Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD) THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION

Transcription

Parliamentary Debates
(HANSARD)
THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
2014
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Legislative Assembly
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 2.00 pm, and read prayers.
SYNERGY — PREMIER COAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Statement by Minister for Energy
DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Minister for Energy) [2.01 pm]: I am pleased to advise the house that
Synergy, with the state government’s approval, has renegotiated its coal supply agreement with Premier Coal to
secure the state’s future coal requirements. This important decision has been made to ensure continuity of energy
supply, to help stabilise the industry in the Collie basin and to protect more than 300 jobs that are central to the
future of the region’s economy.
Western Australia is reliant on the Collie basin for approximately 40 per cent of the electricity requirements of
the south west interconnected system and much of its future baseload energy supplies. Although renewable
energy sources have been developed at unprecedented levels by the Liberal–National government in WA and
a gas-fuelled plant is available, coal remains significantly cheaper than both alternatives. Verve Energy and now
Synergy have been working closely with the owners of Premier Coal to negotiate an agreed outcome after it
became clear that the former contract was flawed. The original coal supply arrangement, signed in 2005 by
a Labor government, was simply unsustainable and forced the Liberal–National government to renegotiate this
contract, which will now provide energy security for the state and jobs in Collie.
The renegotiated coal supply agreement will see Synergy pay more for its coal supplies, and the state
government has done the right thing to strengthen the state’s contract position and ensure the long-term security
of the supply of coal for the sake of a relatively minor annual cost increase. The terms of the new contract are
confidential between Synergy and Premier Coal; however, Synergy has agreed to pay more for its coal to a level
that is more aligned with current market rates. The owners of Premier Coal sought a higher coal price uplift
during negotiations. Synergy met them part of the way, and I expect Premier Coal will drive significant
efficiencies in its business. Any increase in the annual operating subsidy that the state government pays to
Synergy would be offset by the benefits of the Liberal–National government’s decision to vertically reintegrate
the state’s electricity generation and retail utilities, and not through an immediate increase in regulated electricity
prices.
This decision will not result in an increase in electricity prices; electricity tariffs will continue to be considered
as part of the annual state budget process. If the state government had not allowed Synergy to renegotiate this
outcome, there was a significant risk that Premier Coal could have closed, which would have resulted in the loss
of 300 jobs in Collie. A substantial proportion of the state’s electricity generation would have been put at risk
and the impact on the state may have been catastrophic. We are committed to securing a future energy supply for
Western Australia and have pursued the best course of action to ensure that this occurs.
CARERS WEEK
Statement by Minister for Community Services
MR A.J. SIMPSON (Darling Range — Minister for Community Services) [2.04 pm]: This year, my wife
took her father to Singapore. Nothing special in that, one might say, except that it was his first overseas holiday
in a decade. Mike is a carer. He is one of Western Australia’s 310 000 carers, and this week is Carers Week. It is
not easy for him to get away on holiday and he rarely wants to leave his wife anyway. Mike and Val have been
married for 50 years. She has dementia and he cares for her every hour of every day at their home in
South Yunderup, near Mandurah. As Minister for Community Services, I tell Mike’s story because the theme of
this year’s Carers Week is “Take a break for carers”. This theme recognises carers’ significant commitment and
the difficulties they face taking a break from their caring role.
Within our community there are elderly parents caring for adult children with disability and illness. There are
husbands such as Mike, or wives, caring for their ill spouse while coping with their own increasing health needs.
There are people juggling work and children while caring for older parents or siblings. There are partners caring
for someone with mental illness and parents caring for children. Members may be surprised to hear that there are
also young children caring for their parents. I met eight-year-old Dylan Wilson who won the major award in the
Young People Who Care Awards. Dylan’s mother is in a wheelchair. He is an incredible young man and the
difference he makes to his mum’s life is enormous. Carers Week 2014 provides an opportunity to recognise
carers, the diverse nature of the caring role and the diversity of carers themselves, and to achieve a greater
understanding of who carers are and the issues they face. It is a time for celebration, education, reflection and
action. It is a time to thank the Carers Advisory Council and Carers WA. The state government has provided
[ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 14 October 2014]
7111
$822 000 to support carers with counselling, respite and social activities. This morning, I attended a carers’
future planning session hosted by my department and a lunch hosted by Carers WA for decision-makers who
influence decisions about carers. Sometimes becoming a carer is not a choice; circumstances arise in life and,
like Mike, one takes on the role motivated by love and 50 years of commitment for better or for worse. Caring
for someone with dementia can be stressful, time consuming and never ending. To all our carers, thank you.
MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
Statement by Parliamentary Secretary
MS A.R. MITCHELL (Kingsley — Parliamentary Secretary) [2.06 pm]: I rise to inform the house of the
overwhelmingly positive response to the many activities held across Western Australia as part of the recent
forty-seventh annual national Mental Health Week, which ran from 4 October to 10 October. I commend all
those involved in making this year such a success, particularly the facilitators of celebrations in Western
Australia—the Western Australian Association for Mental Health and the Mental Health Commission.
The 2014 Mental Health Week theme was “Make a move towards better mental health”. More than
10 000 people of all ages took part in over 100 community events held across the state to raise awareness of
mental health. Without doubt there has been an increasing level of community engagement and a real willingness
to openly discuss mental health in recent years. This year was no exception. The community embraced
Mental Health Week and openly discussed and raised the important issue of mental health with events involving
the whole community, including children, youth and families, as well as government and business leaders.
Highlights of the week included an all-ages community concert featuring popular indie rock band British India
that attracted 1 600 people; the Mental Health Commission’s Good Outcomes Awards that showcased for the
twelfth consecutive year the outstanding contributions and inspiring work being done by individuals and
organisations working to improve the lives of people with mental illness, their families and carers; a public
workplace wellbeing seminar held for city workers that attracted 150 people; and a breakfast for government,
corporate and community sector leaders marking World Mental Health Day that focused on the importance of
prioritising mental health in the workplace. We are moving to tackle stigma and raise awareness about mental
health and mental illness in the workplace. It is a fact that people still fear disclosure of personal mental health
difficulties in the workplace. Mental health needs to be given the same priority as physical health and safety
within occupational health and safety. Once again, I would like to thank everyone who participated for their
contributions towards the positive and ongoing impact of Mental Health Week in Western Australia.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
IRON ORE EXPORT VOLUMES — PREMIER’S COMMENTS
773.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
Before I ask my question, I would like to acknowledge the member for Victoria Park’s father, Cedric, who
passed away a few weeks ago and the great life that Cedric led on behalf of people of this state and Aboriginal
people in particular.
[Applause.]
Mr M. McGOWAN: I refer to the comments that the Premier made in June regarding iron ore volumes and the
state of government finances. He stated —
It is a fact that while the price is down, and that is a concern, the volumes are at record levels and that
rising volumes will basically compensate in terms of revenue for Treasury.
How does this compare with the Premier’s recent comments in which he blamed BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto for
his budgetary woes by deliberately increasing volumes?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
The iron ore industry and iron ore royalties have become critical to the state’s finances. It is true that volumes are
increasing. We expect that iron ore production in Western Australia will double over the 2010–20 decade. I think
normal business logic and economic logic would suggest that if we are selling a product into a market and the
price is falling at a very fast rate, the normal commercial reaction would be to cut back on supply into that
industry. The quantity supplied would normally fall.
Mr M. McGowan: If they had a monopoly, that’s right.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is as long as the demand curve has a negative slope. We would normally expect the
quantity supplied into the market to fall in response to a falling price. When we get a very sharp and large fall in
the price of 40 per cent, which has been accelerated in the past month or so, I find it a strange policy—indeed, a
flawed policy—that the major iron ore producers would be putting more and more product into a declining soft
market. I think that is a flawed policy and I think it will be a failed policy—no doubt about it.
7112
I find it strange that the companies are seemingly acting in a concert way; I think that is unusual.
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Rising iron ore volumes will compensate to some extent—certainly nowhere near full
extent—for the fall in price of 40 per cent. More recently over the past couple of weeks or so, the fall in the
Australian dollar will also compensate, but nowhere near the effect of the fall in revenue to the state.
This is the third iteration of some sort of arrangement between BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto and maybe other iron
ore producers. The first happened in the late 1990s. I was resources minister when they proposed a merge. At the
time I remember saying very clearly that the government would not allow that—and we did not; that was the end
of that. The second iteration was, I think, in 2009 when they proposed to merge their iron ore operations in
a physical sense in the Pilbara. That caused great objection from Chinese steel mills. The European Union ruled
against that, and the companies backed away from the whole deal. Now we have another variation. I do not think
it is healthy for the iron ore industry. I do not think it is a good policy for shareholders or for those companies,
and it certainly damages Western Australia.
In conclusion, the state government is in a unique position. We have a broad policy interest and a financial
interest in it but we also have a direct commercial interest as the owner of the iron ore.
Ms R. Saffioti: Why did you welcome the expansion?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I support expansion but I do not support flooding a depressed market.
774.
I ask a supplementary question. Is it not the case that if Western Australian suppliers of iron ore do not increase
their volumes, that slack will be taken up by suppliers in Brazil, central Asia or Africa? Whose side is the
Premier on?
I wish I had a whiteboard; I would do a little supply and demand diagram for the Leader of the Opposition. Slack
in the market implies excess demand. There is not excess demand; there is excess supply. The Leader of the
Opposition is 100 per cent wrong.
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — OPENING
775.
Mrs G.J. GODFREY to the Minister for Health:
I understand that the opening of the new Fiona Stanley Hospital went extremely well. Can the minister please
update the house on how the patient transfer went and what we can expect next?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
The new Fiona Stanley Hospital opened on 4 October. It went exceptionally well. I want to pay tribute to the
staff who were involved. Meetings were held at ungodly hours of the morning to get everything ready. At
five o’clock in the morning on 4 October, staff at both hospitals were ready to run, and another meeting was held
to run through it all again at seven o’clock. The actual transfer of patients went without a hitch. By early
afternoon, all patients had been successfully transferred. They were all entered into the computer system of the
hospital, which incidentally went very well. There were no hiccups with our IT service. There was great
integration between our staff and those of Serco, making sure there was a smooth flow of patients. It was very
successful.
Phase 2 of the opening commences in November. During that phase, some medical and surgical beds will open.
The closure of Kaleeya Hospital in early December will result in all obstetric patients moving across to
Fiona Stanley Hospital. Some extra medical and surgical wards will also open during that phase. We are very
much looking forward to the next phase. We have to take each on its merits and make sure all the systems work.
We need to ensure there are no complications that will create risk to patients before we progressively proceed to
each stage. Once again, I congratulate all those who were involved.
As members know, the opening was slightly delayed but not as delayed as Labor’s opening was. I recall it
delayed the opening by four years during its seven and a half years in government.
Dr K.D. HAMES: The previous Labor government delayed it by four years. It was to open in 2010, then 2011,
then 2012 and then 2014. Over about two years, it changed the opening time all the way along. I have always
wondered how the previous Labor government managed to clear the block just before the election. When this
Liberal government got in, it was still a year away from appointing the contractor to do the work around
7113
Fiona Stanley Hospital. It was nowhere near ready to proceed, yet Labor managed to get someone out to clear
the block. I wonder who it got to do that. Did the Labor government hire some local bulldozers?
Several members interjected.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Members opposite were in government. Did they hire some local dozers or something to
clear the block just before the election? What a joke that was!
Anyway, this is a fantastic project. I am very proud of the staff and I am sure everyone in this house would wish
to congratulate them.
776.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
I acknowledge the students from Mandurah Catholic College in the public gallery, on behalf of the member for
Mandurah who had them up for lunch today.
I thank all members for their very kind words about my father over the last few weeks. After those kind words,
I will try to generate some heat!
I refer to the Premier’s media statement dated 23 April 2014 titled “Jimblebar mine another boost for Pilbara
economy” and to a picture in which the Premier is positively glowing at the opening of that mine, alongside
Jimmy Wilson. I note that the Premier’s media statement celebrates the opening of Jimblebar mine, which
boosted BHP’s iron ore export volumes ahead of schedule. The Premier congratulated BHP on this faster than
anticipated expansion and said that it —
… demonstrates BHP Billiton’s ongoing confidence in the strength of WA’s iron ore industry,”…
I remember this in April this year. Why is the Premier so shocked and angry that BHP is increasing its iron ore
volumes?
The Treasurer has just advised me—I am sure he is correct—that back in April the iron ore price was probably
$110 to $120 a tonne.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: No, it was a bit lower than that. It was well on its way down.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: What was it—you have obviously done your research?
Mr B.S. Wyatt: It was about the high 90s.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: A bit better than —
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Still on its way down!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker —
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is a good photo, is it not? Unlike previous governments, major resource development
projects are happening.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is true. Look right around the state.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: You are having it both ways!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is the same question, basically. Iron ore prices were $110 or the high 90s, whatever it
was at the time—they were lower than they had been—but there was a pretty solid iron ore price. I happen to
think the real value of iron ore is probably around $110 to $120 a tonne, but the market is nowhere near that at
the moment.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I just cannot even hear myself.
The opposition should tell me the logic of pouring iron ore into a depressed market.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: When does the opposition reckon construction started on the Jimblebar mine? It was
probably two years before that. It is a good thing. As I said before, we reached a historic agreement with the
two major iron ore producers that resulted in a massive inflow of cash in terms of increasing their royalty rate to
7114
the standard in the Mining Act. That was used to fund about 50 per cent of Perth Children’s Hospital. Part of that
was that it made it easier for them to expand, and I support that. As I said before, I expect iron ore production to
double over the course of this decade. What I do not expect the companies to do when there is a sharp fall in
price is pour more iron ore into a very depressed market; that is not commercially sound for them and their
shareholders, and it is not good for the state.
Mr M. McGowan: Let Kazakhstan does it.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Sorry?
Mr M. McGowan: Let Brazil do it. Is that your —
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Is the Leader of the Opposition a paid lobbyist for the mining companies? He is behaving
like one! He is behaving like a lobbyist in this place! The state has —
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, this is pointless.
As I said before, the state has a role in the governance of the progressive development of our natural resources.
We want them to be sold at a valuable, true market value; it is not in our interests to see that iron ore poured into
the market when the market is depressed by 40 per cent—in real terms probably about 20 per cent. We have
a commercial interest not only in collecting royalties, but also as the owner of the iron ore. That is what
I reminded the companies of: “Remember who your landlord is. Remember who owns the iron ore. Remember
who has a direct interest in terms of royalty income.” They have been reminded, and they have responded
accordingly.
777.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. In light of the fact that every single statement of risk in every budget the
Premier’s government has produced highlights the possibility of a decline in the iron ore price, why is it that the
Premier did not warn BHP back in April 2014 when he was celebrating the opening of the Jimblebar mine?
As the Treasurer said, if anyone knew the iron ore price into the future with certainty, they would not waste their
time being a member of Parliament!
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Well, you shouldn’t have spent all the money, should you?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: What is it? Is the opposition against development?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think it is.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Opposition members can pick any part of Western Australia, and I can point to a major
project this government has underway.
Mr W.J. Johnston: You’re an idiot!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am an idiot, am I?
Withdrawal of Remark
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the first time. I ask you to withdraw that
statement.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am sorry; I was not aware that calling somebody an idiot had been decided as being
unparliamentary, but if it is, I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr C.J. BARNETT: History will show that during the course of this decade, under the Liberal–National
government, iron ore production doubled, LNG production trebled, and the state economy grew by an enormous
amount.
7115
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not know why the opposition is so upset about that: Gorgon, Wheatstone, Ord River,
Pilbara iron ore mines—it goes on and on. This is one of the great periods of economic development in
Western Australia’s history.
The SPEAKER: Member for Joondalup —
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, Premier; I call you to order for the first time.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the second time.
ASSET SALE PROGRAM
778.
Mr J. NORBERGER to the Treasurer:
Could the Treasurer please update the house on the market’s response to the state government’s announcement
of the first tranche of asset sales?
Dr M.D. NAHAN replied:
I would like to thank the member for the question; it is a really good one.
We have received unprecedented interest from both potential buyers of the assets announced in the first tranche
and advisers. This comes at a time in the market in Australia when there is a lot of activity in asset sales. The
Queensland government has about $40 billion worth of asset sales coming onto the market. New South Wales
has about $20 billion worth of assets that either have been sold or are coming on, and the Victorians are also
selling port assets and others.
The SPEAKER: Members for Cockburn, Warnbro and Wanneroo, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The Victorians also have assets on the market, particularly the Port of Melbourne, and both
the Victorian government and the Labor opposition, led by a Socialist Left leader, I might add, are committed to
the sale of the asset. We are really optimistic, and today Treasury will release an open tender for lead financial
adviser for the two ports—the Kwinana Bulk Terminal and the Utah Point bulk handling facility. We expect to
make a decision on selecting the lead financial adviser in early December. It will undertake due diligence and
look at the details of the project, and advise us of any outstanding policy issues. We expect to go to a separate
lead financial adviser for the Perth Market Authority, with the tender going out later this month.
The asset sales process will be led within the bureaucracy by the asset sales unit within Treasury, headed by the
executive director of strategic projects, Richard Mann, who has done a great job running our large building
program and keeping budgets on budget and on time. He will have a team and will manage contractors, the due
diligence, the assessment and the final contracts. His process will be overseen by the asset sales task force, which
has directors general from the State Solicitor’s Office, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet—of course—
the Department of Treasury, the Insurance Commission of WA and the Water Corporation. The task force will
oversee the operations of the asset sales unit, as well as advise the government on the next tranche of the asset
sales process. The information that has been given to us so far augurs well for the sale of these assets. The
process is well underway and we look forward to consummating some of the sales in the mid to late part of next
year—that is, 2015.
IRON ORE EXPORT VOLUMES — 2014–15 STATE BUDGET
779.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON to the Premier:
I refer to the 2014–15 state budget that assumes annual increases in iron ore exports of 6.8 per cent per year, and
the Premier’s statement of 9 October 2014 that BHP Billiton Ltd and Rio Tinto are flooding the market to force
iron ore prices down. Is the increase in iron ore export volumes for the current financial year greater than the
budget expectations; and, if so, by how much?
I would need to consult the budget papers on that.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: How do we get a 40 per cent price floor?
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
7116
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is pretty damn obvious that the volume has been —
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, it is not a debate.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think it is fairly obvious to anyone who watches the commodity market —
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Anyone looking at the volumes going out of Port Hedland would find they are running at
historic record rates. They are pushing out large amounts of iron ore into a very depressed market.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: How does that compare with the budget?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I would have to have a look at the budget papers.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: If the member for Victoria Park were serious, he would have given advice that he wanted
that information.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not spend my time on Tuesday morning trying to guess questions. I do not know
why —
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the first time. Through the Chair, Premier. Thanks.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Clearly, record volumes of iron ore are being pushed out of Western Australian ports.
I find that strange behaviour.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: There are record volumes. Look at the figures going out of the ports —
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not own a single share but if I were a large shareholder or institutional investor in the
major mining companies, I would be questioning why they are pushing high volumes into a very depressed iron
ore market. I suspect that major institutional shareholders are doing exactly that right now because the business
logic of that is unsound. That is my observation. I think members opposite would find that many major
shareholders will be wondering why. As I have said, iron ore volumes will increase; there will be further mine
openings, but when there is volatility in the commodity price from up to $160-odd a couple of years ago and now
down to $80 or less, we would think major producers would respond to the price changes in the volume they
produce—maybe at the margin, but they would respond. It is at the margin that will bring about price changes.
That is my view.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Member for West Swan!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is my view. Members opposite may disagree but I suggest major institutional
investors around the world have a view closer to my view than to the view of members opposite.
IRON ORE EXPORT VOLUMES — 2014–15 STATE BUDGET
780.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. As the Premier says, this is our iron ore. From now on, is the Premier going to
restrict the volume of iron ore exported from Western Australia?
What—close the port? No, of course not; as if a Liberal–National government would intervene to curtail exports!
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
7117
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: However, as Premier of Western Australia and Minister for State Development, I have
certainly sent a signal to the companies of the expectation of the Western Australian government.
ELIZABETH QUAY — EMERITUS PROFESSOR GEOFFREY BOLTON, AO
781.
Ms E. EVANGEL to the Minister for Planning:
I saw a brief comment in The West Australian yesterday that a new road in the Elizabeth Quay development has
just been named. Can the minister please update the house on this announcement?
Mr J.H.D. DAY replied:
I thank the member for the question. I am pleased to confirm that the government has made a significant decision
in relation to the naming —
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am pleased to confirm that the government has made a significant decision in relation to the
naming of the main new road across the north of the Elizabeth Quay inlet project. It will be named in honour of
Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Bolton, AO, who is very worthy of such recognition, I think most members will
agree. I confirm that the location of the road will extend —
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen! I call you to order for the third time.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: The road will extend from the west at the Esplanade station across the north of the inlet to the
Supreme Court Gardens in the east. Once it is completed, it will be a very attractive tree-lined street that will
ensure continuation of the pedestrian connection from the city to the edge of the Swan River. I think most
members will recognise Professor Bolton as one of Australia’s foremost historians, sociopolitical commentators
and historical writers and Western Australia’s nominee for Australian of the Year in 2006. He was the founding
professor of history at Murdoch University and served as chancellor of Murdoch University from 2002 to 2006.
Prior to that time, he held chairs at three other universities, including the University of Western Australia of
which, of course, he is a graduate.
Professor Bolton has written 13 books on Australian history since 1952. He was the general editor of the
five-volume Oxford History of Australia, so I think it is entirely appropriate that we acknowledge
Professor Bolton’s contribution to the conserving, recording and teaching of the history of Western Australia and
Australia and I am pleased that the government has decided to do this in such a way. The Elizabeth Quay project
area was once the site of the Perth water baths and prior to that it was the first port for Perth, a bustling centre for
trade and —
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Are you answering the question or giving a history lesson?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: It is a bit of both actually, which is probably relevant for the Hansard of the Parliament of
Western Australia.
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Speaker, the member for Perth asked a very brief question about the naming of the
street. The minister has answered that question, so I ask you to —
The SPEAKER: Member for Wanneroo, you are not in the chair. I call you to order for the second time. As to
the point of order from the member for Midland, minister, can you wind this up, please?
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr J.H.D. DAY: As I said, this is a very appropriate recognition of a very worthy and eminent Western
Australian. In relation to the project itself, I briefly advise that it is well advanced. The construction of the inlet
diaphragm wall is now completed, and the inlet wall finishing panels are currently being delivered to the site.
The project is on track to be opened to the public towards the end of next year.
STATE FINANCES — RESPONSIBILITY
782.
I refer to the Premier’s complaints in recent weeks that the state of Western Australia’s finances is everyone
else’s fault, including BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Treasury, the federal government and the Liberal Party’s goods
7118
and services tax deal. When will the Premier accept responsibility for putting the state into the financial position
it is now in?
I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to find an instance of me saying it is everyone else’s fault. Can he
produce a quote? This is the style of the opposition. Members opposite just make up a comment and throw it in
there, and it is not true. I never made that comment at all. I accept responsibility for the state’s economy. I make
the observation that the Western Australian economy, on every measure—growth, exports, investment and
unemployment—is the strongest economy of any Australian state. We have a debt of $20.7 billion, not the
$28 billion that the Leader of the Opposition talks about. It will not be easy, but we intend to contain debt in the
low 20 billions, and we will do that through asset sales, land sales and the like. That will be a challenge.
The point I make is that there is a distinction. The opposition talks a lot about debt, which is fair enough, but
debt is not our greatest problem. We can manage the debt. Our biggest problem is on the recurrent account—the
operating balance.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the third time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Everyone is aware of the GST issue, and I think we are finally starting to get some
progress in Canberra on that. I live in hope. Again, we could deal with the decline in the GST revenue, and we
did that for a time. We have had surpluses in every year of this government to this point, including
a $719 million surplus for the year just completed. What we cannot deal with is a combination —
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the third time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: We have to this point dealt with the fall in the GST to 37c in the dollar—I remind
members that when the Labor Party was in government, it oscillated between 95c in the dollar and 105c in the
dollar—but we cannot deal with that as well as a 40 per cent fall in iron ore prices. Although there might be
some correction in the GST, it will be delayed for three years under the current rules. That is our problem. Yes,
we have a problem in our recurrent account. The debt has been used to build capital assets for this state into the
future. As I have said on many occasions, there have been three eras of major development in this state—the
1890s, with the gold rush; the 1960s, with the postwar reconstruction of Japan; and this decade, with the
emergence of modern China. Had Labor been in power, it would have missed that opportunity; it would not have
grasped it. This government grasped the opportunity for the long-term betterment of this state.
STATE FINANCES — RESPONSIBILITY
783.
I have a supplementary question. The Premier did not answer the question. Does the Premier take full
responsibility for the final position that the state is now in and admit that it is his responsibility and fault?
I think I started my answer by saying that I accept responsibility—I do—for every single thing that happens
within this government. I accept responsibility. That does not mean I can be ignorant of the factors outside —
Mr W.J. Johnston: You’re in charge, but it’s not your fault!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I did not say that. I cannot single-handedly control the GST issue, although I think we will
probably win that eventually, and I certainly cannot control the iron ore price.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I accept responsibility, and history will show that this has been a high-achieving
government that has grasped the opportunity of modern China. As one of our members interjected, the Labor
government could not get Gorgon, Karara or the Ord River underway; it could not get any of those projects
going. Inpex Corporation went to Darwin rather than deal with the Labor government. That is the reality. The
Labor government would have totally missed the opportunity of the emergence of modern China.
VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE PERSONNEL —
HEALTH LEGISLATION
784.
MR N.W. MORTON to the Minister for Emergency Services:
I note the minister’s recent announcement that cabinet has approved legislation to provide compensation to
volunteer and Department of Parks and Wildlife firefighters who —
7119
The SPEAKER: Excuse me. Member for Girrawheen, you are now on 3.5 calls. You are lucky that I am in
a good mood today.
Mr N.W. MORTON: There are so many comments I could make, Mr Speaker. I will start that question again
since I was rudely interrupted.
I note the minister’s recent announcement that cabinet has approved legislation to provide compensation to
volunteer and Department of Parks and Wildlife firefighters who contract a prescribed cancer. Can the minister
please provide the house with further information on this initiative?
Mr J.M. FRANCIS replied:
I thank the member for Forrestfield. Three point five—it is tempting, but I will behave!
I thank the member for Forrestfield very much for his question. A week and a half ago—the weekend before
last—the Department of Fire and Emergency Services hosted the fourth annual Western Australian Fire and
Emergency Services Conference in Perth. Volunteer fire and rescue firefighters, bush fire brigade firefighters
and State Emergency Service and volunteer marine rescue service personnel from all over the state came here for
a wonderful weekend to see firsthand what each other is doing and to learn from each other and share the
positive experiences of being a volunteer emergency services worker. During that weekend we announced that
cabinet has approved moving forward and drafting the bill that will provide the same presumptive cancer
coverage for volunteer firefighters as it does for career firefighters. I have mentioned this before; we have had to
go through two processes to cover everyone. The first one was to cover the career fire and rescue firefighters.
That was achieved through a simple amendment to the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act.
However, for retired career firefighters and volunteer firefighters, it has been somewhat more difficult to reach
the point at which we can be fair and honest and not be disingenuous, as are some other states—for example,
Tasmania—that have set standards that no emergency services personnel will ever reach.
The government recognises that if volunteer firefighters and personnel from the Department of Parks and
Wildlife and the Forest Products Commission—no matter which branch they come from—are exposed to certain
carcinogens through fighting hazardous fires, such as building, rubbish, tip or car fires, they should be given the
same principle of coverage and benefit of the doubt that we give career firefighters.
Going into the fire season, we acknowledge the work that all firefighters do across the state of
Western Australia. We wish them all the best and I hope they all stay safe while doing a very, very challenging
task. There are some 30 000 emergency services volunteers across Western Australia. Looking at the weather
today, we can see that the seasons change very, very quickly. We are getting on with the job. We have made
some significant progress now in coming to a sweet spot about which everyone will agree. Hopefully, everyone
will agree on not only the standards of length of service when we announce them, but also the qualifying
exposure. We think we have come to a fair place that will cover everyone equally without being disingenuous.
PUBLIC SECTOR — REDUNDANCIES
785.
Ms L.L. BAKER to the Premier:
I refer to the Premier’s broken promise in announcing 1 500 public sector redundancies on top of last year’s
1 000.
(1)
Can the Premier exclude WA Police and child protection employees from the redundancy push?
(2)
How much has been allocated to meet the up-front costs of these payments?
(1)–(2) I do not get the point about “broken promise” at all. The government had, 18 months ago, a redundancy
program for 1 000 public servants; it was oversubscribed. Many public servants—more than the
government anticipated—wanted to take that package, which was a generous payout.
Ms L.L. Baker interjected.
The SPEAKER: Just wait a minute, member for Maylands.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The government has decided on a further 1 500 redundancies, and I expect that will be
fully subscribed on a voluntary basis. We will have powers for involuntary redundancy next year, as passed by
this Parliament, but they will be used only in selective cases when people are unproductive, uncooperative,
unsuited for their work and it has been impossible to redeploy them. It is a very simple set of criteria. No
exclusion exists, and people from anywhere within the public sector can nominate for voluntary redundancy.
That is up to them and their director general. In some cases that will be declined, because they will be regarded
as essential for the area, but the government is not discriminating between any part of the public sector. That is
it.
7120
Time is overdue for a bit of real reform within the Western Australian public service. We have an environment
in which many workers in the private sector have no wage increases and many have wage cuts. It is a tough time
across the whole economy compared with recent years. In the public sector, government employees are basically
getting consumer price index increases, and we anticipate that to increase. It is time for modernisation within the
public sector. In the first half of next year the government will discuss with public service representatives, union
representatives and others about modernising employment conditions in the public sector; indeed, some of the
changes may well prove attractive and of long-term benefit to dedicated public servants.
PUBLIC SECTOR — REDUNDANCIES
786.
Ms L.L. BAKER to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. Given that child protection workers are already overwhelmed by demand, how
does the Premier intend to protect the children in this state when he is effectively saying he is allowing cuts to
the child protection workforce?
I might have the figure wrong, but I believe that during the term of this government expenditure on child
protection has gone up 70 per cent.
Dr M.D. Nahan: It is 100 per cent.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is 100 per cent.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is of great concern, as there are now 4 000 children in the care of the state. This
government has funded child protection like no other government in the history of the state, in sharp contrast to
the lack of commitment to child protection and also mental health by the former government. This government
has been proactive in those social areas of child protection, mental health and housing, unlike the former
Labor government, which neglected those key areas of social responsibility. That is the truth. Members opposite
should be ashamed of their lack of commitment to social policies for the most disadvantaged people in this state.
Members opposite should be ashamed, because they did so little in that area.
The SPEAKER: Member for Maylands, I have asked you now three times. I call you to order for the first time.
Premier, can you wind this up, please.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes. The government is not going to say that a child protection officer cannot apply for
redundancy, and if they are granted redundancy, good luck to them, I wish them well. Some people get burnt out
in a particular occupation, and child protection is a particularly stressful occupation. It is stressful, and some
people who may have worked in that area for 20 years may say that they cannot do it anymore and they need
a change. That will be offered to them, and if they go they will be replaced by a new graduate. That is what will
happen. That is not a bad thing. The same thing is likely to happen in areas such as teaching, where many
teachers, who have probably been dedicated teachers for a long time, may wish to leave and do something else,
and they will be replaced by a new graduate—not a bad thing.
The SPEAKER: Member for Fremantle! Right; finished?
WATER SUPPLY SCHEME UPGRADE — MARGARET RIVER
787.
Mr G.M. CASTRILLI to the Minister for Water:
As part as the Liberal–National government’s commitment to supporting growth in regional Western Australia,
I understand the minister was recently in Margaret River to open the water supply scheme upgrade. Could the
minister supply some details of that project, please?
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
I thank the member for the question.
Mr Speaker, as you know, this side of the house has a strong focus on regional development, and part of that
focus is making sure that the regions have access to the essential services they need to continue to grow. Last
week I was in Margaret River with the Minister for Regional Development and the local member opening the
upgrades to the Margaret River water supply system. A total of 4 600 properties are connected in Margaret
River, Cowaramup, Prevelly Beach and Gnarabup covering a population of 8 600. Ten Mile Brook Dam, with a
1.6 billion litre storage capacity, is the main water source for this area. The $67 million upgrade was carried out
7121
over two stages. We actually fast-tracked the first stage because of the extraordinarily dry run of summers and
we needed to pull water from the Margaret River to top-up the brook. As a consequence, we fast-tracked that
stage and completed it in May 2012. The second stage allowed us to construct a new water tank next to the new
water treatment plant as well as additional mains and we upgraded treatment facilities, which were completed in
September. It means that there is now a water supply that can function without needing to pull water from the
Margaret River. It also means that during potentially low rainfalls over coming summers, the customers in that
area can be assured that we have made adequate provision for the supply of water.
The population in this part of the world has increased, and there are further increases with the influx over the
summer period. As a consequence, local residents were seeing fluctuations in their water pressure. Part of the
upgrades has meant that we can deal with those pressure reductions. We have built one of the storage tanks
higher so that we can even out some of their pressure issues as well. It is therefore a great outcome for those
communities that are serviced by that $67 million upgrade. As we know, Margaret River is one of the
nine SuperTowns. The state government is making a considerable effort to make sure it is planning for the
growth of those communities across the state and that there is sufficient water for that area out to 2021. It is
about this state government making sure that we are planning for the future and making sure that we have
regional investments that encourage and grow those areas of the state.
POLICE — REDUNDANCIES
788.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Acting Minister for Police:
Last year, about 200 police officers took redundancy under the government’s first round of public sector
redundancies.
(1)
Is the minister still guaranteeing that they will all be replaced; and, if so, by what date?
(2)
Will another 200 police and staff be permitted to take redundancy in the next round; and, if so, will the
minister guarantee that they will all be replaced?
(3)
In addition to staffing cuts, how much money has the police department lost in the latest round of
budget cuts?
(1)–(3) In answer to the last part, it would have been reasonable to have had some notice for the specific
information about efficiency dividends and so on; but the Treasurer can make that available or we can
make it available at some stage. Given the financial pressures on the state, all agencies are expected to
make a contribution to deal with the significant change in the state’s financial arrangements and
environment. That is in the context of the very large increase in the allocation to WA Police in this
government’s time in office. Efficiencies can be found probably in just about every agency. In relation
to the number of police officers, the government gave a commitment at the last election that 550 new
police, including police aides, would be recruited.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Additional?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Yes, additional police. My understanding is that that program is not only underway but also on
track to achieve the commitment over this term of government, or certainly within the time period stated when
the commitment was made.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: What about replacing the 200?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: My understanding is that that is over and above the number required to replace police who
retire or resign for whatever reason. That is my understanding. I would need to check that but that is my
recollection.
POLICE — REDUNDANCIES
789.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Acting Minister for Police:
I have a supplementary question. When will the 200 officers who were let go last year be replaced, and will
further police redundancies be allowed; and, if so, will those officers be replaced?
The way that the police redundancy program has operated is that those police who have access to the redundancy
program are generally older police officers who are not on the front line but are in desk jobs at police stations
and in less productive activities. It is a desirable thing, generally speaking, for police who have been in the
organisation for many years in some cases to be replaced by newer recruits who can be out on the front line, on
the streets and in cars to deal with the issues in our community. That has been the rationale behind the
7122
redundancy program for the police. If I recall correctly, an additional number of redundancies were offered to get
a changeover in the fitness and age of police and the ability of police to be where they matter to the community.
BUS ROUTE 450 — LANDSDALE
Petition
MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen) [2.56 pm]: I have a petition from 141 petitioners that is certified as complying
with the standing orders. It states —
To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in
Parliament assembled:
We the undersigned residents of Landsdale request that the current bus service 450 be extended 1km
along Kingsway Road to Alhambra Parkway, Landsdale. There has been a significant increase in
population with the Corimbia Estate development that clearly establishes the need for the extension of
this bus service.
We therefore respectfully ask that the Legislative Assembly request the Government to extend this bus
