arguments on mandatory minimum sentencing, but where is the evidence that this legislation will reduce crime?
There is no evidence.
MR J. NORBERGER (Joondalup) [3.16 pm]: It is not easy competing with the member for Mandurah to get the
call. He was like a coiled snake ready to go. I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Law Amendment (Home
Burglary and Other Offences) Bill 2014. For those people who may not be in the chamber but will read this later, or
who are watching this, I will quickly outline from the explanatory memorandum what this bill seeks to achieve. This
bill is attempting to —
provide mandatory minimum sentences for specific serious offences of physical or sexual violence
committed in the course of an aggravated home burglary. These minimum sentences would only apply
to adults offenders (18 years of age or older) and juveniles offenders (between 16 years of age and 18
years of age); and
•
revise the repeat offender ‘counting’ rules for the home burglary offence … ; and
•
increase the mandatory minimum sentence for adult repeat home burglary offenders; and
•
provide a clear distinction between aggravated home burglaries and aggravated burglaries of places
other than dwellings.
Pr
•
f
oo
The Bill also amends the Sentencing Act 1995 to provide a minimum non-parole period of 15 years for adult
offenders who committed murder in the course of an aggravated home burglary.
I will focus predominantly on the mandatory sentencing side as opposed to the three-count adjustment. It is fair to say
that this bill has broad community support, which is agreed upon by all in this house. We have heard from a number
of members opposite who agree there is an appetite in the community to see tougher sentencing. That fact in itself is
important and I will come back to that in a minute.
Some of the repeated accusations that we heard from those opposite and in the public arena is that somehow by
introducing this legislation, we are disrespecting our judiciary. We know that the judiciary is a critical part of our
three arms of government, and they are respected; I respect them and the members on this side of the house respect
the judiciary. They are honoured, and rightly so. They are highly educated and highly knowledgeable, but they are not
elected. Our judiciary are not elected members of Parliament. They have not been elected to represent the people of
Western Australia. It is a principal role of Parliament to create legislation that is then acted upon by the judiciary—
and we are doing just that. A common argument against mandatory sentencing—we heard it yesterday and today
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
53
again—is that it limits the judiciary’s discretion. Of course, in a way it does, but that is no different from how our
current setting of maximum sentences also limits the judiciary. Do we not already tell the judiciary what the limit of
sentencing is that they may apply in a particular case? What if a judge wanted to hand out a sentence for 30 years for
a crime where the maximum sentence is 20 years?
<034> H/4
Un
r
co
Are we not limiting that judge? Are we not limiting the judiciary? Are members opposite arguing that we should
abolish any and all specific guidelines for sentencing? Should we place our trust so wholly in the judiciary that we
should not provide them any guidance at all; and, if a particular judge wants to hand down life for robbery, so be it? It
is rubbish; we do not do that. What we are doing is refining the range within which we would like the judiciary to
operate. The current maximum for a number of crimes addressed by the Criminal Law Amendment (Home Burglary
and Other Offences) Bill is 20 years’ imprisonment, but there is no minimum. In theory—this is a theoretical
argument—the judiciary can hand down a sentence anywhere between zero and 20 years. Having listened to our
constituency and acting as their representatives in our principal role as legislators, we are indicating that as a society
we would like the judiciary to hand down sentences of between 15 and 20 years’ imprisonment. The judiciary can
continue to practise discretion. As far as I am concerned, it can hand out a sentence for 16, 17 or 18.5 years. That is
discretion; we are giving them a refined range within which to work. As a party, we proudly stand by the decision to
introduce this legislation.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): Order, members! Members, I am already struggling to hear the
member on his feet. If you could take the conversations outside, that would be appreciated.
rec
Mr J. NORBERGER: As a party, we proudly stand by the decision to introduce this legislation. We advised the
voting public of our intentions. We were very up-front and honest. We took this to an election. We said that because
the Liberal Party is tough on crime, this is what we intend to do. If members of the community had rejected that
notion and thought that by limiting the judiciary’s range within which we are asking it to sentence for these heinous
crimes, they would have voted differently, but they voted for us. Therefore, we are doing the right thing in bringing
the legislation to the house.
The real point of interest here is to see how the Labor Party has dealt with this piece of legislation. It has been
squirming. We know that many, many people in the Labor Party, including many members opposite —
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
ted
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you for the second time. The member for Joondalup has the
call. He is not seeking interjections. I have already indicated that it is difficult to hear the member from that part of
the chamber. For the purposes of Hansard, I would appreciate it if there were no further interjections.
Mr J. NORBERGER: We know that many people in the Labor Party and many members opposite strongly oppose
mandatory sentencing. We can readily find examples of that in the media and there is plenty of evidence of that
peppered throughout Hansard; in fact, we heard it again just a moment ago. They come up with every reason known
to man: this is terrible; it will not work; the prisons will be too full; and it will cause this issue and that issue. The
opposition’s lead speaker, no less, the shadow Attorney General, was quoted in the media when he attended the
Australian Law Students’ Association as saying mandatory sentencing is “bull dot-dot-dot-dot”. I am pretty sure that
anyone listening is smart enough to understand what that is.
Pr
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the first time. Again, the member for
Joondalup has the call. I would like to hear from the member for Joondalup.
Mr J. NORBERGER: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker.
Point of Order
f
oo
Ms M.M. QUIRK: The member is quoting from a document. Perhaps he can table that.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): That is done at the member’s discretion. He is a backbencher, so he
cannot table it, but it is up to his discretion whether he lays it on the table for the rest of today’s proceedings.
Debate Resumed
Mr J. NORBERGER: I am pretty sure that if the member for Girrawheen is so interested, she can google it.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
Mr J. NORBERGER: It is a Facebook page.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen! I am on my feet.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
54
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I am still on my feet. I call you to order for the second time. If you continue to interject, I
will call you for a third time.
Un
Mr J. NORBERGER: Hansard is peppered with the opposition’s statements against mandatory sentencing. Even
today, admittedly during a different discussion, we heard the Leader of the Opposition remind all members of this
house that as members of Parliament we are not expected to agree on everything; we can disagree. Do you know
what? He is right. I very rarely agree with the Leader of the Opposition. But it is okay to come into this place, given
that we all represent diverse electorates. Between the 59 members in this house and 36 members in the other place,
we represent the good people of Western Australia. It is okay to come into this place and have different points of
view. I do not have an issue with members opposite disagreeing with mandatory sentencing. It is their right to do so.
In fact, if the majority of the opposition’s constituency told it that mandatory sentencing is a terrible thing, I would
actually go as far to say that it is incumbent on the opposition to represent those views in this house. Members
opposite should vote against this bill. Any rational person who reads Hansard and all the speeches given, including
those of the lead speaker, on everything that is wrong with mandatory sentencing, would completely understand and
even support the opposition if it crossed the floor and voted against it. Members opposite should be absolutely proud
to have their names recorded as noes when the bill comes to a vote. But this is where the Labor Party gives up on any
pretence of integrity, conveniently declaring that this bill is not the true will of the people; rather it is political
posturing and even though Labor does not agree with it and even though mandatory sentencing seems to have more
evils than can be discussed in the time available, it will not oppose the bill. That is interesting. Earlier, the member for
Armadale said the opposition would vote for the bill. That has not been the position of members opposite. They said
that they would not oppose it. Why? Because to do so, to stand up for what they believe in, in their own assessment—
anyone who reads the speech given by the member for Butler will see his own assessment—would cost the Labor
Party precious votes. We know that this is what the community and what society wants. The opposition does not want
to lose votes, yet it is hypocritical enough to accuse us of being shallow and trying to make a political wedge. No, we
genuinely believe in the legislation that we are putting to the house. Members opposite are real hypocrites. One after
another, they stood and peppered this place with everything that is wrong with mandatory sentencing—it is horrible;
it will cost too much; it will not work; it is terrible. “The poor criminals”, cries out the Labor Party, “What do you
mean they have to do their time?”
rec
r
co
Point of Order
ted
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member just said that the Labor Party shouts out, “Poor criminals”. I ask the member to
provide evidence about that or to stop misleading the house and to not impugn the reputation of members on this side
of the house.
The ACTING SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Debate Resumed
Mr J. NORBERGER: The Labor Party wants to have it both ways. Admit it, you want to have it both ways!
Mr D.J. Kelly interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, you are sailing close to the wind. The member for Joondalup
has the call.
Pr
Mr J. NORBERGER: Members opposite want plenty of Hansard excerpts for their newsletters and plenty of quotes
to prove that it stood up to mandatory sentencing because it is terrible, just to keep the bleeding hearts in the
electorate happy, but by the same token, to save their political hide, they say that they cannot vote against it—because
it is what the community wants. If members opposite oppose it, even though every bit of fibre in them and every bit
of their DNA says that they do not agree with it, they will not oppose it. This is a sham of an opposition.
<035> Q/3
f
oo
Before I conclude, I draw members’ attention to some of the flawed and diversionary logic and tactics displayed by
the opposition’s lead speaker, the member for Butler, on this matter in referring to one of the case examples provided
by the Minister for Police in her second reading speech. The case example was of a 78-year-old lady was brutally and
repeatedly raped during a home invasion. A number of speakers have agreed that it would do injustice to the case to
go into too much detail of what that poor lady was subjected to. Needless to say, the investigating detective for that
case ranked it as one of the top one per cent of sexual offences; what that poor old lady had to go through is in the top
one per cent.
The offender received a sentence of 11 years in prison, yet the member for Butler, when he said that the judiciary
could not possibly have handed down a 15-year sentence, tried to reason that the court was forced by legislation
passed in this house to offer a 25 per cent sentencing discount for a plea of guilty. The member took us on a
mathematical journey in which he reverse calculated the 11-year sentence to account for the 25 per cent discount, and
arrived at 14 years and 18 months as the headline sentence. The member used that result as some form of justification
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
55
for the judiciary, when he said that the court handed down 15 years but was forced to reduce it to 11 years. He said
that the end result of 11 years and not 15 years was not the fault of the judiciary.
Un
I just do not get that. Member for Butler, I may not be a mathematical genius, but I will take the house on a journey of
my own. The member for Butler claims that the judiciary was unable to end up passing a 15-year sentence due to the
25 per cent guilty plea discount. Guess what, member for Butler? The offence carried a 20-year maximum sentence.
Members should remember that this case was considered, not by the media or us but by the police themselves, as
ranking in the top one per cent of the worst sexual crimes they had seen. The judiciary could have started at 20 years
and could have applied a 25 per cent discount for a guilty plea and that would have left us at 15 years. If a person is in
the top one per cent of sexual offenders and does not end up going anywhere near the 20-year maximum, what does
that person have to do to end up with a sentence near the maximum? What we heard was the member for Butler using
flawed logic in a vain attempt to defend the judiciary.
r
co
The real kicker is this: it is fine for opposition members to come into this house and disagree with the government’s
policies. In fact, it is their right. It is fine for opposition members to come in here and disagree with the government’s
policies and argue their case. I have no issue with that. If they want to use flawed logic to try to shield their ignorance,
that is fine, too; the government will just call them on it, like I have just done. If they want to play political games by
completely disagreeing with a piece of legislation but let it pass to save their political hides, that is their prerogative.
Heck, even if they want to declare their lack of confidence in the minister, even though they are in the minority and
do not think he minister is doing a good job—we think he is doing a good job—so be it. That is okay; they do not
need to think that the minister is doing a good job. No-one is asking for the opposition’s endorsement of our minister.
However, it is the sexist and misogynist manner in which the member for Butler has gone about this that is truly
disgusting.
Ms L.L. Baker: Do you understand what “misogyny” means?
rec
Mr J. NORBERGER: I do. In debating this legislation and in response to the Premier’s Statement last week —
Several members interjected.
Mr J. NORBERGER: Members opposite should listen carefully to this before they decide to defend the member for
Butler. The member for Butler referred to the Minister for Police by saying, “We are saddled with a no-hoper police
minister.”
Several members interjected.
ted
Mr J. NORBERGER: Righto! He continued by saying, “Her best quality is smiling and batting her eyelashes at the
press gallery.”
Ms M.M. Quirk: And the problem with that is?
Mr J. NORBERGER: Hang on! Then, apparently, she is “ditsy”, she cannot plead “pig ignorance”, she is a
“vacuum”, she knows how to “smile for the cameras”, and she is an “airhead”.
Mr J.R. Quigley: That’s all true.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Rubbish!
Pr
Mr J. NORBERGER: I am glad that opposition members are defending those statements; quite frankly, members on
this side of the house think it is disgusting. We think it is a sexist, filthy attack on the Minister for Police. The irony is
that every time the Premier interjects, has a grievance or says something that he does not agree with in relation to a
female member of Parliament on that side of the house —
f
oo
Mr J. NORBERGER: Absolutely not. They yell and scream, and the shock is phenomenal—how dare he attack a
female member of the opposition!—yet it is okay for the member for Butler to go troppo in a disgusting and sexist
manner. We know that for a big part of the debate, when those statements were being made by the member for Butler,
the Leader of the Opposition was sitting right in front of the member for Butler. Last week we listned to the Leader of
the Opposition lecture this side of the house on how he was leading a team with standards, apparently. He said, “How
can the government talk about standards; we’ve got high standards.” The Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity
to show us his standards. Will the Leader of the Opposition endorse the views of the member for Butler? Will the
Leader of the Opposition ask the member for Butler to apologise? Let us see what the standards of the Labor Party
are. These sexist attacks are a disgrace and they are designed to take —
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): Members, I am on my feet. I do not appreciate interjections.
Member for Joondalup, you are directing comments to members of the opposition and that makes it hard for the Chair
to protect you. I suggest you direct your comments to the Chair. Members of the opposition, remain silent, please.
Mr J. NORBERGER: I will conclude on this: these sexist attacks, apart from being a disgrace, are designed to take
the focus away from Labor’s flawed arguments and posturing. It is almost uncomfortable watching the opposition
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
56
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
dance around this issue. Opposition members hate mandatory sentencing with every bit of DNA in their bodies, but to
save their political skins, that lot is politically posturing. The government actually believes in what it is doing. The
opposition does not believe in what the government is doing but it is going to support this legislation. Who are the
hypocrites? The opposition has compromised all credibility in this debate, and I do not care how many more members
after me stand and talk about the same drivel and say, “This is terrible, but we are not going to oppose it.” The
opposition has lost this argument. Its credibility is gone, its standards are in the dumps and it will be interesting to see
whether the Leader of the Opposition is willing to endorse the statements of the member for Butler and how he
decides to conduct himself in this house against the Minister for Police.
Adjournment of Debate
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Leader of the House) [3.36 pm]: I move —
That the debate be adjourned.
Division
r
co
Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr N.W. Morton) casting his vote with the ayes, with the
following result —
Ms M.J. Davies
Mr J.H.D. Day
Ms W.M. Duncan
Ms E. Evangel
Mr J.M. Francis
Mrs G.J. Godfrey
Dr K.D. Hames
Mrs L.M. Harvey
Mr C.D. Hatton
Dr G.G. Jacobs
Mr R.F. Johnson
Mr S.K. L’Estrange
Mr W.R. Marmion
Ms L. Mettam
Mr P.T. Miles
Ms A.R. Mitchell
Mr N.W. Morton
Dr M.D. Nahan
Mr D.C. Nalder
Mr J. Norberger
Mr D.T. Redman
Mr M.H. Taylor
Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)
rec
Mr P. Abetz
Mr F.A. Alban
Mr C.J. Barnett
Mr I.C. Blayney
Mr I.M. Britza
Mr G.M. Castrilli
Mr V.A. Catania
Mr M.J. Cowper
Ayes (32)
Noes (16)
Ms L.L. Baker
Mr R.H. Cook
Mr W.J. Johnston
Mr D.J. Kelly
Mr F.M. Logan
Mr M. McGowan
Ms S.F. McGurk
Mr M.P. Murray
Mr P. Papalia
Mr J.R. Quigley
Ms M.M. Quirk
Mrs M.H. Roberts
Ms R. Saffioti
Mr P.C. Tinley
Mr P.B. Watson
Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)
ted
Pairs
Mr J.E. McGrath
Mr A.P. Jacob
Mr A.J. Simpson
Mr R.S. Love
Mr B.J. Grylls
Pr
Question thus passed.
Ms J.M. Freeman
Dr A.D. Buti
Mr C.J. Tallentire
Ms J. Farrer
Mr B.S. Wyatt
<036> A/3
TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Council’s Amendments — Consideration in Detail
The following amendments made by the Council now considered —
Clause 4, page 3, line 24 — To delete “trade union” and insert —
industrial association
No 2
Clause 4, page 3, line 26 — To delete “53;” and insert —
53 or 54;
No 3
f
oo
No 1
Clause 4, page 3, line 27 — To delete “employees” and insert —
employees, or an association of employers,
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
57
No 4
Clause 4, page 4, after line 2 — To insert —
(ca) an association of employers registered or recognised as such (however described) under the law of
another State or a Territory;
Un
No 5
Clause 5, page 4, line 29 — To delete “trust.” and insert —
trust, unless —
(i) the trust is a discretionary trust; and
(ii) the Commissioner decides in a particular case that it would be inequitable for the person to be
treated as related to the relevant body.
No 6
r
co
Clause 6, page 5, line 8 — To delete the line and insert —
(b) an industrial association;
No 7
Clause 6, page 5, lines 12 to 16 — To delete the lines and insert —
No 8
rec
trade, industry or commerce, unless the main purposes of the body are charitable purposes that fall
within the first 3 categories (being relief of poverty, advancement of education and advancement of
religion) identified by Lord Macnaghten in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v
Pemsel [1891] AC 531 as developed by the common law of Australia from time to time;
Clause 6, page 7, after line 28 — To insert —
(3A)
The Minister must —
(a) provide written reasons to the applicant for a decision in relation to an application
under section 96B; and
No 9
ted
(b) provide written reasons for a decision to amend or revoke a beneficial body
determination to the body in respect of which the determination is made.
Clause 9, page 11, line 8 — To delete the line and insert —
(b) an industrial association;
No. 10
Clause 9, page 11, lines 12 to 16 — To delete the lines and insert —
No 11
Clause 9, page 13, after line 17 — To insert —
The Minister must —
f
oo
(3A)
Pr
trade, industry or commerce, unless the main purposes of the body are charitable purposes that fall
within the first 3 categories (being relief of poverty, advancement of education and advancement of
religion) identified by Lord Macnaghten in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v
Pemsel [1891] AC 531 as developed by the common law of Australia from time to time;
(a) provide written reasons to the applicant for a decision in relation to an application
under section 38AB; and
(b) provide written reasons for a decision to amend or revoke a beneficial body
determination to the body in respect of which the determination is made.
No 12
Clause 11, page 17, line 20 — To delete “trade union” and insert —
industrial association
No 13
Clause 11, page 17, line 22 — To delete “53;” and insert —
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
58
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
53 or 54;
No 14
Clause 11, page 17, line 23 — To delete “employees” and insert —
employees, or an association of employers,
Un
No 15
Clause 11, page 17, after line 29 — To insert —
(ca) an association of employers registered or recognised as such (however described) under the law of
another State or a Territory;
No 16
Clause 14, page 19, line 29 — To delete the line and insert —
r
co
(b) an industrial association;
No 17
Clause 14, page 20, lines 3 to 7 — To delete the lines and insert —
trade, industry or commerce, unless the main purposes of the body are charitable purposes that fall
within the first 3 categories (being relief of poverty, advancement of education and advancement of
religion) identified by Lord Macnaghten in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v
Pemsel [1891] AC 531 as developed by the common law of Australia from time to time;
No 18
rec
Clause 14, page 22, after line 9 — To insert —
(3A)
The Minister must —
(a) provide written reasons to the applicant for a decision in relation to an application
under section 42B; and
(b) provide written reasons for a decision to amend or revoke a beneficial body
determination to the body in respect of which the determination is made.
ted
No 19
Clause 16, page 27, line 11 — To delete “trade union” and insert —
industrial association
No 20
Clause 16, page 27, line 13 — To delete “53;” and insert —
53 or 54;
No 21
Clause 16, page 27, line 14 — To delete “employees” and insert —
No. 22
Clause 16, page 27, after line 20 — To insert —
Pr
employees, or an association of employers,
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 1 made by the Council be agreed to.
f
oo
(ca) an association of employers registered or recognised as such (however described) under the law of
another State or a Territory;
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: It is interesting that we have a new Minister for Finance to discuss this legislation with. We have
a very stable government that continues to change ministers at a rate of knots, and we now have a new Minister for
Finance. I am sad that the former Minister for Finance is not here, because, frankly, we would not have needed to be
here debating all these amendments if the former Minister for Finance had done his job at the time, taken the issue
seriously, understood what he was doing, and accepted amendments from the opposition. The debate on this
legislation showed that the former Minister for Finance—now Minister for Transport—was absolutely not up to the
job. I remember that even my staff in my office, who were watching the debate at the time, were cringing when we
asked simple questions of the minister such as, “What does this clause do?”, and the minister was not be able explain
to us in this house what each of the clauses of the bill did. The member for Cannington, the member for Victoria Park
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
59
and the member for Mirrabooka, and, as I recall the member for Bassendean, all raised very significant issues about to
this legislation when it was before the house.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, you have spoken for about a minute and a half about the former Minister for
Finance; so if you could just draw your comments back to the amendment.