service for the residents of East Landsdale.
[See petition 176.]
BUTLER TRAIN STATION — CAR PARKING BAYS
Petition
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [2.57 pm]: I have a petition that states —
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of
Western Australia in Parliament assembled.
We, the undersigned, say that the number of car parking bays (approximately 900), currently allocated
at Butler train station are insufficient given the population growth in the far northern suburbs.
Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly.
Increase the number of car parking bays at Butler train station by 100%.
The petition has 593 signatures and is certified by the Clerk as correct.
[See petition 177.]
PAPERS TABLED
Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.
PREGNANCY AND INFANT LOSS REMEMBRANCE DAY
Notice of Motion
Mr C.J. Barnett (Premier) gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move —
That this house recognises the designation of 15 October as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance
Day in Western Australia.
PETROLEUM TITLES (BROWSE BASIN) BILL 2014
Notice of Motion to Introduce
Notice of motion given by Mr W.R. Marmion (Minister for Mines and Petroleum).
STATE BUDGET — IMPACT ON SENIORS AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE
Notice of Motion
Ms M.M. Quirk gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move —
That this house condemns the Barnett government for the impact its mismanagement of the state budget
is having on seniors and vulnerable people in our community.
GUILDFORD HOTEL
Removal of Notice — Statement by Speaker
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): I advise members that private members’ business notice of motion 2,
notice of which was given on 6 May 2014, will be removed from the next notice paper unless written notification
is provided to the Clerk requiring that the notice be continued.
7123
VOCATIONAL AND CAREER TRAINING — GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Removal of Order — Statement by Speaker
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): I advise members that private members’ business order of the day 1,
“Vocational and Career Training in Western Australia”, which appeared on the last notice paper, has not been
debated for more than 12 calendar months and has been removed from the notice paper.
ROAD SAFETY — FUNDING AND PRIORITIES
Matter of Public Interest
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) informed the Assembly that he was in receipt within the prescribed
time of a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate a matter of public interest.
[In compliance with standing orders, at least five members rose in their places.]
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [3.02 pm]: I move —
That this house condemns the Barnett government for failing the community in the area of road safety
and for its wrong priorities in cutting funding for road maintenance.
This government’s appalling financial management over the last six years has a consequence. Despite record
revenues flowing into Treasury over that time and despite record royalties, in particular from iron ore,
outweighing to an enormous degree the cut in the GST share, which the Liberal Party signed Western Australia
up to, poor financial management over the last six years has a consequence. One of the consequences we saw last
week was the cut in funding to Main Roads for road maintenance across Western Australia. This comes on top of
other initiatives this government has taken that will adversely impact the safety of motorists, cyclists, motorbike
riders and pedestrians on our roads. Those four things are the massive cut in road maintenance over the next
three years, totalling, according to some reports, around $280 million a year; the cut of $70 million put in place
in the midyear review to the State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement with the state to assist in local
government road activity; the government hoarding $80 million in the road trauma trust fund as a safety
measure, which is predicted to grow enormously in future years; and the failure to deliver on keeping open the
tier 3 rail lines, which is already having adverse consequences, in particular in the wheatbelt, but also in the
eastern suburbs of Perth.
Four major changes to road and rail funding have been put in place by this government that will adversely affect
safety on our roads in Western Australia. Why is that important? I am sick and tired, and I am shocked and
appalled, that almost daily I see shocking cases of people on motorbikes, people on bikes, pedestrians and homes
being hit by motor vehicles, and of motorcyclists being killed regularly. Bike riders—cyclists—are dying on our
roads or being grievously injured. Pedestrians are being killed and vehicles are hitting homes. There is the
continual death toll of people driving their motorcars on our roads. I am sick and tired of the scale of it,
particularly in recent weeks and months. One of the things that helps ensure the safety of people on the roads is
well-maintained roads. Why else do we maintain our roads if it is not to keep them safe? I have seen the
Treasurer out there saying, “We can cut the funding by 15 per cent, but it won’t have an impact.” Again the
magic pudding is there. We can cut 15 per cent out of road maintenance funds, but the Treasurer said that that
will not have an impact on safety. I have news for you, sunshine: it does. When the government cuts money out
of road maintenance, surfacing, verges, kerbs and the like across Western Australia, it has an impact, and that
impact will be on safety and security of people using our roads.
Those people who are most vulnerable are the ones I feel the most for—cyclists and motorbike riders. They are
the most vulnerable, without the protection of a car around them. They are particularly vulnerable to the
condition of the road, more so than people in a car or a truck. People on motorbikes or bikes are particularly
vulnerable to the condition of the road. If a person has ever ridden a motorbike or a bike on roads, they know
that their life is often subject to the condition of the road. Therefore, a massive cut of up to $280 million in road
maintenance, according to figures released by the government, over three years will have a major impact, and we
can add to that the $70 million cut to the State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement that the government
signed. It signed the agreement one day and then just ripped it up the next, and ripped out $70 million. It
promised to keep the tier 3 rail lines open, and it closed them after the election. There are thousands of extra
truck movements on our roads, and some of them are on the most dangerous roads in the state—namely, in the
Western Australian wheatbelt. Some of the highest death rates of anywhere in Australia are on those roads in the
wheatbelt. By allowing the tier 3 lines to be closed, the government has put more trucks onto those roads. Why is
that? It is because of the financial management over the last six years, when the government took the best set of
books and the best set of finances in Australia and converted them to the worst.
Dr M.D. Nahan interjected.
7124
Mr M. McGOWAN: You inherited the best set of books in the country, my friend; you inherited the best set of
books in Australia, my friend. When you arrived in Parliament, there was record low debt and record large
surpluses keeping that debt down. All you have done —
The SPEAKER: Treasurer, I call you to order now for the first time.
Mr M. McGOWAN: All the government has done is increase that debt to record levels and drive the surpluses
down so that it is now speculating about the state going into deficit for the first time in 15 years—since the last
Liberal government. The government made those two decisions, along with an overly optimistic estimate of what
the iron ore price would do, despite the blaring klaxon of Treasury warning it, year in, year out, that iron ore
revenues were notoriously volatile and could not be relied upon in the way that the government has. Instead, the
government put so much more of the state’s financial future into that particular basket, and is now crying poor
and asking how this could possibly have happened, even though it constructed the environment to allow it to
happen. It put an overly optimistic iron ore price into this financial year’s budget despite being warned, year in,
year out, by numerous bodies, including Treasury, Rio Tinto and Credit Suisse, that it was a mistake.
The consequence of those financial management decisions is that our roads across Western Australia are now
less safe. What have we seen recently? We have seen people suffering on our roads, and what has the
government done? It has cut funding for road maintenance. As I said, cyclists and motorbike riders are
particularly vulnerable to the conditions of the roads. Some of them need to take personal responsibility; I accept
that. I have seen some motorbike riders behaving appallingly on our roads, as everyone has. I expect that I would
spend as much time on our roads as would virtually anyone in this chamber, and I have seen some shocking
activity from motorbike riders on our roads, but that does not detract from the point that if we reduce road
maintenance, we make it more dangerous for them, and especially more dangerous for cyclists. We have seen
some terrible cases recently.
It is all a question of priorities. The Premier has never ever taken any attention away from his pet projects.
Money is never taken away from his pet projects, such as Elizabeth Quay. We recently saw the naming of a road
down there, and it is always a priority for the Premier, who says, “Let’s give land to a multinational so it can
build a hotel, and let’s give it to them for free!” That is the government’s approach, while pulling money out of
maintenance for roads across Western Australia. That is the legacy of the government putting money into its pet
projects and taking money away from the essentials. That is the legacy of this government’s management of the
state finances and this Premier’s focus on his own priorities, at the expense of the most basic services that should
be provided by a state government.
What is the current position? Western Australia has the worst statistics of all states in Australia for road fatalities
per head of population. I want to read to members, courtesy of the member for Midland, a letter sent to the
Minister for Road Safety by Mr Peter Browne when he recently presented to the government his report on road
safety. This is what he had to say —
Dear Minister
…
As you would be aware, on the basis of fatalities per 100,000 population, Western Australia’s ranking
amongst the states and territories has fallen from second best in the early 1990s to second last in 2012,
behind all jurisdictions but the Northern Territory.
…
Although there is a pattern of decreasing fatalities over recent years, and 2013 had the fewest fatalities
since 1961, the rate of reduction in Western Australia is substantially less than that of most other
jurisdictions.
That is what Mr Browne said in the report he provided to the government. Decoded, it means that we are the
worst of the six states of Australia for road fatalities per head of population, yet 20-something years ago we were
second best. In other words, other states have, to a greater degree than we have, put initiatives in place that have
improved their road statistics. It takes a tiny bit of mental dexterity to understand this: the rate of deaths is
actually declining over time, but it is not declining in Western Australia as fast as it is in other states, and that is
the key point here. For suffering families in Western Australia who have lost a loved one on the roads, it is
absolutely no consolation for the government to say that the rate is declining in Western Australia, for two
reasons: firstly, it is declining everywhere; and, secondly, it is declining at a faster rate in other states.
What is the government’s policy response to that? It is to not spend the money in the road trauma trust fund; to
cut maintenance for roads; to put more trucks on the roads, particularly in the eastern suburbs and the wheatbelt;
and to rip money away from local governments for road construction. That is the government’s policy response.
According to crash statistics that have been provided to me by WA Police, there were 12 fewer deaths on the
7125
roads at this time last year than there are this year. In other words, there has been a massive spike compared with
last year. If last year we matched the national rate for road fatalities, an additional 22 Western Australians would
still be alive.
I am not blaming the government for all this, but its policy and financial response to what is going on will make
the situation worse; blind Freddy can see that. When money is cut from road maintenance due to poor financial
management, the situation will get worse. When the government rejects ideas put forward by the opposition in
good faith to try to save cyclists’ lives, the result is a worse outcome for cyclists. When the government breaks
its promises on wheatbelt roads and tier 3 rail lines, the result is a worst outcome in the wheatbelt. We are saying
to the government that its financial management has caused this issue. Last week the government blithely said,
“Oh, due to a situation beyond our control we now have to make all these cuts”, and in so saying it is doing two
things: firstly, it is making our roads less safe; and, secondly, it is ignoring the reality that the state’s financial
situation is the government’s fault because it has conducted itself in government with public finances like kids in
a lolly shop. The people who are now paying the price for that are the motorists, cyclists and motorcycle riders
on our roads. That is the point the opposition is making and, frankly, I think it is a disgrace.
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [3.17 pm]: I am significantly disappointed that the Premier has chosen not to
be in the chamber for this matter of public interest. He was given notice of it before 12.00 noon today, yet he
chose not to be in the chamber for an important issue such as road safety. The fact of the matter is that the road
safety record in this state is not good. As indicated in the report recently handed to government by Peter Browne,
we are now the worst-performing state in Australia. Only the Northern Territory has worse figures, and its
figures are absolutely off the radar. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Browne report said that if
only we had achieved the national average rate of road fatalities, 22 Western Australians would still be alive. If
we had been able to achieve the same outcome as Victoria, 50 people would not have died on our roads last
year—50 individual people. That is 50 families who would not have been affected, and whose children, parents,
brothers and sisters and best friends would not have been affected by a death on our roads. That is a lot of
people. Much more can be done. I can see the member for Hillarys and the member for South Perth nodding.
Road safety should be beyond politics. It should not be a Liberal–Labor thing. I know that the member for
South Perth and the member for Hillarys are on the record as saying that. Unlike a lot of other members in this
chamber—perhaps unlike the Premier, because he has shown no interest in the road toll at all—I bet that those
members would have read this report, “A Review of Road Safety Governance in Western Australia”. The
Premier and the Minister for Police trot out lines like, “We now give 100 per cent of money from speed and
red-light camera fines to road safety”. If members read this report, they will see the total shambles that road
safety management in this state is in. This news is not new. We knew it when the Auditor General did a report
a couple of years ago. The Auditor General has done about three reports on the road trauma trust fund. The
government has had plenty of time to fix this. Last July—over a year ago—Peter Browne was appointed to carry
out a review of road safety governance in Western Australia. He presented his report to the government in March
2014. In only July or August the government decided to release the report and put it out for public comment.
When will we see some action? I do not know.
The government always says two things in response: first, that it gives 100 per cent of money from speed and
red-light cameras to the road trauma trust fund. It was confirmed during budget estimates that $80 million is
sitting in that account. The minister’s adviser kindly pointed out that on page 822 of budget paper No 2, under
the heading “Restricted cash” in the budget of the Commissioner of Main Roads—the Minister for Transport can
look it up—is a figure of around $80 million. There are no plans for that to change in 2014–15; it is estimated to
be around $79 million. By 2015–16, the government is planning on accumulating $127 million; by 2016–17, it
wants to accumulate $180 million in the road trauma trust fund; and by 2017–18, it intends to have nearly
$250 million in that fund. That is in the forward estimates. I encourage members to look that up.
The Minister for Road Safety recently said, “We are collecting around $100 million this year. That is the income
we expect from fines, and we will spend about $100 million.” She did not say that $80 million is sitting in the
account. The government intends to grow that amount. It intends to get much more revenue from speed and
red-light cameras and accumulate it in that fund because of its dire budget circumstances. It is keeping that
money in that fund to offset its debt. All this money from speed and red-light cameras is not being spent on road
safety; a goodly proportion of it is being siphoned off into a budget line within the budget of the Commissioner
of Main Roads, and it will sit there. If nothing changes, $250 million will be sitting there in just four years. That
is part of the lie.
We are told that more money than ever is being spent on road safety initiatives. Again, that is not true either.
I produced a document in this house 10 years ago that indicated how much money was being spent on road
safety. The money for things such as the black spot program never came out of the road trauma trust account, as
it was then called. One-third of all the money raised from speed and red-light cameras went into that account.
We guaranteed at least $15 million for that but, in addition, $20 million was set aside for the black spot program.
We did not subsidise police wages, construction of roads or a range of other things that are now happening.
7126
It was interesting that Hon Peter Collier bungled onto television last night to talk about what is happening in
school zones. Let us look at the government’s record. He confirmed, as headlined on the ABC news last night,
that the rate of injury in school zones more than doubled last year. It was also reported in that same item that it
was the leading cause of death for under 14-year-olds and that there had been a 145 per cent increase in children
injured in school zones. That is huge. We would think that with all this money that the government has poured
into school zones—all the flashing lights and whatever, presumably based on some research—we would be
seeing less injury in school zones. The government’s response to that and every other road safety issue is that it
is the individual’s fault—people are drinking and driving, people are speeding and driving, people are driving
when tired and people are speeding in school zones. If Victoria and New South Wales had taken that attitude,
they would not have had the remarkable turnaround in their road safety record that they have had in recent years.
Mr J.H.D. Day: The Premier’s here, by the way, just for the record.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I thank the Premier for joining us because this is a really important issue. We are
22 minutes into the debate.
People point to the Western Australian record. We should look at another interesting document—the “Report on
Government Services 2014”. In the section on community safety, there is a table on road deaths—table 6A.36.
The first year in that table is 2002–03. In 2002–03, New South Wales had 520 deaths. By 2012–13, it had just
346 deaths. That is a huge decline. In Victoria, in 2002–03, it had 366 deaths and it has now gone down to 255.
Over 100 fewer people are being killed on Victorian roads. Things can be turned around. What has happened in
Western Australia? In 2002–03, there were 184 deaths. In 2012–13, there were 180 deaths, four less. Victoria
can cut its toll by 100, New South Wales can cut its toll by about 150 and this government says we are doing
okay because we have had fewer deaths—four fewer. By comparison, that is pathetic. When we look at the trend
for what is happening right around Australia—I know everyone will not be able to see this—for those who are
mathematically inclined, I have a graph showing how every Australian state is performing. We can see that road
fatalities are declining right around Australia. The rate is going down everywhere. One little place stands out as
its rate of decline is nowhere near what it is in the rest of Australia—that is, Western Australia.
If we read the Peter Browne report, we can see that the government has failed to take initiatives that have been
taken in other states. I am talking about initiatives such as alcohol interlocks, which this government has been so
tardy on. In about 2005–06, the last year I was police minister, I announced that this was the way to go. We
committed to it in 2008. The Labor Party continued to say that it was committed to it in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012 and 2013 and now, in 2014, the government is introducing them. We could have been one of the first states
to introduce them; now we will be one of the last. Likewise, Victoria has things such as point-to-point cameras,
something that this government, for whatever reason, has not gone near. There are a range of those initiatives.
Peter Browne is certainly not an enemy of the government; I see him as very much a friend of the government.
When we look through the report he has written, we can see how critical he is. There is no transparency in the
way funds from the road trauma trust fund are being expended. There are huge conflicts of interest. The whole
situation is just one big bungle with no direction. Peter Browne does not blame anyone. Very clearly and in
a very upfront way, he commends the Office of Road Safety. I want to quote this report, because it should not be
the scapegoat. At the top of page 2, it states —
The expertise and enthusiasm within the Office of Road Safety was found to be of high order.
Let me make that very clear. The government should not blame the Office of Road Safety for this. Not just its
enthusiasm but its expertise was found to be of high order. The processing, evaluating and acquitting of trust
funds is a shambles. Why is it a shambles? It is a shambles because, as pointed out in this report, the government
is now overriding all the decisions. Why is the government doing it? It is doing it because it needs to plug up its
budget black hole. It is plugging up the Main Roads Western Australia budget, the police budget, and any other
budget that has any remote connection to road safety, including the staffing and funding of lots of programs and
things previously funded out of those mainstream budgets. That key point was highlighted in that report.
On the one hand, the government basically is moving the money across to agencies—money that normally would
have been spent there—and it is also siphoning it off into a restricted cash account where the government can sit
on $80 million, growing to $250 million, because of its budget black hole.
MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [3.29 pm]: Let us not let the facts get in the way
of good story. Even after any proposed funding changes, the Liberal–National government is providing a greater
level of maintenance than that provided by previous Labor governments.
Soon after we came to office in 2008, the WA Auditor General released “Maintaining the State Road Network”,
which identified a significant backlog of road maintenance of over $800 million and recommended a series of
actions for improving the management of the road network. That was another Labor legacy. We are working
through, with the Treasurer, the ramifications of any changes in maintenance. One of the interesting things
forgotten by the opposition is that things have tightened up and we are seeing a dramatic decrease in the cost of
projects. We are quite hopeful that, as we work through, a lot of these reductions will be funded through the finer
7127
pricing of contractors under tender. That means that we are actually still hopeful that we will undertake the same
level of projects we had initially set at the outset.
The extent and implications of Labor’s road maintenance backlog have been acknowledged by the state
government, and significant steps have been undertaken. Although there has been a reduction in the road
maintenance budget, there will still be significant levels of investment in maintenance-related capital —
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you now to order for the third time.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I think Geoff Hutchison referred to the Leader of the Opposition as “always coming up
with a catastrophe”, and it is really interesting that we seem to have another unfounded catastrophe.
The capital improvement works will result in less maintenance effort being required in the future than would
have been the case if they were not undertaken. Predominantly, these works were in the country areas, and
examples include the construction of passing lanes, the widening and sealing of shoulders, and reconstruct-andwiden projects. Within the Safer Roads program, $112 million was spent between 2011–12 and 2014–15, and
that work has included seal widening, reconstruction and widening.
Mr D.C. NALDER: Someone is asking about Albany Highway —
Mr P.B. Watson: No, the South Coast Highway—where all the grain trucks go.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I will come back to that with different highways because we are doing a lot of work that
Labor failed to do on the Coalfields highway, particularly, when talking about truck movements. An additional
$80 million of similar works under the Safer Roads program is programmed for 2015–16 and 2017–18.
In addition, there is the Main Roads asset investment program. The opposition seems to forget that a large
number of capital projects are being undertaken by this government—a larger number than was the case by the
Labor government when it was in power. We are fixing up a number of projects.
Mr F.M. Logan: Where?
Mr D.C. NALDER: I will give a couple of examples because I think the member for Cockburn is seeking some.
An amount of $760 million has been spent on widening, reconstruction and construction of passing lanes.
Examples include the $211 million reconstruction and widening of the North West Coastal Highway between
Minilya and Barradale.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I like to get the facts correct, and I just want to refer to my personal notes.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order now for the third time.
Mr D.C. NALDER: In addition to the $211 million, $353 million has been spent on the reconstruction and
widening of Great Northern Highway between Muchea and Wubin. Some of those contracts are coming in
under, which is allowing us to consider some of the bypasses around the small towns as we come in closer. We
are continuing to look at this. There will be $21 million to improve the formation and gravel on Gibb River
Road. Just recently we talked about the need to fix another black spot in the metropolitan area, being
Roe Highway–Berkshire Road, where an accident occurs every 10 days. Because that project has been coming in
under budget and ahead of time —
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.C. NALDER: Because the project is coming in under budget and ahead of time, it has allowed us to shift
$45 million across to ensure full-grade separation of Roe and Berkshire. Get this, member for Mandurah—the
$15 million that was allocated for traffic lights has now been shifted to the Regional Run Off Road program.
Mr D.C. NALDER: That has not been announced at this point in time, so a new announcement for this house —
The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Mandurah; I call you to order for the second time.
Mr D.C. NALDER: That means we have an additional $15 million for regional roads run off that was not there
previously because of the great management of the Gateway WA project. That will allow us to do additional
7128
road upgrades to rumble strips on the side of road. We know there are a number of causes of accidents, including
driver inattention and high speed, and we want to —
Ms J.M. Freeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Girrawheen, I do not
want to hear any more from you.
Mr D.C. NALDER: The program managed to increase driver awareness, as well as make the roads more
forgiving should drivers make a mistake. That is what this government is doing.
In addition, we are talking about a few other things here. Coalfields highway needs to be looked at again. During
the time the Richard Court government was in power, $20 million was allocated and spent on Coalfields
highway, with $20 million allocated in the out years. When Labor came to power in 2001, it removed the
$20 million that was sitting in the forward estimates for Coalfields highway.
Mr D.C. NALDER: This is correct.
Labor removed that $20 million and guess what it spent on Coalfields highway? Zip while it was in power—
absolutely zero. It has taken this government to identify that and to get the project back on track. The
government is spending considerable amounts on both the east and west.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you to order now for the third time, and the member for
Mirrabooka for the second time.
Mr D.C. NALDER: Members opposite talk about the lack of investment and concern around the maintenance of
regional roads, but I can assure members that with the lower cost of contracts and the record amount we are
spending in capital investment on the roads in Western Australia, we are doing our bit to make our roads safer—
and we should be proud of that. This is a good government that is doing a good job. That is not to say there is not
more to be done. We understand that there is more to be done, and that is primarily because of the backlog left
behind by the previous Labor government. It was found to have underspent by $800 million on road maintenance
throughout the state, and we are tackling that issue.
DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Treasurer) [3.37 pm]: I would like to participate in the debate. We announced
a number of changes earlier this week and last week, and I would like to comment on the cause of those and
some of the selective interpretation by the Leader of the Opposition.
Three years ago we changed the way we forecast iron ore prices. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly
accused the government and Treasury of, essentially, cooking the books. We set up the current standards by
which we forecast revenue two years ago. There were various methodologies based on the actual received, plus
forecast market for the current year in the Singapore spot market—the received forecasts—and we then use the
consensus forecast going forward. The Leader of the Opposition accused us of doing this two years ago, and said
that we actually fiddled the books this year to exaggerate the forecast. The trouble is, last year we used the same
forecast and we came within one percentage point of the actual data. What he has accused of us of doing is
a very crafty plan: two years ago we hatched a plan to get the forecast spot-on in the first year, and drastically
wrong in the next! I think we are pretty clever but not that clever. The reality is that, as Treasury quite rightly
says, it is a highly volatile price. We do not have a very clear view of what drives it up and down in the short
term, and Treasury refuses to try to predict the volatility within a year. The Leader of the Opposition can do that,
and maybe when he leaves this house at the end of this term, he can put up a shingle as a forecaster of iron ore
prices, but I do not think he will make very much wealth that way.
When we brought down the budget, 30-odd consensus forecasts were provided. The Australian Bureau of
Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences forecast $123.7 a tonne for 2014–15. The then Access
Economics, a very well known forecasting group now owned by Deloitte, which makes its money by providing
among other things iron ore forecasts, forecast iron ore at $124.7. That was the consensus forecast at the time we
brought down the budget. The ANZ forecast was $121.7; Scotiabank, $121.1; and URS Australia, a large
merchant bank, $120. The price ranged from $124.7 to $100.7. The lowest forecast was Credit Suisse Group.
Who did the Leader of the Opposition choose to quote? It was Credit Suisse. He went through the whole range of
32 companies asking which was the lowest, and then chose that forecast. Last year he would have searched for
the lowest possible price and used Credit Suisse’s forecast again of $100. He would have under-forecast the
price by 25 per cent. What would have been the ramifications of that?
Mr M. McGowan: A huge surplus.
7129
Dr M.D. NAHAN: No. It would have provided a huge surplus, but a large reduction in expenditure. What did
we hear about this? The member for Victoria Park said that he has been telling us that we have been
overspending.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: What does every member opposite say? They say spend more and more. What are we doing
today? We are responding to reductions in iron ore prices and what are members opposite doing? They are
criticising us for cutting $2 billion from the forward estimates. Imagine if they were in government and had to
respond to that. There would be a bloody mess as there was before.
Point of Order
Mr F.M. LOGAN: I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring the Treasurer back to the debate at hand. It is about road
safety, not the price of iron ore. I know you were looking at him quite strangely; so was I.
The SPEAKER: I think he has come back to the point now, member for Cockburn.
Debate Resumed
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I was responding to the lead speaker on the other side, who accused us of cooking the
books —
Mr F.M. Logan: Get back to road safety.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cockburn!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: — and under-forecasting iron ore prices and saying that Treasury warned the government
that it was over-forecasting iron ore prices and that a large number of other forecasters did the same thing. I am
pointing out that he was wrong.
The SPEAKER: Right; let us move on from there.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: What have we done? We have spent $40 billion on infrastructure. Okay; we borrowed some
of it, but we have spent $40 billion on infrastructure. What did we spend that money on? We spent it on mainly
Western Power, the Water Corporation and transport. The top three were the Water Corporation, Western Power
and transport—infrastructure to get people in and about the urban and rural areas.
Ms R. Saffioti: What transport?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: We spent it on public transport and main roads. We have spent record amounts on roads and
are continuing to do so.
Ms R. Saffioti: What public transport?
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: We have also spent money on hospitals—a record amount—on schools and other
infrastructure. What did we hear from people opposite when we were spending? “It is not enough; spend more,
more, more.” These people want to have it both ways. What happens when we are confronted by people who talk
like chooks—cluck, cluck, cluck. They complain if we spend money and complain if we do not. We ignore them.
Let me talk about Shelley Bridge; it is a very good proposal. The question is: how do we reduce congestion
around Shelley Bridge, which is a bridge on Leach Highway at the edge of my electorate and the electorate of
Cannington? What is the major source of congestion? It is trucks. The former Labor government banned large
trucks, I believe, longer than 19 metres. Trucks smaller than that going to the port are not banned. The best way
to reduce congestion on Shelley Bridge is to reduce the number of trucks on Leach Highway. How do we do
that? We do that by building Roe Highway stage 8. Members opposite campaigned vigorously against Roe 8.
How do we reduce congestion and the need for less maintenance on South Street and Leach Highway? We do
that by taking trucks off suburban roads and putting them on highways such as Roe Highway.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the second time now.
Mr R.H. Cook: You can’t promise both.
The SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The best way to address the congestion on Shelley Bridge is to build Roe Highway stage 8.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected.
7130
The SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Cannington, I do not
want to hear you shouting out.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The problem for the Labor Party in terms of constructing Roe Highway stage 8 is that it is
the major road construction issue in the south metropolitan area. It is the best way to reduce wear and tear on
suburban roads.
Mr W.J. Johnston: How much have you allocated?
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the third time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Roe 8 has been identified as a priority for decades and its priority has been accentuated by
the need to get southern access to Fiona Stanley Hospital. Its construction will reduce congestion also on
Shelley Bridge. Members opposite have not only said negative things about it but also they have campaigned
against it. Then they have stood up in this place and said, “How dare you cut funding for road maintenance by
15 per cent?” when the construction of Roe Highway all the way to the ports and, more importantly, the Perth
freight road, will reduce the maintenance bill on suburban highways equivalent to the cut we made. But what do
members opposite say? They are ideologically against the construction of Roe Highway stage 8. That is
hypocrisy of the worst order.
An opposition member interjected.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes; we are in government and we are committed to trying to build it. Members opposite are
in opposition and are committed to not building it.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: When we look at ways to reduce the wear and tear on roads, particularly in my electorate
and, indeed, the electorates of the members for Cannington, Bateman, Willagee and Fremantle, this is not just
about road maintenance because the Leader of the Opposition said road maintenance and construction have an
impact on safety. That is true. What is the biggest safety issue in my electorate? It is heavy trucks on
Leach Highway travelling past Shelley Primary School and Rossmoyne Senior High School. Literally 3 000 kids
pour out of those schools to cross a busy road.
Ms S.F. McGurk interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Fremantle, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: On a daily basis, 3 000 kids cross Leach Highway, which is congested by heavy trucks,
which have to stop repeatedly and that is a bad safety hazard. What are members opposite doing? They are
campaigning against the only solution to it. They sit in this house as hypocrites lecturing this government about
not spending. We are doing something. I ask members opposite —
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: This is not just about Roe Highway, of course; it is a major investment to allow trucks to
travel from the north and the east to go through virtually only one traffic light to the Kwinana terminal or the
port.
Ms S.F. McGurk: Where’s that?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Roe 8 will provide energy savings and minimise risk and wear and tear from trucks. I look
forward to members opposite supporting that —
Ms S.F. McGurk interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Fremantle!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: — and stopping resisting every effort we have made to legitimately investigate the
construction of one of the state’s, indeed the nation’s, main road projects, Roe Highway stage 8.
Mr J.H.D. Day: It would have been a lot better if they had not taken away the bypass.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The Minister for Planning highlights once again that he is a very mild-mannered person and
he is not prone to extreme words. He accused the Labor Party of one of the worst actions of planning bastardry
when it took away the Fremantle eastern bypass.
Mr M. McGowan: What has this got to do with the motion?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The motion deals with road maintenance; that is what we are on about. It is about road
construction. The Leader of the Opposition raised the issue. I am addressing road construction, iron ore, road
maintenance and the safety of people on the roads. The opposition might not like it. If the Leader of the
Opposition does not like the response, he should not ask the question. In addition to Roe Highway, we have
invested very heavily in roads such as the Kwinana Freeway and the Mitchell Freeway and the roads around the
7131
airport. We have invested record amounts in roads. New roads do not need as much maintenance as old roads. If
we renew roads, the maintenance bill goes down. Members opposite know that we have done that because some
of them sent out letters to their constituents and claimed credit for it stating, “I achieved this flyover. I achieved
this better bypass.” Members opposite also have written to the electorate to say that they are fighting for the
construction of new roads and asking the government to invest in roads. The member for Victoria Park and the
Leader of the Opposition in particular then criticise us in this place us for investing in roads and borrowing
money for it—hypocrisy! Admittedly, the opposition is there to criticise. That is one thing it can do, but when
will the Labor opposition come up with policy ideas? Have members seen any?
Government members: No!
Dr M.D. NAHAN: No. The only thing the opposition says is that it does not want to build Elizabeth Quay, but it
was committed to the “Dubai on Swan” project. The opposition wants to build the stadium, but not where we are
building it at the right spot in Burswood. The member for Victoria Park might differ on that. The opposition
would have built it in Subiaco, which would have been a bloody disaster.
The SPEAKER: Minister, can you watch your language, please. Another thing is, member for West Swan,
when you saunter around the chamber, can you please acknowledge the Chair?
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Sorry for the language, but if we look —
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The minister is continuing to talk about a variety of matters that are not the subject of
the motion. He is now talking about the location of the football stadium as if that is somehow relevant to road
safety.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: Has the member for Midland ever tried to go to the football and seen how congested the road
is down there? What are we doing with the new stadium?
The SPEAKER: Member for Midland! Minister, you have to tie in what you are saying to this motion.
Debate Resumed
Dr M.D. NAHAN: The relevance of the stadium is, amongst other things, that it is a traffic nightmare at
Subiaco. At the new Burswood stadium we have a state-of-the-art transport alternative. However, I digress. The
Leader of the Opposition is cherrypicking the data and making disparaging remarks about the professionalism of
Treasury and others. We received the forecast available at the time, and government requires a forecast to be
made, which we did.
The SPEAKER: Minister, I think we have been through this. You have got to sheet it home to what the motion
is on. We have been through that.
Dr M.D. NAHAN: I am responding to the statements that the Leader of the Opposition made on this issue. We
have spent record amounts of capital, including on transport, particularly roads. We are renewing our road
system and I look forward to the opposition, instead of carping and carping, supporting the government on the
Roe 8 extension.
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Acting Minister for Road Safety) [3.54 pm]: I am speaking mainly as
Acting Minister for Road Safety. The member for Midland commented that the road safety record in
Western Australia is not good. I think she might have been quoting Peter Browne’s report. Whatever the case,
I agree; it is not good and it needs to be a lot better than it is. However, I think it is pretty opportunistic and a bit
rich for the opposition to raise this motion, which seeks to condemn the government for failing the community in
the area of road safety and relates that to the recent reduction in road maintenance within the Main Roads
allocation. The Minister for Transport has pointed out that the actual cost of road maintenance has come down in
recent times because of the competitive pressures in the market, and that is a good thing. It is quite likely that
about the same amount of maintenance will be able to be undertaken as would otherwise have been the case.
In particular, it is a bit rich given that the amount of road trauma—albeit it is far too high in this state—has
reduced significantly since the government came to office in 2008. It has reduced by about 30 per cent, which is
quite a significant reduction. There will always be some variations each year. If we want to be a bit political
about it for a while, in 2013 the rate of fatalities was 6.4 per 100 000 compared with 9.4 per 100 000 in 2008
when the previous government was in office. In 2007, which was the last full year of the previous Labor
government’s time in office, the rate of fatalities was 11.1 per 100 000. I agree that there will always be some
variation each year, but the trend has been down over the past six years. We need to do better and to get much
closer to, or preferably below, the national average. I have the view that one death or serious injury on our roads
is one too many. The amount of misery and suffering that occurs on our roads is far too high and it has
permanent consequences for families and individuals. To see the tragic consequences of crashes on our roads, we
7132
need only visit the trauma wards of our hospitals, such as ward 1 at Royal Perth Hospital in Shenton Park, as it
used to be until a couple of weeks ago before it moved to Fiona Stanley Hospital.
We need to make the point that the main issue is driver behaviour. Primarily, this is an issue of personal
responsibility for people who are driving motor vehicles and riding motorbikes and bicycles on our roads. I was
asked earlier this morning about the causes and the degree of responsibility in crashes involving motorcyclists
and cyclists. The reality is that in cycling accidents there are some cyclists who are at fault and some motorists
who are at fault.
Mr C.J. Tallentire: We are vulnerable road users.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: There are vulnerable road users on bicycles —
Mr C.J. Tallentire interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Gosnells if you want to speak, you should have put your name down. I call you to
order for the first time.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: That is the point. Those on two-wheeled vehicles are much more vulnerable and they are at
a much greater risk. Some motorists on our roads do not take enough care and drive recklessly and dangerously
and far too fast, and they collide with cyclists in some cases. They do not pay due attention. They pull out from
intersections or parallel parking on the sides of roads without looking for cyclists and collisions occur. In those
cases, motorists are at fault. Some cyclists and some motorcyclists also do not pay enough attention to what they
are doing and who ride too aggressively; in some cases those road users are at fault. There is clearly a shared
responsibility for these sorts of accidents. We need to do more. Obviously, we can do more and we should be
doing more with public education campaigns and enforcement, but there has been an increase in resources,
particularly in the enforcement area, in the past few years.
I have only limited time. The police are putting a major effort into this area. Increased funding of about
$14 million from the road trauma trust fund in the current year has been provided to the police for additional
traffic enforcement and infringement processing. An allocation of $1.5 million has been set aside for the
implementation of the alcohol interlock legislation, which I hope will go through both houses of this Parliament
before the end of the year. An amount of $55 million will be spent this year on direct road improvements,
including about $20 million to address metropolitan intersection crashes. When the government came into office,
the well-regarded safety strategy, Towards Zero, was put into effect, which aims for a 40 per cent reduction in
death and serious injuries on our roads by 2020. As I said, there has been a reduction of 30 per cent over the last
six years or so, but we do need to do a lot better than we are doing at the moment.
Given that cyclists have been in the news recently, I am conscious of the tragic fatality last Friday, and
I understand that the driver of the vehicle has been charged with failing to stop after the crash and with refusing a
breath-test. I can advise that the Office of Road Safety is intending to put together some cycling safety forums
for stakeholders following on from the report about cycling safety done by the RAC as a member of the Road
Safety Council in 2011.
If there was more time, I could go through a lot more information about measures that have been put into effect.
For example, the 100 per cent hypothecation, which was a substantial election commitment by the Liberal Party
back in opposition in 2008, has been put into effect. It is true that there is an accumulation of public funds to
some extent, but we need a well-thought-out strategy to spend those funds in a wise and effective manner. In the
current financial year, of the amount that has been collected—about $100 million—all is being spent, essentially.
I agree that we need to do better, but it is not appropriate to condemn the government for its record.
MR N.W. MORTON (Forrestfield) [4.02 pm]: I will speak as though I am making a 90-second statement, so