Point of Order
Un
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Mr Acting Speaker, I would make the observation that this is effectively the same as the
process of consideration in detail. The shadow Minister for Finance is explaining the issues around this clause. That
cannot be done without her explaining what occurred during the previous consideration in detail on this bill, on the
exact same clause. It would be impossible for anyone reading Hansard to have an understanding of the debate today
unless it included the context of the debate on the same clauses at the time of the previous consideration in detail.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): Thank you, member for Cannington, and, yes, I did allow the
member for West Swan to start those comments. I just asked her very politely to draw it back to the clause.
r
co
Debate Resumed
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Mr Acting Speaker, I actually am. I know that head-kicking is a nice role that you like to play, but
maybe not when you are in the Chair.
The ACTING SPEAKER: You cannot make reflections on the Chair, member.
rec
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am talking about industrial associations and about a clause that we discussed in this house with
the former Minister for Finance. I am sorry that I even have to talk about the former Minister for Finance, but he was
the minister who brought this bill into the house. I am sorry, but I have to talk about him. I know that we are not
allowed to ask him questions or talk about him in case we are crossing a line somewhere, but he is the minister who
brought this legislation into the house. So, I have to refer to him, and I apologise if that is unfair.
<037> F/M
ted
The former Minister for Finance brought this legislation to this house, and we said to him at the time that the words
“trade union” were pretty restrictive and that the words “industrial association”, or words such as that, would be better
words to describe what the legislation was intending to do, and he ignored that. This legislation, which the
government wanted to get through the Parliament so quickly, then went to the other place and was sent to a
committee, with government members on it. The committee wrote a report and a number of the findings and
recommendations from the majority of the members of that committee aligned with what the Labor Party members
had said in this house, on issues that were not addressed by the former Minister for Finance, and on issue that the
former Minister for Finance actually voted against. We are now debating amendments to a bill from this government,
after the government had voted against many of the proposals that are in these amendments.
We are talking about the bill; we have debated this issue. It is very important for us to outline again why we are using
parliamentary time on a Thursday afternoon to discuss something that could have been resolved if the former minister
had done his job properly the first time. Why are we debating this legislation at all, when apparently the mandatory
sentencing legislation was to be of the utmost importance? The Premier keeps challenging us on this legislation,
which he refuses to debate in this house. I find that quite incredible too. It is really important to outline why we are
here debating the deletion of the words “trade union” and the inclusion of the words “industrial association”. I will
finish these comments with a question. What is the intent of this change of wording?
Pr
Mr W.R. MARMION: The simple reason is to bring the employer associations into equality with the unions, so that
it makes the playing field level.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Can the minister confirm that the previous minister said that this change was not required, and
that, if we had dealt with it at the time we would not be here today?
f
oo
Mr W.R. MARMION: I sometimes have to refer to my advisers about previous actions. My understanding is that the
previous minister was happy to carry out a review to consider this. Some consideration needed to take place, in his
view at the time, and that consideration has been undertaken, hence the change to include employer associations.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Why did the minister vote against the amendment last time? I am still confused here. The
government has not explained what changed from when the opposition moved these exact amendments. We divided
the house and words like “confusion” and “unnecessary” were used; yet here we are, having spent ages and ages
debating those amendments at the time, effectively to do what the minister is now talking about doing. We intended
to carry out exactly the amendments that are being proposed to us; the wording here is slightly different. We intended
to include the words “employees and employers”, but the government is changing “trade union” to “industrial
association”. That still has the effect of what the government voted against at the last occasion we were here. We had
an extensive debate; I think the chamber dealt with the bill on five occasions. Clauses were deferred on two occasions
for the minister to take additional advice so that those clauses could be dealt with after the rest of the debate. We were
not told that these were matters that would be considered. I could have understood that if the government had
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
60
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
accepted the offer I made at the time that if the government agreed to look at these matters between the chambers, we
would withdraw the amendments. However, the government insisted on keeping members of Parliament here—as I
said, we had to deal with this matter five or six times—and it rejected all the amendments, and the minister voted with
the government. Not only was he a member of the cabinet—we asked extensive questions about the cabinet process—
he was also here in the chamber voting against these amendments. What changed between telling the opposition that
these amendments were going to create confusion and today when the minister is moving them?
Mr W.R. MARMION: It is pretty obvious. I am now the minister, and the member knows full well that I did not
have the full knowledge of the legislation at the time, and neither did anyone else. The minister runs it, and the
minister of the time took the view that there needed to be further consideration. I have already explained that. Further
consideration has taken place and been reviewed by the upper house. We have agreed to the amendments and we have
brought them in. Can the member accept that?
r
co
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The problem here is that the minister’s position at the time we dealt with this legislation
previously in this chamber was that it was not the intention of the government to cover employer associations. The
minister was very specific, because that was the nature of the debate.
Mr W.R. Marmion: What’s your question?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I have five minutes to speak. I do not just have to ask questions. The minister should look at
the standing orders.
Mr W.R. Marmion: I know the standing orders.
ted
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The standing orders allow me to speak, minister, and that is what I am doing. I still do not
know why the former minister referred to a newspaper article in The Age that led him to the view that employee
associations would seek exemption from this provision. He explained that, having taken no action for 15 months, the
government was introducing the legislation at that time because there had been an article in The Age newspaper in
Melbourne saying that trade unions might apply. It was a matter of policy for the minister, and, by extension, the
government that although employee associations were to be included in the legislation, no opportunity for employer
associations would be included. I specifically discussed the fact that the “industrial associations” would suit both
employer and employee organisations. I went through and explained the difference between each of the sections of
the act and yet, for policy reasons, the government rejected that. The minister says there has been a change. That is
what I am asking. What changed for the government to reject its policy decision, which it held on the six separate
occasions on which we debated this legislation in the chamber? What changed for the government to abandon its
policy position and adopt the opposition’s policy position? We have seen today that apparently the government has
allowed the opposition to run the Parliament for the day, and now we are being allowed to run the taxation laws for
the day. What has changed with the government, in a policy sense, between when we were debating this bill last time
and now?
Mr W.R. MARMION: I was not involved, obviously, with The Age article. I have been told by my advisers that
what the member said about that article is not quite correct, but I cannot comment on it because I have not read the
article. What has changed is that we have reviewed the advice and we have seen that there are similarities between
trade unions and employer associations, as the member obviously identified in the previous debate. We have taken
that on board and basically agreed, hence, the rewording from “trade union” to “industrial association”, which
includes employer association.
<038> E/M
f
oo
Pr
Mr B.S. WYATT: I appreciate that the minister finds himself in a position of having to eat the proverbial sandwich. I
accept that. The minister is now cleaning up the mess left by the nincompoop who had to deal with this last time. I
make that point because of the exact issue the minister is trying to address with this amendment on page 14 of the
notice paper, which we are debating and which I think we will be doing for some time. I suggest that the minister
takes a different approach—knowing him I think he will—from that of the previous Minister for Finance, the member
for Alfred Cove, who took it upon himself to simply attack the opposition on every question it asked, and in the end
he should have been paying some attention. Was advice sought from the State Solicitor or within government
because, as the member for Cannington pointed out himself, the change is considerable? The bill itself refers only to
trade unions, or employee groups. Now we are bringing in employer groups, exactly as suggested by the opposition to
the previous Minister for Finance, the member for Alfred Cove.
Perhaps the minister could give us a bit more information, because that is a significant change; it is not simply a
matter of the government changing its mind. What advice was received that meant that the original bill was clearly
flawed and needed to be changed?
Mr W.R. MARMION: I cannot add too much more to what I have said before. Advice was taken on board. I have
been advised that another review was done by the Office of State Revenue involving Treasury. They noticed the
similarities between an employee association and an employer association for the purposes of this legislation and took
it on board accordingly and changed the definition.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
61
Mr B.S. WYATT: Did the original Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 go through the regulatory
gatekeeping unit?
Mr W.R. MARMION: The advice from my adviser is that he does not believe it went through the regulatory
gatekeeper.
Un
Mr B.S. WYATT: The Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill did not go through the regulatory gatekeeping unit. Is
there any particular reason why not? I would have thought that legislation dealing with taxation would ordinarily go
to Treasury and the Office of State Revenue for advice. Why did that advice from the key government departments
change during that time?
Mr W.R. Marmion: This goes back some time, so I have to seek advice on this because I obviously was not around
at the time, if that is okay.
Mr B.S. WYATT: That is fine.
r
co
Mr W.R. MARMION: I have been advised that the legislation did go to the regulatory gatekeeping unit of the
Department of Finance and it advised that the proposed measure was unlikely to have significant negative impacts on
businesses, consumers or the economy. It was a very broadbrush comment. That is the advice that was given.
Mr B.S. WYATT: So Treasury and the Office of State Revenue in the first instance did not give any advice about
trade union versus industrial association?
Mr W.R. Marmion: That is correct, yes. I am just saying that that was the scope of the regulatory gatekeeping unit’s
advice.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Separate from the regulatory gatekeeper, I assume that the Department of Finance had carriage of
the drafting of this legislation through parliamentary counsel.
rec
Mr W.R. Marmion: Correct.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Obviously, it decided that “trade union” was to be defined and at some point the minister got
further advice from the department that that needed to be broadened to include employer groups. Why did that advice
change?
Mr W.R. MARMION: I think it did not initially see a need, but it saw, from the review, a possible inconsistency
between an employee association and an employer association, so that is why it was changed. That was the change. If
the member is looking for me to come up with a reason —
ted
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Basically, they just had another look at it.
Mr W.R. MARMION: Basically, yes.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 2 made by the Council be agreed to.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I know that some of my colleagues want to speak to and ask questions about this amendment.
What is the impact of this amendment and what impact will it have on the proposed legislation?
Pr
Mr W.R. MARMION: The amendment to include reference in paragraph (a) of clause 4 to section 54 of the
Industrial Relations Act 1979 relates to associations of employers. It has been added to the existing reference to
section 53, which just relates to the association of employees, hence the need to add the reference to section 54.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Perhaps the minister could be a bit more expansive about what section 54 does.
Mr W.R. MARMION: In short, it is a requirement that employer associations have to be registered under the
Industrial Relations Act, and I think it lists the lot of them.
f
oo
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: When the previous minister dealt with this amendment when I moved it, he said that one of
the problems would be that people would not know what an association covered by section 54 was. I suggested that
they might go and see the industrial registrar and get a list. I wonder whether that has happened. Could the minister
tell us whether there was much confusion when the regulatory authorities asked the industrial registrar for that list and
how long that conversation between the agency and the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission took?
When I moved the amendment, the previous minister said that it would cause enormous confusion, so I am just
wondering whether the minister can tell us what happened when the authorities went to get that list of section 54
organisations.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I cannot be that specific because I was not involved in what they did; I was obviously not the
minister. I can advise the chamber that it is quite easily available on the website. I have a copy of the list in front of
me. In answer to the question, it is not that difficult to get hold of.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): You’re smiling, member for Cannington!
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
62
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, I am smiling. I have explained in the past that I have known the minister from before I
was in Parliament because he is a friend of Dean Smith and I am a friend of Dean Smith. I must say how clever and
intelligent the current Minister for Finance is because he has been able to go to a website and find the parties covered
by section 54 of the act. I commend him. Clearly, he is the sort of minister the Liberal government wants as a finance
minister. I make the bold contrast with the former Minister for Finance, who clearly was not in the same league as the
current minister. He was not even in the same competition. If the current minister were in the Premier League in
England, the former Minister for Finance would not even have been in the Championship division; he would have
been in the second or third division. The former minister would be playing for some unknown English town
somewhere in the scrub and the current minister would be in the Premier League, because this minister is able to go to
a website and find the list of the organisations covered by section 54 of the Industrial Relations Act. I commend him.
I do not want there to be any doubt that I commend the current minister for that, because clearly it was way beyond
the capacity of the former minister, who told us that we could not do this when he voted against the amendment that I
moved at the time because there would be confusion.
<039> K/M—
r
co
I will quote Hansard of 20 August 2014, in which the minister makes the point —
These are exactly the same points that I answered in clauses 11 and 16. I put the government’s position in
those clauses. It has noted the opposition’s views. I am satisfied with the government position and I am not
convinced by the arguments made by the member for Cannington. The government has stated its intent and
that there is flexibility in the regulations should anyone slip through the gaps. I do not think anybody agrees
that political parties or trade unions should be exempted from paying payroll tax … those employer
organisations and that regulations will capture any that slip through. I have explained this over and again.
The government is comfortable with the clauses and I stand by them.
rec
Then I spoke again, and then we divided. Having lauded the minister’s capabilities of going to the website and
looking at the list, I note that the noes were 33, and “Mr W.R. Marmion” is listed right there. He voted against the
amendment that he is now moving. I will just read my amendment from the Hansard of 20 August —
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I move —
Page 3, line 26 —To delete “section 53” and insert —
sections 53 and 54
No. 2
ted
I contrast that with the amendment No. 2 in the message from the other place as it appears in today’s notice paper. It
reads —
Clause 4, page 3, line 26 — to delete “53;” and insert —
53 or 54;
Pr
I must agree, minister, that that is noticeably different from my amendment that the minister voted against—“and”
has been changed to “or”. It is a stunning change! We know that has made an enormous difference! On, I think, five
or six occasions we have separately debated these clauses. We divided on a number of occasions. We had extensive
debate, and we were told by the government that it did not want to have this confusion. If the Liberal government had
told me that it could not accept my amendment because of the word “and” and it wanted, instead, the word “or”, I
probably would have accommodated the government. That is what happened. Remember, these amendments were not
rejected because of anything other than the policy that trade unions were in and employer associations were out. That
was the repeated position of the government, and now it has changed but we do not know why it has.
f
oo
Mr W.R. MARMION: The previous minister is probably more adept at using the website and internet than me; I am
sure he is far better than me. The previous minister did not make the decision because we do not like making
decisions on the run without getting advice, as I have explained. We did not want to have unintended consequences.
That was why the previous minister chose to be prudent and make sure that any changes made on the run at
Parliament, without getting proper legal advice, did not have any unintended consequences. This is a very difficult
piece of law; I have spent ages and ages trying to read all the advice I have. We even have clauses, as members
opposite know—they will probably come up for debate in five hours—about how we get around unintended
consequences that may eventuate in the future. I am sure the opposition will have some words to say on that. This is a
fairly complex bit of legislation, so much so that I sought some legal advice on some of the issues the opposition
raised in between it coming into this chamber the first time and this time. That advice confirmed that how the bill is
set up now is probably as good as it gets.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: How could I resist? Let me remind the minister of what happened. I moved that
consideration of clause 4 be postponed, and the government agreed to it so that it could go and seek additional advice.
That is what happened—go back and read Hansard. It was not that I was insisting on the vote on the clause on the
run. A number of amendments were on the notice paper, and when we debated clause 4 I moved, and the government
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
63
Un
agreed, for the consideration of that clause to be postponed until after the consideration on clause 21. It was not as
though the opposition ran into the chamber with an amendment and did not let the government have an opportunity to
respond. I must say, minister, that when we moved those amendments we thought that the government would support
us. The fact that the government opposed us was a shock to us, particularly when the minister continually said that the
only reason he was including trade unions and not employer associations was an article in The Age. That was
ridiculous. I am ecstatic that a man of the minister’s quality is following my lead, but I still cannot get over the fact
that we had to have hours and hours of the chamber’s time taken up debating amendments that the government voted
against, and now it is here voting in favour. As I say, if the minister had told me at the time, I would have very
happily accommodated that. That is why I was very happy, as the Leader of the House well knows, to have
consideration of my amendments delayed until a later time; that is exactly what occurred, so that the government
could go and take advice. Yet when we returned to the clause, the government did not amend its original position, it
went harder; it was not prepared to consider the inclusion of employer associations and said that there was actually a
policy objective to include only employee associations. There is the proverbial story about eating the sandwich, and I
understand that that is the minister’s job. I do not envy him his job eating the sandwich, but we are going to make
sure that the minister understands that that is what is happening here. The fact is that again and again and again this
government just does not get what its job is. If the government had listened to the opposition, we would be dealing
with mandatory sentencing or something else, because I know many Liberal members want to speak on that bill. We
would be dealing with one of those things instead of going over amendments that we previously defeated. Welcome
to the real world, minister.
r
co
rec
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I want to follow on from the member for Cannington and get minister’s view on this issue. I think
during the debate at the time the then Minister for Finance called the member for Cannington “self-righteous” for
moving such an amendment. I was just asking whether the minister still believes such an amendment is selfrighteous? Also, would this be the first time that the minister has brought in an amendment that he has previously
voted against?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, I think you are seeking an opinion, which is not —
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: No, it is fact. Is it the first time the minister has brought in an amendment to legislation that he
has previously voted against?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Fair enough, yes; I accept that.
ted
Mr W.R. MARMION: I do not believe there is a linkage between the two. It was an amendment moved prior to
Christmas. It has been reviewed, and in light of its review we have decided that there is a good rationale around
making employer associations the same as employee associations. I think that it has gone to the other place and the
amendment has been made; the government agrees with that, and here we are today. Having looked at the review, the
government has noted very much the similarities between an employee association and an employer association, and
agreed with the early uptake that the member for Cannington had. In his earlier recognising of that, perhaps the
member for Cannington had more of a review or insight; we needed to have a look at it, we did, and here it is.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Can the minister confirm that the member for Cannington was right during that debate, and the
member for Alfred Cove was wrong?
Mr W.R. MARMION: Look, in terms of addressing this particular amendment, we are happy to bring in section 54
of the Industrial Relations Act to cover associations.
Pr
<040> I/1
The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is that amendment 2 —
f
oo
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I seek clarification on whether this is a recommittal. Given that the difference to the clause is
so narrow, given that the Assembly chamber has voted against the clause, and given that it is only about the words
“and” and “or”, which sometimes court interpreters deem to be the same, is this a recommittal or are there any
procedural issues that the government needs to deal with if it is not able to be dealt with as a separate amendment but
rather a recommittal of the amendment that was defeated on 20 August when I moved it? Are there any procedural
issues that the government needs to deal with before we vote on message 2 today? Is this a recommittal or is it a fresh
clause?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am seeking clarification. If you would like, I can say “point of order”, Mr Acting Speaker.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Because the minister was not responding to it, I was not sure whether it
was up to me to comment.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am happy to start again. I am seeking clarification from you, Mr Acting Speaker, and I am
sure you will get solid advice from the clerks. Given that the clause is effectively the same as the clause that the
chamber defeated on 20 August 2014, is it a recommittal? If it is a recommittal, what procedural issues need to be
dealt with prior to the vote on the amendment?
The ACTING SPEAKER: My advice is that there are no procedural issues with amendment 2 being put.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
64
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 3 made by the Council be agreed to.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I seek the help of the minister to tell us the effect of this amendment.
Un
Mr W.R. MARMION: I am making sure that it aligns with the commonwealth legislation. The previous clause dealt
with sections 53 and 54 of the state legislation. This amendment picks up the commonwealth legislation. We have
added the words “employees, or an association of employers”. It makes sure that employer associations are also
covered under the commonwealth legislation.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Can the minister explain why it was in the original legislation? What prompted the change that
led to it being before us in the chamber today?
Mr W.R. MARMION: It is the same reason that we changed the previous part of the clause to include employers
because we believe that employee and employer associations are similar.
r
co
Mr B.S. WYATT: I would like some clarification on the point raised by the member for Cannington. It is an
interesting point. Mr Acting Speaker, you made the point that there was no recommittal. I have a question of you, if
you could clarify. Standing order 126 states —
A question will not be proposed which is the same as any question which has been resolved in the
affirmative or negative during the same year commencing 1 January.