I will make my comments quick and truncate my notes as there is so much to talk about. The Leader of the
Opposition talked about priorities. What could be more of a priority than the state’s largest spend on a road
infrastructure project—namely, the Gateway WA project? It is a $1 billion spend that will deliver a huge benefit
to the east —
The SPEAKER: Thank you for that, member for Butler! Continue.
Mr N.W. MORTON: It will deliver a huge benefit to the eastern suburbs.
Mr N.W. MORTON: I hear them squealing, Mr Speaker. Let us talk about the Great Eastern Highway upgrades
that this government has delivered. Let us talk about the Berkshire Road–Great Eastern Highway intersection
that members on this side of the house are fixing.
The SPEAKER: Members!
7133
Mr N.W. MORTON: Members opposite come into this place with their hollow rhetoric but actions speak
louder than words. Members on this side of the house have seen the need in the east, and the government is
investing in the east and improving on the inadequacies that exist in the east. When members opposite were in
power, they neglected them.
With the few seconds I have left, I must mention this old chestnut: the tunnel. We put an extra lane in the tunnel.
The shadow minister from the Leader of the Opposition’s party said that it should not be done. The opposition is
completely out of touch. That is why it lost the last election. It ran its state campaign —
The SPEAKER: Time, member!
MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [4.03 pm]: What an extraordinary response from the government! At least
the acting minister himself had the good grace to refer to the report on road safety. The Minister for Transport
rattled off a list of random transport projects. What a disgraceful performance from the Treasurer! He got up in
this place and the only thing I could understand from him, despite the foul language, was the reference to
Burswood Stadium. That was the performance from the Treasurer! He did not even acknowledge that 32 more
Western Australians have been critically injured this year than at the same time last year. He did not mention
that, despite the downward trend of road accidents, road crashes and critically injured people, Western Australia
is the worst state performer. The Treasurer got up and gave a profanity-laden performance and the Speaker had
to warn him. That is what we got from the Treasurer. What a disgrace! You are the Treasurer, member for
Riverton; pick up your performance! The Treasurer’s response to road safety was so outrageously inappropriate,
he then spent the entire time telling us about projects he is not doing. Not once did he refer to the report. At least
the acting minister himself understands the importance of the issue we are debating this afternoon. Now, what it
is —
Mr B.S. WYATT: Shut up!
The SPEAKER: Treasurer! I do not want to hear from either of you again.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Road safety has become nothing more than a symptom of a broader disease affecting this
government. It is a symptom of a government without a consistent and coherent financial plan. That is the point
the Leader of the Opposition was making earlier on.
Dr M.D. Nahan: Which I responded to.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Just be quiet, Treasurer! I didn’t interject on you, you twit!
The SPEAKER: Treasurer, I am going to call you now to order for the second time. Member for Victoria Park,
with interjections what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Can you please continue, and through the
Chair, thank you.
Mr B.S. WYATT: That is right, Mr Speaker, which is why I did not interject at all when the Treasurer was on
his feet, and I dare say you will apply the same standards to me.
Ms E. Evangel interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Perth, I call you to order for the first time. Now, through the Chair, please. We
have two minutes to go.
Mr B.S. WYATT: Let us not forget that this is a government that has had a number of different views on debt,
a number of different views on the TAB and a number of different views on recurrent spending, and today we
had the Premier saying that there is no issue with debt and debt is not a problem, despite —
Mr C.J. Barnett: I didn’t say that.
Mr B.S. WYATT: You did so! The Premier said, “Debt is not a problem”, despite his panicked asset sale
program a few weeks ago to reduce state debt. The government does not know whether it is coming or going
with its finances, which is why it gets these sorts of responses to what is an outrageous statistic in
Western Australia: road safety. Government members treat it as a joke. The only serious response was from
Acting Minister John Day.
Unless government members start taking this issue seriously, we will be back here debating this again next year.
This is a legitimate issue in respect of not just deaths but also critically injured Western Australians on our roads.
The government is going to have to do a lot better than the performance the Treasurer and the Minister for
Transport gave this afternoon.
The SPEAKER: Treasurer, I call you to order now for the third time.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected.
7134
The SPEAKER: Member for Cockburn, I call you to order for the second time.
Division
Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr N.W. Morton) casting his vote with the noes, with the
following result —
Ayes (18)
Ms L.L. Baker
Dr A.D. Buti
Mr R.H. Cook
Ms J. Farrer
Ms J.M. Freeman
Mr W.J. Johnston
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.B. Watson
Mr B.S. Wyatt
Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)
Noes (32)
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
Mr J.H.D. Day
Ms W.M. Duncan
Ms E. Evangel
Mr J.M. Francis
Mrs G.J. Godfrey
Dr K.D. Hames
Mr C.D. Hatton
Mr A.P. Jacob
Mr S.K. L’Estrange
Mr R.S. Love
Mr W.R. Marmion
Mr J.E. McGrath
Mr P.T. Miles
Ms A.R. Mitchell
Mr N.W. Morton
Dr M.D. Nahan
Mr D.C. Nalder
Mr J. Norberger
Mr D.T. Redman
Mr A.J. Simpson
Mr M.H. Taylor
Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)
Pairs
Mr D.J. Kelly
Mr P.C. Tinley
Mr M.P. Murray
Mrs L.M. Harvey
Dr G.G. Jacobs
Mr B.J. Grylls
Question thus negatived.
CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION AMENDMENT (MISCONDUCT) BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 25 September.
MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [4.11 pm] — in reply: I understand that opposition members have
concluded their second reading comments on the Corruption and Crime Commission Amendment (Misconduct)
Bill 2014, and I will make just a few remarks in response. Firstly, the opposition spokesperson for legal matters,
the member for Butler, spoke at some length and, I have to say, made some good contributions and good
suggestions. First, he indicated that the opposition will support this bill. The purpose of the bill is to transfer
matters of minor misconduct from the Corruption and Crime Commission to the Public Sector Commissioner,
with the exception of any matters of misconduct, whether they are major or minor, relating to police. He also
pointed out the difficulties that there have been for a number of years regarding the Corruption and Crime
Commissioner, and offered an explanation, which I agree with, that the lack of remuneration had been the issue.
The current requirement is that the head of the CCC be a retired Supreme Court judge, or of that stature, and the
pay is set at the level of that for a Supreme Court judge. However, a retired judge, whose pension is about
60 per cent of the salary, would get only a top-up of the remaining 40 per cent. That proved to be unattractive,
and I think that has been the evidence. It is a demanding position, and a very public and controversial position in
many cases, and that level of remuneration simply did not prove attractive. I agree with that.
The member for Butler also commented on, if you like, the track record of the CCC. I was interested that the
member suggested that the CCC’s role is primarily the oversight of police. He made some suggestions about
how the CCC’s powers could be used in conjunction with police to deal with organised crime—something that
I agree with, but there has been quite a difference of opinion across parties and, indeed, within the Liberal Party
about that. The member for Quigley made some suggestions. He also made the point that he thought —
Mr M. McGowan: Member for Butler.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Member for Butler, yes; sorry.
Mr J.R. Quigley: I’ll die soon and they might rename the seat!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Sorry, member for Butler. I hope Hansard will correct that; I am sure it will. The member
for Butler also —
Mr M. McGowan: The member for Quigley!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Okay; it was a mistake. Calm down. It’s childlike.
Mr M. McGowan: No, it’s a good name for an electorate.
7135
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It’s so childish.
The member for Butler also made the point that, in his opinion, prison officers should stay under the jurisdiction
of the CCC for both major and minor misconduct. That was also an interesting point that he made. He then went
on to explain how he believed the CCC could play a role in investigating organised crime. He suggested that that
should be at the request of the Commissioner of Police to ensure that there were not conflicts of interest. That is
a vexed question, but I appreciate the comments.
In summary, as the lead spokesperson for the opposition, he agreed that minor misconduct matters should go to
the Public Sector Commissioner. He argued that prison officers should remain under the supervision of the CCC
for both major and minor misconduct. He said that if the police had some capacity to access CCC powers, that
could be used effectively against organised crime, and he was of the view that it should be within the province of
the Commissioner of Police to initiate that. I thank the member for Butler for his useful contribution.
The member for Armadale again indicated support for the objective of the bill in moving minor misconduct from
the CCC to the Public Sector Commissioner. He had a differing view from that of the lead speaker for the
opposition about how the CCC could become involved in investigating organised crime and argued that that
would be a conflict of interest. I think that is the essence of the debate, to be honest. I believe that the CCC’s
powers and resources should be used to tackle organised crime, but there is always that accusation of conflict of
interest. Although the government does not intend to do anything about that immediately, it will look at that
issue again, because particularly in the area of drugs, and maybe to a lesser extent prostitution, organised crime
is having a very damaging effect on our community.
The member for Warnbro again opposed, I think, if I am interpreting his comments correctly, the CCC becoming
involved in organised crime. Again, he made the point about the need to have a full-time commissioner, which
I agree with, and that is why the change is going to be made.
The member for Willagee again supported the legislation. He stressed the role of prevention, which is a CCC
function. It is also a Public Sector Commission function. For minor misconduct, for most areas of the public
sector it is probably very heavy-handed to have a CCC investigation, or even an interview or a notification, for
what can be relatively minor misdemeanours. The member for Willagee praised the performance of
Mike Silverstone, who is about to retire or has perhaps now retired. I agree with that, and I thank the member for
raising that issue. It has been an outstanding contribution.
The member for Midland argued that the CCC should not be involved in investigating organised crime, so we
have some differing opinions on the opposite side, and probably some on this side of the house.
I know these issues will probably come up as we go through the consideration in detail stage. I will make just
two comments on the issues raised by the member for Butler in particular. Firstly, I will deal with the suggestion
that the CCC should retain supervisory powers for all misconduct, both major and minor, by not only police, but
also prison officers. I think there is merit in that, and I basically agree with the argument put. There are many
similarities between misconduct by police and prison officers. I have discussed that briefly with the
Public Sector Commissioner. He pointed out that some prison officers are public servants and some are not, and
maybe there is a distinction between the administrative part of the Department of Corrective Services and the
actual work within prisons. There are some issues. I have asked the Attorney General and the Minister for
Corrective Services to sit down with the Public Sector Commissioner, and maybe with the CCC if that is
appropriate, to look at that issue. So, I take the recommendation from the member for Butler seriously. If the
government agrees and thinks it is a sensible way to proceed, I foreshadow that there may be an amendment
along those lines in the upper house. The government is yet to make that decision, but I think it is a worthy
suggestion and we are certainly going to consider it.
With respect to the salary of the Corruption and Crime Commissioner, cabinet had already made a decision
along those lines that the salary of the commissioner should be the full salary of a Supreme Court judge and that
a retired Supreme Court judge should also be able to retain their retirement payment. That will make it a more
attractive position. Hopefully, that will give stability to the leadership of the CCC. Members will have noticed
that there is an amendment on the notice paper to delete a section, which takes away that restriction. As I said,
I am not trying to pre-empt what the member for Butler said, but cabinet had made that decision. I understood
that that would probably be moved in the upper house, but it is a money matter because it will increase the salary
of the Corruption and Crime Commissioner, so it has been added to the notice paper. It is not obvious, but
deleting those couple of clauses removes that restriction and therefore allows the government of the day to pay a
full judge’s salary to the Corruption and Crime Commissioner without having to take into account his pension or
retirement income. That, hopefully, will make it worthwhile for someone to take up the position and stay in it.
7136
The second one has been dealt with, and the prison officers’ issue is being examined by government.
Presumably, once this bill passes this house and is in the upper house we will have formed a position, on advice,
as to whether it is workable. I think it has merit, and that is why we are looking at it.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Consideration in DetailBill’s Scope Extension — Motion
MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [4.21 pm]: I move —
That the scope of the Corruption and Crime Commission Amendment (Misconduct) Bill 2014 be
extended to allow an amendment to be moved by the Premier to insert a new clause into the bill which
will amend schedule 2, clause 3 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 relating to the
remuneration of the commissioner.
By way of explanation, I move that motion so that the house authorises a widening of the scope of the bill
specifically to do with the issue of remuneration so that the Corruption and Crime Commissioner can be paid the
equivalent of a full Supreme Court judge’s salary and retain the retirement benefits he already has. Instead of just
topping up the retirement benefits to the judge’s salary, this will obviously make it significantly more attractive,
and it was both raised and supported by members opposite.
MR P. PAPALIA (Warnbro) [4.23 pm]: I just want to clarify something. I am pretty certain that this will not
preclude us from raising any other clauses prior to proposed new clause 31, where this is to be inserted. No?
I thank the Premier.
Consideration in Detail — Bill’s Clauses
Clauses 1 to 11 put and passed.
Clause 12: Sections 21AA, 21AB and 21AC inserted —
Mr P. PAPALIA: I do not want to hold things up at all, but I want to try to draw a comment from the Premier
with regard to the suggestion by the member for Butler in relation to the Department of Corrective Services and
the response the Premier gave earlier —
Mr C.J. Barnett: Sorry, can I interject? We have a little problem here. I was proposing to make a statement
about privilege at clause 6.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): Premier, the advice I have received is that once this clause has
been dealt with, you can make your statement about clause 6.
Mr P. PAPALIA: The Premier made a comment in his response to the second reading debate about the member
for Butler’s suggestion regarding the Department of Corrective Services and the retention of some degree of
oversight by the Corruption and Crime Commission. I may have misheard him, but did the Premier suggest some
sort of splitting of the administrative component of the Department of Corrective Services from those operating
in the field?
Mr C.J. Barnett: I raised that as one of the issues that would have to be looked at that may be impractical, and
that’s why I’m not saying the government’s agreeing now to all matters of misconduct in the CCC. We just want
to look at maybe that distinction and also the distinction between public servants and non–public servants. Those
are some of the issues that are being looked at.
Mr P. PAPALIA: Regardless, if there were to be some sort of amendment, we can discuss that at the time, but
I would be concerned if the head office of the department were to be excluded somehow. If we altered things so
that the CCC had oversight of Corrective Services, I would be concerned that some of the greatest opportunities
for corruption might lie within the department’s head office where the expenditure of large amounts of money is
discussed and significant contracts are determined. I know that this is all hypothetical because we have not even
reached that point yet, but I just want to put that comment out there. In the event that the legislation comes back
from the other place, I look forward to discussing that matter anyway.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: If I could just make this clear: serious misconduct will remain under the CCC regardless.
All we are looking at is minor misconduct. At the moment, this bill moves minor misconduct in prisons or
Corrective Services to the Public Sector Commissioner. I think there is a case, given the nature of its role, its job
and the people it is dealing with, for leaving both serious and minor misconduct in Corrective Services with the
CCC. That is probably my own view, but the Attorney General and the minister are looking at it, along with the
7137
necessary authorities. But I think it is a valid point. If we go down that path, an amendment will be moved in the
upper house and will come back here.
Clause put and passed.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Before I call for further clauses to be debated, the Premier may wish to make his
statement in relation to clause 6.
Parliamentary Privilege — Clause 6
Mr C.J. BARNETT — by leave: This statement relates to the legislation and the issue of parliamentary
privilege, and I make it to place it on the public record for the purposes of clarification. It is a long statement, so
I have sought leave to read the statement. It relates to clause 6. The amendments proposed by clause 6(5) to
section 3(2) of the principal act are being made to further clarify and to confirm that parliamentary privilege is
not affected by the operation of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act.
In brief, the law of parliamentary privilege in Western Australia is that which applied as at 1 January 1989 to the
United Kingdom’s House of Commons, its members and committees. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 is the
relevant source of that privilege, and provides that proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or
questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. A proceeding in Parliament therefore enjoys the protection
afforded by parliamentary privilege. As a result, members of Parliament cannot be questioned on their motives
or actions in undertaking work directly and immediately connected with the work of the house or a parliamentary
committee. The same protection is afforded to witnesses before a house or a committee. A statute may make it
clear, either by express words or necessary implication, that parliamentary privilege does not apply. For
example, there are offences under chapter VIII of the Criminal Code providing for offences against the
legislature. Among them is section 57, which makes it an offence to give false evidence before Parliament. In
order to mount a successful prosecution, it would be necessary to lead evidence of the proceedings in Parliament
and expose that evidence to cross-examination and contradiction. Given that proceedings of Parliament are
protected by parliamentary privilege and so cannot be impeached or questioned, it would be impossible to mount
a successful prosecution unless section 57 indicated that parliamentary privilege does not apply to that section.
Given this evidentiary position and the nature of the offence created by section 57, it is arguable that in enacting
section 57, Parliament waived its privilege, given the impossibility of obtaining a conviction for such an offence
without the prosecution leading evidence of what the accused had said before Parliament. Ordinarily, dealing
with false evidence before Parliament or one of its committees is something Parliament would deal with. The
“implicit waiver” interpretation of section 57 leaves it open for the police to make inquiries if a charge were
being considered. However, it is not a matter for inquiry by any other body, such as the CCC. Its jurisdiction is
confined to that provided for in the principal act. The act makes no express or implied waiver of parliamentary
privilege. Indeed, the contrary intention is expressed in section 3(2), which provides that —
Nothing in this Act affects, or is intended to affect, the operation of the Parliamentary Privileges Act
1891 or the Parliamentary Papers Act 1891 …
The amendments proposed by clause 6 to section 3(2) have two legal consequences. First, they further clarify
and ensure that in relation to matters over which the Parliament has authority pursuant to its privileges, the CCC
has no jurisdiction. Second, as a more general principle of statutory interpretation, they clearly place on the
public record that this Parliament intends that its privileges are not to be affected by its legislation unless the
Parliament itself decides to do so by express words or necessary implication. As honourable members will
appreciate, this is very important because parliamentary privilege provides, for example, the capacity for
members of Parliament and witnesses before Parliament to say what they think needs to be said in parliamentary
proceedings without being questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. This is an essential element of our
representative parliamentary democracy.
Debate Resumed
New clause 31A —
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I move —
Page 44, before line 1 — To insert —
31A.
Schedule 2 clause 3 amended
(1) In Schedule 2 clause 3(4) delete “subclause (5) and”.
(2) Delete Schedule 2 clause 3(5).
This simply removes the restriction on the remuneration of the Corruption and Crime Commissioner. As I just
said, this allows a retired Supreme Court judge to get a full Supreme Court-equivalent salary to be the
commissioner of the CCC and also to retain his judicial pension, which is about 66 per cent of the judicial salary.
7138
It basically makes it a salary of 1.6 times a Supreme Court judge salary, which is hopefully attractive enough to
encourage a retired Supreme Court judge to take on this role and to retain the position for the expected period.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Does this have any implications for the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Act 1950, which
I understood precluded a judge from taking income without the permission of the Attorney General, which did
not exceed a certain sum?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am advised that that act would not apply to a retired judge. This restriction would not
impact on that. The understanding is that it has no implication. If the member wants me to verify that later, we
will check that and I will write to the member.
Mr P. PAPALIA: I know that we have been without a permanent commissioner for some time now, and
I assume that a recruiting process is underway. Regardless of the passage of this bill, is it the case that this
proposal for pay will apply so that we can appraise whoever the potential applicants are that they will be in
receipt of remuneration? We will not oppose it, obviously.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think the member for Butler may have made the point that we have a restricted pool in
which to look for a suitable person to take on the position of commissioner of the CCC. There are not that many
retired Supreme Court judges either here or in other states. We also have to find someone who has an interest in
this field. Once this is in place, it will hopefully be relatively easy to approach people who would fit this
category. Obviously, it is not restricted to Western Australia. A limited number of people are likely to take on
these roles. They are demanding and controversial. It is not a soft retirement job by any means; it is perhaps
harder than being a Supreme Court judge.
New clause put and passed.
Title put and passed.
ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (ALCOHOL INTERLOCKS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 13 May.
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [4.37 pm]: I rise to speak on the Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol
Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014. In doing so, I note that it was introduced into the Legislative Assembly
and second read in here by the Minister for Police on 2 April 2014. It is a further indication of the lack of priority
that this legislation has had from government. Road safety experts were interested in the use of alcohol
interlocks for the kinds of purposes outlined in this bill probably in the early 2000s. Around 2005–06, when
I was Minister for Police and Emergency Services; Community Safety, I looked at this technology and said that
this was the direction in which the government would be going. I did not continue in that portfolio in 2007 or
2008, but subsequent ministers further committed us to adopting alcohol interlock devices as part of a holistic
approach to tackling the drink-driving issue in this state.
About 4 000 to 5 000 offences could potentially get caught up in this legislation, where people are either a repeat
drink-driver, having been caught for a .05 offence and within a five-year period get caught for another
.05 offence or, worse or alternatively, a high-level driving offence—something like dangerous driving causing
death or grievous bodily harm committed in circumstances in which the driver was driving under the influence of
alcohol and/or drugs or other serious offences in which the driver was under the influence of alcohol and/or
drugs.
The gestation period for this has been very long. If we as a state had acted in 2008 or even 2009, we would have
been one of the first jurisdictions in Australia to adopt this legislation and lead the way; as it stands now, we are
lagging way behind. Just about every other state has adopted one scheme or another for the use of alcohol
interlocks for repeat drink-drivers. We are now the tail-end Charlies. Some people might say so what that we are
just a bit slower—just a few years behind the other states—but this government is introducing this legislation
because it believes it will save lives. This legislation is about dealing with people who drink and then drive, and
in so doing put their own lives, and those of other road users, in danger.
There have been many examples over the years of repeat drink-drivers or unlicensed drivers who, under the
influence of alcohol, have crashed into other vehicles containing innocent parties who have been driving at the
speed limit, on the right side of the road and fully alert, with no particular issues. Those people have become
unwitting victims. I can reflect on several cases, some of them involving very young people whose lives, through
no fault whatsoever of their own, were snuffed out or significantly affected by injury because of a repeat drinkdriver. The rationale behind this legislation is to save people from themselves—that is, the repeat drink-drivers—
and we also save other road users; people like us, mums and dads, and people’s children who are out there on the
roads, obeying the laws and just going about our business. We are attempting to protect those innocent parties
from repeat drink-drivers. Presumably, if this legislation to save lives and prevent serious injury—that is what
7139
I expect it will do into the future—had been in place three or four years ago, some number of lives may have
been saved. If that were not true, we might as well not be doing this today. The government clearly believes it is
true, and I believe it is true. I believe this legislation will save lives and prevent serious injury on our roads. It is
just inexplicable that the government has been so tardy on this.
The previous Minister for Police, the member for Hillarys, announced about three years ago that the legislation
was imminent. He said that the only real hold-up had been some issues to do with funding and so forth, and now
that 100 per cent of speed and red-light camera revenue was going into the area of road safety, there could really
be no excuse. I note that the use of alcohol interlock devices is just one of a suite of initiatives proposed by the
Road Safety Council to deal with the issue of drink-driving on our roads. I ask the minister with carriage of this
legislation to outline the other initiatives to deal with drink-drivers on our roads.
In making the comments that I have and committing to the belief that this legislation will save lives and prevent
serious injury on our roads, I note, too, that it is not the panacea. It will not stop everybody from doing the wrong
thing. But this kind of legislation acknowledges, and all the road safety experts and people from health agencies
advise, that most repeat drink-drivers have a problem with alcohol. Their principal problem is alcoholism; it is
not their driving. If they are not drinking, the chances are that they are perfectly safe drivers. To put it in
a colloquial context, what happens is that when somebody who is an alcoholic or who has a significant problem
with alcohol abuse has a couple of drinks, their defences are down and they do not think as rationally or as
sensibly as they might in another circumstance. Potentially, if they have another couple of drinks, they are full of
bravado or whatever, and they think they are perfectly safe to drive. Most of us do not do things like drinking
and driving out of concern for our own safety, or, if not for our own, for the safety of other road users. When
people abuse alcohol or drugs, they suddenly think they are 10-foot tall, invincible and can do no wrong. I do not
think a single one of the persons who gets caught for repeat drink-driving or finds themselves involved in
a serious crash as a result of being over the limit actually sets out to maim or injure anyone. I expect most of
them are full of remorse after the event. We need to break the nexus between drinking and driving and get people
to understand that if they are having a drink, for their own good, the good of their own family, and the good of
other road users, they cannot then get into a vehicle and drive. In the past, a drink-driver who may have had
a terrible crash previously in which someone had been injured or killed or who may have caused some other
mayhem on the road would have had their licence suspended for a year, two years, three years, five years or life,
or been put in prison for six months, 12 months, two years, three years—whatever. The thinking here is that we
want to engage the person in safe driving behaviour. The principle here is that rather than deny someone the
opportunity of driving, they are clearly advised that they can drive providing they do not drink. I will not go into
the whole regime of fitting a vehicle with an approved device, as I think it is termed, but it seems to me to be
a good one. It has already been implemented in other states of Australia and elsewhere around the world, and we
have probably benefited from that knowledge with the system we are employing here.
The checks and balances are in place. If there is not a suitable interlock-fitting place, for want of a better term,
within 150 kilometres of someone’s usual place of residence, an order for the use of an alcohol interlock device
cannot be made. If someone is medically incapable of blowing into the device, again, an order will not be
imposed on that person. This is not necessarily about not imposing some of those other penalties, such as the
suspension of a driver’s licence or jail for a period, if appropriate. At the end of that suspension time, we want to
see somebody responsibly eased back into driving. Someone’s licence might be suspended for six months. At the
end of those six months, an order for an alcohol interlock device might be imposed on them, and they will need
to drive with that device in place.
This is a good system. I questioned the minister, the member for Scarborough, last year about when this
legislation would be introduced, and she advised me that it would be before the end of last year. I waited and
waited and waited, and it did not happen. The member for Girrawheen asked questions of the previous minister,
the member for Hillarys, about when this legislation would be introduced, and it was always imminent. When
the minister told me in about the middle of last year that it would be introduced by the end of the year, I actually
believed her—silly me; it did not eventuate. I was told that the bill would be a priority for the opening of
Parliament this year, but that did not eventuate either. We eventually got to see it in April this year, but for
whatever reason it was not brought on for debate until October. By my reckoning, from the fourth month to the
tenth month of the year, the government has delayed bringing on this important piece of legislation for debate by
six months. I do not know why that is. I do not know whether there is a cost to government or why it wants to go
slow on this bill, but by going slow it is putting people’s lives and safety in jeopardy because if the legislation
were in place, we could be saving lives and preventing serious injury here and now.
Whilst I am on the topic of drink-driving, during the matter of public interest today I raised some matters in the
report by Peter Browne titled “A Review of Road Safety Governance in Western Australia”, which also
highlighted drink-driving. The report uses the alcohol interlock device as an example of how the government has
been going very slowly and how it could be doing things much better. At the time I referred to page 2 of the
report, which states —
7140
The expertise and enthusiasm within the Office of Road Safety was found to be of high order.
It also states —
There is clearly an urgent need for greatly improved Office of Road Safety processes in executing,
monitoring, evaluating and acquitting Trust Account-funded projects.
It also states that the location within Main Roads is a major concern, that an overhaul of the road trauma trust
fund submission process is needed and that there is a high level of submission rejection at a ministerial level. We
have highlighted that ministerial intervention in estimates hearings for two years in a row now. Rather than the
experts in the Office of Road Safety or, indeed, the Road Safety Council making choices, we are finding that
choices are being made by cabinet, I believe, in a much more political way rather than in a way that would
benefit road safety. Recommendation 31 on page 6 of the report specifically mentions alcohol interlock devices,
and states —
That it be noted in comparison with some other states, certain proven effective road safety strategies
such as alcohol interlocks and point to point speed cameras have not yet been implemented in WA.
As I said previously, Peter Browne is not an enemy of the government; he was the director general of Education
when the current Premier was the Minister for Education. The Premier works very well with Peter Browne, who,
I might add, is a very able and capable person and who, in this instance, has written a very good report. I also
believe he is the brother of Noel Crichton-Browne, who is very clearly linked with the Liberal Party. I say that
not because I am critical of him in any way; I say it because this is what the government’s friends are saying
about it. Peter Browne has not shied away from this matter, and if he did, he would not have earned the money
that he earned for doing this report because he would not be honestly evaluating what has happened with road
safety in this state.
Quite clearly Peter Browne has put his name to recommendation 31 of the report, which is that alcohol
interlocks, as he refers to them, are a proven and effective road safety strategy. That gets back to my earlier point
that they are proven and effective devices for saving lives and preventing injury on our roads. The government
should be ashamed of its tardiness in acting in this area. People can try to score political points and say that we
could have done this in 2006 or another minister could have done that in 2007 or 2008, but it was new and
cutting-edge technology back then and no-one else in Australia had done it. I was keen to lead the way and for
our government to lead the way when the former member for Balcatta was the Minister for Police and
Emergency Services. We certainly have not been silent on this topic. Every year that we have sat on the
opposition benches we have raised the matter of alcohol interlocks and encouraged the government to bring the
legislation forward. It is too late now for a government that has been in office for over six years to say, when
asked why it did not do it, that it has been in office for only six years. Six years is more than long enough. In
those six long years, the government has had every opportunity to act by putting this legislation in place. If it had
acted, it would have not only saved lives, but also prevented people from becoming seriously injured on our
roads. Sadly, road safety is not a priority for this government. As I said earlier today, the government has really
just put forward a couple of glib lines on road safety. One of them is, “We’re committed to road safety because
we now put 100 per cent of the revenue raised from speed and red-light cameras into the road trauma trust fund.”
It then gets stuck into the opposition by saying that our government put only one-third of that revenue into the
road trauma trust fund. As I have explained in this house ad nauseam, that is not comparing apples with apples.
The government has broadened the nature of the road trauma trust fund. It used to be called “an account” and
this government has allowed 100 per cent of the money in that account to be spent on a much wider variety of
things than were permitted under the previous legislation. Also, for the first time, there is political oversight of
the process; cabinet decides who gets the money and who does not. On page 2 of his report, Peter Browne
highlights—I was going to say a high degree of “ministerial interference”, but I think he might have used
a slightly more polite term—that there is a high level of submission rejection at the ministerial level.
What is spelt out, of course, is that there is submission rejection. Basically, Road Safety Council submissions for
the expenditure of money on certain programs are put forward by people based on the solid advice and expertise
of representatives of the Office of Road Safety. Recommendations to spend the money are made on the basis that
it will save lives and prevent serious injury, but the proposals are rejected by the Premier and his ministers at
cabinet level. They have intervened, despite the fact that the Road Safety Council has been studying certain
matters for which its representatives have received expert advice from the Office of Road Safety and others. That
intervention occurs despite the long evaluation process to work out what would be the most strategic spend of
money to save the most number of lives and prevent the most amount of injury on our roads. Despite all that, the
report states there is a high level of rejection. Many of the things on which the Road Safety Council proposes to
spend the road safety money are rejected by cabinet. These are not my words and it is not me making it up; that
is the conclusion of the independent report that the government commissioned.
Not many members of the opposition will speak on the alcohol interlock legislation brought forward today, but
I will certainly take this opportunity to raise those matters connected to road safety that are of concern to me, and
7141
I certainly intend to use my full time to go through the state of road safety in this state. The fact of the matter is
that, as part of that political interference in the process, cabinet not only decided that it knows better and that the
recommendations of the independent Road Safety Council are not to its liking and has rejected them, but also
found another range of projects that money from the road safety trust fund should be spent on. Despite the fact
that the Road Safety Council may not even have evaluated a program or made a recommendation on something,
the government has just come in over the top and said it will fund A, B or C out of the road trauma trust fund
because it feels like it. Alternatively, it has funded projects or submissions when the Road Safety Council has
evaluated and rejected them. The Road Safety Council, with all its expert advice, has said that it does not think
these projects give the best bang for the buck or, in some circumstances, it is not proper or appropriate for money
from the road trauma trust fund to be expended on those projects at all. There is a full variety there. The Road
Safety Council does not think some of the projects rate as highly as other projects or submissions it has assessed
or, in other circumstances, the council does not see that expenditure from the road trauma trust fund as
appropriate or proper, but it does not get the final say; cabinet has the final say. There is therefore direct political
interference from the Premier and ministers with a vested interest such as the minister with responsibility for
Main Roads and the minister with responsibility for police. They are the submitting agencies.
Mr Browne provided quite a comprehensive report of nearly 80 pages, which follows a couple of
Auditor General’s reports. Mr Browne certainly questions the road trauma trust fund expenditure. He also
criticises the lack of accountability and openness for how the fund is administered. He made reference in his
report to the fact that in working out what the Road Safety Council proposed and what cabinet agreed to fund,
the best we have been able to get in the last couple of years is a single page, which I note was provided to us on
an A3 page in the estimates process this year. Last year, from memory, it was on a little A4 page. We can see
that it is way too light on detail. The cases are not made out. It is not on the Office of Road Safety’s website. We
do not know and the public do not know what the full proposals were, what their merits were or any of that. All
we have is one A3 page that lists the expenditure. On that page we can see why Peter Browne has reached some
of his conclusions. For example, under “Business Case 1: Metropolitan Intersection Crashes”, there is reference
to some page numbers of a document that the minister has not provided to anyone that I am aware of. It refers to
page 7, project number 21108113 with the item “Metropolitan Intersection Crashes—State and Local Roads”.
The submitting agency is MRWA and the cabinet-approved budget is $12 025 000 in 2013–14. The Road Safety
Council recommended budget for that item for 2014–15 is $8 million. The cabinet-approved budget for 2014–15
is $20 million. The Road Safety Council thought that $8 million should be allocated to Main Roads WA for that
purpose, but cabinet came in over the top and gave MRWA $20 million—150 per cent more than the
Road Safety Council recommended. We have to ask: why is that? My answer is that it was probably to plug
a hole in the Main Roads’ budget because it was expenditure that would have been in its regular budget. It is
money that in other circumstances would have been provided from consolidated revenue but has been pinched
out of the road trauma trust fund. In that circumstance, cabinet came in over the top and rather than giving
$8 million as recommended, it decided to give $20 million.
I refer now to business case 2, project 21108115, with reference to page 10 of a document we are apparently not
entitled to see. The submitting agency, again, is MRWA. In 2013–14 it had a cabinet-approved budget of
$31 167 844. What did the Road Safety Council recommend for 2014–15? It recommended a massive increase
of $91 million be spent under the heading “Business Case 2: Run off Crashes on Regional Roads” for the item
“Regional and Remote Road Improvements—State and Local Roads”. The Road Safety Council obviously
believed that the submission from Main Roads WA was compelling and that $91 million would be well spent.
What was the approved budget from cabinet? I will tell members; it was $35 330 000. No doubt at some point
the government has done a big media release and invited everyone along and said, “Aren’t we great chaps?
We’ve given $35 million to state and local roads for regional and remote road improvements because we are
really serious about run-off-road crashes on regional roads.” The fact of the matter is that the government is not
serious enough. If it were really serious, it would have taken the Road Safety Council’s advice and allocated
$91 million for that purpose.
I have some figures here on some of the factors that contribute to fatalities on our roads. Sadly, I cannot find that
document as I am speaking, but the document basically indicates that a disproportionate number of people are
being killed on country roads, both regional and, more particularly, remote roads, because of run-off-road
crashes. I do not have the document to hand, but only about 18 per cent of run-off-road crashes occur in the
metropolitan area. A greater percentage occurs generally in regional areas—but there is a very large number of
run-off-road crashes in remote areas. I have managed to find my document. The source for this document I am
referring to is the 2013 Office of Road Safety crash statistics. I have printed the page and circled a couple of
items. It is headed “Run off roads are the single greatest cause of crashes in country WA”. Along from the item
“Run-off-road” the figures for the metropolitan area, as I said, are 774 or 18 per cent. In rural areas they are
1 349 or 39 per cent and in remote areas, 860 or 62 per cent. Run-off-road crashes constitute 18 per cent of
metropolitan crashes, 39 per cent of rural crashes and 62 per cent of remote crashes. They are the stand-out
figures. Eight per cent of rural crashes and five per cent of remote crashes are head-on accidents.
7142
Twenty-six per cent of crashes in remote areas and 23 per cent of crashes in rural areas are other crash types.
When we look through all these categories, we see that the two stand-out figures are the percentage of run-offroad crashes in rural and remote areas. They cannot work out the percentages for things such as fatigue or
distraction and there are no figures for drug-driving.
Let us look at drink-driving. Drink-driving is a factor in 10 per cent of crashes in the metropolitan area,
10 per cent in rural areas, and 16 per cent in remote areas. Non-restraint use—not wearing a seatbelt—is a factor
in five per cent of crashes in the metropolitan area; eight per cent in rural; and 26 per cent in remote. That is
a big figure for remote areas, and we know the non-wearing of restraints in remote areas is a major problem.
However, the two figures that leap off this page concern run-off-road crashes in country WA.
Thirty-nine per cent of crashes in rural areas and 62 per cent in remote areas are run-off-road crashes.
If we want to deal with our huge and increasing rate of deaths on our roads, we need to deal with deaths on
country roads in particular. This year we are 12 deaths up on the same time last year as of Monday night.
I understand that there has been another death since then, but I do not know how that fits in with the comparison.
These figures are correct as of midnight on either Sunday or Monday when I looked them up. They have a cutoff point on the computer with the police page at that time. Of the 12 deaths that are over and above the rate of
fatalities on our roads this time last year, 10 are in country areas. We know that in country areas a major factor in
deaths on our roads is run-off-road crashes. It does not surprise me, even though I have not seen the whole
business case. Main Roads obviously made an excellent submission to the Road Safety Council—so much so
that Main Roads said this is a big factor. Obviously, it is aware of the statistics for run-off-road crashes in not
only remote but also rural areas. It recommends spending $91 million on that. If we want to save lives on our
roads, that is what we should do. According to this document, state cabinet says no, it can have only $35 million.
This is the whole story as one goes through this document. There are different categories and six business case
headings, and as we look through them, we can see more significant disparities.
This bill deals with alcohol interlocks and drink-driving and drug-driving. Obviously, as testing becomes more
appropriate for drug-driving, some adaptation will be able to be made. I will deal with a Western Australia
Police submitting agency item under business case 3, “Impaired Driving Crashes”. Impaired driving is generally
a reference to alcohol or drugs. At page 18, project number 21108133, there is a line item “Increase Breath and
Drug Testing” submitted by Western Australia Police. It managed to get $3 821 000 in 2013–14. For the 2014–
15 budget, the Road Safety Council recommended nearly $12 million; it recommended $11 994 416. That is
a significant amount of money—nearly $12 million to increase breath and drug testing. It stands to reason that if
we want this legislation for alcohol interlocks to work, we need an increased regime of, at the very least,
drink-driver testing. Now that we know the issues with which we are dealing, it also makes sense to breath test