<041> B/M
rec
Is that simply because we dealt with this last year? Even though it was dealt with late last year, 12 months have not
passed. The calendar year has effectively changed. Is this a question that we are dealing with or is this procedurally a
notice from the upper house and therefore we are dealing with a different issue?
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): It is a message from the Legislative Council; it is a new motion before us.
It has come from a different source. My understanding it has come from the other place to us.
Mr B.S. WYATT: We are effectively not dealing with a question now. Are we dealing with something else?
ted
The ACTING SPEAKER: The message has come from the Legislative Council so it is deemed to be a fresh
question. Even if the issue the member raised before about 1 January was the same question, it is a different calendar
year, so that would not apply. It has come from the Council, so it is deemed to be a fresh question.
Mr B.S. WYATT: I will clarify that, so that I understand. If indeed we were dealing with the same calendar year,
standing order 126 would apply, because they are both questions; it is just that the calendar year has clicked over.
The ACTING SPEAKER: No. It has come from the Council, therefore, it is a different issue.
Mr B.S. WYATT: You said it was a fresh question.
The ACTING SPEAKER: It is a different question. Even though the content of the question may be very similar, it
comes before this place in the context of an amendment made by the Legislative Council, so we consider that as the
lower house of the Parliament. It is therefore deemed to be a new question and what happened in the debate before is
not germane to this question.
Pr
Mr B.S. WYATT: Under standing order 126, when we are dealing with questions, they can only be questions that
have effectively come without any involvement of this place. I still do not understand that. Perhaps I will need to
speak to the Clerk about it. The 1 January comment makes sense because we have started a new year, effectively,
under that standing order, but it still seems to me that we are dealing with a question we have previously dealt with;
therefore, if it was the same year commencing 1 January, it would be disorderly.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 4 made by the Council be agreed to.
f
oo
The ACTING SPEAKER: The date of 1 January has nothing to do with the question before us at all. This has come
from the Legislative Council and, therefore, it is not the same question; it is a question that comes to us from the
Legislative Council. I suggest the member takes it up with the Clerk for further discussion at a later date.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: What is the reason for this change; was it raised in the upper house committee report?
Mr W.R. MARMION: This has been included to make sure the same treatment of employee and employer
associations under commonwealth and state legislation is the same treatment as applies in all other states. We want to
make sure other state or territory agreements are covered by this legislation.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
65
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: If, hypothetically, the New South Wales chamber of commerce sets up shop in WA, will this
ensure they do not have access to the tax exemption?
<042> P/3
Mr W.R. Marmion: That is correct. Someone in the Northern Territory or Tasmania cannot get the exemption from
land tax or payroll tax.
Un
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am sure. Why was this change put in now? Was it not seen as a risk previously?
Mr W.R. MARMION: I asked this question. It has been put in just for consistency, to keep the same language with
employer and employee associations. It is not seen as a high risk by my advisers, but it has been put in there to be
consistent with other wording.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
r
co
That amendment 5 made by the Council be agreed to.
Mr W.J. Johnston: Tell us why.
rec
Mr W.R. MARMION: This is quite a complex amendment; it took me about two days to understand it. This
amendment addresses recommendation 1 of the Standing Committee on Legislation. Proposed sections 95(2) and (3)
of the Duties Act 2008 are basically anti-avoidance provisions without which amendments could be defeated by a
trustee acquiring a dutiable property for an excluded charity rather than the charity acquiring it directly. A trustee
includes a trustee of a discretionary trust. A discretionary trust includes beneficiaries who may be identified by name
or class. The trustee has the discretion to determine which beneficiaries are able to receive the income capital of the
trust and how it is received—that is why they were set up. The Standing Committee on Legislation identified that a
discretionary trust could unintentionally be excluded from the exemptions with no ability for the minister to reinstate
them, or an excluded charity, as a remote contingent connection; so it is remote to the trust by falling within the broad
class of potential beneficiaries. I will paraphrase that by saying that if there is a discretionary trust with
beneficiaries—I cannot be too specific, I suppose—that are inadvertently beneficiaries, it is not seen as a big deal.
They have inadvertently been caught up. It really is just a charity, and because of the web of the beneficiary going
through the trust it could, under strict interpretation, not be deemed a charitable organisation. The amendment gives
the commissioner the power to make that call.
ted
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: This is not one of our amendments. It is one of the government’s amendments, which is why
we seek additional information. I read the principal bill to put the proposed amendment into context. Proposed section
95(2) states —
However, subsection (1) does not apply if the person liable to pay duty on the dutiable …
Proposed subsection (3) states —
A person liable to pay duty on a dutiable transaction is related to a relevant body if —
(a) the person holds the dutiable property the subject of the transaction as trustee of a trust; and
(b) the relevant body is a beneficiary under the trust, whether the relevant body has a vested share or is
contingently entitled or is a potential beneficiary under a discretionary trust.
Pr
This amendment will change that provision by inserting a comma and words at the end to read —
… trust, unless —
(i) the trust is a discretionary trust; and
f
oo
(ii) the Commissioner decides in a particular case that it would be inequitable for the person to be
treated as related to the relevant body.
<043> L/D
My memory is that “relevant body” is the charity. Does the charity have to be the sole beneficiary of the trust or can
there be other beneficiaries of the trust?
Mr W.R. Marmion: There can be multiple beneficiaries. I do not know whether the member has ever read them, but
trusts have a range of beneficiaries so that they can distribute the income how they want to. That is the way they are
set up. I am making this up a bit, but if someone says, “I can’t help with it; I am a one seven-hundredth beneficiary”,
the Commissioner of State Revenue can make the call that it is not connected, in his view, to their normal business of
being a charity. This clause is to stop avoidance measures in setting up trusts. This gives the commissioner the power
to unravel any web and make the call.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
66
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It appears to give an additional power of discretion to the Commissioner of State Revenue,
but, surely, if there is a web of beneficiaries of a trust, the commissioner would act in a conservative manner and
exclude the trust from the benefits of the exemption, rather than include it in the benefits of the exemption.
Mr W.R. Marmion: That is how it was originally set up. This gives the commissioner the power to say, for an
unintended consequence that may eventuate, that it is unfair.
Un
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): For the sake of Hansard, perhaps the member for Cannington can resume
his seat and the minister can rise.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I am advised that there are other sections of the Duties Act under which the commissioner
has this power to intervene. As the member knows, the minister cannot do anything; the commissioner makes the call.
I guess this is consistent with some other provisions under which the commissioner makes the call in certain
situations. This is a very complex area. Even for someone with an MBA who has studied it, it is a very difficult area
of law.
r
co
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: My memory is that there is a provision in the bill that allows the minister to provide an
exemption even when the commissioner has rejected the exemption. Is that the case here? Even when the
commissioner goes through this very long process and still decides that there should not be an exemption, nonetheless
the minister, behind closed doors, can still provide the exemption without —
Mr W.R. Marmion: In this unique situation, the minister does not have the power.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: There is no ministerial discretion on this one.
Mr W.R. Marmion: No. The minister cannot come in.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
rec
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 6 made by the Council be agreed to.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: This amendment is one of those cases in which we are deleting the words “a trade union” and
inserting “an industrial association”. For a number of reasons, I did not move amendments everywhere, but I am
pretty sure that I might have sought to amend this one.
Mr W.R. Marmion: It is similar to the one we dealt with before.
Mr W.R. Marmion: Correct.
ted
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, very similar to the one we dealt with. I am trying to see whether we specifically dealt
with this one. I did not move the same amendment at every clause. I am trying to see whether this was one of those
that I moved. We are now doing what we should have done. In my view, the minister could have continued to use the
words “trade union” but just interpret it to mean “industrial association”, because I think that is what we are doing.
An industrial association includes employer associations, however described. We have gone through all those
descriptions. They are a relevant body and therefore cannot under any circumstance receive an exemption from the
minister. The minister’s capacity to give an exemption does not apply to organisations covered in paragraphs (a) or
(b).
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: But it does provide a possible exemption in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f).
Pr
<044> O/3
Mr W.R. Marmion: The member is correct.
f
oo
I commend the government for doing that because obviously that is what we were encouraging it to do the last time
this legislation was in this place. The minister may well draw my attention to something else, but, as I understand it,
this still does not cover either the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia or Unions WA. Neither
of those is covered under the definition of “industrial association” because neither is registered under any provision of
an act. Unless the minister can draw my attention to something and I have missed it —
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: What is the policy position here? This all comes about because the Chamber of Commerce
and Industry found a loophole and we all agree that we want to shut that door, yet, as I understand, we are still not
shutting it because there will still be the opportunity for the minister to give an exemption to bodies not described in
proposed section 96A(a) and (b). Therefore, bodies described in proposed paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) will all be
able to be exempted, but those described in proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) will not. I am not arguing in favour of
bodies under proposed section 96A(a) and (b) getting an exemption, but I still do not quite understand why, given this
amendment, we are not capturing the people who started the problem.
Mr W.R. MARMION: This probably gets to the nub of the whole bill and the complexity of it. The problem with the
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, UnionsWA, CBH and a whole—I am not supposed to
mention organisations because I am not supposed to know—is that —
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
67
Mr W.J. Johnston: Some have outed themselves. The CCI and CBH have outed themselves.
Un
Mr W.R. MARMION: Correct. I heard some of the debate last time. We can go through and write down the fourthlimb charities that have the purpose of promoting trade, industry or commerce, but it was decided to keep it general.
As the member said, “industrial association” covers the definition of them. We do not want to cut out those fourthlimb charities that are promoting trade, industry or commerce. We wanted the minister to have the power to bring
them back in if they were cut out inadvertently. CCI and CBH are excluded, but they can be brought in. I am referring
to that class of organisation, not specifically the CCI—it owns that class. The minister can bring back in anything in
that class. Indeed, if the minister does that—it could be a minister of any government—and the opposition does not
think it is a very smart idea, obviously, there would be a matter of public interest and it would be a big deal. If it is a
bad policy decision, the people have the right to vote the person out. I am not opposed to acts having a provision for a
minister to make a call, and this is one such situation in which the minister can make a call on an excluded
organisation to be given the exemption. This is the main debate on the bill.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
r
co
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 7 made by the Council be agreed to.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Again, perhaps the minister could explain what this does and what will happen. What is the
purpose of the change and what is the outcome?
<045> N/4
rec
Mr W.R. MARMION: These amendments address recommendations 1 and 4 of the Standing Committee on
Legislation. The bill as initially passed by the Assembly operated to preserve charitable exemptions for charities for
which the sole or dominant purpose fell within one of the first three limbs of charitable purposes—namely, the relief
of poverty; the advancement of education; and the advancement of religion. During the inquiry the committee
identified that a charity may have dual purposes of equal importance across the limbs of charitable purposes.
ted
Recommendation 1 proposed that the bill be amended to preserve the exemptions of charities whose sole, dominant or
dual purpose of equal importance falls within the first three limbs of charitable purposes, regardless of whether they
also have as a purpose the promotion of trade, industry or commerce. Following the introduction of the bill into the
Assembly, concern was also expressed that the amendments might operate to exclude public benevolent and like
institutions from the exemptions, and a committee amendment was drafted to address this issue and was listed for
consideration by the Council on supplementary notice paper 1. In recommendation 4, the committee identified that
although the proposed amendment addressed the issue relating to public benevolent institutions, certain charitable
trusts may still be unintentionally excluded from the exemptions due to there being a difference in the meaning of a
trust and institution upon which the amendments were based. Following the inquiry, the relevant provisions were
reviewed and an entirely new provision was included in the amendments to more simply and effectively express the
policy intent behind the provision, which is that charities and public benevolent institutions whose main purposes fall
within the first three charitable limbs are not affected by the amendments to the bill. That is a bit of a longwinded way
of saying it. That is how it was decided to clarify the situation. If there were those limbs, the way the legislation was
worded before it could have been interpreted as being just one limb, but it might have included all three limbs with
the dominant one obviously a charity. It could have been misinterpreted.
Ms R. Saffioti: And read it out!
Pr
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It might disappoint the minister, but I am not actually sure I have read Lord Macnaghten’s
decision in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pemsel [1891] AC 531. I am sure the minister has
that and I wonder whether he could table it. That might be the easiest way to deal with that.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Then we will definitely be here until 7.30 pm.
Mr W.R. Marmion: It is a very exciting pre-1900 sentence!
f
oo
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I then wonder what the minister means when he asks us to support the words “as developed
by the common law of Australia from time to time”.
Mr W.R. MARMION: This is another problem. It attempts to keep the legislation relevant to any changes in the
common law. If there are any changes in the interpretation of a charity over time, it endeavours to save all the
principles of Pemsel. I will table the decision. It is not very exciting reading, I might say. I do not think that the
judges were unanimous in their findings for this particular case, which might interest the member. Basically, the
answer to the member’s question is that it is to try to keep the legislation current with common law practices that
might evolve over time. I table the document. I do not hope I need to use it again!
[See paper 2668.]
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The only problem I have, and I am no lawyer, is that I understood that the danger —
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
68
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Ms R. Saffioti: That is what you said when you moved those very good amendments!
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, well, what can I say?
Un
I thought we were moving these amendments to try to defeat the common law, because there was a fear, as explained
by the minister, that there was a development in the common law that might have extended the exemption to trade
unions. Are we not being contradictory here? Trade unions are specifically being ruled out for all time, but then it is
being said that the common law should be allowed to develop. It seems to be contradictory when we are rushing the
legislation into Parliament after only 18 months’ wait. That was very quickly got on to after the Chamber of
Commerce and Industry of Western Australia won its court case; it took 18 months to get the legislation into
Parliament. The CCI is not being excluded. Trade unions are being excluded. The minister explained in detail that the
fear was that the common law could be expanded to include trade unions, but now it is being said that it is wanted for
the common law to continue to expand from time to time, except in respect of trade unions. That does not add up.
Either unions are wanted in or they are wanted out.
<046> Q/3
r
co
If the common law is developed over time to say that the CCI is in fact a charity, we are effectively arguing that the
CCI should be included even though it was the one that caused the original problem that led to this legislation. It
seems strange that it is being arranged in that way. Perhaps the minister could explain why.
Mr W.R. MARMION: That is a very good question. The member for Cannington has got ahead of the course and is
jumping a year. What the member for Cannington says is true; that could happen. Indeed, the member is dead right.
The law might evolve to a point that brings in a class that we do not want to give an exemption to, but that is covered
also. There is a safety mechanism within the act so that the government can respond quickly, through regulation, to
exclude the other unintended consequence of having someone coming in. That was a very good question.
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I might finish on that. I do not know whether my colleagues who are sitting next to me and
who are lawyers have anything to say, but it seems that we are acting contrary to the intention of reducing red tape by
making these provisions more and more complex. The minister says that that will be solved by more regulation later
on. The opposition will not divide on the clause or vote against the amendment—I am not sure I fully understand it
anyway—but it does not seem to be a simple provision; it does not seem to be simply putting down what we were
trying to do. I have commended the minister and said what a wonderful intellect he has for picking up on my
amendments that the government voted against last time, but I am not sure that this is the best wording. As I say, I am
no lawyer.
ted
Mr B.S. WYATT: I want to seek clarification from the minister. I think the member for Cannington has outlined
very well the curiosity of embedding in legislation a common law case that we are trying to deal with by making it
clear in the passage of this amendment bill, which is unusual.
Mr W.R. Marmion: I have never seen it, but I am not a lawyer.
Mr B.S. WYATT: There is my question. Do any other taxation bills or legislation embed case law—this is in
reference to Lord MacNaughten from the House of Lords—or common law to guide how that statutory law will be
interpreted and applied?
Amendment put and passed.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move—
That amendment 8 made by the Council be agreed to.
f
oo
Pr
Mr W.R. MARMION: We are not sure. Interestingly, it was developed in conjunction with the State Solicitor’s
Office. I hope that it did not have a special desire to do this for the first time in the history of law! This has been
developed in this way and the State Solicitor’s Office advice was that it was the only way, or the best way, it believed
to try to keep the legislation in line with changes to the common law. That safety valve mechanism provides that if we
get a wrong consequence, we can, by regulation, exclude a sector that might suddenly come in through changes to the
common law. But my advisers, who are more learned than I, and certainly those in the Office of State Revenue, do
not believe that there is any other referral to common law, certainly in the House of Lords.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: My question relates to the reason for this amendment. I understand this requires the Office of
State Revenue to notify in writing the reasons for its decisions on determinations of whether an organisation should
be a beneficial body. Was this amendment put forward by a committee or another body, and why has this change been
put forward?
<047> C/1
Mr W.R. MARMION: This new subsection (3A) will be inserted, which basically means that the minister must give
a written response. We basically accepted recommendation 5 of the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
69
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: This means that the minister will now provide to an applicant written reasons for the decision
but it appears that he will not make those reasons public. The amendment will insert new subsection (3A) in between
new subsections (3) and (4). New subsection (4) reads —
The Minister is to publish notice of the making, amendment or revocation of a beneficial body determination
in the Gazette.
Un
The first question is that it appears the minister will not provide the reasons for the decision in the Government
Gazette, only the decision. The second question is that if that is true, why will the minister not provide written
reasons? Thirdly, does the provision of written reasons make the decision subject to review by a court? Although I am
no lawyer, I understand that a decision by a minister is generally not subject to review unless he or she provides
reasons. If I am wrong, tell me I am wrong—I often am—but if I am right, will that be a problem?
r
co
Mr W.R. MARMION: I will have a crack at it. First of all, in answer to the first and second questions, there will be
a written response but it cannot be publicly revealed because a taxpayer’s information is confidential and has to
remain confidential. That is the reason it cannot be made public. The third question was whether it would go to a
court.
Mr W.J. Johnston: Will it be subject to review?
Mr W.R. MARMION: I will answer that wearing my Minister for Mines and Petroleum hat. If the Mining Warden
makes a decision, the Minister for Mines and Petroleum can make a ruling either way and agree or disagree with the
warden. My understanding is that it is not open to appeal, as all the appeal stuff has happened with the warden and the
minister in that particular case. In this case, there are no express appeal rights.
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I understand what the minister is saying. I will go to the minister’s first comment and then
deal with the second comment. The first comment was that the minister does not want to make a taxpayer’s
information public, but at the moment if the taxpayer disagrees with the commissioner’s ruling and takes the matter to
court, he takes his chances in the court. The provisions in these new sections 96A, 96B and 96C bypass that and take
the matter directly to the minister instead of taking the matter to court. My memory is that if a taxpayer accesses these
arrangements, they have to forgo their right to take the matter to court. Given that if they went to court they would
have the decision made public, including the reasons for the court’s decision, why will the reasons for the minister’s
decision not be made public? The minister’s decision will be made public but not the reasons, yet the court’s reasons
for a decision will be made public.
<048> A/2
ted
Mr W.R. MARMION: My understanding from my advisers is that it is a choice. Someone can choose to go to the
commissioner for a decision and appeal that decision or, if they do not like the commissioner’s ruling, they can go
straight to the minister rather than appeal. But, yes, the minister is the last port of call.
f
oo
Pr
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: But that is the whole point, minister, because if they did not agree with the commissioner’s
decision and took their appeal right to court, which is the current arrangement, not only would the decision of the
court be made public but also the reasons would be made public. Under this amendment, the minister is required to
give his reasons in writing, which is probably a good idea, but he is not required to publish the reasons. During the
debate on the bill, we were quite critical of this procedure. We think it is not right, and we have committed that we
will not maintain it in government. If under this provision the minister may make the decision, surely that decision
should be treated in exactly the same way as a court procedure and both the decision and the reasons should be made
public. The idea of confidentiality is rather beside the point, because this is about an appeal. I accept and I have never
had any problem with the commissioner doing everything in confidence, because that is the normal procedure.