and also drug test when appropriate at the same time. If a police officer believes someone to be under the
influence of a substance and it turns out that their blood alcohol reading is non-existent or low, it makes sense to
drug test that person and deal with that issue. Again, I can only guess because we are not allowed to see the
cabinet submissions; the government keeps them secret. WA Police obviously made an excellent submission on
that topic. That would not surprise me because we know that drink-driving and drug-driving are significant
drivers in deaths and serious injuries on our roads. WA Police made a case that was clearly strong enough for the
Road Safety Council, advised by the experts again, to spend nearly $12 million of the money from speed and
red-light cameras on breath and drug testing. How much did cabinet decide to approve? It is entirely arbitrary.
We look at these figures and wonder how cabinet got this figure.
Cabinet said that WA Police could not have $11 994 416; it can have only $4 621 211—well under half, just
over a third, of the funding requested. There is no shortage of money in the road trauma trust fund. Let us not
think the government is trying to balance the books because maybe it will not get enough speed and red-light
camera revenue to spend it all. At the end of the last financial year the government was sitting on a nest egg of
around $70 million. What is it planning on doing this year? It intends to increase the size of that nest egg, which
is listed in the budget papers on page 822 under “Commissioner of Main Roads: Restricted cash”. The
government intends to increase that gradually over the next two or three or four years to have $250 million
sitting there unspent. That can be changed as new budgets come down, but judging by the government’s
behaviour over the past couple of years, it is hard to see that happening.
I have highlighted two issues that anyone with any expertise or anyone who has done any reading about the
factors driving our awful road toll in Western Australia would see the logic of—the run-off-road crashes in the
country and an increase in breath and drug testing. I would have thought an increase in breath and drug testing
would be a no-brainer. The Road Safety Council recommended $12 million, but $4.6 million was all that was
approved by the government.
I have raised this issue previously, but it is again topical because of the comments that Hon Peter Collier made
on ABC news last night. Let us jump down to business case 4 because I really do not have time to go through all
these anomalies in the way the money has been allocated. Under business case 4 is a reference to page 23, item
21108117, “Electronic School Zone Sign Project”. That is a Main Roads WA submission. The previous year it
7143
had $2.5 million. The Road Safety Council recommended another $2.5 million for that purpose. What did the
cabinet process give Main Roads WA? It gave Main Roads $12 million, which is about five times as much
money as was recommended by the Road Safety Council. Maybe there is a good case or reason for it, but I do
not want to hear any minister opposite saying, “Well, we think they are really good. They have done them in
other places. People like them. Are you saying you do not want them in your electorate?” No, I am not, but let us
have a bit of science and accountability here.
I want to know how these decisions are being made. Guess what? Peter Browne wants to know too how the
decisions are being made. There needs to be some transparency and accountability as to why these changes have
been made and why that figure was hit upon. Until there is, I will stand in this place thinking that this is just
politics. The minister did not like it when I said that the government clearly sees this road safety issue as an
opportunity to run around to lots of schools in the metropolitan area and in country regions getting photos with
the local members in local papers and saying, “What good chaps are we? Here is a lovely little smiling photo of
us with some kiddies and some new school-light zones.” The government has been getting plaudits for rolling
them out. Yet here is what we get from Hon Peter Collier: he went on television last night and said that there has
been a massive increase in the number of kids injured in school zones and that apparently naughty people are
continuing to speed through school zones. If that is the case, perhaps some evaluation needs to be made of this
issue. That is the conclusion Peter Browne came to. It is the conclusion that any reasonable person would come
to if they could see what was going on with the road trauma trust fund: there is no integrity in how it is
administered, no openness and no accountability; and there is a failure to evaluate the programs properly. Yet we
are told that the Office of Road Safety has significant expertise and enthusiasm and so forth, so I can only
assume that in the early part of the process it was doing a good job. There may be some argument about the use
of the word “independently”, so I will say that it is perhaps looking objectively at the submissions before it. In
fact I do not think I can even say that, because Peter Browne also referred to all the vested interests around the
table and recommended a total restructure. So there are even vested interests there.
However, for whatever those reasons are, I am going to say that the people sitting around the table are motivated
to get the best outcome, are committed towards a zero road toll objective and have recommended in good faith
projects that they believe will give us the most bang for our buck and reduce our fatality and serious injury rate.
That is what happens in some other states of Australia, and the road toll has been driven down remarkably in
those states. States such as New South Wales and Victoria, which were the worst in the nation 20 years ago, are
now the best. New South Wales and Victoria have now become the model states when it comes to road safety.
There are always people ready to make excuses. I have heard excuses such as, “We’ve got more roads than
anywhere. We’ve got more remote areas. We’ve got more Indigenous people who have problems with alcohol”
or whatever. The fact is that back in the 1990s we had the second-best rate in the nation. Yes, 2007 and 2008
were not good years, but for the previous five or six years we were at least at or below the national average for
fatalities and serious injuries.
However we have this debacle of a system and a shambolic way of running road safety. I do not blame the acting
minister because he is doing just that—acting. He has other portfolios for which he has been responsible for
a long period now. I therefore do not blame him. But I do blame the Premier, because the Premier has made
a complete botch of this. He has not shown any interest in road safety. He does not understand it. He just blithely
goes out to the community and says, “We put all the money from speed and red-light cameras into the road
trauma trust fund. Everything is spent on road safety now.” That is just rubbish! It is not happening. Some sits in
the account and the rest of it is divvied out in some arbitrary way and in many cases props up the regular budgets
of mainstream agencies. Again, that is not just an assertion from me; a lot of people know that is the case and
Peter Browne also alludes to it in his report.
People wonder why we are getting such a poor result on road safety. Members will see a lot of merit in the
recommendations in the report. I do not expect that they will be implemented holus-bolus, but I do note that
recommendation 31 has a very clear example of two areas on which the government has sat on its hands. One is
alcohol interlocks, the legislation before us right now, and the other is the point-to-point speed cameras that have
not been implemented in WA. Just on that point, many people believe that the system of point-to-point speed
cameras is a fairer system. People are often concerned about getting booked for speeding. If they have overtaken
a vehicle, or a circumstance has caused them to go a fraction over the limit for a short period, or they have had
an upsetting event or a distraction for a minute or two that meant they were 10 or 15 kilometres over the speed
limit, but for the rest of the drive they were at or under the speed limit, they do not get caught out by point-topoint cameras. The point-to-point cameras in other states have collected some interesting data. When a vehicle
starts at one point and gets to another more distant point in an incredibly short period, they know that someone
has driven well above the speed limit for a sustained period.
While I am on the topic of crashes and on looking through the data that Peter Browne has provided in his report,
I can see that, although we are aspiring to at least reach a level at or below the Australian average, the Australian
record on road safety compares less than favourably with that of other developed countries in the world. It is not
7144
as though the Australian average is where we should be aiming for. Without going through the rest of the
examples in the report, I have noted some references to country roads as the biggest problem area of the state and
an area on which the government has not focused enough attention. One of the many issues is the lack of
a proper police presence on the roads and the inability to breath-test a lot of people in rural and remote areas.
This means that the road fatality rate in regional WA is incredibly higher than elsewhere. The rate of fatalities in
regional WA is 21 per 100 000 people—that is, about four times the national average. Compare that with
Thailand at 19.6 and Uganda at 24.7. That is the record.
The National Party should have a look at this report. Regional WA is where the National Party sits in terms of
road safety. It is a scandalous record. The Premier is really concerned about people being taken by sharks. He
should be a little more concerned about people dying on country roads in this state. I am holding up to show
members a picture of people in Thailand—all on motor bikes and not wearing helmets. Members may think it is
a shambles in terms of road safety. Uganda does not even have sealed roads, has no markings on the roads—
nothing—and it stands at 24.7. Regional WA stands at 21 per 100 000. That is where we are at; that is the reality.
If the Premier wants a real problem to go after, he should go after that one—21 people per 100 000 dying on our
roads. It is just scandalous and we need to do something about it. We know that a disproportionate number of
people are killed on our country roads, and we know that it is getting worse. Ten more people have been killed
on our country roads this year than was the case at the same time last year. It is getting worse, so despite the
government claiming to be doing things and that things are getting better, guess what? They are not. The
government has done precious little in the road safety space over the last couple of years. To the extent that it has
done anything, I commend it for at long last commissioning Peter Browne to do his report, and hopefully it will
act on that report. But again, it is a bit like the alcohol interlock legislation that was second read in this place in
April and was not brought on for debate until June; this report was commenced in July last year and has the date
March 2014 on the cover, so I assume that that is when Peter Browne actually submitted it to the government.
The government sat on it for three or four months before releasing it publicly. It obviously got the report, looked
at it, and thought, “This is bad news; this is a real problem, because we’re siphoning off all this money from
speed and red-light cameras and we’re propping up the police and Main Roads budgets and squirrelling some
away as restricted cash into the Commissioner of Main Roads’ account, as a counterbalance to growing state
debt.” If the government is going to implement this report or do anything appropriate with it, it has to stop those
practices. It has to stop political interference and secrecy about what is happening. Why is it that one project gets
funding and another does not? Why is it that projects that the Road Safety Council says should be funded are not,
and projects that it says should not be funded are funded? Why is it that projects that it says should be funded for
a lot of money are funded for very little money, and projects that it says should be funded for very little money
are being funded for a whole lot of money? I see the Acting Minister for Road Safety shaking his head; I think it
is a scandal and I think it is wrong.
I have had an interest in road safety since day one in this place, and in both government and opposition I have
probably spent more time than just about anyone covering the portfolio of road safety. I listened very intently
during my early years in Parliament—20 years ago, the same as the acting minister—and at that time different
people in this place raised issues to do with road safety. There was, in fact, a Select Committee on Road
Safety —
Mr J.H.D. Day: Of which I was a member.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Yes, of which the Acting Minister for Road Safety was a member, Diana Warnock was
a member and, I think, Kevin Leahy might have been a member—no? Ross Ainsworth? Yes? There were
a number of people, and I listened very intently to the reports of that committee. One of the reasons we had this
select committee or standing committee —
Mr J.H.D. Day: It was a select committee, but it went for most of that term of Parliament.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: That is right; it went on for years. It just kept getting rolled over, and it would look at
different issues from time to time, such as trucks and heavy traffic on roads. Obviously the minister would know
better than I do what it looked at, but there would be a report from time to time on some aspect of road safety,
and the one consistent thing that all members of the committee reflected on, no matter what party they came
from, was the importance of having a bipartisan approach that was beyond politics. That does not mean that we
cannot criticise the government of the day if it is doing the wrong thing; I am not going to have my opinion
silenced about what a scandalous situation I think we are in. Yes, more money than ever before is going into
a fund from speed and red-light cameras, but it is not being spent in an open, transparent and accountable way.
When I say it should be beyond politics, I think everyone in this place would want that money to be spent in an
accountable way. When I was Minister for Police I thought we had agreed that that would happen well into the
future, but apparently when I ceased to be Minister for Police, the reports ceased to be tabled. Because of
criticism about the then government spending only one-third of the allotted money on road safety, for the last
couple of years I was Minister for Police I tabled, on a couple of occasions, an account of all moneys spent on
road safety. I listed the $15 million or so—I think it grew to be $18 million at one point—that was spent out of
7145
the road trauma trust account as it was then. I also listed the $15 million or $20 million accident blackspot
money and a whole range of Main Roads projects, such as rumble strips on country roads. To the best of my
knowledge, that program was initiated when a former member for Armadale was the Minister for Planning and
Infrastructure. Putting rumble strips down the sides of country roads is a clear road safety initiative, and well and
truly fits within the criteria. There was a whole range of things.
My recollection is that we came up with a figure of well over $80 million, but I did not list any police wages.
I did not say, “Well, let’s take a percentage of how many police officers might be out there breathalysing and
doing things”, and at that stage the purchase of cameras and a whole range of other things were paid for out of
the police budget. I think that many of those things are appropriately purchased out of the road trauma trust fund;
I am not saying they are not, but there needs to be some openness and transparency here. We need a commitment
and we need someone in government driving the issue of road safety so that bills such as the Road Traffic
Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014 do not take years to be introduced and do not sit
on the notice paper for months. I only hope that the government will speed up its progress; the opposition
certainly will not delay progress in this house, and I hope it has a speedy passage through the upper house.
MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen) [5.37 pm]: We all know that drinking kills driving skills. We also know that
alcohol is responsible for more than 30 per cent of motor vehicle road deaths in Western Australia. With a blood
alcohol concentration of .05, the risk of being involved in a crash doubles; with a BAC of .08, the risk increases
sevenfold; and a BAC of .15 results in a twenty-five fold increase in the risk of a crash.
In WA each year approximately 7 500 drink-drivers are repeat drink-drivers, representing around 30 per cent of
all drink-drivers in the state. The majority are male and under 25 years of age. The relative risk of crash
involvement for repeat drink-drivers is 2.3 times greater than that of drivers without a recorded drink-driving
offence. The opposition therefore welcomes this legislation; however, as the lead speaker, the member for
Midland said, it is inexplicable as to why there has been such a delay in introducing it.
Qualitative research conducted at Curtin University by Lenton, Featherston and Cercarelli looked at 40 repeat
drink-drivers. The findings were published in an article in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention in 2010.
The researchers looked at recidivist drink-drivers’ self-reported reasons for driving whilst unlicensed and found
that whilst licence sanctions were an effective countermeasure for most drink-drivers, there was a small group of
repeat drink-drivers who were less responsive to licence sanctions. Having interviewed this cohort, they found
that many drink-drivers chose to drive while unlicensed as the probability of detection is low and the social and
economic costs of not driving can be high. The study concluded that this undermines other drink-driving
measures. Likewise, in 2011 the parliamentary Education and Health Standing Committee’s report
“Alcohol: Reducing the Harm and Curbing the Culture of Excess” made the following recommendation 22 —
The Minister for Police make a matter of extreme urgency the introduction of car alcohol ignition
interlock devices to stop people with a high blood alcohol concentration from driving, especially drinkdriving offenders.
In 2011, the National Road Safety Strategy 2011–20 stated —
Alcohol interlock programs have had some success in changing the behaviour of serious offenders.
It did, however, recommend the following modifications, improvements or refinements of alcohol interlock
systems —
a.
Extend the application of alcohol interlocks to cover a wider segment of drink driving
offenders.
b.
Undertake research on options to extend alcohol interlock applications to other high-risk road
user groups and potentially to the broader driver population.
c.
Encourage voluntary use of alcohol interlocks by corporate fleets and other drivers.
d.
Investigate the option of requiring demonstrated rehabilitation from alcohol-dependence before
removal of interlock conditions.
These recommendations or refinements in the National Road Safety Strategy are informed by the experience in
other jurisdictions in which alcohol interlock provisions have been in use for some time. As I said in the context
of the parliamentary committee recommendation, finding 18 of that committee stated —
It is nearly a decade since the Road Safety Council repeat drink driver strategy recommended the
introduction of car alcohol ignition interlock devices to stop people with a high blood alcohol
concentration, especially repeat drink-driving offenders, from driving. This proposal has been supported
by all State Governments since, but remains to be introduced.
Certainly, that is the first observation I make—that the merits of alcohol interlocks are well known and they have
been tested in a number of jurisdictions but introduction here has moved with glacial speed.
7146
Alcohol interlocks have also been successful in the United States. The report of the National Transportation
Safety Board, “Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired Driving”, reported on the success of
interlocks in a number of states. Again, like our National Road Safety Strategy, it recommended a number of
improvements. These are things that we should be mindful of when there is any evaluation legislation and we
might like to refine and improve what the bill seeks to introduce. To improve offender compliance and program
success, the report advocated the following practices —
•
Present the interlock as an alternative to a more restrictive penalty, such as house arrest or
transdermal monitoring;
I will talk a bit about that later.
•
Provide financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford interlocks using fees from other
offenders, arrangements with interlock providers, or alcohol tax revenues;
•
Document interlock status on driver’s licenses so the information will be available to law
enforcement officers during traffic stops;
•
Establish a protocol for interlock-equipped vehicle usage; for example, track odometer readings or
the number of BAC tests per month to ensure that the equipped vehicle is being used;
•
Penalize drivers who are caught using non-interlocked vehicles with sanctions that are equal to or
greater than those associated with driving-after-suspension/revocation charges;
•
Establish an offender-monitoring program, with preestablished consequences for skipped or failed
tests; and
•
Set criteria for interlock removal based on a period of alcohol-free driving.
I think we all acknowledge that interlocks will not suit all situations and the most determined of individuals may
borrow another car and continue to drive when under the influence. It is certainly my view and I think that of the
opposition that the interlock option should not be the be-all and end-all of the repeat drink-driving strategy; there
should be a suite of options and alternatives. Although we acknowledge the efficacy of interlocks, they need to
be applied to suit particular circumstances.
I want to talk about some of the other measures that have been used elsewhere to emphasise the point that
alcohol interlocks should be one of a range of measures that can be deployed. One of the most radical ones that
I have been lucky to observe was the 24/7 sobriety program in South Dakota. I visited South Dakota a few years
ago specifically to look at this program. It requires offenders to submit to breathalyser tests twice daily or wear a
transdermal alcohol bracelet if they are not near a testing facility. They usually submit themselves to the test first
thing in the morning on their way to work and then on their way home. Those who test positive are immediately
brought back to court. While they are waiting to go to court, they are placed in jail for a day or two. Since 2005,
more than 18 000 individuals participated in 24/7. Others have to submit to urine analysis to ensure sobriety
from illegal drugs. As I said, those who are remote from the testing facility will use a transdermal device, which
I will talk about in a minute. The information from that device is downloaded once a week when those persons
are called in for the very purpose of downloading information on their alcohol consumption over the previous
week.
The sobriety project is managed effectively by the courts for repeat drink-driving offenders. It has been adopted
in a number of other states in the United States. The standard under this program is that an offender must not use
alcohol or illegal drugs as a condition of continuing to drive and remaining in the community—the alternative
being incarceration. As I said, it is enforced by intensive monitoring twice daily by law enforcement agencies.
Violation of this program’s rules means immediate and very swift consequences. This combination of strict
monitoring and no use of alcohol, with swift, certain and meaningful consequences, has been extremely
successful. The program has reduced recidivism, improved public safety, served as an alternative to
imprisonment, which reduces the number of people in jails, allows offenders to remain in the community with
their family and friends, allows them to remain in employment and saves tax dollars because most of the
monitoring costs are met by the offenders themselves, so the government does not pay a substantial amount to
keep people in prisons for the day. More than 1.5 million tests have been administered to almost
11 000 defendants. A clean test is eventuated 99.6 per cent of the time. For the transdermal bracelet wearers,
over 93 per cent of those monitored comply. Another 13 per cent of the participants attempted to tamper with the
device, and that was treated with as much importance as the drinking and handled with a swift and certain
response.
As I said, South Dakota is saving millions of dollars every year in incarceration costs, and the program has
helped reduce the daily prison population by 100 people in each of the state’s two largest prisons. The roadways
in South Dakota are also much safer; at the time the program was introduced, South Dakota had one of the
highest driving-under-the-influence rates in the nation, and nearly three-quarters of those involved in fatal
7147
crashes had a blood alcohol content of .15 or higher. Since the program’s introduction, South Dakota’s drivingunder-the-influence offences have declined by a staggering 33 per cent, compared with a countrywide decline in
the United States in that same period of four per cent. Interestingly enough, the South Dakota Attorney General’s
office found that offenders placed for at least 30 consecutive days on the 24/7 program are 50 per cent less likely
to commit another driving-under-the-influence offence.
As I said, what I noticed about the test, having sat in on people coming in and getting their blood alcohol
measured, is that it was quite respectful of offenders. Each morning at the breath-test station dozens of people
convicted of DUI came in, blew their breath-test and then moved along, each taking no more than a minute or so.
The staff members were friendly, calling the people getting tested by name and wishing each of them a pleasant
day. The building they had to go to for the test was low-key. There were no uniformed officers, cell bars or guns
visible, and those offenders who might have had an aversion to law enforcement would not have been deterred
by the setting. I think there was also a degree of camaraderie amongst the offenders. There were no antagonistic
interactions that I observed or degradation of people, which is common, I think, in other correctional contexts.
The program has been evaluated by the RAND Corporation, which is a highly respected policy think tank. Its
justice division in Santa Monica, California, specifically studied this program, and produced a fact sheet entitled
“An Innovative Way to Curb Problem Drinking: South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Project”. The RAND Corporation
found that —
•
24/7 reduced repeat DUI arrests at the county level by 12 per cent.
•
24/7 reduced arrests for domestic violence at the county level by 9 per cent.
The evidence in relation to traffic crashes was a little less clear, but I think they are impressive figures, and it is
obviously a radical program that may be appropriate for some offenders in the context of a suite of other
measures. In the report of the Education and Health Standing Committee inquiry I referred to earlier, an
observation made was that Magistrate Hamilton in regional Western Australia had undertaken an informal
version of this program by requiring offenders to report daily at the local police station to be breathalysed.
I mentioned transdermal bracelets, one brand of which is called SCRAM—that is, secure continuous remote
alcohol monitoring. They are placed on the wrist of an offender convicted of domestic violence or driving under
the influence, and it is a typical condition of sentencing or probation that the offender must stop drinking for
a particular period of time.
[Member’s time extended.]
Ms M.M. QUIRK: To enforce that condition, courts have previously relied on random breath testing, which
tends to be a bit specific to a point of time. The bracelets measure alcohol content through the skin through the
concentration of perspiration. About half an hour after alcohol is consumed, it shows up on the transdermal
bracelet. It cannot give an exact blood alcohol reading, but it can certainly evidence that someone has drunk
alcohol, whether a little, large or moderate amount. That means within a short amount of time it can be proved
whether an offender has broken a condition or not. Some members would be aware that minor celebrity–starlet
Lindsay Lohan had a SCRAM device put on her as part of, I think, bail conditions. As I said, as part of the
court-mandated program, this might be another assurance, especially in the case of drink-drivers who are minded
to get into another vehicle. I have mentioned these alternatives, because I think despite the anti-avoidance
provisions in the Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014, we cannot put all
our eggs in one basket. The other options may well, down the track, provide a better option in cases when there
is a risk that the offender will try to use another vehicle.
Finally, I want to talk about some other technologies that are certainly in the wind. We have been talking about
these interlocks having been on the agenda for such a long period, and we are now at the stage that other
technology has almost caught up and the interlocks will almost be anachronistic. During the same trip as my visit
to South Dakota, I was fortunate enough to be given a briefing by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, based in Washington DC. It advised that as a result of lobbying by a group called
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the US federal government entered into a partnership with the motor vehicle
industry to fund research into a car that will automatically detect the presence of alcohol on a driver without
having to fit an interlock; a similar project is being undertaken in Sweden. It is anticipated that the vehicle will
be on the road and rolled out within a decade. The National Transport Safety board noted these developments in
its report at pages 30 to 31, which read —
Although interlocks traditionally have been used as a means of sanction for DWI offenders, they are
increasingly being employed by others who recognize their benefits. For example, in Finland, Sweden,
and France, interlocks are required on school buses, and in some European countries, commercial
transport operators have installed them voluntarily … Several highway vehicle manufacturers have
developed interlock systems … and one manufacturer currently offers a wireless interlock system as an
7148
optional accessory for its passenger vehicles (Volvo 2013). Additionally, NHTSA is sponsoring
research —
The research I have referred to —
to examine the feasibility of an interlock program for teenage drivers. The NTSB supports this research
and similar efforts to encourage voluntary use of interlocks, especially by high-risk drivers, such as
teenage drivers and drivers with alcohol use problems, and by drivers whose impairment could result in
particularly high numbers of deaths and injuries, such as commercial drivers.
Researchers and automobile manufacturers recognize that, to be acceptable to the broader driving
public and encourage voluntary use, in-vehicle alcohol detection technologies must be unobtrusive,
valid, reliable, and durable; must require only minimal maintenance; and must not interfere with the
driving task … In February 2008, a group of motor vehicle manufacturers affiliated with ACTS entered
into a 5-year cooperative agreement with NHTSA to explore the feasibility, potential benefits, and
public policy challenges associated with widespread use of in-vehicle technology for preventing
alcohol-impaired driving. A promising technology, DADSS —
That is, Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety —
is being developed under this agreement.
The DADSS program has resulted in two working prototypes that allow for the passive measurement of
driver BAC. One system is touch-based and uses tissue spectroscopy to estimate driver BAC from the
skin’s infrared light absorption; the other system uses multiple sensors inside the vehicle to estimate
BAC through the driver’s exhaled breath. By mid-2013, the technologies are expected to be installed in
demonstration vehicles for use in continued research and evaluation.
Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.00 pm
Ms M.M. QUIRK: Before I recommence, I note the state of the house.
[Quorum formed.]
Ms M.M. QUIRK: I am glad to see that the government cares so much about drink-driving that it is leaving four
members in here to participate in this debate. It is disgusting.
Before the break, I was talking about the fact that the technology we are debating tonight will almost be obsolete
by the time it is implemented and that is because of major developments in motor vehicle technology. There is
a project currently going on, which, as I said, is called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety. It will
solve a lot of the issues with detecting whether people are driving under the influence of alcohol. Earlier, I was
quoting from the United States National Transportation Safety Board safety report discussing this new DADSS
program. It states —
For this program to be successful, it must not only address the myriad technical and engineering
challenges posed by system development but also issues of usability, driver education, and public
acceptance. In its 2012 report on wrong-way driving, the NTSB concluded that the DADSS program is
working to solve both technical and practical challenges to make it an acceptable detection system for
widespread implementation in the US vehicle fleet.
I certainly hope that will be the case here before much longer.
To conclude, no discussion of drink-driving, of course, is complete without acknowledging the awful and
heartbreaking toll it takes on the families of those killed by a drink-driver. I want to recognise advocacy groups
such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the United States. I recommend that members look at its website and
the various activities the organisation is involved in. It has been instrumental in lobbying a number of American
states to introduce interlock legislation. Also here in Western Australia there is Enough is Enough WA, which is
a very vocal group that advocates for measures to curtail drink-driving and also sends out the message to the
broader community that drink-driving is unacceptable and the cause of cruel and wanton loss of innocent lives.
MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah) [7.05 pm]: I would like to acknowledge the Royal Agricultural Society
of Western Australia and the function being held tonight at Parliament celebrating Western Australian produce.
It is a great opportunity for members of Parliament to join with the producers and distributors to celebrate the
food this state is able to produce through our agricultural enterprises.
It is also important to acknowledge the Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill
2014 before us at a time when I think Australia, and Western Australia in particular, is experiencing a major
problem with alcohol abuse and the impacts of alcohol and drug abuse in our communities. There seems to be no
community in this state that remains untouched by the tragedies of road trauma, road deaths and the impacts of
drug and alcohol abuse. I think there is no more significant time than now when we are seeing a major problem
in our communities. It is interesting to note that this is basically a reactionary bill; it reacts to a growing problem.
7149
I noted from the second reading speech that some 4 000 drivers in Western Australia each year commit high-end
drink-driving offences and I understand that that is specific to repeat drink-driving offences. These people have
a major problem, but when they get behind the wheel in our communities, be they in country Western Australia
or the metropolitan area, they are lethal. They are lethal weapons against our community and that is the reality.
We need only look at very recent times to see the results of people who get behind the wheel intoxicated or
affected by drugs and the lasting impact that they can have through their behaviour on families throughout the
state.
One thing that seems out of control currently in Western Australia is the number of times we hear of vehicles
veering off the road in communities and slamming into houses. We have had some very significant tragedies in
only recent times with a young toddler being killed in the northern suburbs, I think it was, when a drunk driver
drove onto a property and into the house, killing the child in their cot in the home. We have had examples of
near misses in which intoxicated people have lost control of their vehicles, headed into houses and narrowly
missed individuals within those dwellings. This has happened not only in my electorate. In my electorate we
have seen a number of examples of people who have had narrow escapes from this sort of behaviour. Indeed, in
Mandurah, in only the last two years, we have had a spate of these incidents. It was very interesting, because
although it is very much about the person who is supposed to be in control of the vehicle and who, of course, has
the primary responsibility, it does call into question responses by other stakeholders and authorities, even when
we are planning communities. We see their response to concerns raised by people about hoon or associated
activity that can lead to dangerous circumstances in neighbourhoods. I think local government has a primary role
to play in responding to concerns. Certainly, we tend to highlight much of the policing of road-based activity to
the police authority itself. There have been a couple of incidents in Mandurah on a couple of roads. In particular,
one was in the locality of Greenfields. A family was living on a corner, on a bend in a particular road, and on
two occasions in the short space of three or four months, two vehicles mounted the kerb and entered the front
room of their house, which was a young child’s bedroom. After that first experience, the family changed that
bedroom into more of a sitting room. On the second occasion, a car again came into that front room, causing
significant damage to the house. The car even sideswiped the side of the house, causing some damage to the
fencing and the side of the house.
On that occasion, the family, in their ultimate frustration and indeed total bewilderment, pleaded with the local
council to do something. They wanted to put up a wall on the boundary, however they were told by the council
that it was not permissible, which they found quite bewildering. But it is true in probably nearly every suburb of
every community in Western Australia that there are dangerous circumstances experienced every day because of
irresponsible and reckless driving behaviour, particularly if those drivers are under the influence of alcohol.
There is no excuse. There is absolutely no excuse.
This bill is a reactionary bill because it seeks to give the opportunity to people who, it is acknowledged, already
have a problem with mixing alcohol and driving, a way out. Be it a way out that is regulated, it still gives them
a way out. I am very fortunate that no member of my family—immediate or extended—has experienced, touch
wood, what I can only imagine is an unbearable trauma of either losing a loved one or indeed having someone
severely maimed in a traffic accident. I would expect and envisage that to be unbearably traumatic. For those
people and families who have experienced that trauma, and they now number in their thousands in Western
Australia, I can only extend to them my sincere empathy and sympathy.
In the debate today on the matter of public importance, we heard the member for Victoria Park do a very good
job in trying to bring the Treasurer back on task with the intent of the matter of public importance, which was
focused on highlighting the terrible recent experiences or spate of road traffic trauma that has occurred in the
state in the last few months, be it people on motorcycles or in cars and other vehicles. The member for
Victoria Park made a very important point, which I think a lot of people have forgotten. The Treasurer, in his,
quite frankly, appalling and pathetic response, in my view, made the point that deaths resulting from traffic
accidents are an absolute tragedy, but so too are the lasting impacts for those people who are maimed, critically
injured or indeed suffer from injuries for life from that experience. We could be very clinical and just simply talk
about the cost to the community overall of the ongoing care for many people who may be significantly and
severely injured and have life-long injuries that impact on their families, their way of life, their capacity to earn
and their capacity to participate in the community. We could just look at it as a clinical cost factor, but it is also
about the emotional trauma that it causes families and loved ones when they see a vital person, be they young or
old, affected by and impacted upon, sometimes for the rest of their life, the trauma of a road accident. I think this
is—I do not intend this to be a pun—a very sobering bill because it is effectively providing an excuse for those
people who, for whatever reason, cannot control their need for alcohol. To me, this is a way out.
The opposition supports the bill. It is not proposing to oppose it, but I think we need to remember that this is
a reactionary piece of legislation that focuses on people who, quite frankly, very few of us have a lot time for in
our community: people who choose to take in alcohol and then get behind the wheel. I will be interested to hear
the minister’s response, particularly given the figure of 4 000 high-end, repeat-offender drivers that was
7150
mentioned in the second reading speech. I know this regulatory regime exists in other states and other
jurisdictions around the world, and I would therefore like the minister to give some statistical information about
the effectiveness of this regulatory process. It is still about behaviour and choice; there is no excuse. The bill
provides for this scheme to apply to persons convicted of a range of offences, and I will go through some of
those. The first listed in the second reading speech is the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol, or
alcohol and drugs. I refer to the comment of the member for Girrawheen about whether, by the time this bill is
enacted and a court can direct a person to comply with an interlock facility on their vehicle, there is potential for
that technology to be superseded and made obsolete. I am interested in whether this bill is flexible enough to
ensure that changes in technology will continue to allow its intent to be delivered. I note that major evaluations
and studies of offender programs have highlighted a reduction of 64 per cent in drink-driving reoffending when
an alcohol interlock device is fitted, but I want to know what the numbers are and how many people those
figures relate to. If this program has been operating in Victoria for a number of years, what is the raw data for the
number of people who make up that 64 per cent? Is it hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands? I do not know,
but I am really interested in that. The 64 per cent figure is published in the second reading speech, but what does
that mean in raw figures? The minister highlighted in the second reading speech that 4 000 drivers in Western
Australia will be targeted by this mechanism, so can we assume that 64 per cent of those, based on the studies in
other states and jurisdictions, will now not reoffend?
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: The second offence that this scheme will apply to is dangerous driving causing death
or injury committed in circumstances in which the driver is under the influence of alcohol, or alcohol and drugs.
That offence relates specifically to the injury or death of a person or a citizen. The third offence is one of
dangerous driving causing bodily harm committed in circumstances in which the driver was driving under the
influence of alcohol, or alcohol and drugs. Fourth is the offence of failing to comply with a request to provide
a sample of breath, blood or urine to a member of WA Police. Fifth is a second offence of driving with a blood
alcohol concentration higher than .05 per cent, and for some groups of drivers, the second defence of driving
with a blood alcohol concentration above .02 per cent. The level of alcohol allowed under this scheme reduces if
a person is identified as being a second or later offender.
The second reading speech also discusses what these modern devices are; there is a description of them. They are
viable, practical and reliable, and they are capable of detecting very small amounts of alcohol. They can be fitted
to motorcycles as well as cars and other four-wheeled vehicles. In her contribution, the member for Girrawheen
highlighted experiences in other countries, including some of the Scandinavian countries and the United States.
In parts of the United States, school buses and coaches are fitted with these devices as a routine procedure.
The next point in the second reading speech is crucial. It states that the monitoring of and support given to
offenders is critical to the success of the legislation. My understanding from reading the second reading speech is
that the scheme will be performance based, and that data recorded from an offender’s device will be downloaded
and monitored monthly. Failure to present will result in a permanent lockout, which will require intervention by
the service provider. I am not sure, although the minister may be able to provide this information, exactly who
does the monitoring. If I have missed something, I need to know.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Where is the minister?
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: He is over there, and I am highlighting my concern to him now.
Who does the monitoring, and what is it based upon? If I missed something, I apologise, but I want to be
confident that this aspect that is critical to the success of the program—the monitoring and support of
offenders—is explained. I would like the minister to do that in detail in his response to the second reading
debate.
The other aspect that is of interest here is those drink-driving offenders who will be exempt from the alcohol
interlock scheme. In the second reading speech the minister stated that the only drink-driving offenders who will
be exempt from the scheme will be those who reside more than 150 kilometres from an accredited interlock
service provider, or those who have a medical condition. That needs an explanation, because it has the potential
to affect a lot of people living in regional areas. It will not affect people in Mandurah, because they are within
that 150-kilometre radius. I assume that if we do not have an accredited service provider in the City of
Mandurah, the nearest would be somewhere in the metropolitan area. I would like the minister to give some
indication of where we would expect to see service providers. I assume that part of the fees and costs would go
to remunerate the service providers for accreditation and monitoring. I am very interested in what this might
mean for people living in rural and regional Western Australia.
I remind members that many communities in rural and regional Western Australia, particularly in the north in the
Kimberley region and the Pilbara, are hundreds of kilometres away from major regional centres. People in the
Kimberley are 800 or 900 kilometres from major centres such as Broome, Kununurra and Derby; and even
people in the great southern region could find themselves outside the 150-kilometre exclusion zone—let us call it
7151
that. I am interested in the minister’s response to that. Another point made in the second reading speech is that
the length of the restricted driving period will vary according to the means by which offenders enter the scheme.
A paragraph in the second reading speech reads, in part —
For those serving a period of disqualification before being subject to the alcohol interlock restriction,
the minimum required period will be six months. For offenders granted an extraordinary driver’s
licence, the minimum required period will be the greater of six months …
I expect that a number of people currently possess extraordinary licences. If the minister can provide statistics,
I would like to know the current number of extraordinary drivers’ licences for Western Australian drivers. The
minister may not be able to do this, but I hope he can give me some idea of the number of those drivers he
expects might be captured by this scheme. I can understand if the minister cannot answer that, but I am interested
to hear his response. It is interesting that in this whole proposal this is not a problem for government but for
community and society. The number of people who effectively disregard fines, who drive without a valid licence
and who drive unlicensed cars all plays into the problem the community has at the moment with inappropriate
driving behaviour. As I said at the beginning of this debate, we have seen in the last five years increases in
drink-driving penalties, immediate disqualification notices for people caught driving with blood alcohol
concentrations of, or above, .08 and now we will see an alcohol interlock system in Western Australia. The
minister says this is crucial and long overdue; but I want to be reassured exactly how many drivers the minister
expects this legislation to capture. Could the minister tell us how this system works in other jurisdictions and
how many people it captures? I am interested in the numbers, because at the end of the day, like all members
I am sure, I do not want to find out that tragedy has struck a loved one, family member or friend.
Only the other day, just out near Madora Bay, a car overturned and a five-year-old boy was injured; he is still in
hospital, but I think he is going to be okay. I am not saying alcohol was related to that accident, but all too often
now on our roads we see near tragedies and tragedies and we do not want that in our community. It is an
immeasurably traumatic experience for families, communities and neighbourhoods. Members need only talk to
the member for Collie–Preston about what the death of a young person does to a community such as Collie,
which had a spate of tragic deaths over the last few years. The impact that has on any community—in the case of
Collie, a smaller community—is immeasurable. I will be interested in the minister’s response when he gets to his
feet after we have had contributions from this side on the second reading debate.
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [7.35 pm]: I rise to contribute to the debate on the Road Traffic
Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014. One of the interesting points in this debate is that
we want to apply technology to road safety. If we go back 20 years, we could not have legislated for ignition
interlocks because the technology was not available in a general way. There was obviously specialist equipment,
but the mass market equipment that the minister requires to implement this procedure did not exist; in fact,
technology in road safety is probably the unsung hero. Before I spoke in this debate I was going through some of
the Australasian New Car Assessment Program ratings for different cars and looking at videos of crash tests,
comparing the different effects of an accident on a three-star car and a five-star car. I note that a Geely has
a three-star rating because it does not have a curtain airbag. I would not want to be in a major frontal impact in
a Geely because the crash test dummy’s head hits the doorframe and exits the window, whereas the videos of
crash tests with a Nissan hatchback and a Commodore show the airbags protecting the heads of the occupants.
Members will see that one of the important issues about road safety in Australia and around the world is
improved technology in motor vehicles, which is what the minister is doing with the Road Traffic Amendment
(Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014; it is applying additional technology to cars and, in this case, to
drivers who have a history of problems with alcohol and exceeding blood alcohol limits when driving.
We know about the many risk factors in driving. If we go back to the 1970s, Australia became the first country
in the world to mandate the wearing of seatbelts. That one decision had a significant impact on saving the lives
of Australians. It is a bizarre situation now that people are driving vehicles without wearing a seatbelt,
particularly now that all modern cars have laminated windscreens and no-one would want to be thrown from
a car through a laminated windscreen. Back in the 1960s, the big old tanks that people drove had glass that
would break into small fragments. The glass was harmless to people if they went through it because of the nature
of the safety glass that was used—of course, they would be killed when they hit the road. Now cars have
laminated windscreens that are designed not to break in an impact. The windscreens will break, but the intention
is for them to stay intact as much as possible. If a person goes through a laminated windscreen, they will be cut
to pieces. The easiest way to die in an accident is not to wear a seatbelt. In Australia, to get a five-star ANCAP
rating, a car needs front driver and passenger side airbags and curtain airbags as well. However, the airbags in
Australian cars are secondary restraint–system airbags. They are different from the airbags that are used in the
United States. Most parts of the United States still do not have compulsory seatbelt laws, so the airbags that are
used in the United States are primary airbags and they are the primary restraint. However, the airbags that are
used in Australia are secondary restraints and are designed to be used by a passenger or driver wearing a seatbelt.
Again, if a person does not wear a seatbelt and they have airbags in their car, they are just asking to be injured by
7152
the airbag. Those videos show how instantaneously the airbags inflate. It is amazing how quickly they inflate. In
fact, in the video of the side-impact collision in the Commodore, the curtain airbag had already inflated before
the door glass broke. In the full speed video, the side impact and the shattering of the side window were almost
instantaneous, yet by the time the window shattered, the airbag had already inflated. It took milliseconds to
operate. Of course, the same applies to the front airbags protecting the passenger and the driver; the passenger
and driver certainly do not want to be hit by those if they are not wearing a seatbelt. Airbags are designed to
work in conjunction with seatbelts. Again, it is all about applying technology. Airbags have been around in the
United States since the 1970s, but the new technologies that allow instantaneous inflation are amazing. Curtain
airbags can activate from side impacts. There is no crumple zone on the side of a vehicle, unlike at the front of
a vehicle, which is obviously designed to progressively crumple towards the passenger or driver cell to absorb
the energy of the impact. Obviously, that does not happen from a side impact because there are only five or
10 centimetres between the driver and the impact. Technology is making vehicles much safer.
Of course, no piece of mechanical equipment is safe in the hands of a person who is not fit to operate the vehicle.
Drink-driving is obviously one of the very significant contributors to the loss of control of a motor vehicle. If
a person is inebriated, their response time is slow, their judgement is impaired and their capacity to judge
distances is reduced, and that is why they are more likely to have an accident.
Again, in the Australasian New Car Assessment Program crash tests, I think the front-impact test is done at
62 kilometres an hour and the side-impact test is done at 29 kilometres an hour. They are relatively low speeds
when we think about driving on a freeway. As they say in motorsport, “It is not how fast you crash; it is how
quickly you stop.” It is the same with a car on the road. The first thing most people will do when they are about
to crash is put their foot on the brake. Sometimes it does not help because they lock the wheels, but that is why
modern cars have an anti-lock braking system. Even though the person might have their foot flat to the floor,
technology will take over. If a person put their foot flat to the floor in an old car, they would have locked the
brakes and the car probably would have continued to increase speed until they hit something, whereas in
a modern car, the technology takes over and it pumps the brakes so that they do not lock; they get maximum grip
but they do not lock. One way or another, there is likely to be some reduction in speed before they hit the
obstruction on the side of the road. Of course, the crash barriers on roads are either placed right on the
carriageway, such as on a bridge, so even though the car might be travelling at high speed, the driver only
glances the barrier and does not put all the energy directly into the barrier, or set well back from the road so that
there is space for the vehicle to decelerate. Again, the racetracks for grand prix or V8 Supercars races are
designed in exactly the same fashion; the barrier is either right next to the track or a long way from the track. It is
never at a middle distance, because if it is not exactly beside the track or not distant from the track, there is more
likely to be a frontal impact and that will increase the g-forces and the deceleration.
All these technologies are coming to bear to improve road safety, and that is what this bill will do. It will apply
a new technology to try to deal with people who repeatedly drink and drive. I am pleased that after six years of
government, the government has brought forward the legislation. It has rushed the legislation in after six years
and is taking action as quickly as it has been able to!
I want to focus on one part of the minister’s second reading speech when she said —
I have no doubt that in the years to come in WA we will see fewer alcohol-related crashes and fewer
alcohol-related deaths and serious injuries because of the action we have taken today.
I think the community will continue to monitor that, because we need to keep looking at the actual results.
I wonder what opportunities there are for people to try to defeat the technology. I am not asking the acting
minister to reply to this issue during the second reading debate, but we will have to monitor people who try to
get around the technology by having their mate start the car for them, driving their mate’s car or driving a hire
car. These are all ways to get around the technology.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: No. They are not allowed to do that; they are all offences.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, I know, but just because it is an offence, it does not mean that the person will get
caught. Driving drunk is an offence. Crashing and injuring a person can potentially be an offence. I am sure that
the acting minister agrees with what I am saying; it is not very controversial. That is why I say that we will have
to keep the success of this technology in mind. Applying technology to cars is the way to improve safety; there is
no question about that. That is why I welcome the Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other
Matters) Bill 2014. In the same way, road scapes have been improved. One of the interesting improvements is
that many highways now have audible edges. For example, if a person is driving tired and they drift to one side
of the carriageway and the car’s left-hand wheel touches the edge of the road, the edge of the road is designed to
make a noise and vibrate through the steering wheel so that they recover from that lapse. That is another example
of what is being done with road surfaces. Of course, there will be exciting opportunities in the future for onboard technologies. Mercedes–Benz already produces a car that is not commercially available—it is in test
phase—that has in-built technology for travelling on a road that has technology built into the road. Let us say
7153
that someone is doing 150 kilometres an hour on one of those German autobahns that we all see on television;
the road will actually help steer the car to keep it in the lane. The technology then allows another car with
identical technology to effectively tailgate. The technology in the vehicles plus the technology in the road
ensures that they maintain their distance, and if one car needs to slow down, all the cars in the chain slow down.
It is interesting also to note that similar technology is being trialled in different places with the idea of reducing
the gap needed in peak-hour traffic. One of the problems with peak-hour traffic is that there needs to be six,
12 or 18 metres between cars. If technology allows the cars to talk to each other and talk to the road, those gaps
can be closed up. That means that the same space physical infrastructure for the road can carry more cars, which
increases the volume of traffic and reduces the congestion problems. Again, that is all done with technology.
Then there is the Google car that drives itself. I do not remember the exact year but I think 2006 was the first
time a driverless car was able to complete a circuit for a competition in America. It had an average speed of less
than 20 kilometres an hour. Now these driverless cars are doing 60 kilometres an hour on the same route of the
test track for that competition in California. I can imagine a future in which people will call up a car. I was
fortunate to go to Paris with my wife for her fiftieth birthday. I am sure that other people who have been to Paris
have seen the electric cars in the middle of the city that are available for rent. I can imagine in the future that
people will be able to press some buttons on their phone and a driverless car will turn up. They will get in the
driverless car, tell it where they want to go, continue reading The New York Times, The Age or The West
Australian on their mobile phone, and the car will take them to where they want to go. Technology is
revolutionising motor vehicles in the same way as the safety aspects of motor vehicles, along with road design,
have improved out of sight. Those two latter measures, which go together, are the principal reasons for the
reduction in road deaths. Technology will therefore have a big future. As I said, the Road Traffic Amendment
(Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014 is about applying another technology to vehicles.
I will take an extension, although I probably will not use it.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Thank you very much, Madam Acting Speaker.
That other technology is the extension of wire rope barriers on freeways. Several years ago I got a briefing from
the Office of Road Safety on its views about these rope barriers. They are obviously much cheaper to build than
old-fashioned steel Armco fencing. So that you might know what I am talking about, Madam Acting Speaker
(Lisa Baker), along the freeway going south, where there is a lot of open space, are barriers with uprights every
10 or 20 metres. Between them is a wire rope going across the top, which might be several hundred metres long,
and heavy-gauge wire ropes criss-cross to form a lattice along the side of the road. Every several hundred metres
those wire ropes are hooked to the ground and tensioned. They are designed so that if a vehicle hits them, the
posts get taken out, the energy gets pushed into the wires, the car knocks down the posts and the energy is slowly
taken off. They do a great job. Unlike Armco barriers, they are easier and cheaper to build, and if a vehicle hits
them head-on, it is not likely to have a crash stop as it would with an Armco barrier. For a car they are probably
better than an Armco barrier. However, the problem is that many motorcyclists are very concerned about wire
rope barriers. Some motorcyclists have said to me that if a motorcycle went off the freeway, the wire ropes
would do major damage. I do not know the statistics.
As I said, the Office of Road Safety provided me with a briefing about three or four years ago and ran through its
views. It was strongly supportive of wire rope barriers. Its view was that no research showed they were
dangerous to motorcyclists. I therefore believe that is an issue that needs to be looked at. I am not necessarily
saying that wire rope barriers are dangerous to motorcycle riders, but I think it is an important issue for us to
examine. We need an evidence base for making decisions in road safety. The member for Midland discussed that
strongly in her contribution to the second reading debate. In the same way as I am supportive of what we are
doing here with applying additional technology in an attempt to make our roads safer through the Road Traffic
Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014, I say that this question about safety for
motorcyclists on freeways with wire rope barriers also needs to be looked at. I was interested to note on Channel
10 tonight a reference to motorcyclists being way overrepresented in fatalities on the roads in Western Australia.
I therefore think that it is very important to look at what we can do to make roads safer for motorcyclists.
I remember when I was a teenager. Madam Acting Speaker, we are about the same age and we were probably
teenagers about the same time.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Probably.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: When a mate got a motorbike, we called them a temporary Australian.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Is that how you rode it?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It was not me; it was my mates. I make that comment in jest. I am sure that if
motorcyclists read this, it will not be the first time they have read that comment.
7154
Mr R.H. Cook: In my house when I was a kid we had a rule that when we got our licence, if we had saved up
enough to buy a motorbike, our parents would pay enough to buy us a car.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes. One of my brother’s classmates—he was my sister’s boyfriend for a while and
ended up being my teacher—used to ride around in a large Honda motorbike in his shorts and T-shirt like
everybody else. He came off the bike and grazed his skin, which came off completely. He then always rode with
leathers.
When we look at the technology for racing motorbikes now, we see that the survivability of motorcyclists in
accidents on racetracks has improved because of the head restraints that they now use. They are just amazing;
they are actually built into the motorcyclist’s leathers. Racing motorcyclists also have carbon fibre knee joints. It
is amazing how a motorcyclist on a racing motorbike is able to survive an accident; whereas 10 years ago they
would have been killed. We therefore need to look at the technologies that we can apply to help motorcyclists.
Of course, most motorcyclists tell me that the most dangerous thing is the car that does not see them, or the car
that does not look for them. I must say that even though I try to be motorcycle aware, I never put a motorcycleaware sticker on my car because I know that the moment I do that, I will miss a motorcyclist in my blind spot.
I reckon it is better not to put the sticker on and do my best to try to be motorcycle-aware, rather than put it on,
because I know that will be the first time I miss somebody. Again, blind-spot monitoring technology can tell
a driver whether there is something in the blind spot. When the driver puts on the indicator, the technology tells
the driver not to move as there is something in the blind spot. It is amazing what technology is doing. There is
also automatic parking. I am not bad at reverse parking but I know a lot of people struggle with it; now cars can
do it for them. Technology is changing everything, and the Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and
Other Matters) Bill 2014 is part of that. I am happy to support this legislation. It is a good idea to apply
technology and I look forward to its passage and to reviewing its work in a few years to see how much difference
it will have made.
MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [8.00 pm]: I rise to make some comments on the Road Traffic Amendment
(Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill and to reiterate some of the points already raised by my colleagues,
in particular the last two speakers, the members for Cannington and Mandurah, and to indicate that the
opposition supports the legislation. The member for Mandurah has already made the point that drink-driving is
something that in my lifetime has gone from, when I was younger, being a practice that was publicly frowned
upon but publicly common to something that is now broadly and definitely frowned upon. All Western
Australians are now particularly aware, or at least have some experience, of people who have been a victim of
somebody who has driven a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. It is embedded in the psyche of
Western Australians that people should not drive a vehicle when intoxicated, but the fact that we are debating the
legislation tonight means that that is not a universal position for all Western Australians and that there are people
who may not deliberately seek to drink and drive to flout the law but who may have other issues they are dealing
with.
I first became aware of interlocks in 2007 when I was doing a review for the member for Girrawheen, the then
Minister for Corrective Services, and through the work of Kylie Olney, who worked at the then Office of Road
Safety. She was on the committee and did a lot of work around that committee. I will spend a bit of time on the
work of that committee, and although it did not deal specifically with interlocks, it certainly dealt with
drink-driving specifically in respect of Aboriginal people living in remote and regional Western Australia, and
I want to make some points about that matter. I know the member for Mandurah said that this legislation will
impact on Aboriginal people—in fact, all people living in regional and remote parts of Western Australia.
Indeed, recommendation 27 of the report was to —
Give specific and formal consideration to the impact on Indigenous drivers when making legislative
changes to road traffic or licensing laws so that they do not have a disproportionate impact on
Indigenous communities.
I will go through some of the statistics around drink-driving offences particularly for Aboriginal people living in
regional and remote parts of the state.
In the second reading speech the Minister for Police outlined what the legislation seeks to do. The member for
Mandurah also had a couple of questions that I have about how the system will operate and who will monitor the
interlock data. I note that the second reading speech states —
Offenders’ interlock data will be downloaded on location and a summary report uploaded to a secure
system, and will then be assessed for violations.
Could the acting minister outline in his response who keeps that system? Is it a police system? Is it a Main Roads
system? I am unsure how it will operate and how it will interact with police. I assume the police will do the
legwork when an offence is committed as outlined in the bill.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Primarily the Department of Transport.
7155
Mr B.S. WYATT: Thank you. The second reading speech does what it does. I note that the scheme is a
user-pays system and that offenders will be required to pay for installation, monthly servicing and removal of
devices from vehicles. That will indeed have an impact on people living in regional and remote parts of Western
Australia, particularly the requirement for monthly servicing. I note that there are some stipulations for people
who reside more than 150 kilometres from an accredited interlock service provider.
I want to make a couple of points about the 2007 report of the Committee to Explore the Effect of Motor
Driver’s Licence and Driving Laws on Remote Communities, titled “Indigenous Licensing and Fine Default:
A Clean Slate” because it highlights similar issues that will come out as a result of the legislation that will no
doubt pass through Parliament very shortly. Bearing in mind that it is a 2007 report, some of the statistics will
now be a little dated, but I dare say that the ratios are pretty much the same. The executive summary of the
2007 report made the point —
The Department of the Attorney General reports that Aboriginal people represents 13.4 per cent of
convictions for unlicensed driving in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions, whereas in Kalgoorlie,
Aboriginal people represent 51.4 per cent. The evidence points to regional and remote areas as having
a significantly higher incidence of driving offences involving Aboriginal people. Of the eight
courthouses with the highest number of unlicensed driving convictions for Aboriginal people, six were
in regional areas, representing 63 per cent of convictions.
Madam Acting Speaker, you perhaps more than most in this house would be interested in that statistic. As I said,
it is a 2007 statistic, but I dare say the ratios are probably still the same now. The report then makes the point —
Road crashes remain one of the leading causes of death among Indigenous Western Australians.
Aboriginal people are about three times more likely to be injured or killed in motor vehicle crashes than
non-Aboriginal people.
That is broadly crashes, regardless of how they are caused—whether alcohol is involved or there are cattle on the
road or whatever. Yes, I am raising concerns about how Aboriginal people will be impacted by this legislation,
but Aboriginal people are the people who may also benefit the most from what is passed through this Parliament.
It is important. I note that I am the member for Victoria Park, an inner-city electorate, but I am very aware that
sometimes we forget how laws passed here will be broadly applied, not just in terms of our citizens getting the
benefit of those laws but also the downside of those receiving the penalties of those laws.
Drink-driving is reflected in the statistics of convictions for unlicensed driving, and it is on this matter that I will
comment on interlocks. The 2007 report also states —
The proportion of Aboriginal drink-driving offenders increases with the number and severity of offence.
I note that the second reading speech refers to six circumstances in which the WA interlock scheme will apply to
persons, and, of course, the severity of the offence is one of the circumstances considered. However, my report
states —
Aboriginal people represent about 15 per cent of all drink-driving arrests, increasing to 28 per cent of
third time arrests and 35 per cent of drink-drivers disqualified from driving for life.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Some three per cent of the population.
Mr B.S. WYATT: That is right; that is some three or 3.5 per cent of the population. The further in severity the
drink-driving offence, the more likely it is that the offender is an Aboriginal person. The legislation we are
passing tonight will have, whether we like it or not, a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal people simply
because at three and a half per cent of the population, we can see the impact of interlock requirements on people
living in regional and remote Western Australia. Bearing in mind the legislation requires that “the scheme is user
pays and offenders be required to pay for installation, monthly servicing and the removal of devices from
vehicles they drive”, I come back to the point I made before: the impact that will have and how to get interlocks
installed in remote communities, serviced monthly and removed, and the likely cost of that, for example, versus
the likely cost of getting that done in Victoria Park, which I dare say will be considerably different.
I want to finish by quoting the beginning of the report, because it is useful information. As I said, the statistics
are probably a little different now but the proportions are the same. The report also states —
There is an over-representation of Aboriginal people in road crashes and resultant road trauma.
Aboriginal people make up 3.5 per cent of the population of Western Australia, but represent 9 per cent
of those killed on the roads and 8 per cent of those hospitalised as a result of a road crash. In the
Kimberley, for example, one third of all crashes involve drink driving with drivers have a high blood
alcohol concentration.
One-third is a significant percentage by any measure.
The report covered a number of different areas; I am just trying to keep my remarks relevant for the purposes of
tonight’s debate. We went through why Aboriginal people are overrepresented in unlicensed driving convictions
7156
and why they are likely to be overrepresented in offences created through the interlock system. There are
realisation-of-perception issues around the need to comply with the law and issues pertaining to the ability to get
access to interlock servicing education that we often forget about. One of the committee’s recommendations
specifically related to reviewing current licensing education materials. As a result of this review, there will have
to be an education campaign that can be understood by a range of people across our vast state pertaining to the
ability to be tested and also post-licensing issues.
I do not know whether this issue came up in the department when the legislation was being drafted, again noting
this was a 2007 report, but we did look at current initiatives around the country such as projects aimed at
improving Indigenous licensing. One of those was the Office of Road Safety’s Indigenous drink-driving and
licensing project. It was set up to identify and progress initiatives to reduce the incidence of drink-driving and
unlicensed driving among Indigenous Western Australians, particularly those living in rural and remote areas.
That project was detailed. Whilst it was not the specific focus of the committee that I chaired, it dealt with
a number of things. I would be curious—I guess it is probably better to be left until consideration in detail—to
know what impact, if any, the Office of Road Safety’s Indigenous drink-driving and licensing project had on the
drafting of this legislation. Maybe that is something that we can discuss in consideration in detail.
There were specific issues concerning regional and remote communities around licensing, including: lack of
payment facilities, which is not isolated to licensing; reliance on mail to inform offenders of licence suspension,
which is always an issue in regional and remote WA; and no alternative transport. This is always an issue,
regardless of what we say in this place. Mainly Aboriginal people living in remote communities and people
living in remote parts of Western Australia will drive whether they have a licence and whether their car is
roadworthy. Their licence may have been suspended because they were drink-driving but they will drive because
there is no other option. That is something that we need to consider when we look at legislation such as this.
I dare say it will move through this house without dissent because I think we all recognise the importance of the
passage of this legislation. The overwhelming benefit and the use of this legislation will be in the metropolitan
area because we very rarely have the resources to get the maximum efficiency and effectiveness in regional WA.
Again, I note the minister’s second reading speech, which states —
Research indicates that the monitoring and supporting of offenders in an interlock program is critical to
its success.
The WA scheme will be performance based, with one key feature being the monitoring of monthly data
recorded from an offender’s alcohol interlock device. Failure to present an interlock for a monthly
service will result in a permanent lockout which will require intervention by the service provider.
The point is that continuous monitoring and support of offenders is critical. It is always the way that many
projects fail in not just remote parts of Western Australia but also regional parts of Western Australia because of
the lack of ongoing support and monitoring to ensure that government programs are delivered effectively in
terms of not just the cost but also benefits that those Western Australians receive. It is something that I wanted to
raise tonight because it certainly caused me to reflect on a report of the committee that I chaired back in 2007. It
strikes me that we often forget that laws such as this, which are important laws, will hopefully have the impact of
reducing the number of people who are hurt or killed as a result of driving whilst under the influence or reducing
the number of victims injured as a result of somebody else who is driving another vehicle under the influence of
alcohol. Whatever we can do to influence that is a good outcome. It is not just how it will impact on Aboriginal
people in remote communities on the negative side of things; it is how they can be the beneficiaries of what we
are doing tonight. As I said, those statistics show that Aboriginal people in remote parts of Western Australia are
far more likely than anyone else to be victims of the drink-driving carnage and motor vehicle crashes. It is very
important that that is followed through in the passage of this legislation.
I seek the minister’s indulgence. I want to read something. It is not relevant to the Road Traffic Amendment
(Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill; it relates to the late Bishop Jobst from Broome. He died earlier this
year. I want to read a one-page note. I appreciate the Deputy Speaker allowing me to do this. I gather that the
minister is very happy for me to do this. All members will learn something. I have been looking for an
opportunity to do this.
Mr B.S. WYATT: It is a short eulogy of the late Bishop John Jobst, who was the bishop of Broome for many
years. He died in July this year. This is a eulogy for the bishop that was given by the current bishop of Broome,
Christopher Saunders. His title was Bishop Emeritus of Broome. The requiem mass was held in his home town
of Frauenzell, Bavaria, Germany. I want to read this because he was a significant Western Australian. Again,
I am reading the eulogy given by the current bishop of Broome. It states —
On behalf of the Diocese of Broome I wish to offer my deepest sympathies to the Jobst family. In your
midst Bishop Johannes Jobst came to be a person of faith, a believer in the Lord, a servant of God. And
so much of this found expression in the Mission to the Kimberley where he was bishop for thirty-seven
7157
years. To these condolences I add my prayers for the repose of his soul and I give thanks to Almighty
God for his life among us in the service of Our Lord. As he was a son of Regensburg Diocese,
a Pallottine missionary sent from this particular Diocese to the Kimberley Mission, I also extend my
heartfelt gratitude to Bishop Rudolph and the people of the Diocese of Regensburg for it was here, in
this beautiful part of Bavaria, that Bishop Jobst’ faith was planted and grew so magnificently on fertile
ground. To his Pallottine family I acknowledge your giftedness through his ministry to all of us in the
Kimberley Region. Indeed our Church in the Kimberley today is built on your foundations whereby
your congregation served the Kimberley Mission for just over 100 years beginning in 1901.
When Bishop Jobst was ordained bishop in 1959 he became bishop of a church that was in utter
disrepair. It was always a fragile Church with meagre resources and suffered grievously in the aftermath
of the Second World War. The Vicariate, as it then was, remained starved of Australian Government
support and despite countless promises from government agencies it struggled to provide adequate
material care for the Aboriginal people given over to the ministrations of the missionaries.
A striking part of Bishop Jobst character was his fierce determination to meet any challenge and he
applied himself to the task of the expansion of the Kimberley Mission with great energy. He began
a Lay Missionary Association in an effort to develop administrative and nursing and educational
services in the region. Young men and women from all over Australia, and some from overseas, joined
the Kimberley Lay Missionary Association and brought with them gifts of talent and enthusiasm that
enabled the local Church to grow. Also part of his accomplishment was that he encouraged a large
number of Religious Sisters and teaching Religious Brothers from other parts of Australia to come to
the Kimberley and in this manner he began an outreach building schools in remote areas which were
previously devoid of such facilities. The Bishop realised that if Indigenous people were to advance to
take their rightful place in Australian society then they needed educational centres in their own land and
teachers to serve them. He built nine schools in the Kimberley and was instrumental in establishing
a campus for Notre Dame University in Broome itself. He built five Churches and six convents in the
Diocese and was called, with affection, “John the Builder”. He built up too the church in spiritual ways,
not just with bricks and mortar, but with faith and in hope. In this manner his life was an inspiration.
I must say that the Church in Germany has been very kind and generous to the Kimberley Mission.
Under the leadership of Bishop Jobst so many projects have been founded, so many services delivered,
so much ministry begun—and almost all of it with the help of German benefactors, many of whom
were close friends with the late bishop.
To this day I benefit, as bishop, from this connection and this overwhelming generosity. And for that
I am grateful.
Bishop Jobst ordained five Australian men as priests for the Diocese of Broome including myself—
Christopher Saunders —
He was bishop for 37 years and saw the more recent modern development of the region, noting its
changes and its growth to modernity. He returned to Europe having done so much in that foreign
outback land in northern Australia. But he left behind not only the labour of his love, the firm
foundations of a growing Church, but also many friends so many of whom have expressed their
condolences to family and friends over here. You here in Europe have lost a friend, a relative,
a companion, a confrere, someone who brought you great joy. We in the Kimberley have lost this with
his passing and more; he was to so many of us a father in faith. We shall mourn him, and suffer to some
degree his absence. But we shall rejoice with the Saints for he lives on with The Lord whom he served
so well. We are greater people for having known him and we thank Almighty God for the spiritual
riches he has brought to us. May he rest in peace.
I thank the minister and Madam Deputy Speaker, because the passing of Bishop Jobst was a very significant end
to a very significant time spent in the Kimberley. A few years ago, with the passing of Father Michael
McMahon, who was a wonderful friend of mine, the Palatine connection to the Kimberley that goes back over
100 years came to an end. The Palatines had a significant influence on the Kimberley. My dad told stories about
the bishop. The bishop was also a pilot and my dad flew to all sorts of places around the Kimberley with him.
My dad regularly argued with the late bishop, but very much respected the work that he did, particularly on
education.
Coming back to the bill; I thank the minister.
Mr J.H.D. Day: That was very broadly relevant.
Mr B.S. WYATT: I think the minister is right; there is a link. It is important when we can to try to work in some
of our reflections on the passing of significant Western Australians. I think that Bishop Jobst certainly was
a significant Western Australian.
7158
We have all said that this is important legislation. We have raised some concerns and issues that will be pursued
in consideration in detail or as the legislation is implemented and rolled out across Western Australia, but
fundamentally it is a good piece of legislation.
MR P. PAPALIA (Warnbro) [8.22 pm]: I will make only a short contribution to the debate on the Road Traffic
Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014. In regard to the eulogy read by the member for
Victoria Park, I did not know Bishop Jobst, but if he was responsible for ordaining Bishop Saunders, apart from
all the other things we heard about, he has made a wonderful contribution gifting that particular individual,
whom I greatly admire and respect, to the Kimberley.
Much of what I intended to say has been covered by the members for Mandurah and Victoria Park. I am sure
members are grateful that I do not intend to repeat everything that they have said. I want to reflect a little on one
very important subject that has already been covered. I refer to the process of how interlocks will be managed,
operated and supervised, and how that process will impact particularly on a vulnerable and susceptible part of
the community and the consequences for them if they fail to follow the process and are then penalised. As the
shadow Minister for Corrective Services, I am regularly focused on the challenge associated with the number of
Aboriginal people in the prison system and the justice system generally. The member for Victoria Park referred
to a report that clearly identifies that our system almost sets up Aboriginal people to be trapped by the challenges
associated with obtaining and retaining a licence. Invariably, the people who are susceptible to these types of
problems live in remote communities, where there is often no regular opportunity to acquire a licence through
the normal processes. Therefore, by necessity they are frequently inclined to drive without a licence. Those who
do get a licence are susceptible to falling into the trap of travelling to a town, consuming alcohol, returning
having become drunk and being caught in excess of the appropriate blood alcohol level in their system and
subsequently losing their licence or having a restriction placed upon them. They then again breach the restriction
placed on them because there is no public transport, they live long distances from any significant population and
to get anywhere they have to drive.
More and more I am concerned about the number of women entering our prison system. The number of women
in the prison system has exploded under the current government—there is no other way of putting that.
Unfortunately, since late 2008, when the previous government lost office, there has been a 72 per cent increase
in the number of women held at Bandyup Women’s Prison, which is the state’s only women’s prison. That is
a huge increase, be it only a small number compared with the overall prison population. There has been a rapid
escalation of the number women who are ending up in the prison system, and I suspect that a large number of
them may be falling foul of driving offences. In all likelihood, this measure, which I support and hope will have
a positive impact, may have an unintentional negative consequence and may even make things worse. That is not
to say in any way that I endorse people drinking and driving. I have been here for only seven years, but I have
seen countless examples of good intentions resulting in bad outcomes.
Dr G.G. Jacobs: Is the main reason for the increase of women in prison due to drug issues?
Mr P. PAPALIA: I will tell the member the main reason for the increase in the number of women in prison at
a later date, but not right now.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, no violence in the chamber.
Mr P. PAPALIA: Stop spilling the beans! Obviously drugs will be a part of the reason, but I think there are
other things. There are combinations of factors too, including comorbidity, no doubt.
Clearly there is a problem, and I commend to anyone the report authored by the member for Victoria Park with
the assistance of somebody else we heard from tonight. I commend that report to anyone seeking an insight into
the impact of licencing breaches on Aboriginal people and the possibility of falling foul of the law. I doubt
whether much has changed, although I know that is not through a lack of desire for change. I think this
government, like the previous government, has good intentions, but I do not know whether we have achieved our
hoped-for outcomes. I suspect that some of the things we have done have just made things worse. Looking at the
explanatory memorandum, which gives a little more detail than the second reading speech, I am concerned about
how these things will be managed. The explanatory memorandum states —
A person will demonstrate a satisfactory level of performance if, for a continuous period of 6 months
immediately prior to the revocation of the restriction:
•
there has been no evidence of tampering or attempted tampering with the alcohol interlock
device; …
There are other dot points, but I will deal with that one. I wonder, as did the member for Mandurah, who will
determine whether the interlock has been tampered with.
7159
I make the observation that with respect to dangerous sex offenders and GPS tracking devices there was
a demonstrated failure by the system. I think the tracking devices are monitored by contractors and there was
a demonstrated failure on behalf of those people to even recognise that a device had been tampered with on three
occasions before the individual was finally located. That individual was a dangerous sex offender, not a person
trying to start a vehicle with a previous record of drink-driving. It makes me worry about how effective and
efficient whoever we get to do this will be in remote parts of the state, a long way from serious population
centres, centres of administration of government and even contractors for that matter. It worries me that one of
the outs for the government and the system with this process is that a person is excused from having to operate
an interlock if they reside in a place that is more than 150 kilometres from an alcohol interlock service provider.
That means that the director general will not be required to grant a person an authorisation to drive. Does that
then mean that that person is excluded from the opportunity to use interlock devices and is therefore a secondclass citizen compared with all the people who live close to those facilities? I do not think that is fair and
I suspect, as I suggested earlier and as was identified in 2007, that things have not changed much. There will be
a disproportionately high level of representation of Aboriginal people who live in remote communities in this
cohort we will look at. I understand the reasoning behind requiring that a person be within 150 kilometres of the
service provider, but that has the unfair and probably unintended consequence of excluding a large chunk of
people, who could be using these devices, from getting back on the road, being more responsible, learning to be
responsible and demonstrating they have the capacity to obtain their licences again. I would be very interested to
hear the minister’s response to that particular observation. I heard the minister suggest by way of interjection that
perhaps the Department of Transport would be responsible for the implementation and monitoring or servicing.
I will be interested to see who is responsible and whether that responsibility is outsourced. If so, will it be the
same guys who did the dangerous sex offender GPS tracking, because they are not that crash hot? Minister for
Corrective Services, that bloke who was sent back to prison tried to saw his GPS tracking device off three times
before they bothered to find out whether he was trying to cut it. I am sorry, Acting Minister for Road Safety,
I am talking to the Minister for Corrective Services in response to the queried look he passed across the chamber.
I do not think that those contractors have demonstrated a great degree of proficiency in monitoring those people.
Mr J.M. Francis: You can cut them off with a pair of scissors; they break the fibre-optic circuit.
Mr P. PAPALIA: The minister might recall that it was reported—I am assuming that the report was accurate—
that the offender had tried to saw the device with a hacksaw. He reckoned he had slipped and hit his GPS
tracking device three times while he was cutting wood or something.
Mr J.M. Francis: Three times in a row. It was reported straightaway.
Mr P. PAPALIA: It took a number of days before the contractors bothered to track him down. As I understand
it, the extent of their pursuit of the dangerous sex offender was to ring him and if he did not respond, they did not
worry about it until he did respond. Maybe that is wrong. Anyway, I digress.
I am interested to find out who will monitor these devices and where they will be located. How much of
state, which is one-third of the continent of Australia, is not covered by a radius of 150 kilometres around
town where the service provider is? How many people live outside that? How many of these people we
seeking to supervise through the provision of the interlock devices live outside those coverage areas?
excluding them we are creating second-class citizens.
the
the
are
By
I do not advocate drink-driving. I have been very critical of people who have engaged in drink-driving in this
state. I think this is a good initiative, and it began to be spoken in as far back as 2003. I also make the
observation that generally, since I have been this place, the subject of road safety has elicited a bipartisan
response—a supportive response from both sides of the house. When I first got here, I was a backbencher in
government for 18 months and I witnessed the creation of a road safety forum with support from the then
opposition, for part of the time anyway, with the objective of improving the safety of people on the roads in the
state. I was quite distressed to witness during the matter of public interest debate about a road safety matter today
that that bipartisanship was abandoned by the Treasurer of the state, with a fairly dismissive and, I think,
disappointing response to deaths on the road of bicycle and motorbike riders. I think that was pretty
disappointing. I hope it was an aberration and that the Treasurer will be reminded by people who have perhaps
been in the Parliament longer than him that this particular subject is pretty well above politics and requires
a mature response from all sides at all times if we are to achieve the best outcomes. The opposition’s role is to
question, raise issues and perhaps point out flaws in legislation, but that does not mean that that should elicit an
inappropriate response. It should just be accepted as part of the bipartisan discussion about what is a very serious
matter.
The other issues I want to mention about the devices themselves all really relate to whether these requirements
will be applied in a fair and equitable fashion right across the state. As I said, this is driven by concerns I have
that we are unintentionally continuing a very disproportionate impact on the Aboriginal people of Western
Australia. They represent only 3.8 per cent of the population, but they are 40 per cent of the adult prison
population, and that prison population has massively increased under the current government, by around
7160
33 per cent in six and a half years, which is extraordinary. We are talking about something in the order of
5 355 adults in the system this week and 40 per cent of those people are Aboriginal. There are a great many
opportunities for us to reduce that disproportionate representation and I will make my views about how we can
do that clearer in the near future. However, as has been articulated by the member for Mandurah, the member for
Victoria Park and no doubt others—I think everyone on this side of the house is concerned—there is a concern
that we inadvertently end up with an increase in and a worsening of the problem as a result of trying to do good.
I think this is a good initiative, but I am worried about how it will be implemented.
MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.38 pm]: I wish to add just a few
comments about the Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014. I think
everyone has indicated that we support the bill. I do not claim to have a detailed knowledge about the ins and
outs of the workings of an interlock device or of vehicle safety devices to the extent that the member for
Cannington demonstrated tonight. He has an almost unhealthy understanding of the inner workings of car safety
devices! I want to put on record before I begin tonight my gratitude to the member for Victoria Park, and to the
member for Warnbro in his comments just now, for talking about the impact that this legislation will have on
Aboriginal people and people living in regional and remote communities. It is important that every time we
come to this place to legislate we understand how these things will impact not just on big population centres but
also right across the state. I am sure that the acting minister will be able to comment on these things in his reply
to the second reading debate.
I want to take the opportunity tonight to make the observation that this is another demonstration of the
extraordinary lengths we go to in our society to facilitate the consumption of the drug known as alcohol.
The cost associated with the regulation of this particular drug is astronomical to not only the individual or their
family, but also society, the community generally and to the government managing the issues associated with
alcohol consumption. I understand that alcohol is an important part of modern Australian lifestyle and has been
a part of our culture for many, many years, but the extent to which we go to facilitate the consumption of this
particular drug is gobsmacking.
Let us look at some of the costs associated with alcohol consumption, which is second only to tobacco as
a preventable cause of drug-related death and hospitalisation. Between 1992 and 2001, more than 31 000 deaths
were attributed to risky or high-risk alcohol consumption. If this were the road fatality figure, we would be
appalled. In the eight years between 1993–94 and 2000–01, over half a million completed hospital episodes were
associated with alcohol. That is an extraordinary cost to the community. It has been estimated that the cost to the
Australian community was around $15.3 billion in 2004–05 when factors such as crime, violence, treatment
costs, loss of productivity and premature deaths were taken into account. Here we go again, moving significant
policy and public resources to the process of facilitating the consumption of this particular drug. It is an
extraordinary position for a community to find itself in, to time and again go about inflicting ourselves with these
costs. As I said, these are not just economic costs, but huge social costs. WA Police observed that around
22 000 assaults are recorded by police each year in Western Australia. WA has a per capita alcohol consumption
of 12.4 litres as opposed to the national average of 10.3 litres, so Western Australians are some of the leading
performers in alcohol consumption. In 2012, at its peak, police attended 6 971 calls per hour between midnight
Saturday and 1.00 am Sunday. That is an extraordinary level of activity. In 2006, it was estimated that
19.8 per cent of the police budget was spent on policing alcohol, which represented about $126.6 million. If we
extrapolate that to today’s police budget, we spend $232.6 million every year to police alcohol. This is an
extraordinary exercise of taxpayers’ funds. WA Police charge, on a five-year average, 18 551 drivers each year
for an alcohol-related offence. Let us constantly remind ourselves, as we sit and contemplate these laws about
regulating alcohol, the extent to which we invest so many public resources into the process of regulating the
consumption of this particular drug. We have time and again decided to minimise, through an exercise of harm
minimisation, the consumption of alcohol, but as a community we work towards facilitating the ongoing
consumption of the drug alcohol and as a result we put laws in place such as this to mitigate the impact of
alcohol and the harm that it does in our community.
One of the key negative impacts from alcohol is drink-driving and the resulting accidents, fatalities and injuries
that occur. In 2011, a survey found that 51 per cent of people reported drinking and driving and that, of those,
72 per cent had driven after consuming alcohol at least twice in the previous year. We know that this is
a pervasive problem and governments have struggled with this issue of drink-diving for many years. We know
that the end result of drink-driving is that people die and are injured at extraordinary cost to themselves, their
families and the community. In 2011, drink-driving was responsible for 30 per cent of fatalities and nine per cent
of serious road injuries in Australia. In 2006, the cost of each fatal crash to the Australian community was
estimated at approximately $2.6 million, while the cost of each hospitalisation was estimated at $266 000. We
have to address this issue. We have to come to grips with the fact that many people either deliberately make the
decision to drink and drive or, for a range of reasons, find themselves behind the wheel of a car unable to make
the decision whether they are fit to drive. We invest millions of dollars, year after year, into the process trying to
7161
mitigate the effects of drink-driving. We have a series of strategies around drink-driving campaigns. We have
learnt over the years the effectiveness of these campaigns and how they impact upon the behaviour of people in
our community. We have public education in the community to warn people about the impacts of drink-driving
and to continually acquaint people with the negative impacts of alcohol and the almost inevitable impact of
alcohol if they drink and drive. We know this has an impact. We know that a good portion of the community are
aware of the negative implications of drink-driving and, as various members have offered tonight, we know there
is a level of strong negative social attitude to drink-driving, which is in part the success associated with these
education campaigns. We have random breath testing and a series of activities around random breath testing that
act as a further deterrent to drink-driving. For instance, we know that the measure of the awareness in the
community of the likelihood of being stopped for a random breath test and therefore being detected with alcohol
in their blood is an effective deterrent to stop people from drink-driving. I have observed in this place before that
governments in Western Australia were frustrated by this Parliament, which on two or three occasions rejected
legislation around random breath testing because it was thought at the time to be an imposition on the liberties of
the driver and that it was not an effective measure. We know, of course, that since the introduction of random
breath testing in Norway in the early 1970s that it is an extremely effective form of deterrence to drink-driving.
That has been proved time and again and therefore has been extended to various jurisdictions. We also know that
between 20 and 30 per cent of convicted drink-drivers reoffend, and there is a range of reasons that they continue
to reoffend. We know that the education campaigns, random breath-testing and other forms of policing in
relation to drink-driving are not having an effect on this particular cohort. Because of that, the government has
taken another step in trying to deter these people from continuing to drink-drive. In her second reading speech,
the minister observed —
In Western Australia each year around 4 000 drivers commit high-end drink-driving offences, repeat
drink-driving offences or refuse to provide a breath, blood or urine sample when required by Western
Australia Police to do so.
There is a cohort within the group of drink-drivers in the community whom we simply have to reach out to and
provide additional measures for. After six years—I will be interested to hear from the acting minister why it has
taken so long to bring this legislation to this place—the government has brought forward the interlock
legislation, and thank goodness it has got to this point at long last. We know—this was also mentioned in the
minister’s second reading speech—that an average reduction of 64 per cent in drink-driving reoffending will
occur while the alcohol-interlock device is fitted. This is a very important next step in the ongoing process of
trying to reduce the impact of drink-driving on the community. Indeed, international tests have shown that the
interlock devices have been highly effective at preventing drink-driving while they are installed. The studies also
show that unless there are other support and rehabilitation programs for the offender, as the final aspect of the
drink-driving campaign, the drink-driving behaviour tends to return once the interlock device is removed. We
have to be cognisant of the fact that it is effective while it is in place. However, what are we doing with this
cohort in the community to ensure that, once the interlock device is removed, they receive support, perhaps
through processes similar to the cannabis intervention orders and other measures, to continue to address the root
cause of the problem, which is, of course, not their drink-driving, but their drinking to excess in the first place
and therefore undertaking risky behaviours and continuing to make poor choices? From that point of view, it is
important that the government articulate the other aspect of the interlock legislation. We have the legislation to
make this part of our drink-driving reduction regime, but what else are we doing to ensure that these people
continue to have the support they need to address their long-term behavioural problems?
I thought it was also interesting to note that a lot of studies into the effectiveness of drink-driving campaigns
indicate that, time and again, imprisonment has been shown to be one of the least effective measures to stop
someone from reoffending. In fact, this report states —
There is little support in the literature for imprisonment. Indeed, for offenders generally, imprisonment
can be criminogenic, leading to higher levels recidivism … Most studies indicate imprisonment is
costly and ineffective at reducing drink driving …
As members have indicated, we support this legislation. It is important legislation. When the shadow Minister
for Police was in a similar role in government, she foreshadowed prior to 2008 that this legislation was needed,
and she has since committed our side to supporting the use of interlock devices as a way of contributing to the
downward pressure on the incidence of drink-driving. It is incredibly important. I remind members of the
commentary of the member for Victoria Park to understand how this will impact on rural, regional and remote
communities and that we must ensure that the cost imposition on people in those areas is not disproportionately
higher simply because of where they live. We need to continue to be cognisant of that.
At the end of the day, I take the opportunity to remind members what an extraordinary amount of public
resources we are continuing to commit to address the negative effects of alcohol. At some point in the future, we
will have to declare that enough is enough and take much stronger steps to reduce the consumption of alcohol
and the pattern of that consumption so that we can continue to reduce the abuse of alcohol, the risky behaviours
7162
that come with alcohol consumption, and the poor choices that people make in the excessive consumption of
alcohol, and thereby reduce the negative impact it has on our community.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [8.56 pm]: I rise to add my support to the Road Traffic Amendment
(Alcohol Interlocks and Other Matters) Bill 2014 and to acknowledge the work done by a previous Minister for
Police, the member for Midland, when she held that portfolio when we were last in government. I note that at the
time Western Australia could have led the country with the installation of these alcohol-interlock devices. The
idea of requiring someone to test themselves before the vehicle motor can engage makes a lot of sense. However,
I look forward to hearing from the acting minister some sort of analysis of the cost implications of this
mechanism to not only the individual, but also the state, and to being reassured of the cost benefit of it. There are
many ways that we can tackle this dreadful problem of people drink-driving, and this is one of those ways. This
is a useful mechanism, but I would like to be reassured that this is a means by which we will get good value for
money in attacking the problem.
As other members have said, alcohol has an enormous cost for our community. It is a dreadful cost in so many
ways, including the violence that is often alcohol caused, the injuries that people receive, the damage to lives and
the disruption to the smooth harmonious goings on in our community. It is sad that alcohol causes so much
damage. Yes, it is a pleasant addition to recreational time, but we have to be aware of the cost that alcohol has
for our community, and we should not shirk from it. We have to realise that this drug causes incredible harm and
damage in our society. We should constantly remind ourselves of that. If we do that, we will then realise why it
is a drug that should be consumed only in moderation.
That is something that I think is very important.
Over the last few days we have seen some tragic events on our roads. I cannot say that I am aware that all those
tragic events are down to alcohol, but clearly statistics would suggest that alcohol had a major role to play. I look
at the tragic event that occurred on Saturday morning when a cyclist was murdered—I do not think it is too
strong a word—by a motorist who behaved irresponsibly. I do not know whether that motorist was under the
influence of alcohol or what the conditions were around the event. But for a cyclist to be hit from behind and
killed in such a way is just beyond outrageous. It is so sad. I was disappointed that earlier today the
Acting Minister for Police qualified his words by bringing up this talkback furphy issue of cyclists somehow
being partly responsible, or sometimes to blame, for accidents that occur to them. That is completely wrong. We
have to move past that. If there is a crash or some sort of incident between a car and a person on a bike, there is
no question that the car will receive just a dent or something of a minor order, but for the cyclist it means serious
injury and sometimes, not infrequently, death. There is no escaping that fact, yet we still hear this talkback
carry-on about how sometimes cyclists are to blame. Get over it! The fact is that cyclists are vulnerable road
users and they deserve the utmost protection. This legislation will be a positive step if these interlock-type
devices can go some way to reducing irresponsible behaviour and the amount of drink-driving on the roads.
However, we must consider what goes through people’s minds when they are under the influence of alcohol.
Clearly, some people are incapacitated in their driving ability and as well their thinking is retarded in a way.
A media slogan in The Australian magazine only a couple of months ago said, “Are cyclists fair game in
Australia?” Combine those two elements—alcohol and a media headline on the cover of a glossy magazine
saying, “Are cyclists fair game in Australia?”—and there is an attitude that leads to the sort of tragedy we saw on
Saturday morning. That is absolutely outrageous! Irresponsible media reporting and alcohol combine to form in
the minds of weak-minded individuals an attitude that they can get away with it. I think we have to look at that
issue very seriously. The fact is that across Australia the death rate of cyclists has increased dramatically. There
was an average over 10 years of 35 cyclist deaths a year. That has gone up in 2013 to 50 cyclist deaths in one
year.
There have been loads of discussions in the media and sometimes in this place about deaths related to sharks.
It is nowhere near as significant a number as the number related to cyclists—50 cyclists killed in 2013 across
Australia. I am not sure what component of those deaths can be attributed to alcohol. I do not know whether
anyone has even done a study on it. As I said, if we combine this media attitude towards cyclists versus
motorists—war, as it is sometimes characterised—then a tragic cocktail is brewed. An emboldening might occur
in the minds of some that they do not have to take care and that it is reasonable to drive close to a cyclist. That
sort of thing is just outrageous. I believe that the tragic event that led to the death of Brynt McSwain in Kewdale
needs to be acknowledged in this debate.
The idea of further controlling the use of motor vehicles when people are under the influence of alcohol is
a sensible way to go. We have to do something about reducing the number of times that people get into a car and
get behind the steering wheel when they are under the influence of alcohol. We have to do something about that
and I am pleased to see that the measures in this legislation endeavour to reduce that number. I am sure many
other things need to be done but I think this is a positive step forward. However, as I said, I would like the acting
minister to clarify the costs to the state and to individuals for installing these devices. I understand that the aim is
to have the costs borne by the individual responsible. That seems reasonable on the surface, but I suspect that the
7163
state will also bear an element of the cost. I would therefore like to know more about that. As other members
have said, the police service invests so much time in dealing with drink-driving offences and other
alcohol-related problems that it is an enormous impost on our society and I do not believe it gets sheeted home to
the perpetrators in any adequate way. Alcohol has an enormous cost to our society. Here is a way of constraining
the activities and driving habits of a small segment. That is a worthy endeavour. I hope that these devices are
robust enough to withstand any kind of rorting. I am concerned about the likelihood of someone simply getting
the keys to an alternative vehicle. After all, given that we might be talking about young people who commit their
first drink-driving offence, those people very often live in shared housing where a number of vehicles are parked
in the driveway and access to an alternative vehicle is very easy. If that sort of loophole exists, there will be
some problems still to overcome. I imagine that all sorts of restrictions would apply to such a person if they were
not driving a vehicle to which an interlock device had been installed, but we know that many people do not
consider these sorts of things. The amount of unlicensed driving that goes on is quite frightening. I heard from
police that they had an amazing device installed in their police cars that could read every vehicle registration
plate. It was giving police officers the opportunity to see the numbers and it flagged the likelihood of a driver
driving without a licence. The police had in fact to switch off the machine because it was flagging too many
cases. That to me suggests that there is a very serious problem of unlicensed driving in the community. I hope to
hear from the Acting Minister for Police that things have moved on and the police have switched the machine
back on and are able to deal with this problem. Dealing with the alcohol problem is a worthy and sensible thing
to do but we also need to deal with this problem of unlicensed driving in general. The two issues relate to one
another because, as I say, someone might be given the right to continue to drive subject to their using a vehicle
with an interlock device.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Which machine did you refer to?
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: It is the machine that has been installed in a lot of police vehicles.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Is it the automatic numberplate recognition?
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: That might be what it is called—the automatic numberplate recognition.
Mr J.H.D. Day: I understand that 48 police cars have them fitted. I was told last Sunday that there was a bit of
a problem initially with the threshold for detection in that they were picking up a range of issues. It was
impossible to deal with all of them, so they had to make some adjustment. But they are certainly very much in
use and, as I said, they are in 48 vehicles in total.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I am reassured to hear that.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: It is a matter of how many databases they are interrogating and what is popping up on the
screen.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I had heard that they had been switched off altogether; the acting minister is
reassuring me that the machines are in operation and that some threshold has been installed so that they can be
functional, because it seems like too good a technology to not use it, and that is good news. I had the opportunity
to ride in a police car with that equipment installed and it was very impressive indeed. However, it was worrying
that even in my short, probably 15-minute ride, that a number of vehicles were flagged as the property of
someone whose licence had been suspended. It is a serious concern. We would all fear crashing into a vehicle,
even if it is only a minor encounter, driven by someone who does not have a licence, because there are all sorts
of insurance complications.
I offer my support for the legislation, but I would like the minister to reflect on his comments earlier today that
suggested that sometimes cyclists may be to blame. There are cases in which people see cyclists go through stop
signs. Of course, vehicles must point-stop at a stop sign and sometimes cyclists do not do that point-stop.
Sometimes traffic light sensors are not engaged by the passage of a bike, so when there is no other traffic about
at 6.30 in the morning, a cyclist might roll through a red light. That is something we need to look at because it is
a technology problem; the sensor devices are not working adequately. For example, in my electorate the traffic
sensors at the intersection of George Street and Fremantle Road do not pick up bikes. We are told that the
sensors pick up bikes, but they are not doing an adequate job. It is wrong to beat up the idea that cyclists are at
fault as well as motorists, because cyclists are vulnerable road users. The threat to a bike rider’s life through any
sort of crash is high; whereas a motorist, sitting in a metal box surrounded by all sorts of technology that makes
them safe, is not at all at the same risk, so surely motorists could at least be a little understanding when passing
cyclists.
I support the legislation. I hope that it will go some way to reducing the amount of drink-driving, that the system
will not be abused and that people who should not be driving at all will not be allowed on the roads because they
can access a vehicle installed with an interlock device. I hope that the situation in which people who are drinkdriving and then disqualified from driving remains. If there is justification for someone to be allowed to drive
with an interlock device, I support the introduction of this legislation.
7164
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Acting Minister for Police) [9.14 pm] — in reply: I thank members of the
opposition who have commented on and who support the Road Traffic Amendment (Alcohol Interlocks and
Other Matters) Bill 2014.
I will deal with the point raised by the member for Gosnells about expected costs first. Generally speaking, the
costs will need to be borne by the individual rather than the state, although, as I said in debate earlier today,
$1.5 million has been set aside from the road trauma trust fund to implement the scheme. The cost to install the
device in a vehicle is expected to be between $1 200 and $1 600 for a six-month period and after that it will be
approximately $150 per month; the $1 200 to $1 600 includes the $150 per month for six months. I understand
that cost is comparable to similar, but not the same, schemes in other states. The government will consider
options to reduce to some extent that cost for low-income earners.
I will now endeavour to respond to specific points raised by other members. Firstly, I respond to the query about
the time taken to introduce the bill. There are probably few occasions in which ministers of either political
persuasion would not like legislation to be drafted more quickly than is the case, but it is also the case that
complex issues need to be dealt with, and certainly that has been the case for this bill. What is being introduced
in Western Australia is different from schemes in other states, and I am advised that other states are paying a lot
of attention to this scheme and how it will work in Western Australia with a view to making changes in other
states with similar, but not the same, schemes.
As the member for Midland indicated, the former Labor government wanted to go ahead with similar legislation
at least a year or two before the 2008 election, but, obviously, it was not able to complete that in its time in
office. Similarly, it has taken some time to complete the drafting of this legislation since this government has
been in office. As I mentioned, it is important to appreciate that the scheme being introduced in Western
Australia differs from the schemes in all other jurisdictions. The legislation and programs that exist elsewhere
are charactered by constant change and evolution and, as I mentioned, a lot of attention is being paid to how the
scheme will operate in Western Australia.
Participation in WA will be mandatory through administrative and legislative arrangements, rather than
judicially determined as is the case in some other jurisdictions; therefore, it will be consistent in its application
across Western Australia. The performance of the scheme in individual cases, of course, will be monitored.
Cancellation of a requirement to use an alcohol interlock device will occur only if prescribed performance
standards are met by the user. Data collected by the devices will be monitored for that reason and also to
determine when a person appears to be having trouble separating their drinking and driving behaviour, in which
case the chief executive officer of the Department of Transport will refer the person for alcohol assessment and
treatment.
I have some figures from other jurisdictions across Australia, and it varies. The ACT currently has only
six participants in its scheme, five of whom are voluntary. In the Northern Territory, there are 90 participants in
the scheme, and in New South Wales, there are 300. That might be considered a relatively small number, but in
NSW the scheme is voluntary, although NSW is currently in the process of completely modifying its scheme,
which will presumably make it mandatory in some cases.
As I mentioned, the scheme that is being introduced in Western Australia is different from that in the other
states. It involves different details and, therefore, we have not been able to translate to Western Australia what
has been done in other jurisdictions.
It is also relevant to point out that the regulations that need to accompany the bill to bring the act into effect have
been drafted. Obviously, they cannot be acted upon until the bill goes through Parliament. There is quite a lot of
detail in those regulations, and that has taken time as well and a range of issues have had to be resolved. A lot of
the issues were raised in comments made by members this evening. Because the regulations have been drafted,
the legislation will be implemented in a much shorter time than would have otherwise been the case.
The issue of other actions that have been taken in relation to drink-driving was also raised. The point was made
that this bill is not a panacea to drink-driving. That is entirely correct. Other actions have been taken, certainly
during the time that this government has been in office. For example, in 2009, amendments were made to the
provisions for impounding and confiscating motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1974 and for the
sanctions that apply in that case to also apply in the case of unauthorised driving committed when the person is
disqualified or suspended. This was an important amendment relating to the drink-driving strategy. It is intended
to deter persons who lose their licences for alcohol offences from opting to drive without authority. In 2011, the
government also implemented amendments that flowed from a review of the drink and drug-driving penalties. In
2010, the government also brought in legislation to introduce disqualification notices for drink-driving offences
above the .08 blood alcohol content, for driving under the influence and also for refusing a breath or blood or
urine test. Instant disqualification notices can now be given in those cases, which up until 2010 was not the case.
The review that was undertaken by Peter Browne was also referred to by a couple of speakers, particularly the
member for Midland. I make the point that the government made a commitment at the last election to review the
7165
Road Safety Council and its operations, and the Office of Road Safety in particular. We did that because we
considered that we can do better in this area. It was not done because there was concern about mismanagement
within the Office of Road Safety or mismanagement of the road trauma trust fund, as has been suggested.
Indeed, the report did not suggest that there had been mismanagement. Recommendations have been made about
how we can hopefully be more effective in reducing the amount of trauma on our roads in Western Australia.
That report is currently out for public comment. The government will finalise its position on the
recommendations and then they can be put into effect.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: There’s 56 recommendations on how to improve it. Is that what you are saying? There are
significant problems if the report has made 56 recommendations. It is not two or three.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: There are certainly things that can be done better. The member can describe them as problems
if she wishes. As I said, the report did not suggest that there had been mismanagement within the Office of Road
Safety or with the administration of the road trauma trust fund. It certainly identified issues with the governance
of road safety in Western Australia, particularly in the context of the fact that the road trauma trust fund has
grown enormously from when the Road Safety Council was first established. The revenue flowing into the road
trauma trust fund this year was approximately $100 million. From my recollection, when the Road Safety
Council was established, the amount of revenue going into that fund, given that it collected only one-third of
speed and red-light camera fines, was about $8 million a year.
I was a member of the Select Committee on Road Safety that the member for Midland referred to earlier that
existed between 1993 and 1996. The committee recommended—I was personally very strongly supportive of
this recommendation—that the Road Safety Council be established to be more inclusive of other agencies, more
than the police, who were playing a very strong role until that point. The Traffic Board of Western Australia
existed until that point. We had a view that too much was being left to the police, particularly concentrating on
enforcement, and that other relevant agencies needed to be more involved and a more comprehensive approach
needed to be taken to road safety, public education campaigns and enforcement in Western Australia. The
change that was made around 1996 or thereabouts was positive and it had a beneficial effect in ultimately
reducing the amount of road trauma in this state. The Road Safety Council, which was recommended to be
established then, was certainly not the sort of body that is really appropriate to administer a fund of something
like $100 million a year. I think that explains a lot of what has happened in subsequent years and the reason we
need to change the government arrangements that were recommended by Peter Browne in his report.
I wish to make a few other points. The number of fatalities on our roads is still far too high. As I said earlier
today, one fatality is one too many. I am advised that last year was the best year, if we can put it in those terms,
since records started. A total of 161 people died on our roads last year. That is still many but the number,
generally speaking, has been coming down. The rate of fatalities relative to the population of the state has been
coming down quite significantly over the past 30 or 40 years.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: But nowhere near the rate of decline that they’ve had in other states.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: We need to be more effective. I completely agree. That probably means more well-targeted
public education campaigns. Perhaps it means even more enforcement. There is a major enforcement effort now
underway through WA Police. We particularly need drivers to take adequate responsibility, more so than many
people do at the moment. That is the reality. We all see people on the roads, whether they be in two-wheel
vehicles, four-wheel vehicles, trucks or whatever, particularly cars and motorbikes, who are driving dangerously
and recklessly. Not all of them, unfortunately, can be intercepted by the police. People are just asking for trouble
for themselves or, worse, for other people on the roads. That is what a lot of it comes down to—people not
taking adequate responsibility for how they behave on the roads.
The member for Cannington raised the issue of whether drivers who are subject to this scheme will be able to get
around the requirements in some way. There are provisions in the regulations and the way the scheme will work
that will enable us to do whatever is reasonably possible to stop that from occurring. For example, the devices
will require a retesting of breath samples at random intervals once a journey begins. I am not sure what the
intervals will be; obviously, they are random. They may be seven and a half minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes or
whatever. Presumably with a short amount of notice, the driver will need to pull over and be retested on
a random basis. If the individual is detected driving a friend’s car or somebody else’s car, the car will be
impounded and the driver will be charged with an offence of unauthorised driving of a serious level, attracting
significant fines or, potentially, imprisonment for repeat offences and further disqualification. There is a quite
strong disincentive in the legislation for people attempting to get around the scheme by driving someone else’s
car.
Hire cars will also be impounded in such a situation, and will not be released if the hire car company did not do
its due diligence to ensure that the driver was properly authorised to drive the hire car. Potentially, there are quite
serious consequences for hire car companies if they do not adequately check that drivers are appropriately
licensed to drive the company’s cars.
7166
The member for Mandurah raised the issue of the commencement time of the legislation and any potential
retrospectivity. The legislation does not have retrospective application. It will apply to people who commit and
are convicted of a relevant offence or offences after the legislation commences operation, so we will not be
looking back, prior to the legislation taking effect.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: So it won’t go back to a prior offence as a first offence if there is a previous offence in the
previous five years?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: As I understand it, that is the case, but I am happy to check that. Yes, I am being told that that
is the case. The scheme will commence from the date of the legislation, and people will not be subject to
sanctions for prior offences.
In relation to the possible take-up of the scheme based upon conviction for relevant offences over the preceding
five years, approximately 27 000 people, over a five-year period, could be required to have an alcohol interlock
device installed. For them to get their licence back, this condition will be applied as a condition of having their
motor vehicle driver’s licence returned to them.
A question was asked also by the member for Mandurah about who will undertake the monitoring. The CEO of
the Department of Transport will accredit suitable persons to supply, install and service the interlock devices. As
I understand it, potentially about three commercial providers in the state will be able to install and service the
interlock devices. The accredited service providers will service and inspect the devices at regular intervals—
generally at monthly intervals. They will download data from those devices and provide to the CEO details of
incidents in which the device has separated drinking and driving behaviour. I think that means that when they are
concerned about people having been drinking and driving, that information will be forwarded to the CEO of the
Department of Transport.
The issue of potential cost and availability in regional and rural areas was raised, in particular, by the member for
Victoria Park. The cost will be the same on a statewide basis, so there will not be any difference between the
metropolitan area and rural or regional areas. The member for Victoria Park also raised issues specifically about
Indigenous drivers. I am advised that a trial has been undertaken with Indigenous drivers in the Roebourne area.
The devices were well received and fitted to 19 vehicles. They prevented 127 instances of drink-driving. I am
advised that the devices were retained by the Aboriginal corporation, and the government, I presume, through the
Office of Road Safety or the Department of Transport, has spoken to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs,
which was keen to have the devices in the Aboriginal communities and to ensure that providers could be in
identified towns. Voluntary interlocks could also be funded by individuals or corporations, including, no doubt,
Aboriginal corporations and other organisations, for approximately $1 800 per device.
Mr D.A. Templeman: Is $1 800 the average cost?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Earlier I mentioned $1 200 to $1 600 for a six-month period, and about $150 a month
thereafter if it needs to go on for longer than six months.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: The $1 200 to $1 500 is like a lease cost for that period of time, isn’t it, so what you are
now talking about is maybe purchasing it outright for $1 800?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: That sounds right, yes—for voluntary installation.
An Indigenous licensing scheme has been very successful. I am speaking more generally about driving in
Aboriginal remote areas. It has increased the participation of Aborigines in the licensing scheme, and has been
a partnership between the Department of Transport and the elders in the relevant communities to assist with the
theory and practical tests. The Department of Transport has provided the facilities, regular visits to remote areas
and resources, and has also helped Aboriginal people teach other Aboriginal people. That has been an effective
scheme as far as it goes, I am advised.
As I mentioned earlier, or alluded to at least, alcohol interlock technology is constantly evolving, and that has
been one of the issues to deal with in the drafting of the bill and the regulations. Because a lot of the detail is
established through the regulations, this bill provides for changes to be made relatively simply and for
improvements to be put in place to keep up to date with developments in alcohol interlock technology. Quite
deliberately, some of that detail is in the regulations to make it easier to change them than if it was in the bill
itself.
On the question of remote areas, the intention is that this scheme will apply to people who live within
150 kilometres of an approved provider in the metropolitan area. As I understand it, potentially three companies
will provide the services. In rural and regional areas, people will be able to obtain services through
a subcontracting arrangement through auto electricians, but if people live more than 150 kilometres from where
an approved provider is available, they will be exempt from the scheme. That will not apply to many people in
the state. We expect that there will be widespread coverage across the state. Indeed, the department has a map of
where the offenders live and it is expected, similar to what has happened in Queensland where there has been
7167
a coverage of about 90 per cent of offenders, that the coverage rate in Western Australia will be similar.
However, as I said, outside that 150-kilometre limit, there will be an exemption from the scheme.
The member for Mandurah raised the issue of extraordinary drivers’ licences. In the last calendar year,
1 127 extraordinary licences were granted, of which 615 were lodged subject to an alcohol-related offence.
Those people have to offend in order to enter this scheme. As I said, the scheme will not be retrospective, but if
they commit a second offence, according to the criteria outlined in the explanatory memorandum, they will be
required to enter the scheme.
Mr D.A. Templeman: With this regime in place, the order could, as part of the granting of an extraordinary
licence, include a requirement for an alcohol interlock device to be installed.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Yes, that is the case. It is also the case, probably more generally, that for people to be able to
resume driving after their period has ended, they will be required to have one of the interlock devices. That will
be the more general situation. They will be able to apply for approval to resume driving prior to the end of their
licence disqualification period, but it will not be able to take effect, of course, until the period of disqualification
has ended.
A question was also asked about the effectiveness of alcohol interlock devices where they are being used
elsewhere. I am advised that, generally, the research indicates that alcohol interlock devices reduce the incidence
of drink-driving of people who have one fitted by 64 per cent—so approximately two-thirds when a device is
fitted—which is quite a substantial reduction. It is reasonable to ask the question: what about the other
36 per cent? Presumably, they are getting around it, but being detected in some way or other, and, as I mentioned
earlier, there are potentially very serious penalties for doing so.
Mr D.A. Templeman: I suppose the query I was trying to get at was that this regime exists and has existed in
New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. I was interested in the number of interlock devices. How many are
there currently in Victoria and what is the raw figure? You mentioned, I think Canberra or the ACT and that was
only a very small number. How many are we talking about in the other jurisdictions?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Victoria has a much higher number than New South Wales has. New South Wales is currently
voluntary, but I understand it is moving to a mandatory scheme. In Victoria the numbers are much higher.
Mr D.A. Templeman: We can probably come to that in consideration in detail.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: I can give the member the expected number for Western Australia, which is about 4 600 at any
one time, so it is quite a substantial number. In Victoria the number is 7 000, which is higher than the predicted
figure for Western Australia and that would be expected given the higher population.
Mr D.A. Templeman: So we would expect 64 per cent of the 7 000? Is that what it is currently?
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Member for Mandurah, perhaps we could deal with some of this in
consideration in detail.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Yes, it would seem that approximately 64 per cent of people are prevented from having
a second drink-driving offence.
I am also advised that the devices are associated with reducing the incidence of crashes by between 31 per cent
and 81 per cent, which is quite a broad range, but a significant reduction. This is hypothetical really, given we
are not proposing to do this at the moment at least—if it was going to happen, it would need to be done on
a national basis and I think it would be quite some time before this does occur, if ever—but I am advised that if
the devices were installed in all new vehicles, they would reduce the rate of fatalities nationally by 24 per cent.
Presumably, that is in vehicles that have the devices installed from any point in the future. It would reduce
fatalities by 24 per cent and serious injuries by 11 per cent. There are potentially some substantial benefits there,
but there would need to be pretty wide community debate about that before it happens, as I mentioned. There
have not been any formal Australian evaluations for the number of crashes prevented by the locks in Australia at
this stage. I am sure with what is happening in Western Australia there will be more data to provide information
for some good research to be done.
I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Girrawheen. She referred to a range of schemes that
have been underway largely in California. I know a lot of research is done and there is some quite advanced
work done in some respects in the United States, particularly in California.
The member for Kwinana raised a number of issues as well. To respond to some of those points, the scheme will
provide support that is the first of its kind in Australia. The performance will be monitored by the monthly
downloaded data collected by the devices and when an individual is experiencing difficulty separating their
drinking and driving behaviour, they will be referred for an alcohol assessment and treatment. The cost of that
aspect will be met by the government, just to add to what I said earlier. I am also advised that alcohol was
a factor in 16 per cent of road crash fatalities in Western Australia in 2013, not 30 per cent, as I think the
member for Kwinana suggested. It is still a significant proportion, but not as much as the member indicated.
7168
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Is that road crash fatalities? Is that what you said?
Mr J.H.D. DAY: That is what I said, yes.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: As opposed to other road crashes when there are no fatalities.
Mr J.H.D. DAY: Yes. I am sure the percentage would have come down in recent years, certainly since there has
been random breath testing, a .05 blood alcohol limit and a much higher degree of enforcement. Alcohol-related
crashes in Western Australia cost the community about $460 million a year, which is a very significant cost
economically and there is a substantial cost in human terms as well, as the point was made in the debate. In the
last five years the government, as I mentioned earlier, has introduced legislation to reduce the amount of
unlicensed driving in the community. Penalties have been increased for drink and drug-driving, with, as
I mentioned earlier, the ability for licences to be immediately disqualified. I am also advised that recent research
has found that the effects of alcohol interlock devices in changing behaviour can last beyond the period of the
device and we certainly hope that they do. In 2011, a Canadian study showed a 21 per cent reduction in the
recidivism rate up to three years after the devices were removed, so we hope that there is at least a 21 per cent
reduction and we want there to be more lasting effects even on that.
I think that responds to most of the points raised in the debate. I presume the opposition will want to go into
consideration in detail. We will not do that tonight, but I think that is a reasonable approach. This is new
legislation for the state. It is a new scheme, in terms of the detail, for Australia and we can cover some of the
more detailed aspects in the consideration in detail stage. With those comments, I thank members for their
contributions and their general support for the bill. Like the opposition, the government certainly hopes the bill
will pass through both houses as expeditiously as possible and I hope it will get through the Legislative Council
before the end of this year. Given the range of other legislation we have to deal with, there is probably a big
question mark over that, but I very much hope that it will so that we can start putting it into effect in Western
Australia not very far into 2015. I commend the bill to the house.
Bill read a second time.
BILLS
Returned
1.
Mental Health Bill 2013.
Bill returned from the Council with amendments.
2.
Mental Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2013.
Bill returned from the Council without amendment.
House adjourned at 9.50 pm
__________
7169
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
MINISTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2800.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Regional Development; Lands; Minister Assisting the
Minister for State Development:
For each agency, department or government trading enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of responsibilities,
since 1 July 2013, has the agency, department or government trading enterprise paid for the production of any
promotional paraphernalia, apparel or items promoting or advertising the Department, and if so:
(a)
what specific items have been produced;
(b)
what has been the cost of each item produced;
(c)
where specifically have the promotional items been circulated or distributed; and
(d)
what is the name of the company that produced each item outlined above?
Mr D.T. Redman replied:
DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(a)–(d) [See tabled paper no 2266.]
DEPARTMENT OF LANDS
LANDCORP
LANDGATE
GASCOYNE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Gascoyne Regional Blueprint Banner
(b)
$1,030.00
(c)
Carnarvon and Coral Bay Business and Community Directory
(d)
Forge Creative
GOLDFIELDS ESPERANCE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)–(d) Nil
GREAT SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Three pull-up banners 1200mm by 2170mm
(b)
$2715 ex GST (design and supply)
(c)
Retained by GSDC for display at events and functions
(d)
Croker Lacey Graphic Design
KIMBERLEY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)–(d) Nil
MID WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)–(d) Nil
PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Banners, Booklets and Presentation folders
(b)
Banners — $1,430.00
Booklets — $615.00
Presentation Folders — $1,357.00
(c)
Two Breakfast events
7170
18 November 2014 — Sebel Mandurah
18 August 2014 — Mandurah Quays
(d)
Banners — Mandurah Graphics
Booklets — Snap Printing Mandurah
Presentation Folders — Snap Printing Mandurah
PILBARA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
(b)
(1)
250 x peaked caps,
(2)
1800 x USB flash drives,
(3)
4 x pull up banners,
(4)
8 x My Pilbara Adventure car magnets,
(5)
100 x My Pilbara Adventure fridge magnets,
(6)
200 x My Pilbara Adventure USB flash drives
(1)
$1,479.50 inc. GST
(2)
$16,027.00 inc. GST
(3)
$2,090.00 inc. GST
(4)
$650.00 inc. GST
(5)
$295.50 inc. GST
(6)
$1364.00 inc. GST
Note: The My Pilbara Adventure items were produced and distributed specifically to promote the
tourism campaign and did not directly promote the Pilbara Development Commission.
(c)
Stakeholder presentations, conferences, visiting dignitaries and sponsored events in the Pilbara.
(d)
Micromedia Advertising Design.
SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)–(d) Nil
WHEATBELT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)–(d) Nil
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2801.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Education; Aboriginal Affairs;
Electoral Affairs:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Mr J.H.D. Day replied:
Country High School Hostels Association
No
(a)–(d) Not applicable
Department of Aboriginal Affairs
No
Department of Education
No
7171
Department of Education Services
Yes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i)
The logo of the Western Australian Aboriginal Education and Training Council.
(ii)
An advertisement for the Japanese Studies Scholarships 2015.
(i)
$31.50 (excluding GST)
(ii)
$932.34 (excluding GST)
(i)
The logo was recreated for the purpose of being incorporated into a banner for a national
conference on Aboriginal education.
(ii)
The West Australian newspaper.
(i)
NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group Incorporated.
(ii)
Adcorp Australia Limited.
Department of Electoral Affairs
Yes
(a)
2000 promotional pens
(b)
$1480 including GST
(c)
Pens are distributed to teachers, student teachers and community group leaders who access the services
provided by the Electoral Education Centre. Pens were also distributed during NAIDOC week in 2013
and 2014. The purpose of the promotion is to enhance participation in the electoral process.
(d)
Custom Imprint
SCSA
Yes
(a)
Re-skinning of 4 existing roll-up SCSA promotional banners
(b)
Total cost $1,144, including GST
(c)
Banners are used for events, including SCSA workshops and student award ceremonies
(d)
Toucan Display Systems
TREASURER’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2802.
Mr M. McGowan to the
Interests:
Treasurer; Minister for Energy; Citizenship and Multicultural
For each agency, department or government trading enterprise within the Treasurer’s portfolio of
responsibilities, since 1 July 2013, has the agency, department or government trading enterprise paid for the
production of any promotional paraphernalia, apparel or items promoting or advertising the Department, and if
so:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Dr M.D. Nahan replied:
Public Utilities Office
(a)
Nil
(b)–(d) Not applicable
Department of Treasury
(a)
Nil
Economic Regulation Authority
7172
GESB
Horizon Power
Independent Market Operator
Insurance Commission of Western Australia
(a)
Nil
Office of Multicultural Interests
Office of the Auditor General
(a)
Nil
Synergy
WA Treasury Corporation
Western Power
(a)–(b) [See tabled paper no 2264.]
(c)
Western Power provides an essential service to the community. Given the vast geographical spread and
sheer number of Western Power assets and potential hazard to the public, it is essential for the
organisation to proactively educate the community on safety risks associated with the electricity
network. Public awareness items are distributed at school education visits as part of the successful
“Shock Proof” program and at community public safety forums. In the past year Western Power visited
close to 30,000 school-aged children in rural and metropolitan areas promoting safe behaviour around
electricity.
(d)
[See tabled paper no 2264.]
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2803.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2806.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Attorney General; Minister for Commerce:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
7173
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
Corruption and Crime Commission
(a)
Thirty centimetre rulers with Commission logo and “RULE OUT MISCONDUCT” printed on each.
(b)
The total cost of 5,000 at 75 cents each was $3,750 exclusive of Goods and Services Tax.
(c)
The rulers have been distributed at workshops and forums conducted by the Commission, and provided
to public sector authorities, upon request, for distribution at forums conducted by them or for inclusion
in induction packages for incoming employees.
(d)
Bladon WA.
Commissioner for Children and Young People
(a)–(b) Nil
(c)–(d) Not applicable
Department of Commerce
Department of the Attorney General
(a)
Public Trustee Pens
(b)
$6,858.50
(c)
Education Seminars, Conferences, Reception Desk
(d)
Penguin Printing
(a)
Public Trustee Folders
(b)
$3,547.50
(c)
Education Seminars and Conferences
(d)
Proton Promotional
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
(a)–(b) Nil
Equal Opportunity Commission
(a)
Magnets — 2000
(b)
$520.14
(c)
NAIDOC week stalls, training courses, all EOC events
(d)
Rangs Graphics and Design
(a)
Balloons — 100
(b)
$116.28
(c)
NAIDOC week stalls, EOC events
(d)
Print My Balloon
Office of the Information Commissioner
(a)–(b) Nil
Legal Aid
(a)–(b) Nil
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
(a)–(b) Nil
7174
Legal Profession Complaints Committee
(a)–(b) Nil
Western Australia Industrial Relations Commission
(a)–(b) Nil
WorkCover
(a)–(b) Nil
MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2808.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Housing:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Mr W.R. Marmion replied:
The Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) advises:
1.
(a)
Golden Gecko Generic Banner 2013 2 x Replacement of graphic for existing mechanism
(b)
$360.00 for 2 banners
(c)
Displayed at Golden Gecko events
(d)
Produced by The Expo Group
2.
(a)
South West Hub Banner including mechanisms
(b)
$1 100.00 for 2 banners and mechanisms
(c)
Displayed at Community Engagement events around Western Australia
(d)
3.
(a)
Graduate Program Banner 3 x Replacement of graphic for existing mechanisms
(b)
$435.00 for 3 banners
(c)
Displayed at Graduate events
(d)
4.
(a)
Corporate branded USB Drives
(b)
$4 197.50 for 850 drives
(c)
Departmental information put onto drives and handed out at departmental events
(d)
Produced by RPB Enterprises Pty Ltd
5.
(a)
Corporate branded Coloured Pencils in Cardboard Tube
(b)
$712.50 for a quantity 250
(c)
Distributed at Community Engagement events around Western Australia
(d)
Produced by ASB Marketing
6.
(a)
Corporate branded Stress Hard Hat
(b)
(c)
(d)
7.
(a)
Corporate branded 30cm Balloons
(b)
(c)
(d)
8.
(a)
Corporate branded Gildan Performance Ladies T-Shirt
(b)
(c)
Distributed to DMP staff for Working on Wellness (WOW) sponsored events
(d)
9.
(a)
Corporate branded Gildan Performance Adult T-Shirt
(b)
(c)
(d)
10.
(a)
Corporate branded Microfibre Surf Hat Mesh Panel/Toggle
(b)
(c)
(d)
11.
(a)
Corporate branded SPF 30+ Sunscreen with Carabiner
(b)
(c)
(d)
12.
(a)
Corporate branded Retractable Reels
(b)
(c)
(d)
13.
(a)
Corporate branded Scout Sling bag
(b)
$1 150.00 for a quantity 100
(c)
(d)
7175
7176
14.
(a)
Corporate branded Java Cup
(b)
(c)
Distributed to DMP staff for the Innovate events
(d)
15.
(a)
Corporate branded Rainbow Pop-Up Curved Display System including graphics for 5 panels
(b)
$2725.00
(c)
Displayed at Midwest Expo 2014
(d)
16.
(a)
Corporate branded Pens
(b)
$1 590.00 for a quantity 3,000
(c)
(d)
Produced by Bladon
17.
(a)
Corporate branded key tag bottle openers
(b)
$2 980.00 for a quantity 2 000
(c)
(d)
Produced by Bladon
18.
(a)
Lanyard Sponsorship
(b)
$4 000
(c)
IPAA International Conference 29–30 October 2014
(d)
Produced by EECW Pty Ltd (Event Coordinators)
19.
(a)
Clothing and Uniform items for Environmental Officers for Site Inspections and Field Work. Including
embroidery for the Golden Gecko’s logo and the words “Environment Division”
(b)
$7 759.43: total cost during 2013/2014 financial year
(c)
Clothing worn by Environmental officers in the field
(d)
Produced by Proton Promotional
20.
(a)
Pencil Sets, Squeezie chairs and Pens
(b)
$437.50 for 250 Pencil Sets; $575.00 for 250 squeezie chairs and $490.00 for 500 branded Pens
(c)
Promotional materials for use at the Ashfield Family Day during NAIDOC Week in 2013
(d)
21.
(a)
Business card USB
300 x Geological Survey WA — DMP branded 8 Gb USB
500 PET GSWA — DMP branded 8 Gb USB
500 GSWA — DMP branded 8 Gb USB
250 Bottle opener USB - Petroleum — DMP branded 4 Gb USB
300 Pen USB - DMP branded 4 Gb — $6.56 USB
(b)
7177
Geological Survey WA - DMP branded 8 Gb — $7 each
PET GSWA - DMP branded 8 Gb — $7 each
GSWA - DMP branded 8 Gb — $6.25 each
Bottle opener USB - Petroleum - DMP branded 4 Gb — $6.56 each
Pen USB - DMP branded 4 Gb — $6.56 each
(c)
For the promotion of DMP at International and local conferences
(d)
Produced by RBP Enterprises NSW
22.
(a)
APPEA — DMP branded Business card 8 Gb USB
(b)
200 x $7 each
(c)
For promotion of DMP at APPEA Conference Perth
(d)
23.
(a)
Comesa — Africa Down Under branded Business Card USB 8 Gb
(b)
250 x $7 each
(c)
For Africa Down Under Conference Perth
(d)
24.
(a)
12 — Banner Ups
(b)
$30 each
(c)
For the promotion of DMP by various Divisions and Conferences
(d)
Produced by Eurotech Displays WA
25.
(a)
50 Gold Lapel WA shaped Lapel Pins
(b)
$3.00 each
(c)
For the promotion of DMP at International Conferences and for visiting delegations
(d)
Produced by Sheridan’s Perth
The Department of Housing advises:
MINISTER FOR SPORT AND RECREATION’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2809.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Sport and Recreation; Racing and Gaming:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Mr T.K. Waldron replied:
MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2810.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food; Fisheries:
7178
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD WA (DAFWA)
(a)–(d)
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
(a)–(d)
ITEM
COST
DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY
T-shirt for ‘Send us your Skeletons’ research
program
$3,630.00 for 200
South west WA
items
Dingo
Promotions
T-shirts for ‘Tailor Tagging’ research program
$820.60 for 40
items
WA Metropolitan Uptempo Designs
T-shirts for ‘True Blue Swimmer Crabs
Supporter’ research program
$1,158.30 for 60
items
South west WA
Uptempo Designs
Caps for ‘True Blue Swimmer Crabs
$973.50 for 150
items
South west WA
Dingo
Promotions
Calico bags for ‘True Blue Swimmer Crabs
$367.12 for 75
items
South west WA
Uptempo Designs
‘Fridge’ magnets for ‘Fishwatch’ compliance $1,122.00
program
for 5,000 items
Statewide
Screen Print West
Polo-shirts for Community and Education staff $774.52 for 17
and volunteers
items
Statewide
Embroidme
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2811.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Local Government; Community Services; Seniors and
Volunteering; Youth:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Mr A.J. Simpson replied:
Metropolitan Cemeteries Board
(a)
Nil
(b)–(c) Not applicable
Department of Local Government Communities
MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2812.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Environment; Heritage:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
7179
Mr A.P. Jacob replied:
MINISTER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES’ PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2813.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Small Business;
Veterans:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Mr J.M. Francis replied:
The Department of Corrective Services
The Department of Fire and Emergency Services
Fire and Emergency Services Superannuation Fund
No promotional paraphernalia advertising the fund has been produced.
(a)–(d) Not Applicable
State Emergency Management Committee
(a)
2 Retractable Banners
(b)
$325.00 each plus GST
(c)
The banners are used during conferences or workshop events.
(d)
Signarama West Perth.
Small Business Development Corporation
MINISTER FOR WATER’S PORTFOLIOS — PROMOTIONAL ITEMS
2814.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Water; Forestry:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Ms M.J. Davies replied:
Department of Water and Forest Products Commission
(a)–(d) Nil
Aqwest, Busselton Water and Water Corporation
7180
FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK — POST-MIDNIGHT BOARDINGS
2818.
Mr W.J. Johnston to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the comprehensive plan that has been prepared for the proposed Forrestfield–Airport rail line, and ask:
(a)
(b)
noting that Perth Airport does not have a curfew, how many boardings are expected between the time of
Midnight and 6:00 a.m. each weekday at each of the following stations:
(i)
Airport West; and
(ii)
Consolidated Airport; and
noting that Perth Airport does not have a curfew, how many boardings are expected between the time of
Midnight and 6:00 a.m. each weekend day at each of the following stations:
(i)
Airport West; and
(ii)
Consolidated Airport?
Mr D.C. Nalder replied:
(a)
(b)
(i)
Approximately 300.
(ii)
Approximately 80.
(i)–(ii) The level of detail requested by the Member has not been identified.
PREMIER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL EDWARDES
2820.
Mr M. McGowan to the Premier; Minister for State Development; Science:
(1)
Since 1 July 2013, on how many occasions has the Premier or a member of your ministerial staff met
with Hon Cheryl Edwardes, through:
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
contact via written correspondence; and
(d)
face-to-face meetings?
For each face-to-face meeting with Hon Cheryl Edwardes, can the Premier please advise:
(a)
the date of the meeting;
(b)
the names of all persons present at the meeting; and
(c)
the nature of the meeting?
Mr C.J. Barnett replied:
The Premier and his current Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social
contact or contact for administrative purposes only with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes.
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014:
(1)
(a)–(d) The Premier and his current Ministerial staff have many dealings with companies and
individuals during the course of business. During this period there have been 3 identified
telephone calls and 4 emails with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business.
(2)
The Premier and his current Ministerial staff have had the following meetings with the
Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business:
(a)
23/10/2013; 4/9/2013; 4/7/13
(b)
Geoff Wedgwood, Cheryl Edwardes and Simon Corrigan; Geoff Wedgwood,
Hon Ian Campbell, Mike Loly, John Snelling, Cheryl Edwardes, Director General Department
of Transport, Deputy Director Generals from Department of Transport and Department of
State Development; Geoff Wedgwood, Cheryl Edwardes.
(c)
Update on Atlas Iron’s operations and expansion plans; Presentation on North West
Infrastructure’s financial capability and timeframe for development of iron ore berths; Update
on Atlas Iron’s plans and activities.
7181
MINISTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
MEETINGS — HON CHERYL EDWARDES
2822.
(1)
Since 1 July 2013, on how many occasions has the Minister or a member of your ministerial staff met
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Hon Cheryl Edwardes, can the Minister please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)–(2) Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Minister and his current Ministerial staff or placements
have held no meetings with Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business.
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL
EDWARDES
2823.
Electoral Affairs:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
I and my current Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social contact or
contact for administrative purposes only with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes.
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 I and my Ministerial staff have had the following contact and
meetings with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business:
(1)
(2)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
Nil
(d)
Nil
(a)–(c) Not applicable
TREASURER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL EDWARDES
2824.
Interests:
(1)
Since 1 July 2013, on how many occasions has the Treasurer or a member of your ministerial staff met
7182
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Hon Cheryl Edwardes, can the Treasurer please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL
EDWARDES
2825.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Minister and his current Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Minister and his current Ministerial staff have had the following
contact and meetings with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business:
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR POLICE’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL EDWARDES
2826.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Police; Tourism; Road Safety; Women’s Interests:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Minister and her current Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social
7183
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Minister and her current Ministerial staff have had the following
(1)
(a)
Nil
(b)
One
(c)–(d) Nil
(2)
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL EDWARDES
2828.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL
EDWARDES
2829.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Transport; Finance:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)
Three
(b)–(c) Nil
(d)
(2)
Two
(a)–(c) Meeting on 4 February 2014 for an update on South–West Creek port facility development.
Attended by Hon Dean Nalder MLA, Minister for Transport; Hon Ian Campbell — Chairman,
NWI; Mr Russell Tipper, Brockman Mining Ltd; Mr Mike Loly, NWI Project Director; Mr
Rob Wilson, GM Development Strategy, Atlas Iron Ltd; Ms Rachael Turnseck, Former Chief
7184
of Staff to the Minister for Transport; Ms Kate Wang, Principal Policy Adviser to the Minister
for Transport; Mr Michael Buba, Principal Policy Adviser to the Minister for Transport;
Mr Reece Waldock, Director General, Department of Transport and Ms Sue McCarrey,
Deputy Director General, Department of Transport.
Utah Point Stockland 2 official opening on 2 May 2014. Attended by Hon Dean Nalder MLA,
Minister for Transport and Finance and Mr Ben O’Rourke, Chief of Staff to the Minister for
Transport and Finance.
MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
2830.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)–(2) The Minister and his Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Minister and his current Ministerial staff have had no
contact or meetings with Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business.
MINISTER FOR SPORT AND RECREATION’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
2831.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)–(2) The Minister and his Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social
meetings or contact with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business.
MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
2832.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
7185
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
1
(a)
1 July 2014
(b)
Hon Ken Baston MLC, Minister for Agriculture and Food; Fisheries
Mr Trevor Whittington, Chief of Staff to the Minister for Agriculture and Food; Fisheries
Mr Ken Brinsden, Managing Director, Atlas Iron Limited
Mr David Flanagan, Non-Executive Chairman, Atlas Iron Limited
Mr Robert Wilson, Chief Development Officer, Atlas Iron Limited
Mr Jeremy Sinclair, Chief Operating Officer, Atlas Iron Limited
Mr Simon Corrigan, General Manger — Approvals and External Relations, Atlas Iron Limited
Hon Cheryl Edwardes, Strategic Project Advisor, Atlas Iron Limited
Mr Greg Walker, Manager — Land Access, Atlas Iron Limited
Ms Carrie Clark, Community Manger, Atlas Iron Limited
(c)
Boardroom lunch to meet with the Atlas Senior Leadership Team to discuss opportunities,
growth and relationships with pastoralists.
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
2833.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
7186
MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL
EDWARDES
2834.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)–(2) The Minister and his current Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental
social contact or contact for administrative purposes only with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes.
The Minister and his Ministerial staff have not met with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes regarding
Government business between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014.
MINISTER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES’ PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
2835.
Veterans:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
social contact or contact for administrative purposes only with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes.
contact and meetings with the Hon Cheryl Edwardes related to government business.
MINISTER FOR WATER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON CHERYL EDWARDES
2836.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
7187
(1)
Nil
(2)
Nil
PREMIER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2837.
(1)
with Mr Kim Keogh, Government and Corporate Affairs Advisor, through:
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Mr Kim Keogh, can the Premier please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact or contact for administrative purposes only with Mr Kim Keogh.
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014:
(1)
The Premier and his current Ministerial staff have many dealings with companies and individuals
during the course of business. During this period there have been 5 identified telephone calls
and 7 emails with Mr Kim Keogh related to government business.
(2)
The Premier and his current Ministerial staff have had the following meetings with Mr Kim Keogh
related to government business:
(a)
21/08/2013; 3/9/2013; 7/2/2014; 19/6/2014; 29/06/2014; 6/5/2014, 12/6/2014 and 28/7/2014
(b)
Brian Pontifex, Richard May, Stephen Wicks, Eddie Rigg, Kim Keogh; Brian Pontifex,
Nicholas Curtis, Kim Keogh; Brian Pontifex, Steve Wood, Nicholas Curtis, Ange Johnson,
Kim Keogh; Brian Pontifex, David Flanagan, Kim Keogh; Premier, Brian Pontifex, Nicholas
Curtis, Jon Young, Kim Keogh; Geoff Wedgwood, Nicholas Curtis, Kim Keogh; Geoff
Wedgwood, Nicholas Curtis, Kim Keogh; Geoff Wedgwood, Nicholas Curtis, Kim Keogh.
(c)
Perth Racing; Forge Resource’s (now Rutila Resources) project and port development plans;
Rutila’s project and port development plans; Update on Atlas Iron; Rutila’s project and port
development plans; Rutila’s project and port development plans; Rutila’s project and port
development plans; Rutila’s project and port development plans.
DEPUTY PREMIER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2838.
Development:
Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Training and Workforce
(1)
Since 1 July 2013, on how many occasions has the Deputy Premier or a member of your ministerial
staff met with Mr Kim Keogh, Government and Corporate Affairs Advisor, through:
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
7188
(d)
(2)
For each face-to-face meeting with Mr Kim Keogh, can the Deputy Premier please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Deputy Premier and his current Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental
social contact or contact for administrative purposes only with Mr Kim Keogh.
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Deputy Premier and his current Ministerial staff have had the
following contact and meetings with the Mr Kim Keogh related to government business:
(1)
(2)
(a)–(c) Nil
(d)
Two
(a)
23 July 2014
(b)
Hon Dr Kim Hames MLA, Kim Keogh, Deborah Gordon, David Flanagan, Pippa Bagnall,
Melinda Hayes
(c)
2013 Eisenhower Fellow
(a)
9 September 2014
(b)
Hon Dr Kim Hames MLA, Kim Keogh, Cristal Thomas, David Flanagan, Melinda Hayes
(c)
2014 Eisenhower Fellow
MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2839.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Mr Kim Keogh, can the Minister please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact and meetings with the Mr Kim Keogh related to government business:
(1)
(2)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
Nil
(d)
Once
(a)
17 February 2014
(b)
Hon Terry Redman MLA
Kim Keogh
Nick Curtis
7189
Ange Johnson
Jamie Henderson
Erin Kelly
(c)
Briefing by Rutila Resources to update the Minister on the Balla Balla Export Facility Project
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2840.
Electoral Affairs:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact for administrative purposes only with the Mr Kim Keogh.
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 I and my Ministerial staff have had the following contact and
meetings with the Mr Kim Keogh related to government business:
(1)
(2)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
Nil
(d)
Nil
TREASURER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2841.
Interests:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Mr Kim Keogh, can the Treasurer please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2842.
(1)
7190
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact and meetings with Mr Kim Keogh related to government business:
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR POLICE’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2843.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact and meetings with Mr Kim Keogh related to government business:
(1)
Nil
(2)
Not applicable
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2845.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
7191
(1)
Nil
(2)
Not applicable
MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2846.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(c) Nil
(d)
One
(a)
29 April 2014.
(b)
Mr Ben O’Rourke, Chief of Staff to the Minister for Transport
Ms Kate Wang, Principal Policy Adviser to the Minister for Transport
Mr Kim Keough, Government and Corporate Affairs Advisor, Atlas Iron
Mr Ken Brisden, Managing Director, Atlas Iron
Mr Rob Wilson, Infrastructure Manager, Atlas Iron
(c)
To discuss Atlas projects in the Pilbara.
2847.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Minister and his Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social contact or
contact for administrative purposes only with Mr Kim Keogh.
7192
meetings with Mr Kim Keogh related to government business:
(1)
(a)–(c) Nil
(d)
Two
(a)
29 July 2014
(b)
Minister Marmion, Colin Edwardes, Ben Allen, Nick Curtis, Kim Keogh, Jon Young.
(c)
Introduction to Jon Young from Todd Corporation.
(a)
17 February 2014
(b)
Minister Marmion, Colin Edwardes, Neil van Drunen, Kate Buckley, Kim Keogh, Nick Curtis,
Ange Johnson.
(c)
Update on Rutila Resources Balla Balla Export Facility project and associated Central Pilbara
Infrastructure Solution.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
2848.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Minister and his Ministerial staff may, from time to time, have had irregular or incidental social contact or
contact for administrative purposes only with Mr Kim Keogh.
meetings with Mr Kim Keogh, Government and Corporate Affairs Advisor, Atlas Iron related to government
business:
(1)
(2)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
Nil
(d)
1
(a)
23 October 2013
(b)
Minister Waldron, Michael Cutler, Jon Nichols, Stephen Wicks and Eddie Rigg
(c)
Perth Racing
2849.
(1)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(2)
(c)
(d)
7193
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)–(2) Not applicable
2850.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS – MR KIM KEOGH
2851.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)
None
(b)
None
7194
(2)
(c)
None
(d)
One
(a)
Tuesday, 3 September 2014
(b)
Kim Keogh, Government and Corporate Affairs Adviser, Atlas Iron
Nicholas Curtis, Chairman, Forge Resources Ltd
Matthew James, Managing Director, Forge Resources Ltd
Angela Johnson, Approvals Manager, Forge Resources Ltd
Tamatha Smith, Chief of Staff, Minister for Environment; Heritage
Jason Foster, Policy Adviser, Minister for Environment; Heritage
(c)
EPA approval processes relating to Forge Resources Swan Pty Ltd
2852.
Veterans:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
social contact or contact for administrative purposes only with Mr Kim Keogh.
contact and meetings with the Mr Kim Keogh related to government business.
MINISTER FOR WATER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — MR KIM KEOGH
2853.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
Nil
(2)
Nil
7195
PREMIER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS – HON NORMAN MOORE
2854.
(1)
with Hon Norman Moore, through:
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Hon Norman Moore, can the Premier please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact or contact for administrative purposes only with Hon Norman Moore.
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Premier and his current Ministerial staff have had the following
contact and meetings with the Hon Norman Moore related to government business:
(1)
Nil
(2)
Not applicable
It should be noted, since 14 August 2014, subsequent to Hon Norman Moore’s appointment as President of the
Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australia) and having regard for his concurrent position as Chairman of
Cannings Purple, a registered lobbying company in Western Australia, the obligations required under the
Contact with Lobbyists Code of Conduct have applied to the Hon Norman Moore.
Since 14 August 2014, there has been one other meeting recorded between the Premier and the
Hon Norman Moore that does not relate to government business.
MEETINGS — HON NORMAN MOORE
2856.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Hon Norman Moore, can the Minister please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)–(2) Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Minister and his current Ministerial staff or placements
have held no meetings with Hon Norman Moore.
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON NORMAN
MOORE
2857.
Electoral Affairs:
(1)
7196
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact for administrative purposes only with Hon Norman Moore.
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 I and my current Ministerial staff have had the following contact
with the Hon Norman Moore related to government business:
(1)
(2)
(a)
4
(b)
Nil
(c)
Nil
(d)
1
(a)
Friday, 31 January 2014
(b)
Hon Peter Collier MLC, Minister for Education; Aboriginal Affairs; Electoral Affairs
Tom White, Senior Policy Advisor
Hon Norman Moore
Bill Beament, Chair, WA School of Mines Graduates Association
(c)
Education in the mining sector
TREASURER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON NORMAN MOORE
2858.
Interests:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
For each face-to-face meeting with Hon Norman Moore, can the Treasurer please advise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON NORMAN MOORE
2859.
(1)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(2)
(c)
(d)
7197
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR POLICE’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON NORMAN MOORE
2860.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact or contact for administrative purposes only with the Hon Norman Moore.
(1)
Nil
(2)
Not applicable
It should be noted, since 14 August 2014, subsequent to the Hon Norman Moore’s appointment as President of
the Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australia) and having regard for his concurrent position as Chairman of
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON NORMAN MOORE
2862.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
7198
(b)
(c)
(1)
Nil
(2)
Not applicable
MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
2863.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
social contact or contact for administrative purposes only with Hon Norman Moore.
contact or meetings with the Hon Norman Moore related to government business.
It should be noted, since 14 August 2014, subsequent to Hon Norman Moore’s appointment as
President of the Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australia) and having regard for his concurrent
position as Chairman of Cannings Purple, a registered lobbying company in Western Australia, the
obligations required under the Contact with Lobbyists Code of Conduct have applied to the
Hon Norman Moore.
2864.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014 the Minister and his current Ministerial staff have no
contact or meetings with the Hon Norman Moore related to government business.
7199
obligations required under the Contact with Lobbyists Code of Conduct have applied to the Hon
Norman Moore.
2865.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact or meetings with the Hon Norman Moore related to government business:
obligations required under the Contact with Lobbyists Code of Conduct have applied to the Hon
Norman Moore.
2866.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)
1
(b)–(c) Not applicable
7200
(2)
(d)
1
(a)
12 September 2013
(b)
Mr Vern Ferdinands, Principal Policy Adviser to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, on
behalf of Mr Trevor Whittington, Chief of Staff to the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
(c)
Briefing on seizing opportunities in agriculture.
It should be noted, since 14 August 2014, subsequent to Hon Norman Moore’s appointment as President of the
Liberal Party of Australia (Western Australia) and having regard for his concurrent position as Chairman of
2867.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(a)–(d) Nil
(2)
MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL
2868.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
However, the Minister and his Ministerial staff have not met with the Hon Norman Moore regarding
Government business between 1 July 2013 and 9 September 2014.
7201
Hon Norman Moore.
2869.
Veterans:
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
contact and meetings with the Hon Norman Moore related to government business.
Hon Norman Moore.
MINISTER FOR WATER’S PORTFOLIOS — MINISTERIAL MEETINGS — HON NORMAN MOORE
2870.
(1)
(2)
(a)
telephone contact;
(b)
email contact;
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
Nil
(2)
Nil
TRAIN STATIONS — MAYLANDS ELECTORATE — FINES
2875.
Ms L.L. Baker to the Minister for Transport:
What are the total values and number of fines issued for each year in the last three financial years for each of the
Maylands, Meltham and Bayswater Train Stations?
7202
Please refer to the answer provided for Question on Notice 2397 on 13 August 2014.
RECYCLING RATES — CITY OF BAYSWATER AND SUBURB OF INGLEWOOD
2878.
Ms L.L. Baker to the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the recycling rates of the City of Bayswater and the suburb of Inglewood and ask: what are the rates of
recycling by percentage for the City of Bayswater and the suburb of Inglewood respectively for each of
the 2013–2014, 2012–2013 and 2011–2012 financial years?
An annual census of local government waste and recycling services provided to Western Australian households
includes data for the City of Bayswater and the City of Stirling. The suburb of Inglewood is located in both local
government areas. Separate waste and recycling data are not available for the suburb of Inglewood.
In the annual census, local governments report on waste materials collected and disposed of to landfill, which
allows the calculation of a recycling rate.
Waste and recycling data relating to the 2013–14 financial year are not yet available for either the City of
Bayswater or the City of Stirling.
The overall recycling rate for the City of Stirling calculated from data reported to the annual census
was 51 per cent for 2011–12 and 46 per cent for 2012–13.
The overall recycling rate for the City of Bayswater calculated from data reported to the annual census
was 31 per cent for 2011–12 and 27 per cent for 2012–13.
SECONDARY SCHOOLS — YEAR 12 LANGUAGE COURSES MATRICULATION
2879.
Mr W.J. Johnston to the Minister representing the Minister for Education:
Please provide the total number of students who matriculated from Western Australian public schools having
completed a Year 12 course in each of the listed languages:
Australian Indigenous Language(s)
Indonesian and/or Malaysian
Chinese
Hindi or other language from the sub-continent
Japanese
Vietnamese
French
Italian
German
Spanish
Any other modern language (other than English);
for each of the following years:
(a)
2005;
(b)
2006;
(c)
2007;
(d)
2008;
(e)
2009;
(f)
2010;
(g)
2011;
(h)
2012; and
(i)
2013?
(a)–(i)
7203
WESTERN POWER — EXECUTIVES
2881.
Mr W.J. Johnston to the Minister for Energy:
(1)
Further to Question on Notice No. 1340 and Question on Notice No. 7672 concerning Western Power
personnel who received increased base pay and superannuation entitlements in lieu of performance
bonuses, how many of those who received this benefit have departed Western Power since June 2011?
(2)
What is the total cost of payouts to those individuals (including base salary, bonus, other payments and
superannuation)?
(1)
30
(2)
$5.6 million
WESTERN POWER — PERFORMANCE BONUSES
2882.
(1)
Has the Minister authorised a performance bonus to Western Power’s Managing Director, and if so:
(2)
(a)
on what date was the bonus authorised;
(b)
what performance indicators were met that justified any increase; and
(c)
what was the amount of the bonus?
Did any other Western Power personnel receive performance bonuses, and if so:
(a)
how many personnel;
(b)
what where the positions of the personnel; and
(c)
what were the amounts of each performance bonus?
(1)
(a)–(c) No. The Chief Executive Officer of Western Power has not received a performance bonus.
(2)
(a)–(c) No. Western Power does not have a performance bonus program.
WESTERN POWER — PROJECT VISTA
2883.
(1)
Further to Question on Notice No. 1918 regarding Project Vista, the refurbishment of Western Power’s
offices and depots, have any of the final costs, or expected final costs of the refurbishments been
revised since April 2014, and if so, at what locations and to what extent?
(2)
Of the $76.66 million cost of the head office refurbishment, what proportion of the cost relates to
the 10th floor (Executive suites)?
(3)
What number of people occupies each floor of the head office building?
(4)
Of those accountable for the delivery of Project Vista:
(a)
2008–2009 General Manager Strategy & Corporate Affairs;
(b)
2010 General Manager Enterprise Solutions Partner;
(c)
2011–2012 General Manager Corporate Services;
(d)
2012–2013 Acting General Manager Corporate Services; and
(e)
did any of these individuals receive performance bonuses for the year or years that they were
accountable for Project Vista and if so who, when and what were the amounts?
The business case for Project Vista was costed in 2007 to improve the safety and compliance of
Western Power’s head office and depots. This included the removal of asbestos materials and installation of fire
protection systems in order to meets the organisation’s duty of care towards its employees.
The original estimate did not account for the price increases caused by the Western Australian construction
boom which occurred after the business case was developed.
Alternative solutions to overcome the safety issues at head office were assessed at the time including, purchasing
a new site for $130 million or renting a commercial site for approximately $17 million per year. Refurbishment
was the most cost effective option.
7204
(1)
The expected final costs for head office have been revised down by $0.1M from $76.6M to $76.5M.
(2)
1.5%
(3)
Staff numbers as at August 2014 per floor are as follows:
Head Office Garage — 1
Head Office 1st Floor — 46
Head Office 2nd Floor — 106
Head Office 3rd Floor — 85
Head Office 4th Floor — 190
(4)
(a)–(e) Between 2006 and 2011 a performance based short term incentive (STI) was part of the
remuneration package for General Managers at Western Power. The General Manager,
Strategy & Corporate Affairs received an STI payment for the 2008/2009 year. The General
Manager, Enterprise Solutions Partner received an STI payment for the 2009/2010 year.
Remuneration paid to Senior Officers is disclosed as required in the Annual Report.
WESTERN POWER — ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND PUBLIC STANDING
2884.
Further to Question on Notice No. 7173, has Western Power undertaken any research, polling, surveying or
opinion-tracking of Western Power’s organisational culture (including staff engagement and wellbeing) and
public standing since March 2012, and if so, what is the nature of that research, polling, surveying or tracking,
how frequently has it been undertaken and at what cost to date?
Western Power, similar to other large industrial commercial organisations, regularly conducts research to enable
the organisation to efficiently and effectively engage with the community while providing an essential service.
Results from surveys conducted enable Western Power to ascertain what drives employee engagement within
Western Power.
The surveys also provide valuable information to the Executive and Senior Leadership Team which is
instrumental in the development of Employee Engagement Action Plans to build on strengths and target areas of
improvement.
Continuous improvement in culture enables the organisation to build a sustainable business where our employees
can prosper. This leads to improved productivity and efficiencies across the organisation.
Frequency
Survey Description
Quarterly
Organisational Health Index & Employee Engagement
Quarterly
Annual
OCI/OEI Culture Survey
Quarterly
Employee Engagement
Quarterly
Employee Engagement
Quarterly
Annual
Corporate Reputation Survey
The cost for these surveys since March 2012 has been $453,275.19.
7205
PERTH STADIUM — WESTADIUM CONSORTIUM
2885.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister for Sport and Recreation:
I refer to the selection of the WESTADIUM consortium to deliver the new stadium at Burswood, and ask:
(a)
what internal rate of return does WESTADIUM anticipate it will receive from this project;
(b)
what is the discount rate used to calculate the net present cost of the project to the State;
(c)
what is the discount rate used to calculate the net present value of the project to WESTADIUM;
(d)
will the Minster disclose WESTADIUM’s total cost of capital;
(e)
how does this cost of capital compare with the cost of capital if borne by the State Government;
(f)
in addition to the regular service payments to be made by the State Government, what other revenue
streams directly related to the Stadium’s operations will WESTADIUM have control over once the
Stadium is in operation;
(g)
are there any revenue-generating opportunities managed by WESTADIUM indirectly related to the
Stadium’s operations including the retail precinct to be built directly adjacent to the stadium;
(h)
if yes to (g), what are they and what are the expected revenues that will be realised from each of these
opportunities;
(i)
will WESTADIUM carry the risks associated with a variation in actual ticket revenues from forecasted
revenue;
(j)
where can members of the public at least access clauses in the contract between WESTADIUM and the
State Government relating to the termination of the agreement between WESTADIUM and the State
Government;
(k)
what are the annual payments that the State Government will be making to WESTADIUM over
the 25 years from the completion of the new stadium;
(l)
are there any clauses in the agreement between WESTADIUM and the State Government that allow for
variation to the payment schedule and what are they;
(m)
are there any clauses in the agreement between WESTADIUM and the State Government relating to
revenue risks associated with ticket and other stadium related revenue streams;
(n)
are there any conditions imposed on WESTADIUM in relation to rents, fees and charges that would be
applied to football clubs accessing the new Stadium;
(o)
are there any conditions imposed on WESTADIUM in relation to ticketing, merchandise and
confectionary sold at the Stadium;
(p)
how much ticket revenue does the consortium expect to collect each year for the duration of the
agreement;
(q)
where can members of the public access the underlying calculations and assumptions behind the
risk-adjusted public sector comparator, used to quantify the cost benefits of the partnership between the
State Government and WESTADIUM; and
(r)
are there any conditions imposed on WESTADIUM in relation to ticketing, merchandise and
confectionary sold at the Stadium?
(a)
The internal rate of return is classified as commercial in confidence information in the contract between
the State and WESTADIUM.
(b)
The discount rate is critical to the bid evaluation is strictly confidential. Details on the discount rate
methodology used by the State are available in the relevant policy guide at
www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/content.aspx?id=3030.
(c)
The discount rate used to calculate the net present value of the project to WESTADIUM was a matter
for WESTADIUM
(d)
No. WESTADIUM’s total cost of capital is classified as commercial in confidence.
(e)
The cost of capital for WESTADIUM is higher than it would be if borne by the State Government. The
capital cost cannot be considered in isolation and when the whole 25 year contract term is considered,
including capital and service costs, this will ultimately cost the State less.
7206
(f)
WESTADIUM will not have control of other revenue streams directly related to the Stadium’s
operations.
(g)
Yes, there is one revenue-generating opportunity which will be managed by WESTADIUM and
indirectly related to the Stadium’s operations. A space of approximately 500m2 has been allocated
within the Stadium as a commercial opportunity.
No retail precinct is currently proposed to be built directly adjacent to the stadium. It is likely that
existing infrastructure adjacent to the Stadium will be redeveloped as a hospitality venue. This
redevelopment will not be undertaken by WESTADIUM and will be separately managed by the State.
(h)
The commercial opportunities, and the expected revenues that will be realised from each, have not been
fully determined at this time. Any revenue from the commercial opportunity available to
WESTADIUM is commercial in confidence.
(i)
No. WESTADIUM will not receive ticket revenues.
(j)
Members of the public will be able to access clauses in the contract, including termination clauses, on
the Department of Treasury website. Non-confidential information related to the contract will be
published on the website within six months from contract award, in accordance with the National PPP
Guidelines.
(k)
The annual payments to be made to WESTADIUM over the 25 years are commercial in confidence.
(l)
Yes, there are clauses in the agreement that allow for variation to the payment schedule.
Non-confidential details of those clauses will be available on the Department of Treasury website as per
response (j) above.
(m)
No. WESTADIUM will not receive ticket or any other Stadium related revenue streams.
(n)
No.
(o)
Yes. WESTADIUM is not permitted to sell tickets, merchandise or confectionary at the Stadium.
(p)
Refer to response (m) above.
(q)
Members of the public will be able to view a summarised version of the public sector comparator on the
Department of Treasury website in accordance with the Department of Treasury Public Private
Partnership Project Disclosure Policy (August 2011), in the time period outlined in response j.
(r)
Yes. Refer to response ‘o’ above.
LANDCORP — PRIVATE AIRCRAFT CHARTER
2886.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Lands:
(1)
Since 1 July 2009, how many private aircraft have been charted by LandCorp for the purposes of flying
developers or financiers to regional Western Australia?
(2)
For each instance a private aircraft has been charted since 1 July 2009:
(a)
what was the date or dates covered by the chartered flight;
(b)
what was the destination or destinations of the chartered flight;
(c)
what was the purpose of the flight;
(d)
what was the cost to charter the flight;
(e)
what was the cost of catering for the flight; and
(f)
who travelled on each flight?
(1)
One
(2)
(a)
27 November 2009;
(b)
Perth to Port Hedland to Karratha to Perth;
(c)
To launch the government’s Pilbara Cities initiative (to ‘normalise’accommodation and
services in the Pilbara) in both Port Hedland and Karratha;
(d)
$14,500 — The cost was shared between LandCorp and the Department of Regional
Development and Lands;
(e)
The cost of catering was included in the charter flight cost; and
(f)
7207
PREMIER’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2887.
Since 1 July 2013, what has been the outlay from the Premier’s Office Budget for the following:
(a)
staff social functions;
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
catering for ministerial functions; and
(d)
the purchase of crockery and/or glassware for the Office?
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
$4,568.64
(d)
Nil
DEPUTY PREMIER’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2888.
Development:
Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Training and Workforce
Since 1 July 2013, what has been the outlay from the Deputy Premier’s Office Budget for the following:
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
Between 1 July 2013 and 28 August 2014:
(a)–(b) Nil
(c)
$11035.14
(d)
$386.92
MINISTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2889.
Since 1 July 2013, what has been the outlay from the Minister’s Office Budget for the following:
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
$2037.60 to Host the WA Parliamentary Friends of Disability Reform
$420.30 to Host and Address the RCCIWA Meeting
(d)
$161.89
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2890.
Electoral Affairs:
(a)
7208
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
Nil
(d)
$54 on glassware.
TREASURER’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2891.
Interests:
Since 1 July 2013, what has been the outlay from the Treasurer’s Office Budget for the following:
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
$4151.88
(d)
$38.80
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2892.
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
Period 1 July 2013 and 28 August 2014
(a)–(d) Nil
MINISTER FOR POLICE’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2893.
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
$3,770
(d)
Nil
7209
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2895.
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)–(b) Nil
(c)
$594.96
(d)
Nil
MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2897.
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)–(b) Not applicable
(c)
$533.33
(d)
Not applicable
MINISTER FOR SPORT AND RECREATION’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2898.
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
$978.29
(d)
$19.50
MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2899.
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
7210
(a)
Nil
(b)
Nil
(c)
Nil
(d)
$21
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2900.
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)
Nil
(b)
No gifts were purchased for Ministerial staff.
(c)
$5831.86
(d)
$100.60
MINISTER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES’ PORTFOLIOS — GIFTS, CATERING AND FUNCTIONS
2902.
Veterans:
(a)
(b)
staff gifts;
(c)
(d)
(a)–(b) Nil
(c)
$3323.50
(d)
$24
PREMIER’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2904.
For each agency, department and government trading enterprise within the Premier’s portfolio of
responsibilities:
(a)
since 11 March 2013, have senior executives and/or board members undertaken any leadership or
strategic planning events or retreats; and
(b)
for each such event:
(i)
what was the duration of the event;
(ii)
how many senior executives and/or board members attended;
(iii)
what was the location and venue for the event; and
(iv)
what was the total cost, including but not limited to accommodation, travel, catering
and any facilitation costs?
ChemCentre, Gold Corporation, Salaries and Allowances Tribunal; Department of State Development;
Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Public Sector Commission.
(a)
None
(b)
Not applicable
7211
Lotterywest
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
2 days; 15/7/13–16/7/13 Executive and Board Strategic Planning Session
½ day; 15/8/13 Executive and Board Strategic Planning Follow up
1 Day; 27/6/14 Executive Leadership Development Session
(ii)
15/7/13–16/7/13 Executive and Board Strategic Planning Session
7 senior execs and 6 Board members attended
½ day; 15/8/13 Executive and Board Strategic Planning Follow up
7 senior execs and 6 board members attended
7 senior execs attended
7 senior execs attended
1 Day; 5/9/14 Executive Leadership Development Session 7 senior execs attended
(iii)
15/7/13–16/7/13 Executive and Board Strategic Planning Session
John Flynn Room, West Australia Leadership Centre, Heathcote
15/8/13 Executive and Board Strategic Planning Follow up Lotterywest Board Room
27/6/14 Executive Leadership Development Session
North Cottesloe Surf Life Saving Club
Trigg Island Surf Life Saving Club
North Cottesloe Surf Life Saving Club
(iv)
15/7/13–16/7/13 $12,786
15/8/13 $3,346
27/6/14 $9,339.40
29/7/14 $9,285.66
5/9/14 $9,238.79
MINISTER FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD
MEMBERS
2906.
For each agency, department and government trading enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
7212
(iv)
DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)–(iv) [See tabled paper no 2265.]
DEPARTMENT OF LANDS
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
Two Days — Strategic Planning for the New Department of Lands Reform Program
(ii)
Nineteen people attended, five of which were senior executives and/or board members
(iii)
Moondyne Country Convention Centre, Bullsbrook, Western Australia
(iv)
$42 828 for all 19 participants
LANDCORP
(a)
Yes
(b)
LANDGATE
(a)
Yes
(b)
GASCOYNE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Yes — Two Events
(b)
(i)
Event One: Six Hours
Event Two: Eight Hours
(ii)
Event One: Nine — Strategic Planning Workshop for Blueprint
Event Two: One — Strategy and Risk for Directors
(iii)
Event One: Gascoyne Development Commission boardroom,
15 Stuart Street, Carnarvon
Event Two: Australian Institute of Company Directors,
Pan Pacific Hotel, 207 Adelaide Terrace, Perth
(iv)
Event One: $14,175.37
Event Two: $1,612.99
GOLDFIELDS ESPERANCE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
Two Days — Professional Development for a Senior Executive, Policies & Projects
(ii)
One
(iii)
Melbourne
(iv)
$869.50
GREAT SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
Half a Day (following Formal Board Meeting) — Strategic Directions Review Workshop
(ii)
Eight
(iii)
GSDC Conference Room, Albany
(iv)
$2716.54
7213
KIMBERLEY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
One Day — Development Kimberley Development Commission’s Strategic Plan 2013–2018
(ii)
Eleven
(iii)
Conference Room, Oaks Broome
(iv)
$4714
MID WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Nil
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not Applicable
PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Yes — Two Events
(b)
(i)
Event One: Six Days — Residential Australian Institute of Company Directors Board
Governance Course
Event Two: One Day — Australian Institute of Company Directors Event
(ii)
Event One: One
(iii)
Event One: Pullman Bunker Bay Resort, Margaret River Region Hotel
Event Two: Two
Event Two: Rottnest Island
(iv)
Event One: $8925
Event Two: $700
PILBARA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
Two Day Event — Pilbara Regional Investment Blueprint Stakeholder Workshop. Pilbara
Development Commission Executives and Board Members only attended Day One
(ii)
Seven
(iii)
Crown Events and Conference, Perth
(v)
$11 431.26
SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Nil
(b)
WHEATBELT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(a)
Nil
(b)
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2907.
Electoral Affairs:
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
7214
Country High School Authority
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
Department of Aboriginal Affairs
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
Department of Education
(a)
Yes. Corporate Executive workshop.
(b)
(i)
4.5 hours
(ii)
20
(iii)
The Department of Education’s State-wide Services Centre, Padbury
(iv)
$394.90
Department of Education Services
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable.
Department of Electoral Affairs
(a)
Yes. 3 half-day strategic planning sessions.
(b)
Date
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
16/1/14
4 hrs
6
Constitution Centre, West Perth
$208.28
29/4/14
3.5 hrs
6
Constitution Centre, West Perth
$118.50
18/6/14
3 hrs
6
WAEC Head Office, Perth
Nil
SCSA
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
TREASURER’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2908.
Mr M. McGowan to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Public Utilities Office
(a)
Yes
(b)
Department of Treasury
(a)
Yes
(b)
7215
Economic Regulation Authority
(a)
Yes
(b)
GESB
(a)
Yes
(b)
Horizon Power
(a)
Yes
(b)
Independent Market Operator
(a)
Yes
(b)
Insurance Commission of Western Australia
(a)
Yes
(b)
Office of Multicultural Interests
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
Office of the Auditor General
(a)
Yes
(b)
Synergy
(a)
Yes
(b)
WA Treasury Corporation
(a)
Yes
(b)
Western Power
(a)
Yes
(b)
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2909.
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
For the Period 11 March 2013 to 10 September 2014
7216
(a)–(b) (i)–(iv) [See tabled paper no 2268.]
MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD
MEMBERS
2914.
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The Department of Mines and Petroleum advises:
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
12 February 2014
(ii)
11
(iii)
Corporate Executive Development Day, Bluewater Grill function room, Heathcote Reserve, 56
Duncraig Rd, Applecross
(iv)
$5 585
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
10 April 2013, two and a half hours
(ii)
111 staff attended, of whom 11 were Senior Executive Service (SES) members
(iii)
Leadership Forum, Hyatt Regency, Perth
(iv)
$4 021.03
(i)
16–17 April 2013, two days
(ii)
Five SES members
(iii)
Corporate Executive Environmental Scanning Workshop — with Consultant facilitator, Aqua
Viva, Swan Function Centre
(iv)
$27 933.91
(i)
1–2 May 2013, two days
(ii)
Five SES members
(iii)
Corporate Executive Strategic Planning Days — with Consultant facilitator, Tawarri Reception
Centre, Dalkeith
(iv)
$42 207.22
(i)
30 May 2013, two hours
(ii)
21 staff attended, of whom 11 were SES members
(iii)
Strategic Planning 1 (Corporate Executive & Strategy Group) with Consultant facilitator,
Hyatt Regency, Perth
(iv)
$7 652.94
(i)
14 June 2013, three and a half hours
(ii)
7217
(iii)
Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(iv)
$12 374.68
(i)
3 July 2013, one day
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
$25 477.34
(i)
12 July 2013, three hours
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
$20 243.55
(i)
24 July 2013, two and a half hours
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
$4 476.94
(i)
15 August 2013, one day
(ii)
(iii)
Hyatt Regency, Perth
(iv)
$14 327.92
(i)
6 November 2013, two and a half hours
(ii)
(iii)
Leadership Forum — with Speaker, Hyatt Regency, Perth
(iv)
$4 580
(i)
4 February 2014, two and a half hours
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
$5 893.32
(i)
26 March 2014, three hours
(ii)
(iii)
Strategic Planning — Annual Plan 2014–15, Chamber of Commerce & Industry with
Consultant facilitator
(iv)
$5 825.53
(i)
27 March 2014, one day
(ii)
(iii)
Strategic Planning - Annual Plan 2014–15, Hyatt Regency Perth with Consultant facilitator
(iv)
$15,174.45
(i)
7 May 2014, three hours
(ii)
148 staff attended, of whom 12 SES members
(iii)
(iv)
$6 443.81
(i)
11 August 2014, two and a half hours
7218
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
$5 981
MINISTER FOR SPORT AND RECREATION’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD
MEMBERS
2915.
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
DEPARTMENT OF SPORT AND RECREATION
(a)
Yes
(b)
Date
29/4/2013
No of
Attendees
Duration
4 hours
6
Location
WACA Conference room
Cost
$109.20
10/2/2014–11/2/2014 15 hours 6
DSR Ern Halliday Camp Conference Room $314.00
6/8/2014
new Perth Stadium Project office
4 hours
6
$143.80
VENUESWEST
(a)
No
(b)
Not Applicable
DEPARTMENT OF RACING, GAMING AND LIQUOR
(a)
No
(b)
Not Applicable
BURSWOOD PARK BOARD
(a)
No
(b)
Not Applicable
RACING AND WAGERING WESTERN AUSTRALIA
(a)–(b)
Date
Duration No. of Attendees
March 2013
1 day
September 2013
1 day
March 2014
1 day
August 2014
2 days
Board: 8
Executive:8
Board: 8
Executive:8
Board: 8
Executive:9
Executive:9
Location
Costs
University Club of WA, Nedlands
$2,444.57
$2,970.50
$3,167.26
The Sebel, Mandurah
$3,621.00
September 2014
1 night
Board: 8
1 day
Executive:8
The Sebel, Mandurah
7219
$6,796.27
WESTERN AUSTRALIA GREYHOUND RACING ASSOCIATION
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
1 day
(ii)
8
(iii)
Ascot Racecourse
(iv)
$1 050
MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD
MEMBERS
2916.
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD WA
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
4 hours (part of Executive Leadership Team Development Program)
(ii)
Seven
(iii)
Department of Agriculture and Food
(iv)
Estimated cost $2,665
(i)
11 hours 30 minutes over 2 days (part of Executive Leadership Team Development Program)
(ii)
Seven
(iii)
Perth Zoological Gardens
(iv)
Estimated cost $6,809
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
One day
(ii)
Five
(iii)
Conference room at Ellam Street, Victoria Park building (department owned property)
(iv)
$70 (catering only)
MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD
MEMBERS
2917.
responsibilities:
7220
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Metropolitan Cemetery Board
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
5.30 Hours
(ii)
11
(iii)
Royal Freshwater Bay Yacht Club 1 Hobbs Place Peppermint Grove
(iv)
$5 530.31
Department Local Government Communities
(a)
Yes. The Carers Advisory Council undertook strategic planning sessions on 29 August 2013 and 28
August 2014.
(b)
(i)
Two hours for both sessions.
(ii)
On 29 August 2013, eight
nine board members attended.
(iii)
The 2013 session was held at the office of the Minister for Community Services, 8th Floor
Dumas House, 2 Havelock Street, West Perth; and the 2014 session was held in Room 2.17,
Gordon Stephenson House, 140 William Street, Perth.
(iv)
The total cost for the 2013 session was $1 777.50; and the total cost for the 2014 session was
$2 025.90.
board
members
attended
and
on 28
August 2014,
MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT’S PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD MEMBERS
2918.
responsibilities:
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
Department of Environment Regulation
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
7221
Department of Parks and Wildlife
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
Office of the Appeals Convenor
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
Office of the Environment Protection Authority
(a)
Yes
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
5 board members
1
University Club of WA, UWA, Crawley
day 4 senior
executives
$2393
5 board members
1
Athol Hobbs Room, Royal Freshwater Bay Yacht Club,
day 4 senior
Peppermint Grove
executives
$1990
5 board members
1
day 4 senior
executives
$1066.40
5 board members
1
day 4 senior
executives
$1231.20
Perth Zoo
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
State Heritage Office
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
Swan River Trust
(a)
No
(b)
Not applicable
MINISTER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES’ PORTFOLIOS — SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND BOARD
MEMBERS
2919.
Veterans:
responsibilities:
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
7222
Department of Corrective Services
(a)
No
(b)
(i)–(iv) Not applicable
The Department of Fire and Emergency Services
(a)
Yes. The Corporate Leadership Team has participated in four events between 11 March 2013 and 10
September 2014. All four events were focused on strategic planning.
(b)
(i)
April 2013 — 1.5 days;
September 2013 — 1 day;
December 2013 — 1.5 days;
April 2014 — 1.5 days.
(ii)
All four events — 10 Corporate Leadership Team members plus four administrators.
(iii)
April 2013 — Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle;
September 2013 — Emergency Services Complex, Cockburn;
December 2013 — Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle;
April 2014 — Rendezvous Hotel, Scarborough.
(iv)
April 2013 — $6 707;
September 2013 — $154;
December 2013 — $11 359;
April 2014 — $5 811
Fire and Emergency Services Superannuation Fund
(a)
Yes — Strategic Planning Meeting May 2014
(b)
(i)
1 day
(ii)
6 Board Members, Fund Secretary and Compliance Officer attended
(iii)
Office of Vantage Wealth Management, Havelock Street, West Perth
(iv)
No costs involved
Small Business Development Corporation
(a)
No
(b)
State Emergency Management Committee Secretariat
(a)
No
(b)
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES — DIDEMNUM PERLUCIDUM
2921.
Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Fisheries:
(1)
Further to Legislative Council Question No. 814 and given the Department of Fisheries’ (Department)
responsibility for aquatic biosecurity, does the Department consider Didemnum perlucidum to be
a marine pest?
(2)
If yes to (1), what funds has the Department allocated to the control and eradication of D. perlucidum
since its discovery at Barrow Island in February 2012?
(3)
Has the Department’s working group, referred to in Question No. 814, met and if so on how many
occasions?
(4)
Given the Department’s view that the “potential for environmental impact from D. perlucidum is
considered serious”, what practical steps has the Department taken to protect high-value marine assets,
such as marine management areas and aquaculture sites?
(5)
Given that D. perlucidum was detected on a Gorgon marine vessel, what was the outcome of
Department negotiation with Chevron to eradicate the pest from Barrow Island?
7223
(6)
Which of the 11 recommendations in the Department’s Research Paper entitled Potential Eradication
and Control Methods for the Management of the Ascidian Didemnum perlucidum in Western Australia
have been implemented to date?
(7)
Has a regional strategy been developed and if so, has it been implemented?
(1)
Yes
(2)
Since February 2012, the Department of Fisheries (Department) has spent about $1.23 million on
research, compliance, policy and management of Didemnum perlucidum in WA. Outcomes of this work
are relevant to the management of other pests.
(3)
The Statewide cross-agency working group has had two meetings.
(4)
The practical steps include:
a.
Preliminary mapping of high value and high risk assets in WA waters;
b.
The commencement of development of an appropriate model to predict the dispersal, spread
and distribution of Didemnum perlucidum over time;
c.
Regular communication with key stakeholders (including ports, potentially affected fisheries
and aquaculturists, and oil and gas industry);
d.
Published Research Report — ‘Potential Eradication and Control Methods for the
Management of the Ascidian Didemnum perlucidum in Western Australia’.
e.
Inspection (and cleaning where appropriate) of moorings in high risk areas; and
f.
Regular inspections of high-risk vessels for this and other marine pests.
(5)
Chevron has offered to consider working with the Department to investigate the potential control of
Didemnum perlucidum in the waters of Barrow Island. This will be contingent on the cross-agency
working group determining the feasibility of such an approach, and a demonstrated low risk of
Didemnum perlucidum being reintroduced through natural dispersal.
(6)
The 11 recommendations are listed in the attached [See tabled paper no 2279.] The status of each one is
as follows:
(7)
i.
Developed a network of experts and trained personnel to quickly identify Didemnum
perlucidum both within the Department of Fisheries and within agencies in the Northern
Territory, Victoria and NSW.
ii.
Surveys have been conducted at a range of ports and marinas. In addition, the results of vessel
and marine environment biosecurity inspections continue to be gathered by the Department so
that distribution maps of Didemnum perlucidum can continue to be updated.
iii.
The sectors at risk have been identified and are targeted with regular updates on the spread of
Didemnum perlucidum and potential control and eradication measures they are trialled.
iv.
Additional research continues to establish behaviour and biology.
v.
The areas for eradication are yet to be identified.
vi.
This will occur when the areas for potential eradication (if any) are identified.
vii.
The potential routes and vectors have begun to be mapped.
viii.
As yet unknown.
ix.
Commenced consideration of disposal options.
x.
The Department of Fisheries has trialled a number of measures in preparation for any
eradication program.
xi.
The site-specific management plan will depend on the outcome of the high value/high risk
asset mapping and the dispersal model predictions.
A regional strategy will be developed as an outcome of the high value/high risk asset mapping and
dispersal model predictions (described in 6 (xi) above).
TAFE — COURSE RELOCATION
2923.
Mr D.A. Templeman to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development:
I refer to the recent decision to relocate the Wall and Ceiling Lining and Bricklaying/Blocklaying Courses from
Peel Challenger TAFE to the Building Technologies Training Facility at the Challenger Rockingham Campus
and ask:
7224
(a)
for Semester Two 2014, was each student enrolled at Peel Campus recorded as a Peel Student or
a Rockingham student for the purposes of the College receiving funding for the training from the
Department;
(b)
when was ABN Training consulted about this relocation;
(c)
who responded from ABN Training about the relocation;
(d)
what was the response received from the ABN Training;
(e)
when was the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries consulted about this relocation;
(f)
who responded from the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries;
(g)
what was the response from the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries;
(h)
what other private or otherwise industry training providers were consulted about the relocation; and
(i)
when were other private or otherwise industry training providers consulted about the relocation?
The decisions to relocate the Bricklaying/Blocklaying courses and the Wall and Ceiling Lining were made by
Challenger as part of separate processes. Moving or rescheduling courses is not the preferred option but is often
necessary to maintain delivery for students and ensure operational efficiency.
Challenger notified both the ABN Group and the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries (AWCI) of their
decision to move courses prior to relocation.
Following the Mandurah Mail article published 4th September 2014 both ABN and AWCI disputed claims made
in the article that they were consulted about the proposed relocation prior to the move. Information regarding the
consultations was provided to the Mandurah Mail in good faith on advice from Challenger.
Challenger has since conceded that the extent of the consultation with these groups was overstated in the article.
Following responses from ABN and AWCI regarding the article, Challenger contacted both groups to discuss the
relocation, reconfirm the reasons for the move and outline future plans for training in their respective industries
at both Peel and Rockingham in 2015.
(a)
All students (11) were originally enrolled at Peel campus. All enrolments were transferred to
Rockingham upon their relocation.
(b)
Advice was provided to ABN Group by telephone on 21 July 2014.
(c)
The Apprentice Administration Assistant at ABN, which is one of the two designated liaison positions
for such communication.
(d)
Challenger advise that during the 21 July 2014 telephone conversation the Apprentice Administration
Assistant at ABN Group stated that ABN Group had no issues with the proposed move.
(e)
Advice was provided to the AWCI on 20 June 2014.
(f)
President, AWCI and another member of the Executive Committee.
(g)
The President of the AWCI acknowledged receipt of the advice from Challenger and stated that AWCI
would continue to support employers who take on apprentices within the industry.
Another member of the AWCI Executive Committee also stated that they had no issue with the
relocation of the courses. However, the member expressed concern that the move was undertaken
without prior consultation.
(h)–(i) Wall & Ceiling Lining Employers notified on 20 June 2014:
Above Ceilings and Walls; All Aspects Ceilings; Ceiling Solutions Pty Ltd; Centaur Ceilings; Costal
Ceilings; Espace WA Pty Ltd; Gypline Ceilings; Itect Construction Pty Ltd; Milanz Pty Ltd; On Board
Ceiling Services; Premier Ceilings (WA) Pty Ltd; Renov8 Ceilings & Walls; Superb Ceilings Pty Ltd.
Brick & Block Laying Employers notified on 21 July 2014:
Cachet Homes; J&S Rendle Building & Maintenance; David Jack Mosedale Bricklaying; Home Group
WA; ABN Group; JDB Bricklaying.
FREMANTLE HOSPITAL — RECONFIGURATION
2924.
Ms S.F. McGurk to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the reconfiguration of Fremantle Hospital on the commissioning of Fiona Stanley Hospital, and ask:
(a)
please detail the budget allocation for the reconfiguration of Fremantle Hospital;
7225
(b)
will this funding be used to reconfigure the Fremantle Hospital space made vacant by functions being
transferred to Fiona Stanley Hospital;
(c)
what proportion of space currently in use at Fremantle Hospital will be left vacant once services are
transferred to Fiona Stanley Hospital; and
(d)
what is the timeline for the reconfiguration at Fremantle Hospital?
(a)
The budget allocation for the Reconfiguration of Fremantle Hospital is $13.211 million.
(b)
Yes
(c)
17% of useable departmental floor space or 13,573 m2.
(d)
A business case is currently being developed to address key configuration issues including a timeline
with work commencing in early 2015.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — PROGRAMMED MAINTENANCE SERVICES — SOUTH WEST
2925.
Mr M.P. Murray to the Minister for Housing:
I refer to the Head Contractor model for Housing Maintenance in the South West won by Programmed
Maintenance Services, and ask:
(a)
in what towns in the South West does Programmed Maintenance Services provide maintenance for
Department of Housing properties;
(b)
when advertising for sub-contractors to complete housing maintenance on their behalf, in what
newspapers in the South West region have they advertised for expressions of interest;
(c)
under the Head Contractor agreement is there any obligation for Programmed Maintenance Services to
employ locally based subcontractors in each town; and
(d)
are advertisements for sub-contractors to the head contractor in regional newspapers that refer to the
local area region only?
(a)
All towns located in the Department’s South West region.
(b)
Expressions of interest for sub-contractors were advertised in the Bunbury Herald
(listed 19 August 2014), the Bunbury South West Times (listed 21 August 2014), the Manjimup
Bridgetown Times (listed 20 August 2014) and The West Australian (listed 20 August 2014).
(c)
No
(d)
Advertisements in each newspaper listed above asked for expressions of interest for sub-contractors in
the Department’s South Metropolitan, South West and the Great Southern regions.
WESTERN POWER — POLE REPLACEMENT — PRESTON SETTLEMENT
2927.
Mr M.P. Murray to the Minister for Energy:
I refer to Western Power’s replacement of power poles at Preston Settlement (near Collie), and ask:
(a)
how many maintenance reports or requests about power poles at Preston Settlement were received in:
(i)
2012 and what was the basis of each report; and
(ii)
2013 and what was the basis of each report;
(b)
on what date were the poles listed as needing replacement/registered on Western Power’s maintenance
schedule;
(c)
when did power pole replacements commence in Preston Settlement; and
(d)
who performed the work on behalf of Western Power:
(i)
if applicable, where is the contractor based;
(ii)
if applicable, where is the contractor’s workforce sourced from; and
(iii)
if applicable, how much advance notice does the contractor require to provide a pole
replacement team to perform the work?
7226
Western Power has liaised with the Office of the Member to better understand which power poles in Preston
Settlement are the subject of the question, and has been advised that the poles near Lot 1 of Gardiner Road are
the poles of specific interest. As such Western Power has limited its answer to this question to five power poles
in the immediate vicinity of Lot 1 Gardiner Road in Preston Settlement.
(a)
(b)
(i)
5 — Routine scheduled inspections.
(ii)
0
Of the five poles which were inspected in 2012, three were identified as needing replacement:
S869644 — 19/11/2012
S868489 — 19/11/2012.
S869645 — 19/11/2012.
(c)
8/2/2014
(d)
Work was performed by Perth Power Lines and VEMCO.
(i)
Perth Power Lines — Based in Wanneroo; VEMCO — Based in Welshpool
(ii)
Perth Power Lines — Western Australia; VEMCO — Western Australia
(iii)
A lead time of one day is required by contractors; however more notice is preferred if possible
for logistical purposes.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — PROPERTIES — THORNLIE AND GOSNELLS
2929.
Mr C.J. Tallentire to the Minister for Housing:
(1)
Will the Minister provide the addresses and descriptions of properties purchased by the Department of
Housing in each of the suburbs of Thornlie and Gosnells for each financial year: 2011–2012,
2012–2013, and 2013–2014?
(2)
How many properties does the Department of Housing intend to purchase in each of the suburbs of
Thornlie and Gosnells between now and the end of the 2016–2017 financial year?
(1)
Six dwellings, consisting of five three-bedroom and one four-bedroom, in Gosnells and none in
Thornlie in 2011–2012.
One two-bedroom dwelling in Gosnells and none in Thornlie in 2012–2013.
One two-bedroom dwelling in Gosnells and none in Thornlie in 2013–2014.
The addresses and property descriptions are publically available from Landgate.
(2)
The Department may purchase properties in the future, depending on available funding, and specific
locations will be based on demand and priorities at the time. Therefore, the Department is unable to
provide details on possible future purchases in these particular suburbs.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — VACANT PROPERTIES — THORNLIE AND GOSNELLS
2930.
Mr C.J. Tallentire to the Minister for Housing:
Are there any vacant properties owned by the Department of Housing in each of the suburbs of Thornlie and
Gosnells which are currently untenanted, and if so:
(a)
what are the addresses of these properties;
(b)
when was the last time each property was tenanted;
(c)
what is the reason for each vacancy; and
(d)
does the Department intend to sell any of these properties before 2017, and if so, which ones?
(a)
As at 31 August 2014, there were six vacant properties in Thornlie and eight in Gosnells. Nine of these
properties have since been occupied.
(b)–(c) [See tabled paper no 2271.]
(d)
7227
The Department does not intend to sell any of these properties before 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE AND THE ARTS — KIMBERLEY PROJECT FUNDING
2931.
Ms J. Farrer to the Minister for Culture and the Arts:
In reference to the Minister’s letter dated 28 January 2014 to the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural Centre,
and the Minister’s statement that “DCA will continue to promote culturally based responses to social issues
impacting the Kimberley and will continue to work collaboratively with the Department of Health and the
Mental Health Commission to this end”, and I ask:
(a)
to date, what projects has the Department of Culture and the Arts (the Department) promoted and/or
funded related to social impacts impacting the Kimberley;
(b)
of these projects, which ones were done in collaboration with the Department of Health or Mental
Health Commission;
(c)
for each project named above, how much funding was provided by:
(i)
the Department;
(ii)
Department of Health; and
(iii)
Mental Health Commission;
(d)
how often do representatives of the Department, the Department of Health and the Mental Health
Commission meet to discuss collaborative projects;
(e)
what representations has the Department of Culture and the Arts or the Minister made to join the
Aboriginal Affairs Coordinating Committee subcommittee on Aboriginal Health and Mental Health,
and when were they made and to whom;
(f)
what are the upcoming projects for the Kimberley being promoted or funded by the Department;
(g)
of these projects, which ones are being conducted in relation with the Department of Health or the
Mental Health Commission; and
(h)
for each project named in either (f) or (g), how much funding was provided by:
(i)
the Department;
(ii)
Department of Health; and
(iii)
Mental Health Commission?
The Department of Culture and the Arts provides core funding to underpin the operations of three (3) Kimberleybased organisations and also funds various projects delivered by those and other organisations. Criteria
supporting decisions to fund organisations and projects are not solely based on social impact but also include
artistic merit, art form development and community cultural development. The organisations that are funded may
receive funding for programs or projects from other government departments which is unknown to the
Department of Culture and the Arts.
(a)–(c) The Department of Culture and the Arts has provided funding to four projects:
1.
Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Council (KALACC) — International study tour;
2.
Goolarri Media Enterprises Inc — Music Managers Mentorship Program;
3.
Magabala Books Aboriginal Corporation — reprinting eight (8) titles from its back catalogue;
4.
Mowanjum Aboriginal Art and Culture Centre — Archive and Multi-media project.
These projects were not done in formal collaboration with the Department of Health or the Mental
Health Commission and the projects did not receive funding from these agencies.
The Department of Culture and the Arts provided:
$7 000 to KALACC in addition to $81 151 per annum of core funding;
$28 000 to Goolarri in addition to $81 277 per annum of core funding;
$30 000 to Magabala in addition to $247 414 per annum of core funding;
$40,000 to Mowanjum in project funding.
(d)
The Department of Culture and the Arts, the Department of Health and the Mental Health Commission
meet to discuss matters of shared interest. A recent example was to discuss the National Arts and Health
7228
Framework, which was endorsed by the Standing Council on Health and the Meeting of Cultural
Ministers. The West Australian Departments of Culture and the Arts and Health were represented on
the working group that drafted the document. The Framework recognises and places Indigenous cultural
maintenance as central to health and wellbeing and encourages agency partnerships.
(e)
The A/Director General of the Department of Culture and the Arts met with the Director General of the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs in March to discuss potential representation on the Aboriginal Affairs
Coordinating Committee (AACC). The newly appointed Director General of the Department of Culture
and the Arts met with the Director General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in September to
agree to a process for Cultural and Arts issues to be progressed to the AACC.
(f)–(h) As above
SHIRE OF WYNDHAM–EAST KIMBERLEY — FINANCIAL VIABILITY
2933.
Ms J. Farrer to the Minister for Local Government:
I refer to concerns about the ongoing financial viability of the Shire of Wyndham–East Kimberley, and ask:
(a)
is the Minister aware of these concerns amongst the community;
(b)
what consultation has taken place between the Department and the community; and
(c)
what steps have been taken to ensure that vital services such as the Wyndham Child Care Centre can
continue to operate?
(a)
Yes
(b)
Responsibility for engaging the community on local issues rests with the Shire. The Shire has been
reviewing its financial position since January 2014 and has provided a number of opportunities for
public involvement in these discussions at meetings and briefings.
(c)
Operation of the Wyndham Child Care Centre cost the Shire approximately $166 000 in 2013/14. The
Shire has advised the Department that the Centre has been under-utilised, catering for up to 12 children
per day and on some days only five children. The Centre remains open while the Shire is working with
Child Care Centre staff in seeking viable alternative models.
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES — POWER SUPPLY
2934.
Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Emergency Services:
I refer to power supply to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services Cockburn headquarters and ask:
(a)
is there a back-up power supply;
(b)
does the loss of power impact the communications system and the ability to communicate with fire
stations;
(c)
what contingency plans are in place where power is lost and communications compromised; and
(d)
how many occasions since the facility opened has there been a loss of power affecting communications?
The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) advises:
(a)
Yes
(b)
No. A power outage results in DFES enacting contingency plans depending on the duration of the
outage.
(c)
The DFES Emergency Services Complex in Cockburn (ESC) is integrated with a generator that
provides power to the whole building in the event of a power outage impacting the ESC.
(d)
None
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES — WORKSAFE INQUIRIES
2935.
(1)
What Worksafe inquiries are currently on foot at the Department of Fire and Emergency Services
(DFES) in relation to:
(a)
Operations;
(b)
Systems; and
(c)
(2)
(3)
7229
Equipment?
What Worksafe inquiries at DFES have concluded in 2013 and 2014 (year to date) in relation to:
(a)
Operations;
(b)
Systems; and
(c)
Equipment?
In relation to (2) please advise what remedial action has been taken or is in the process of being taken in
response to Worksafe directives or recommendations?
(1)
(a)–(c) WorkSafe are not currently undertaking any enquiries at DFES.
(2)
(a)–(c) WorkSafe Enquiries which have taken place during 2013/2014 include:
Non-compliant Vehicles;
British Instantaneous Couplings;
Inappropriate Workplace Behaviour at O’Connor Workshops;
Fire Blankets;
Safe work practices at O’Connor Workshops;
Facilities at the Cockburn Emergency Services Complex;
Perth Fire Station Locker Rooms; and
Full Face Respirators.
(3)
As result of the above WorkSafe have issued improvement notices in regards to the following:
British Instantaneous Couplings.
Inappropriate behaviour at O’Connor Workshops x 3.
Remedial actions are as follow:
1.
Double Lug Couplings are being installed on the pump panels of high risk appliances.
2.
DFES have conducted training for workshops staff in relation to workplace behaviour with
additional training to take place in the next two months. A performance management process is
being developed and implemented for workshop employees.
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES — AERIAL APPLIANCES
2936.
(1)
Can the Minister advise how many and the location of aerial appliances which the Department of Fire
and Emergency Services owns?
(2)
For each appliance can the Minister advise whether it is licensed to operate?
(3)
Can the Minister further advise for each appliance whether personnel have received the requisite
training and licenses to operate the same?
(1)
DFES currently owns six aerial appliances, of which three are in operation, one each at Perth and
Fremantle Fire Stations and the other at O’Conner Fleet and Equipment Services on standby. Of the
remaining three, one has been decommissioned and is in the disposal process as it has reached the end
of its useful life, and two are new appliances which are in the final stages of commissioning.
(2)
Yes. All aerial appliances that are in operation are licensed to operate.
(3)
Yes. DFES personnel operating aerial appliances are qualified and trained in the use of the appliances.
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES — METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL STAFF
2937.
I refer to Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) personnel and ask:
(a)
How many metropolitan personnel were employed from:
7230
(b)
(i)
1 July 2009 – 30 June 2010;
(ii)
1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011;
(iii)
1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012;
(iv)
1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013; and
(v)
1 July 2013 – 30 June 2014; and
How many regional personnel were employed from:
(i)
1 July 2009 – 30 June 2010;
(ii)
1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011;
(iii)
1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012;
(iv)
1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013; and
(v)
1 July 2013 – 30 June 2014?
(a) Metropolitan Personnel
(b)
(i)
1,187
(ii)
1,212
(iii)
1,263
(iv)
1,301
(v)
1,302
Regional Personnel
(i)
176
(ii)
185
(iii)
186
(iv)
193
(iv)
208
VETERANS — POZIERES CENTENARY
2938.
Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Veterans:
(1)
Is the Minister aware that the action of Australian soldiers from the 1st, 2nd and 4th battalions at Pozieres
in France will not be honoured for its Centenary in 2016, but will be combined with that of
Villers–Bretonneux in 2018, being given an “annexe” in the new Monash Interpretative Centre, being
built for the Centenary of Villers Bretonneux?
(2)
Is the Minister further aware that Pozieres will have only a ceremonial activity in 2016 and there have
been no funds allocated by the Federal government to more formally commemorate on site the death
of 7,000 Australian soldiers and the wounding of countless more at Pozieres in 1916?
(3)
If the Minister is aware, has the Minister made representations to the Federal Minister for the Anzac
commemorations to redress this unfortunate oversight?
(4)
If the Minister was not aware, will the Minister now undertake to make such representations so that the
service of Western Australians who fought and or died at Pozieres are appropriately honoured?
(1)
The actions of all Australian battalions who fought at Pozieres, France, are eternally remembered both
at the Pozieres Windmill Site and at the National Australian Memorial at Villers–Bretonneux.
A number of services are held on ANZAC Day in France each year including an ANZAC Day Dawn
Service at the Australian National Memorial at Villers–Bretonneux.
(2)
Yes
(3)
No
(4)
All battlefields have meaning. The amount of new money spent on commemorating one battlefield over
another, or whether a battlefield has a visitor centre or memorial park is not measurement of its
significance or place in the national consciousness.
7231
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — PROPERTY MANAGEMENT — MIRRABOOKA ELECTORATE
2944.
Ms J.M. Freeman to the Minister for Housing:
(1)
For each of the suburbs of Alexander Heights, Balga, Koondoola, Mirrabooka and Westminster, and the
part of Ballajura that falls within the State Electorate of Mirrabooka, as at 1 September 2014, how
many:
(2)
(3)
(a)
one bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(b)
two bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(c)
three bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(d)
four bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(e)
five bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(f)
one bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers;
(g)
two bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers;
(h)
three bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers;
(i)
four bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers; and
(j)
five bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers?
many:
(a)
one bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(b)
two bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(c)
three bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(d)
four bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(e)
five bedroom properties were managed by the Department of Housing;
(f)
one bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers;
(g)
two bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers;
(h)
three bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers;
(i)
four bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers; and
(j)
five bedroom Department of Housing properties were managed by Community Housing
providers?
many:
(a)
properties managed by the Department of Housing were untenanted;
(b)
new Department of Housing properties were being planned for construction or purchase; and
(c)
Department of Housing properties were being planned for transfer to a Community Housing
provider?
(1)–(3)
7232
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — PROPERTY MAINTENANCE — MIRRABOOKA ELECTORATE
2945.
(1)
How many people contacted the Department of Housing with maintenance queries for their Homeswest
property, for each of the following suburbs, in August 2014:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(a)
Alexander Heights;
(b)
Balga;
(c)
Koondoola;
(d)
Mirrabooka;
(e)
Westminster; and
(f)
the part of Ballajura that falls within the State Electorate of Mirrabooka?
Of these maintenance queries made to the Department of Housing in August 2014, how many remain
outstanding for each of the following suburbs:
(a)
Alexander Heights;
(b)
Balga;
(c)
Koondoola;
(d)
Mirrabooka;
(e)
Westminster; and
(f)
property, for each of the following suburbs, in July 2014:
(a)
Alexander Heights;
(b)
Balga;
(c)
Koondoola;
(d)
Mirrabooka;
(e)
Westminster; and
(f)
Of these maintenance queries made to the Department of Housing in July 2014, how many remain
(a)
Alexander Heights;
(b)
Balga;
(c)
Koondoola;
(d)
Mirrabooka;
(e)
Westminster; and
(f)
property, for each of the following suburbs, in June 2014:
(a)
Alexander Heights;
(b)
Balga;
(c)
Koondoola;
(d)
Mirrabooka;
(e)
Westminster; and
(f)
Of these maintenance queries made to the Department of Housing in June 2014, how many remain
(a)
Alexander Heights;
(7)
(b)
Balga;
(c)
Koondoola;
(d)
Mirrabooka;
(e)
Westminster; and
(f)
How many uncompleted maintenance requests are there for Department of Housing properties, for each
of the following suburbs, as at 1 September 2014 in:
(a)
Alexander Heights;
(b)
Balga;
(c)
Koondoola;
(d)
Mirrabooka;
(e)
Westminster; and
(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The following job orders were issued from maintenance queries in August 2014:
(a)
45
(b)
216
(c)
82
(d)
141
(e)
83
(f)
126*
Of all job orders raised in August 2014, the following are not completed:
(a)
2
(b)
2
(c)
Nil
(d)
Nil
(e)
Nil
(f)
Nil*
The following job orders were issued from maintenance queries in July 2014:
(a)
30
(b)
221
(c)
53
(d)
212
(e)
113
(f)
171*
Of all job orders raised in July 2014, the following are not completed:
(a)–(f) Nil*
(5)
7233
The following job orders were issued from maintenance queries in June 2014:
(a)
43
(b)
245
(c)
75
(d)
165
(e)
80
7234
(f)
(6)
159*
Of all job orders raised in June 2014, the following are not completed:
(a)–(f) Nil*
(7)
The following job orders were not completed, as at 1 September 2014:
(a)
31
(b)
91
(c)
60
(d)
22
(e)
50
(f)
19*
The Department is unable to separate the statistics for the part of Ballajura that falls within the State Electorate
of Mirrabooka without diverting significant resources to manually confirm each job order and therefore have
reported on the whole of Ballajura.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — HOUSING STOCK — MIRRABOOKA ELECTORATE
2946.
(1)
For the suburbs of Alexander Heights, Balga, Koondoola, Mirrabooka and Westminster, and the part of
Ballajura that falls within the State Electorate of Mirrabooka, as at 1 September 2014, ask:
(2)
(a)
how many Department of Housing properties are there in each suburb;
(b)
what proportion of total properties, in each suburb, does this represent;
(c)
how many people are registered as residing in Department of Housing residences in each
suburb;
(d)
what are the total council rates paid for these properties in each suburb;
(e)
how many Department of Housing properties have a head lease agreement with a nongovernment organisation, in each suburb; and
(f)
how many Department of Housing homes does the Government plan to build in the next
financial year in each suburb?
For the suburbs of Alexander Heights, Balga, Koondoola, Mirrabooka and Westminster, and the part of
Ballajura that falls within the State Electorate of Mirrabooka, as at 1 September 2013, ask:
(a)
how many Department of Housing properties were there in each suburb;
(b)
what proportion of total properties, in each suburb, did this represent;
(c)
how many people were registered as residing in Department of Housing residences in each
suburb;
(d)
what were the total council rates paid for these properties in each suburb; and
(e)
how many Department of Housing properties had a head lease agreement with a nongovernment organisation, in each suburb?
(1)
As at 1 September 2014, Department of Housing properties for:
(a)
Alexander Heights 103
Balga 625
Ballajura 288
Koondoola 188
Mirrabooka 423
Westminster 273
(b)
Proportion of total properties for the Local Government area as at 30 June 2014:
City of Stirling (includes Balga, Mirrabooka and Westminster) 5.14%
7235
City of Swan (includes Ballajura) 4.61%
City of Wanneroo (includes Alexander Heights and Koondoola) 2.93%
(d)
Alexander Heights $99 053.47
Balga $535 093.89
Koondoola $183 499.34
Mirrabooka $467 879.08
Westminster $211 049.90
Ballajura $390 796.73
(e)
(f)
(2)
6 units in Westminster and no units in Alexander Heights, Balga, Koondoola, Mirrabooka or
Ballajura
As at 1 September 2013, Department of Housing properties for:
(a)
Balga 635
Ballajura 289
Koondoola 193
Mirrabooka 423
Westminster 279
(b)
Proportion of total properties for the Local Government area as at 30 June 2013:
City of Stirling (includes Balga, Mirrabooka and Westminster) 5.28%
City of Swan (includes Ballajura) 4.8%
City of Wanneroo (includes Alexander Heights and Koondoola) 3.08%
(c)
Balga 814
Ballajura 572
Koondoola 375
Mirrabooka 841
Westminster 360
(d)
Alexander Heights $89 569.52
Balga $506 959.02
Koondoola $179 601.30
Mirrabooka $459 880.98
Westminster $198 499.33
Ballajura $352 199.62
(e)
Balga 71
Ballajura 22
Koondoola 7
Mirrabooka 13
Westminster 43
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — WYNDHAM EARLY LEARNING ACTIVITIES CENTRE
2986.
Ms J. Farrer to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the Wyndham Early Learning Activities Centre (WELA) and ask:
7236
(a)
have you committed to a funding agreement with WELA to ensure its long term future and service
delivery of programs to the Wyndham community;
(b)
how much funding have you committed to WELA;
(c)
what is the funding period in the agreement with WELA; and
(d)
when does the funding commence and cease?
(a)
The WA Country Health Service has committed funding to support the Wyndham Early Learning
Activities (WELA) Centre for the 2014–15 financial year.
(b)
$88 000 including GST
(c)
One year
(d)
The funding period commenced on 24 September 2014 following the signing of the Grant Agreement
by WELA and will cease on 30 June 2015.
SPORT AND RECREATION — BEAGLE BAY SWIMMING POOL
2987.
Ms J. Farrer to the Minister for Sport and Recreation:
I refer to the Dampier Peninsula, Sport and Recreation Strategic Plan 2011 and the section regarding Beagle
Bay, and ask within the Strategic Plan the following was recommended for Beagle Bay:
i. Provision of a swimming and learners pool with a leisure water area on the site of the disused building adjacent
to oval and hard court;
ii. Existing oval upgrade including; levelling, re-grassing, provision of bollards, maintenance and mowing
program;
iii. Upgrading of roof over existing community basketball court and upgrading of power and lighting;
iv. Upgrade existing covered multi-purpose facility within school grounds including; power and provision of
timers to manage lighting;
v. Future planning and models for providing infrastructure and services should include minimum standards for
individual communities i.e. grassed reticulated playing field, hard court area and basic equipment (all DP
communities); and
vi. Upgrade playground facilities and adopt an ongoing maintenance program:
(a)
has the Department provided funding for any of the items listed, and if not, why not; and
(b)
has the Department provided funding for any of the items listed?
(a)
No, there have been no applications to develop Sport and Recreation Infrastructure.
(b)
Refer to (a)
GREAT NORTHERN HIGHWAY — TRAFFIC INCIDENTS — BULLSBROOK
2988.
Mr R.H. Cook to the Minister for Road Safety:
I refer to section of Great Northern Highway between Brearley Street and North Avenue in Bullsbrook, and ask:
(a)
for each of the last five financial years, how many traffic incidents have occurred here;
(b)
how many of those incidents have resulted in injuries or fatalities; and
(c)
is the area considered a “black spot” and if not, why not?
(a)
One
(b)
Nil
(c)
The section of Great Northern Highway between Brearley Street and North Avenue is part of a longer
section of Great Northern Highway between Chittering Road and Rutland Road that meets the criteria
for State “black spot” funding.
PUBLIC TRUSTEE — PLENARY MANAGERS
3018.
Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister representing the Attorney General:
I refer to services provided by the Public Trustee and ask:
(a)
(b)
how many staff were employed as plenary managers to administer represented persons financial affairs
in the financial years:
(i)
2009–2010;
(ii)
2010–2011;
(iii)
2011–2012;
(iv)
2012–2013; and
(v)
2013–2014; and
how many represented persons had their estates administered by a plenary manager in the financial
years:
(i)
2009–2010;
(ii)
2010–2011;
(iii)
2011–2012;
(iv)
2012–2013; and
(v)
2013–2014?
(a)
(b)
7237
(i)
31
(ii)
31
(iii)
31
(iv)
31
(v)
31
(i)
2 335
(ii)
2 471
(iii)
2 684
(iv)
2 884
(v)
3 112
__________

Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD) THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION

Transcription

Similar documents

Awana Upcoming Events - Faith Baptist Church

community - DailyNews Archives

Gov`t Undertaking Major Road Improvement Projects

June Bulletin - Faith4Life Church

(conference photographs) in PDF

Dr. Jim Kaseman

June 26, 2016

Why major projects legislation is bad for the environment and public participation‐ the NSW experience

AR2006new copy.indd - Sabah Forestry Department

South Asians - Institute of South Asian Studies