However, this is a unique procedure. I will not go back over the debate, but the point is that there is no community
system to get the matter before the minister. The minister can include in his discussions matters that arise at a 500
Club meeting. We went through all those things during the main debate. If a person took their appeal to court, the
reasons for the court’s decision would be made public. However, if a person took this alternative procedure—which
we think is significantly inferior for the interests of the taxpayers, not for the interests of the taxpayer—there would
be no published reasons. It will be hard for the community to make a decision about whether the minister has acted
responsibly if there are no written reasons.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I will make two points on this. The first is that this amendment was agreed to by the Council,
and the Council did not believe that it needed to go any further than that. The second is that when someone comes to
me because they are unhappy a decision of the Mining Warden, I make a decision under the Mining Act, and I do not
provide written reasons either. The information that has gone through the Warden’s Court in that case, or, in this case,
the commissioner, is the only information that is available. It is the same in mining.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I will not labour the point. But let us take the Warden’s Court process; it is not exactly
analogous, but let us assume that it is. Cazaly Resources Ltd, a junior miner, took the then Minister for Resources,
John Bowler, to court, and the court upheld the minister’s decision and said the minister had an absolute right to make
that decision. However, as the minister has said, no reason was given for that decision. The argument in that court
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
70
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
Un
case was not about the reason why the minister had made the decision; it was about whether the minister could make
the decision, because Cazaly was saying that by administrative law, Rio Tinto had not acted in time. Therefore, that
case is not exactly analogous to what we are dealing with here, but I accept the point that the minister is making. Of
course the point is that no reasons were given by the minister in that matter, whereas under this amendment, the
minister will be required to give reasons. If the minister was not required to give reasons, I could understand that. In
this case, the minister is required to give reasons, but he is not required to make them public. That does not seem to
make any sense.
Mr W.R. MARMION: That is why I said in the first place that we are happy to take the committee’s
recommendation, provided that taxpayers’ information remains confidential, hence the way it has been worded. It has
gone through the State Solicitor’s Office and basically was given the tick.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
<049> F/1
r
co
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 9 made by the Council be agreed to.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: We are now expanding the definition to include employer associations. It is a great decision
of the government to do that. We are now dealing with duties legislation.
Ms R. Saffioti: No, it is land tax.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Okay, land tax. Is there a view about how much land tax is affected by these provisions?
Mr W.R. MARMION: My advice is that it is about $1 million a year.
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: My understanding is that that was the advice about the whole impact of the entire legislation.
I am asking whether there is an estimate of how much land tax this provision will affect.
Mr W.R. MARMION: My advice is that it is only land tax.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I ask that the minister not misunderstand me. The $1 million, as I understood, was for all the
taxpayers covered by the provisions of the entire bill. I am asking for an estimate of the effect of amendment 12. How
much revenue is affected by amendment 12?
Mr W.R. MARMION: Just to clarify, is that just the amendment to bring in employer associations?
ted
Mr W.J. Johnston: Yes.
Mr W.R. MARMION: It should be very minimal, because it will only bring in whatever employer associations are
involved. Some would have to add up what the assessments amounted to, but they will be quite minimal. It would not
be $1 million.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Just to follow on from the comments of the member for Cannington, these employer
organisations are not holding lots of land. As I understand it, most of the taxation impact is in payroll tax rather than
land tax. Can the minister confirm that?
Mr W.R. MARMION: The member is correct.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
That amendment 10 made by the Council be agreed to
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move—
f
oo
That amendment 11 made by the Council be agreed to
Pr
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: In the debate previously we considered the whole decision-making process, and, as we said at the
time, we believe that the structure of this legislation is flawed, because basically any minister of the day has the
ability to allow certain bodies to be exempt. As we stated on a number of occasions, we believe that is open to
exploitation, and that there will be immense pressure on any Minister for Finance to make particular decisions. As I
recall, we moved an amendment to make these decisions disallowable under the Interpretation Act. I was wondering
whether the minister considered this in bringing legislation to this place today to try to protect himself, or that
position, from intense lobbying and possible future undue influence.
Mr W.R. MARMION: It was considered, but we feel that the current wording is fine, and as for the responsibility
the minister must take, that is why he is a minister. The minister makes the call, and if they get it wrong they suffer
the consequences. There is the link in with the Treasurer; it must be done in concurrence with the Treasurer, so there
is another person to blame if the minister gets it wrong.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
71
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
<050> E/M
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
That amendment 12 made by the Council be agreed to.
Un
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: In deciding whether we want to change the term “trade union” to “industrial association”, I
make the point that I think that trade union includes employer associations, but I understand why the government
probably wants to use the term “industrial association”. It is so that nobody can have any doubt about what it is doing.
I am not debating amendments 13, 14 or 15, but I want to make a point about the clause. Clause 11 of the principal
bill, “Glossary amended”, states —
In the Glossary clause 1 insert in alphabetical order:
Paragraph (d) states —
r
co
an association of employees a principal purpose of which is the protection and promotion of the employees’
interests in matters concerning their employment;
rec
Those words in paragraph (d) apply only to an unregistered union of employees. I point out to the minister that when
we were having the debate, I moved an amendment, which was of course defeated—the minister voted no, funnily
enough—to delete paragraph (d) and insert the words “an association of employees or employers a principal purpose
of which is the protection and promotion of the members’ interests in matters concerning their employment or the
employment of their employees”. As I say, I am not debating amendments 13, 14 or 15; I am just referring to the
principal clause, which the government is seeking to amend. The government is including industrial association, but it
is excluding for the purposes of employer associations an unregistered common law employer association.
Amendments 13, 14, 15 fix the issue with employer associations that are registered federally, in Western Australia
and in another state, yet we continue to have a provision in paragraph (d) that identifies associations of employees,
but that provision is not being replicated for employer associations. I was just wondering why the government would
seek to not include in the definition of “industrial association” unregistered employer associations. I have raised it at
this point because we are dealing with that question in amendment 12.
ted
Mr W.R. MARMION: Obviously, I was not involved when this legislation was framed. My understanding of this is
that the concern was with registered employer associations that represented the larger ones. The other unregistered
associations would not be charities in the first instance, but if they were, in all probability they would be excluded by
virtue of the promotion of trade, industry or commerce. If this is not the case, there are regulation-making powers to
exclude them at any rate, so we can get around that.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Does the minister intend to do that through regulation? Does he intend to exclude
unregistered employer associations through regulation?
Mr W.R. MARMION: We will monitor it. My staff will keep me informed and we can do that if it is required.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: How would the minister find out that an unregistered employer association had been given
an exemption by the commissioner if he is not allowed to know the detail of tax matters of individual taxpayers?
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
<051> J/3
Mr W.R. MARMION: I move —
f
oo
That amendment 13 made by the Council be agreed to.
Pr
Mr W.R. MARMION: The commissioner would put a recommendation to me based on a class of organisations, so I
would not have to identify which organisation it was. It would be a class of organisations, and I could sign off on the
regulation.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I think this is an excellent amendment. I draw the minister’s attention to an amendment I
moved. Oh, no—this is a different provision!
Mr W.R. Marmion: I might have to do it again!
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, the minister might!
As it was famously said by Robert Ray in a meeting I attended, “It’s a something sandwich, and I’m not going to put
hundreds and thousands on it!”
Mr F.A. Alban: Can you further explain the sandwich?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: What we are making the minister eat!
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
72
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
I moved this amendment and it was defeated. My amendment was at page 17, line 21, to delete “section 53” and
insert “section 53 and 54”. It appears that those are exactly the same words that the minister is moving. I note—I am
not trying to be repetitive, Mr Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz)—that the ayes were 18 and the noes were 32.
Mr W.R. Marmion: You’re not gloating, are you?
Un
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, I am actually, minister! Sadly, the Minister for Transport is on important parliamentary
duties elsewhere in the building or somewhere in the state, I am sure. There it is: Mr W.R. Marmion is recorded in
proceedings; I am reading from Hansard, which is why I am using that name rather than the member for Nedlands. I
just wondered whether the minister could let us know what happened between that vote on Tuesday 19 August 2014
and now.
Mr W.R. MARMION: My advice remains similar to my advice on this same action before. We have actually had the
opportunity to review the bill and also get advice from the State Solicitor and we have agreed to include employer
associations with employee associations because we think it is a very consistent way to go.
r
co
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I like speaking to the “member for Cannington’s amendment”, which is how we should now refer
to it. Given that it was the member for Cannington’s amendment, can the member for Cannington move it, just for old
time’s sake? As part of the process, did this have to go back to cabinet, because there is a change in legislation from
what would have been an approval to draft and approval to print? At the time, who had to explain that the member for
Cannington was, in fact, entirely right and that the member for Alfred Cove was entirely wrong?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I cannot believe that the minister is not answering the very fine question from the member
for West Swan, the shadow Minister for Finance. I understand that this amendment was proposed prior to the member
for Nedlands becoming the Minister for Finance; is that correct?
Mr W.R. Marmion: Yes.
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: As I understand the way these things work, cabinet submissions regarding tax legislation are,
in fact, the responsibility of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance handles them only after they are approved.
Who took the matter back to cabinet? Was it the Treasurer or the Minister for Finance?
Mr W.R. Marmion: Does it matter?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, it does; it is very important.
Ms R. Saffioti: It didn’t actually go back to cabinet.
ted
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: No, the minister has already told us it did. I am just wondering whether the minister could let
us know.
Mr W.R. Marmion: I wasn’t the minister at the time.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: But the minister was in cabinet at the time.
Mr W.R. Marmion: I can’t remember the whole cabinet agenda now, off the top of my head, so I’ve got no chance.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Fair enough.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Members, please speak through the Chair.
<052> R/1
Pr
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Certainly, Mr Acting Speaker, that is a very important thing for me to do and I will ensure
that I do that.
I was called quite a number of names.
Ms R. Saffioti: Self-righteous.
f
oo
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It was not only self-righteous. I wonder whether there was any fear that the advice the
minister received, which he referred to, but he will not table, from the State Solicitor’s Office. Governments do not
table State Solicitor’s advice and I do not expect it to be tabled. Was there any concern or fear in the advice the
government received from the State Solicitor’s Office that this amendment, which is in absolutely identical words to
those I moved, except “or” instead of “and”, was inadequate in any way because it matched the amendments that I
moved? I hate to think that the advice the minister acted on was not up to scratch. Was there any fear amongst
government members, given that the State Solicitor’s advice exactly matched what I had said, that you might be doing
the wrong thing following that advice?
Mr W.R. MARMION: That is an interesting line of attack. We got the State Solicitor’s opinion on the whole
legislation, and he was happy with it. This probably represents the best way that we can deal with organisations that
we believe should pay tax that do not.
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
73
I have to advise that because we have reached this time of the day and I have an important engagement with a visiting
overseas delegation, I have to hand over carriage of the bill to the Treasurer for this stage. I think it will assist. I am
meeting with a delegation from Norway.
Ms R. Saffioti: Is that the same delegation the Minister for Health met?
Mr W.R. MARMION: Probably.
Un
Mr Acting Speaker, I advise that I am vacating the chair and the Treasurer will take over the role, and it is all under
control.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Was the Treasurer the Minister for Finance when this matter was dealt with by cabinet?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: It depends. The Treasurer brings the policy through and I was the Treasurer. My memory is that
when it started carriage, I was, but by the time it actually got to Parliament, there was another Minister for Finance.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: This is just an incredible day. We now have the rotation policy to deal with legislation.
r
co
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, the member for West Swan has the floor.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Treasurer, who is handling the legislation, was the Minister for Finance who initiated this
bill. The legislation then went to the former Minister for Finance who completely stuffed it up in this place. It has
now gone to the upper house, where the government-owned committee basically tore it apart and rewrote it. It has
come back to this house, to a new Minister for Finance who has had to go and meet the King and Queen of Norway—
and the Minister for Finance who initiated the bill!
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Okay.
rec
Mr J.H.D. Day: He is not actually meeting the king and queen; it is a mining delegation, including the minister for
mines.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, members. Members, let us stay focussed on the clauses before us.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am not disputing his reason for not being here; I have just found today a complete head spin.
<053> K/D
ted
I want to know whether the Treasurer is aware that this was an amendment put forward by the member for
Cannington that the Treasurer, I think, voted against in this place. Can the member for Cannington alert me to the
fact?
Mr W.J. Johnston: Yes, the Treasurer voted against it.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member for Cannington has alerted me to the fact that the Treasurer voted against this
amendment and the legislation went to the upper house.
[Interruption.]
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Does someone need to be called to order? I heard a noise coming from the government side
of the chamber.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I have heard lots of noises coming from everywhere, so just —
Pr
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that strange, space kind of noise was definitely from over near the Leader of the House.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, the member for West Swan has the call.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Given that this is the third minister we have dealt with on this legislation, so much for a stable,
grown-up government here! This is the third minister. Is the minister aware that he voted against this amendment that
he is now putting in this chamber?
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendment 14 made by the Council be agreed to.
f
oo
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am in full gloating mode, of course, because I draw the house’s attention to the amendment
I put, which read —
Page 17, line 23 — To insert after “employees” —
or employers
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
74
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
I think a word was missing in that amendment; it should have been “employees or employers”, but it was defeated in
any case. Today we are dealing with —
Clause 11, page 17, line 23 — To delete “employees” and insert —
employees, or an association of employers,
Un
I note for the first time that in fact the grammar I wrote in my rush, sitting here with my laptop with no staff, was in
error, but it is substantially the same.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: It was the right import.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It was the right import; that is correct, member for Midland.
I congratulate, as I say, the government for adopting my amendments, and as I have said—I do not want to repeat
myself unnecessarily —
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Or congratulate yourself unnecessarily!
r
co
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That never happens, member for Midland. That would never happen.
This is in fact the government agreeing to my amendment, so I am very, very happy. I think that when we get to
amendment 15, the government should in fact ask me to move it for the government because it is, after all,
completing my work.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendment 15 made by the Council be agreed to.
rec
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am very disappointed in the government. I think that the government should have let me
move this amendment. I think my amendment is in fact superior, because what I wanted to do is something slightly
different. What the government is doing through amendment 15 is including registered employer associations as part
of the definition of an industrial association. But my amendment was superior because it included unregistered
employer associations as well as registered employer associations.
<054> I/4
ted
I do not think that the government should proceed with this amendment. I am conscious of the time, so I will not seek
a division on the matter. I think this is an inferior provision. The government should reconsider it and extend the
amendment to include an amendment to paragraph (d) to ensure that unregistered employer associations are covered
by the provisions.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: This issue was discussed in an earlier clause. As the finance minister indicated, the concern was
with registered employer associations, so it is unlikely that unregistered associations will fall under these issues; and,
if they do, the Commissioner of State Revenue can advise the minister to take action accordingly.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendment 16 made by the Council be agreed to.
Pr
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendment 17 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendment 18 made by the Council be agreed to.
f
oo
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: We are not opposed to this amendment but I note that if the government had continued to use
the term “trade union” to mean both employer associations and employee associations, we would not need this
amendment. This amendment is before us simply because of the other amendments. It is a consequential amendment.
Employer associations are recognised as trade unions in industrial law. I know that that might be uncomfortable for
some people to understand but that is the case. Although I support this amendment because of the previous
amendments, it would not have been necessary if the government had simply adopted the practice of referring to
employer associations as trade unions because they are trade unions.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I ask a question of the Treasurer, given that he is in the chair. As we know, the Minister for
Finance can only act with the concurrence of the Treasurer. I think that is the correct word. He certainly cannot act on
his own. We have had that discussion. “Concurrence” is the word that I am looking for; it is in proposed section
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 26 February 2015]
75
42C(2). We are amending proposed section 42C by this provision. Will the reasons for the Treasurer’s concurrence be
given as part of the minister’s reasons? Could he give us an example of why he would give concurrence to the
minister in making his decision?
Un
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes, it is concurrence. The Minister for Finance would provide advice to me on why he would
make a decision. I would use those same factors. I rely on information from the Commissioner of State Revenue.
They would be many and varied. I would seek advice from Treasury to the advice that was given to me from the
Minister for Finance.
<055> B/M
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Thank you very much, minister, that was very interesting. As I understand it, it is not an
obligation on the Treasurer to provide reasons for his concurrence. I take it that it is up to only the Minister for
Finance to choose to give reasons for his decision. Is there any opportunity for the taxpayer or anyone else to know
the reasons for the Treasurer’s concurrence?
r
co
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The primary decision-maker is the Minister for Finance. The Treasurer gives concurrence to his
decision; therefore, the disclosure or otherwise is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendments 19 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
rec
That amendments 20 made by the Council be agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendments 21 made by the Council be agreed to.
Question put and passed; the Council’s amendments agreed to.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I move —
That amendments 22 made by the Council be agreed to.
ted
The Council acquainted accordingly.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Special
On motion without notice by Mr J.H.D. Day (Leader of the House), resolved —
That the house at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 10 March.
House adjourned at 5.37 pm
__________
f
oo
Pr
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
(76)
CONTENTS
CLIMATE CHANGE...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Petition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Un
PAPER TABLED ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
2015 TASTE GREAT SOUTHERN FESTIVAL ........................................................................................................... 1
Statement by Minister for Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 1
CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION — “REPORT ON MISCONDUCT RISK
IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT” ......................................................................................................... 1
Statement by Minister for Local Government ............................................................................................................. 1
Authorisation of Publication — Motion ...................................................................................................................... 2
r
co
STATE AVIATION STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................. 2
Statement by Minister for Transport ........................................................................................................................... 2
WELLINGTON DAM — RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY ............................................................................................ 3
Grievance .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES — MT CHARLOTTE.................................................................. 4
Grievance .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
rec
GUILDFORD HOTEL .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Grievance .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM — MINING PROPOSAL AND
PROGRAM OF WORK APPLICATION FEES............................................................................................................. 8
Grievance .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
ted
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE........................................................ 11
Membership Change — Motion ................................................................................................................................ 11
Dissent from Deputy Speaker’s Ruling ..................................................................................................................... 28
Division ................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Motion Resumed ....................................................................................................................................................... 32
LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014
LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TAXING) BILL 2014 ................................................................................ 36
Cognate Debate — Motion ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Second Reading — Cognate Debate ......................................................................................................................... 36
Pr
CITY OF STIRLING — INTEGRATED CYCLING STRATEGY 2015 .................................................................... 36
Statement by Member for Mirrabookafor ................................................................................................................. 36
NATIONAL PARTY CENTENARY — BLOOD NOSE POLITICS ........................................................................... 36
Statement by Member for Kalgoorlie ........................................................................................................................ 36
f
oo
ASCOT KILNS — RESTORATION ........................................................................................................................... 37
Statement by Member for Belmont ........................................................................................................................... 37
CLARKSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL....................................................................................................................... 37
Statement by Member for Butler ............................................................................................................................... 37
BEAUMARIS COMMUNITY CENTRE — EBOLA CRISIS FUNDRAISING......................................................... 37
Statement by Member for Wanneroo ........................................................................................................................ 37
CAT HAVEN — GETTING 2 ZERO .......................................................................................................................... 38
Statement by Member for Maylands ......................................................................................................................... 38
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted
(77)
Un
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE .............................................................................................................................. 38
Crime Statistics — Break-in Incidents ................................................................................................................ 41, 42
Crime Statistics — Car Theft............................................................................................................................... 39, 40
Crime Statistics — Sexual Assault ............................................................................................................................ 38
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 — “Mental Impairment” — Definition ......................... 43, 44
Esplanade Hotel Site, Albany .................................................................................................................................... 39
Healthway Executive Director — Resignation .......................................................................................................... 44
Mining Industry — Government Support .................................................................................................................. 43
Perth Stadium — Memberships ........................................................................................................................... 44, 45
State Economy ........................................................................................................................................................... 40
Transport — Infrastructure Investment ..................................................................................................................... 45
Water Corporation — Asset Sale............................................................................................................................... 46
r
co
BILLS — ASSENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 47
1.
Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014. ....................................................................................... 47
2.
Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014. ................................................. 47
3.
Alcohol and Drug Authority Amendment Bill 2014. ....................................................................................... 47
MINISTER FOR POLICE ............................................................................................................................................. 47
Criminal Law Amendment (Home Burglary and Other Offences) Bill — Personal Explanation ............................. 47
rec
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE — CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT
(HOME BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES) BILL 2014 .................................................................................. 47
Motion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 47
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (HOME BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES) BILL 2014 ......................... 47
Second Reading ......................................................................................................................................................... 47
Adjournment of Debate ............................................................................................................................................. 56
Division ................................................................................................................................................................. 56
TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014 .......................................................................................... 56
Council’s Amendments — Consideration in Detail................................................................................................... 56
ted
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE ............................................................................................................................ 75
Special ....................................................................................................................................................................... 75
__________
f
oo
Pr
Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted