25/02/2015 - Parliament of Western Australia

Transcription

Parliamentary Debates
(HANSARD)
THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
2015
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Legislative Assembly
Wednesday, 25 February 2015
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.
RACING INDUSTRY — TOTALISATOR AGENCY BOARD PRIVATISATION
Petition
MRS G.J. GODFREY (Belmont) [12.01 pm]: I have a petition from 88 petitioners regarding the
Totalisator Agency Board; with 61 petitioners yesterday and 88 today, that is a total of 149 —
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 TAB is a vital component of and contributor to all three codes of
racing in Western Australia and that the sale of the TAB, in any form, will be to the ongoing detriment
of the Racing Industry.
Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to commit to ensure that any sale of the TAB does not proceed.
[See petition 213.]
JULIEKA IVANNA DHU — DEATH IN CUSTODY
Petition
MR I.C. BLAYNEY (Geraldton) [12.02 pm]: I have a petition from 14 petitioners regarding the death of
Ms Dhu at South Hedland —
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of
Western Australia in Parliament assembled.
We, the undersigned, say:
The tragic death of 22-year-old Yamatji woman Ms Dhu on 4 August 2014, three days after police took
her to the watchhouse in South Hedland for just $1000 in unpaid fines, has sadly added to the number
of deaths in police custody that have occurred in Western Australia.
As part of the Dhu family’s campaign for justice they have called for an independent investigation into
the circumstances surrounding Ms Dhu’s death and asked the government to immediately adopt
strategies to improve police custody procedures which could prevent more deaths from occurring. To
date the Premier has simply called for an expedited coronial inquest into Ms Dhu’s death. The
Premier’s answer is simply not enough.
Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to agree to:
1.
Immediately establish an independent and timely public inquiry into Ms Dhu’s death.
2.
Legislate for and fund mandatory 24-hour custody notification service and R U OK
phone line in accordance with the recommendation in Parliament’s report, in Safe
Custody.
3.
Fund 24-hour on-call medical coverage and assistance at all lock-ups in metropolitan
and regional WA.
4.
Adopt alternatives to imprisonment as a penalty for non-payment of fines in
accordance with the recommendations of the 2014 Gender Bias Report and
Attorney General’s 2013 Review of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA).
5.
Adopt justice reinvestment in communities instead of constructing more prisons.
6.
Expand the role of the Inspector of Custodial Services to oversight of all lock-ups in
WA and fund this work in accordance with the recommendations in Parliament’s
report, in Safe Custody.
[See petition 214.]
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Membership Change — Notice of Motion
Mr J.H.D. Day (Leader of the House) gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move —
That the member for Balcatta and the member for Vasse are appointed as members of the Community
Development and Justice Standing Committee.
654
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 25 February 2015]
CHINESE NEW YEAR 2015 — YEAR OF THE GOAT
Statement by Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests
DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests) [12.04 pm]: It is
a pleasure to inform the house that Chinese New Year festivities to welcome in the year of the goat have once
again lit up Perth’s skies and filled many streets and venues with celebrating crowds. Several Chinese or
Lunar New Year celebrations were held in Perth around the start of the new year, which began on Thursday,
19 February. The festival is enjoyed by culturally and linguistically diverse communities, as well as increasing
numbers from the wider community, and is now firmly established as a major event on Western Australia’s
community calendar. As in previous years, one of the highlights of the new year was the annual Perth Chinese
New Year Fair, which was organised by the Chung Wah Association and held in Northbridge on Sunday,
22 February. This hugely popular free community event is now in its fourth year and attracts around
30 000 people throughout the day. I am proud to bring to the attention of the house that this festival has been
sponsored by the state government in each of its four years, through grants from the Office of Multicultural
Interests. This year, Chung Wah received $20 000 through the Office of Multicultural Interests’ major
community celebrations sponsorships, which are part of its community grants program.
Another key community festival, the Vietnamese New Year—or Tet—Festival, also received $20 000 through
the same Office of Multicultural Interests’ grants program. The Tet New Year celebrations, held on Friday,
20 February and Saturday, 21 February at Wanneroo Showgrounds, once again drew record crowds of more than
10 000 people keen to welcome in the new year. I was privileged to attend both these events as the Premier’s
representative and was pleased to see many other members of the house enjoying the festivities. Government
representatives also attended other year of the goat celebrations, including the Vietnamese traditional—lunar—
new year celebration held by the Consulate General of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in Perth earlier this
month. More events are still to come, including the Chinese New Year celebration at Kingsway City shopping
centre, and the Singapore Western Australia Network Chinese New Year celebration, both of which will take
place tomorrow, Thursday, 26 February. The Association of Malaysians in Western Australia’s Commemoration
of Chinese New Year will also take place on Saturday.
Perth has been a focus for new year celebrations over the last few weeks. Events have included lion dancing in
shopping centres around the metropolitan area, Chinese New Year banquets in Chinese restaurants across the
metropolitan area, and the popular Chinese feature films at Northbridge Piazza. I take this opportunity to wish all
members of the house a happy new year, and I hope that the year of the goat will bring all members good health
and prosperity!
AUSTRALIAN DISABILITY ENTERPRISES — GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Statement by Minister for Finance
MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Minister for Finance) [12.08 pm]: I rise today to advise the house that
the government is improving the employment opportunities for people with disabilities through government
procurement. People with disabilities experience a range of restrictions in daily living and when participating in
family, community, recreational and work activities. For these people, having a job provides more than a wage;
it is a doorway to engagement in community life, enhanced feelings of self-worth, and the promotion of
citizenship. The seven Western Australian-based Australian Disability Enterprises provide employment for more
than 2 100 people with disability. Many more could be employed if work was available.
In recognition of the potential for government procurement to improve the employment prospects of people with
disability, the government’s procurement policy allows agencies to engage an Australian Disability Enterprise
directly, without undertaking a competitive quote or tender process, provided the service or product being
offered represents value for money. Australian Disability Enterprises are not being given any “additional”
consideration over and above commercial companies. They are required to sign up to the state’s standard
conditions and terms of contract, and deliver timely, and quality, products or services at a price consistent with,
or lower than, the price that would be obtained in a competitive tendering process. The Department of Finance
promotes and facilitates this initiative through a dedicated senior procurement manager for Australian Disability
Enterprises. To date, Disability Enterprises have secured from government agencies some 66 contracts, with
a combined value of $18 million. Many more potential contracts are in the pipeline.
The Disability Enterprises are delighted with the outcome to date, which has given them the opportunity to
employ more people with disability and provide them with meaningful work and training opportunities.
Feedback from government agencies has been very positive, confirming that the Disability Enterprises are
delivering good quality products and services at market competitive prices. This is a win for both the
government and people living with disabilities.
655
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME — MY WAY TRIAL
Statement by Parliamentary Secretary
MS A.R. MITCHELL (Kingsley — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.10 pm]: The second quarterly report for
Western Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme My Way trial has been released and it shows that we
are building on the successes of the first quarter. In the lower south west trial site, 623 people have been found
eligible and 595 have approved plans.
There are a few particular successes I would like to highlight. Firstly, 44 people with psychosocial disability are
now part of the trial, up from nine in the first quarter. Already these individuals are reporting that they are seeing
their lives improve significantly thanks to the individualised, person-centred WA NDIS My Way planning
process. Each person has different goals and aspirations, so each plan is tailored to the unique needs and
aspirations of the individual. People are being supported to connect more fully with their local community,
manage medical appointments and medication, and engage in meaningful daytime activities. Our partnership
with the mental health sector has been instrumental to the successful transition of people with psychosocial
disability into the trial and I look forward to that continued collaboration and positive outcomes for people.
Another noteworthy achievement in the second quarter is the significant increase in the number of service
providers in the trial site. There are now 35 service providers from which people with disability, their families
and carers can choose to access supports and services.
The average cost of funded plans remains below the national average at $28 176 for this quarter. This indicates
that the WA NDIS My Way model is on track to be sustainable in the long term. In addition, 112 people have
plans for which they have not requested funding at this point in time. This tells us that people are well supported
by their My Way coordinator to explore natural supports, community inclusion and mainstream services to
achieve their goals.
Although we continue to receive positive feedback about how WA NDIS My Way is genuinely improving lives,
we want to improve further. To enhance the feedback process, an independently facilitated forum was held in
Busselton on 11 February to learn more about the experience of people with disability, their families and carers
in the trial. A forum was also conducted by WA National Disability Services to get feedback from service
providers. Feedback from both forums was positive and constructive.
The Disability Services Commission is also working in partnership with non-government disability sector
organisations to ensure the smooth start of the NDIS My Way trial in Cockburn–Kwinana from 1 July 2015.
I look forward to continuing to share updates on the progress of the WA NDIS My Way trial and the positive
outcomes that are being achieved for people with disability.
FOREST PRODUCTS COMMISSION — SANDALWOOD
WATER FOR FOOD PROGRAM
Statement by Minister for Water
MS M.J. DAVIES (Central Wheatbelt — Minister for Water) [12.13 pm]: In December last year, I travelled
to China to visit sandalwood factories and meet with buyers of Western Australian sandalwood. I also met with
a number of groups interested in the opportunities associated with the state government’s Water for Food project.
The sandalwood sold by the Forest Products Commission accounts for approximately 60 per cent of the world’s
legal sandalwood supply and generates some $16 million in revenue. China is currently experiencing growth in
sandalwood products for use in religious and cultural practices. Many thousands of people are employed across
the industry in Asia, which is dependent on a consistent supply of Western Australian sandalwood products.
Following the recent parliamentary inquiry into sandalwood, it was important to assure distributors and retailers
of a sustainable supply of WA sandalwood into the future.
My first stop was Xiamen, home to a number of sandalwood factories including the Bee Chin Heong Arts and
Craft Co, FPC’s largest agent in China and worldwide. It employs 300 people and has 40 retail outlets.
Approximately 50 people attended a meeting in Xiamen and another 50 in Guangzhou where I confirmed the
Western Australian government’s commitment to the industry. I was able to hear directly the concerns of buyers
and distributors about options for our supply strategy, the sustainability of wild sandalwood and the illegal
import of sandalwood into China. Business operators from Taiwan, Malaysia and Hong Kong also made the
journey to attend these meetings. Some of the businesses have been purchasing sandalwood from
Western Australia since the 1800s when the industry was established. It was an opportunity to develop my
knowledge of the breadth and depth of the distribution network and sale of sandalwood that comes from the
wheatbelt and goldfields of WA.
I also met with the CEO of the Department of Commerce of Guangdong Province, who reinforced the enormous
opportunity that exists for Western Australia in developing and nurturing business relationships with China.
656
I took the opportunity to discuss the projects related to the WA government’s Water for Food project. In Beijing
I met with Mr Wang Wenbiao, chairman of the board of Elion Resources Group, and his senior executives.
Following a discussion on Water for Food and the opportunities that exist for dry-land farming and investment in
agriculture in rural WA, I visited the Kubuqi Desert in Inner Mongolia. It was well worth the effort to see
firsthand the ecological approach to the challenges in this desert region. I was also able to visit nurseries,
greenhouses, plantations and sand dunes undergoing rehabilitation for irrigation methods on a large scale. The
work being done to rehabilitate land and turn it to productive use was very impressive. For example, in order to
use salinity-impacted land, licorice is grown as both a commercial pharmaceutical and for sand dune
stabilisation. It is extremely salt tolerant.
As Minister for Water, I extended an invitation for representatives from those groups that I met with to visit
Western Australia and look at some of the exciting work that we are undertaking with Water for Food. Some of
those groups have taken us up on that offer and have recently visited Mowanjum Aboriginal community in the
West Kimberley and Woodie Woodie, east of Marble Bar. I thank the Forest Products Commission, the
Department of Water and the Department of State Development for their assistance in organising this trip. I table
the itinerary.
[See papers 2661 and 2662.]
GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY — LIVE BAITING
Notice of Motion
Mr M.P. Murray gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move —
That this house calls on the Barnett government to undertake an investigation into greyhound racing to
ensure that —
(1)
there is no live baiting in Western Australia;
(2)
all animal welfare within the greyhound racing industry is maintained; and
(3)
appropriate safeguards are put in place to eliminate any future live baiting in
Western Australia.
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION BILL 2014
Consideration in Detail
Resumed from 27 November 2014.
Clause 2: Commencement —
Debate was adjourned after clause 1 had been agreed to.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Clause 2 is about the commencement. Given the 27-year wait for this legislation —
The SPEAKER: Sorry, member for Mirrabooka, the minister cannot hear. Can members take their meetings
outside, please. Member for Mirrabooka, start again, please.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: It is not very often I cannot be heard! Given the 27-year wait for this legislation, can the
parliamentary secretary please outline the time lines in weeks or months for the legislation? Once the act
receives royal assent, what are the time lines and will the time of royal assent be affected by consultation?
Obviously, it matters when it is passed in this place, so all I need to know is what sort of time lines are being
looked at. Will it receive royal assent two weeks, one week or one day after it goes through Parliament? I will
then ask a question about clause 2(b). I just want to know what the time lines are.
Mr P.T. MILES: Obviously, the bill has to go through our house and the other house, so the member is
referring to when it gets through that long period in the other place. Then there is royal assent. There is no more
consultation; the consultation has been pretty much done. Some computer upgrades will be required at the
department to allow for the changes coming forward. A couple of years will be needed for the transitional
periods. Clubs do not have to change their rules and all the rest of it on day one. The government agency would
not be able to accommodate that on day one anyway, so the transitional period is up to three years to
accommodate that. If anything comes up in that process within that period, I am sure it can be dealt with
effectively. I would say that if it can go through this house and the upper house by the end of this year, there is
probably no real reason why it could not start some time next year—possibly around 1 July; we would need to
pick a good date to start that.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: If I am hearing rightly, in terms of the day on which the bill receives royal assent, the
parliamentary secretary expects that the bill will go through the two houses probably by the end of the year, and
then there will be a six-month period before it receives royal assent because there are a number of departmental
issues. Will royal assent of clauses 1 and 2 of the bill happen pretty much straightaway, and, as it says in
657
clause 2(b), the rest of the bill on a day fixed by proclamation, with different days being fixed for different
provisions? I will refer to clause 2(b) later, but my first questions are: When does the parliamentary secretary
anticipate royal assent being given after the bill has passed through this house? Is there a time line for that? Is
there a period during which it will sit in abeyance? This is quite important to the sector, because at the moment
the sector knows that there is an Associations Incorporation Bill 2014; people are talking about it. Clarity about
the time frame for the bill receiving royal assent and being enacted after having gone through Parliament is quite
important, given that there are some new provisions in this bill, particularly with regard to the duties of board
members.
Mr P.T. MILES: My advice is that there is actually nothing to stop the legislation commencing from royal
assent; nothing at all. We just have to make sure that we have the back office portion done, then the royal assent,
and then the legislation can actually come into play.
Ms J.M. Freeman: That’s what I want to know. I want to know how long between getting through here and
royal assent. What’s the time line there?
Mr P.T. MILES: It would be done as soon as possible. There is no defined period, if the member is asking
whether it is going to be a week or a month.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Yes.
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes, I do not have any advice on that. The normal process is to make sure the agencies are
ready and that the clubs are educated and ready, and then royal assent can take place before the bill is enacted.
Obviously, when it receives royal assent, it is the new act. I do not really know why the member wants us to
define a time frame.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I do really want to know a particular time because we are going through the process of
a new bill that many organisations, certainly peak organisations, are aware of. The period between the legislation
going through Parliament and receiving royal assent is a period during which we have something that has
effectively been legislated but is not yet operating because it cannot operate until it receives royal assent. The
parliamentary secretary has just added in that the back office will need to be in place. Consecutive governments
have been waiting 27 years for this bill, and we are now being told that the back office has to be up and running
before the bill can receive assent. My question really is: is the government going to spend time on education
before the bill receives royal assent or will the education process take place after royal assent? Once this bill is
passed, the question is: will the government undertake the education process and then royal assent, or will the
education process take place after the bill has been assented to?
Mr P.T. MILES: My advice is that the legislation will come into play on the day of royal assent. The education
process is already happening, as are some of the back office computerised areas in anticipation of this legislation
being enacted and coming into play. The other point is that between the day it is ticked off in the other place to
the day it reaches the Governor, the bill has to go through the Governor’s diary of appointments, and that could
be a week or it could be a month; that is the bit of information I cannot give the member —
Ms J.M. Freeman: But you’re not anticipating it being anything more than a month? Because previously you
were telling me it was going to be six months.
Mr P.T. MILES: It should be done without a problem; there are no issues. The member is right: it has taken us
some years to get to brand-new legislation, but we want to make sure that everyone is on board with it. Like
everyone else in this Parliament, I have been in clubs in which people can get very testy about rule changes and
legislation changes. I have attended two AGMs over the last couple of days, and I can tell members that some
people read these acts inside out and ask about every little detail, and forget about their own constitution. We
believe that once the legislation has passed through the other house and is before the Governor, it will start off.
There will not be any delay in enacting this legislation, because we do not want it to be delayed any further than
it has been already going through these houses.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I acknowledge that. I suppose I expected that there would be a priority for such an
important piece of legislation that will have such an impact on whether people can find themselves in breach of
the law. In particular, the government is incorporating into this new legislation implied duties of board members,
and other elements along the lines of reporting requirements and other aspects of how boards and organisations
must operate. The issue I have is that any delay beyond what is reasonable for a Governor’s diary will put the
government in a situation of legal difficulties in respect of which legislation will apply if someone is found to be
in breach. I suppose I want assurance that, as soon as this bill passes through the house—because people have
expected it and are becoming educated about it and are out there doing stuff—it will go basically to the
Governor’s pleasure; it will go straight to assent by the Governor, and there will be no delays because of
bureaucratic, educational or other procedures. When I first asked the question, the parliamentary secretary said
that there would be back office issues and a few others, that we will finish in December and it will receive royal
658
assent in July. Now we have come back to a month. I suppose I want the assurance that there will be no
procedural delay, other than the fact of getting it into the Governor’s diary.
Mr P.T. MILES: The member is right: there will be no legal or procedural reason to prevent the legislation
being enacted straightaway. As soon as the legislation has gone through both houses, it will go to the Governor
for royal assent through the normal process for bills. Once it has gone there and been proclaimed by the
Governor and has come back, the agencies will have already started and completed their educational processes.
We also must bear in mind that we have put three-year transitional provisions in the legislation, so there will not
be any wielding of the big stick on day one, because that would be totally unfair. There is provision for a threeyear transition into the new legislation, so on the face of it most organisations would be very comfortable with
sliding into the new legislation. There will be those that are ready on day one, and most of them will be very
welcoming of the reduction in red tape in the legislation.
Going back to what the member said, there is nothing to stop the legislation from going to the Governor as soon
as possible. I tried earlier to give the member some sort of time line to get the mechanics happening, but it will
not go to the Governor the day after it has gone through the other place, I can assure her. It has to make the same
transition as any other bill that goes through both houses before it can come into play, but on day one of royal
assent, it will be in play.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that clarification. I am glad that we went from
six months to the day. As the parliamentary secretary well knows, part of my strength is attention to detail, and
as he also well knows, attention to detail when we are doing legislation is very good because it means that if
there is a question about legislation, it can be referred. This legislation will have legal ramifications and I think it
is important that we ask questions about all parts of it. I do not want to delay the bill any further, but I want to
make sure that it has had the proper scrutiny that it deserves.
Dr A.D. Buti: I am sure that the member who is a doctor would of course be in favour of attention to detail.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Yes, and he is used to me.
The SPEAKER: Thank you for that, member for Armadale.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I am coming back, Mr Speaker; I apologise. I want to ask about clause 2(b), which
states —
the rest of the Act — on a day fixed by proclamation, and different days may be fixed for different
provisions.
I assume that the rest of the bill comprises the regulations. Although I have a copy of the draft rules, are the draft
regulations out for discussion? It is so long ago that I have forgotten. Has a copy been made available to the
opposition? Firstly, does that mean regulations? Secondly, have the regulations been put out for public
consultation and have they been made available to the opposition?
Mr P.T. MILES: The member said that she has read the legislation. The regulations are part of the consultation;
they have to be because some of those regulations form part of the rules. Therefore, they are being consulted on
and discussed. They are sort of combined; we cannot just say one or the other. Although all the regulations have
not necessarily been put out for consultation, the ones that affect the rules have been consulted on. The agency
obviously will take note of those consultations before the regulations come into play.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I thank the parliamentary secretary. I apologise; I probably was not listening quite as well
as I should have because my son was having a little nervy turn on the phone so I had to text him.
The parliamentary secretary is saying that the regulations have not yet been produced. Are they currently out for
consultation?
Mr P.T. MILES: No, they are not finalised; they are still a work in progress. The ones that are associated with
the model rules are being consulted on. They are still in the consultation phase and that is why they have not
been finalised. We will not see the regulations until the bill has passed through the other house.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Will the regulations lay on the table of Parliament? The clause provides that the rest of
the act will come into operation on a day fixed by proclamation, and different days may be fixed for different
provisions. We have not seen the regulations yet. We have seen the rules and consultation is taking place on the
rules. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm for me that Parliament will not have the capacity to look at the
regulations until after this bill is passed, so the capacity for Parliament to scrutinise those regulations will be as is
the case for most regulations; that is, they will lay on the table and if Parliament does not agree with the
regulations, it can move to disallow them?
Mr P.T. MILES: The member is correct. Obviously, the delegated legislation committee days are coming back!
Any gazettal that is done by the government can be disallowed if a member does not like it, and exactly the same
will apply in this case. When they are gazetted, obviously they will come to Parliament in the normal manner
659
and will go through the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation and other committees preferably.
The committees or an individual member can move to disallow them. The member is correct.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: We have talked about the regulations. I now want to move on to the draft rules. The draft
rules are not dated, but I received them prior to Christmas. Firstly, have there been any amendments to those
draft rules since they were first put out? Have they been put out for broad public consultation or have they gone
only to specific groups and clubs such as the Western Australian Council of Social Service and the Law Society
of Western Australia? There are a couple of questions there. Firstly, am I looking at the same draft rules that
everybody else is looking at? Secondly, how many people are looking at those draft rules?
Mr P.T. MILES: I thought the member would ask some of these questions when we got to the rules provision of
the bill. The draft rules that the member has are current. Every organisation that is registered has received a copy
of those rules, and they should be assessing them. Obviously, those organisations that wish to put in
a submission can do so. The little clubs have not bothered but the major ones have. There has been no change to
the rules that the member sees. Consultation is still talking place.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I was going to have fun with the parliamentary secretary when we go through the draft
rules at the consideration in detail stage, but I just thought we would get the procedural aspect of it out of the
way. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm whether the draft rules will be like the regulations and lay before
Parliament and be open to disallowance or will they have a different status and be more like codes of practice or
guides?
Mr P.T. MILES: The model rules will form part of the regulations, because they are regulations. That is why,
when the model rules change from time to time, those changes will have to be gazetted. Therefore, clubs that are
using just the model rules will be able to accept that gazettal. Again, because they will be gazetted, Parliament
has the right to review that new gazetted model rule and object to it or what have you. I think the consultation on
those rules has been very good and has been well received. I have not received any issues. There have been only
11 submissions on the model rules, which I think is pretty impressive overall. It means that we have got the
model rules pretty much right. That is why there have been no real changes.
The SPEAKER: I just remind the member for Mirrabooka that this is the commencement of the act. You are
starting to drift off a little.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: The commencement clause provides that the rest of the act will come into operation on
a day fixed by proclamation, and different days may be fixed for different provisions. As I understand it, the
different provisions are regulations and model rules, which is why I asked the question about that. I apologise,
Mr Speaker, if you do not think it fits within that clause, because I thought this would be the appropriate time to
talk about it.
Can the parliamentary secretary give me an indication of any other different provisions that may be involved? Is
it just the regulations and model rules or is there something else that may fall within the broad terminology of
“different provisions”? Usually, this type of clause would state that the act will come into operation on a day
fixed by proclamation and different days may be fixed for regulations or whatever. This clause refers to
“different provisions”. I am just trying to work out whether that means different provisions within the legislation,
whether “different provisions” just means regulations and model rules, or whether another category fits within
“different provisions”.
Mr P.T. MILES: Member, no, it is only to do with regulations—nothing else apart from the regulations
incorporates the rules. The advice is that there is nothing else there that we are planning to do; it is only the
regulations associated with the Associations Incorporation Bill 2014 that obviously take in the rules.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: For clarification, why does it not read “for regulations”? Why does it have such a broad
term called “different provisions”? Is the parliamentary secretary telling me that “different provisions”
exclusively means regulations and models rules and that is it? Are they are the parameters of “different
provisions”, and there is nothing outside those different provisions?
Mr P.T. MILES: No; it is any regulation associated with the act—I think the member knows that. It is anything
associated with this bill; it is just that there is absolutely nothing else that we are aware of for which we need
a regulation, apart from the rules being in place that are coming up. There is nothing else that we think we need
to put into regulation; it is all there. Clause 2(b) is a fairly standard clause in most bills, as I understand it, and it
is there to make provision for further regulations to be created in the act.
Clause put and passed.
Clause 3: Terms used —
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Clause 3 includes a range of terms, but I want to focus on the definition of “officer”
and my question relates to the term “management committee”. All members in this place who have had
extensive experience with community organisations know that there can be tension between people on the
660
management committee tasked with the visioning and defining of goals and objectives for an organisation—the
defining of an organisation’s strategic plan—and people on the operational side of things who would normally
come under the definition of “officer”. We are missing an opportunity with these definitions to save that angst
that occurs in community organisations when someone who is on the management committee periodically steps
in to tackle operational issues. My question to the parliamentary secretary is: why have we not sought to clarify
the distinction between someone in a management committee role versus someone in an operational role? As it
stands at the moment, these definitions will serve only to exacerbate that problem that occurs so often when
people with the very best of intentions want to merge their management committee functions with operational
matters. There could have been a way of tightening these definitions so that we could have avoided that
possibility.
Mr P.T. MILES: Paragraph (d) under the definition of “officer” reads “a person in accordance with whose
instructions”. A past chairman or maybe the past treasurer or somebody who is not necessarily an officer of the
board may have asked to come on board and offer advice or give some direction or history on how the club or
association has been running, and that is why, I guess, the term “officer” has been used. Paragraph (d) under the
definition of “officer” answers the member’s question.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I do not think paragraph (d) really does solve the situation. The problem is actually
paragraph (a) under the definition of “officer”, because someone can be an office-bearer of an organisation—the
management committee–type person. The problem arises when people who are management committee officerbearers are allowed to also describe themselves as officers of an organisation. It would be parallel to a situation
whereby a public servant is an officer in a department of the public service, and a member of the government is
the overarching policy-setter for a government agency; somebody in this place cannot step into the operational
role of a public servant. That is one parallel I could draw. The problem could be solved, I think, by not allowing
people who are on management committees to describe themselves as officers. That is where we get this
confusion between those who are often volunteers on a management committee and paid employees working as
officers for an organisation. That is the tension we are seeking to avoid. It is one, believe me, that can cause a lot
of tension in organisations, so it is one that we really do have to try to solve.
Mr P.T. MILES: The advice I have on that one, member, is that the definition of “officer” has been broadened,
clearly —
Mr C.J. Tallentire: And dangerously so.
Mr P.T. MILES: They are the member’s words; I do not believe so. “Officer” has been broadened, so that the
management committee can get external advice —
Mr C.J. Tallentire: External from where?
Mr P.T. MILES: From past members. As I said before, there might be a past treasurer or chairman who knows
the history of a club or an association who may not necessarily be duly elected but still needs to provide advice
along the way.
Mr C.J. Tallentire: But that person has not been elected.
The SPEAKER: One person at a time, please.
Mr P.T. MILES: They can then provide that advice and are captured in the definition of an “officer”; basically,
it will bring them under the duties of the management committee. Therefore, they would still have to abide by
certain rules. They may not be a committee member or management member, but it still provides them with
certain duties of care and they still have to act in the best interests of the club to be there. They cannot sort of
skip in and out of committee meetings, tell people outside what is going on and then come back inside. All the
rules of the incorporation still exist for that person who is acting in an officer role.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: The parliamentary secretary’s thinking is going in the right direction, but we still have
the problem that what the parliamentary secretary is presenting to us allows for this blurring of boundaries
between someone on a management committee and someone who is an employee of the organisation. I am
suggesting that we should tighten the definition so that a person who is a paid employee has a different title from
someone who is a management committee member. They are not officers, and there would be two separate
categories of people. Not being clear about the boundaries will lead to further problems in a lot of our volunteer
community sector organisations. I wonder whether there is a way the parliamentary secretary could consider
amending the bill just to make it clear where someone sits. In some cases it may be justifiable that someone is on
the management committee and also has some paid role, but if we have well thought through definitions in this
legislation, it will help those people understand when they are acting as management committee members and
when they are acting as officers and employees of the organisation.
Mr P.T. MILES: I understand where the member for Gosnells is coming from. To clarify it for myself, this is
consistent with what happens in other states. It is not new to Australian law at all. It is about the person who
661
comes on board who will offer advice to the management committee. They are still going to be collectively
responsible for that decision. That is what it is about. That person who helps the committee or the management
committee to make a particular decision also takes on board the responsibility of that decision and, therefore,
would be ultimately responsible as an officer.
Ms L.L. BAKER: My question is about the definition of “officer”. I refer the parliamentary secretary slightly
further down page 3 of the bill to paragraph (c), which refers to “a person who has the capacity to significantly
affect the association’s financial standing”. I imagine that could be lots of people. I am thinking about
Gina Rinehart, but it could be all sorts of people.
Ms J.M. Freeman: The Premier.
Ms L.L. BAKER: Yes, the Premier. I seek clarification so that whoever reads Hansard in the future will be
clear about what is really meant when the parliamentary secretary says that the officer of an incorporated
association includes a person who has the capacity to significantly affect the association’s financial standing.
Mr P.T. MILES: Again, that term is about making sure that in a club—rightly so—the elected members,
moneys or assets are being looked after, and that anybody who is elected or asked to participate in a particular
project or whatever for that club will be duly bound to act appropriately and properly. Paragraph (c) says
“significantly affect”, so it relates to a big decision.
Ms L.L. Baker: Could you give an example?
Mr P.T. MILES: An example could be a decision to purchase a building or something or to sell off an asset.
That person becomes part of that decision-making process and is responsible, as part of the collective, in making
that decision because they are advising the board or the management committee about what to do with that asset,
or to buy an asset. Therefore, it has to be a very large and significant portion, because quite often clubs might
want to purchase boats or cars or whatever, and a third party might be asked to give advice on that purchase. If
that third party is going to influence the decision—which I guess they are because they are saying that they want
the organisation to buy this car, this building or boat—the management committee will obviously listen to that
person. That is how it is.
Ms L.L. BAKER: I will continue for clarification. Some of the not-for-profit organisations in which I have been
involved in the past have purchased significant holdings to develop, for example, a business incubator—so
millions of dollars’ worth of building. In doing so, those NGOs have involved maybe three or four different
consultants to give advice under different contractual relationships—that is, contact with an engineering report
and an environmental company to give them reports. What I think the parliamentary secretary is saying, which
needs to be clear, is that because those organisations have completed those reports, the definition of “officer”
makes those individual organisations “officers” of my not-for-profit organisation that is seeking to buy
a business. To me, that is completely unworkable.
Ms J.M. Freeman interjected.
Ms L.L. BAKER: That is right. I cannot imagine a situation in which an environmental company that has been
asked to provide a report on the impact of building something on wetlands will want to be treated as a party or an
officer of an incorporated association, with the financials, even though they have a significant opportunity to
impact on the financial standing of an organisation by issuing a report or by reporting through as a contractor
under an agreement to provide advice. I am stringing this out so that the parliamentary secretary can have a chat
to his advisers.
Mr P.T. MILES: My answer is similar to the one I gave to the member for Gosnells. Again, it relates to a club
member, not an external company.
Ms L.L. Baker: Do they have to be a member of the club?
Mr P.T. MILES: They do not necessarily have to be a member, but they have to be somebody who obviously
has influenced that organisation, and who may have a linkage to that organisation. It could be a past member. Let
us say that a person has belonged to a yacht club and they no longer want their boat, they are going elsewhere,
and they are not a member anymore; therefore, they are going in to influence the committee to purchase their
boat and take it on board. That is how the definition of “officer” comes into play.
Ms L.L. Baker: What you are telling me is clearly that somebody who has been contracted to deliver a report at
the behest of the organisation is not bound as an officer of the organisation for the purposes of this?
Mr P.T. MILES: No.
Ms L.L. Baker: So my report card from BIS Shrapnel about the health of the organisation will never hold
BIS Shrapnel responsible for everything crashing?
Mr P.T. MILES: No, because that is external.
662
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I also want to ask about the definition of the word “officer”. I note that in the
Associations Incorporation Act 1987 an “officer” in relation to an association means a member of the committee,
and this is all it meant. Now “officer” will mean a member of the management committee of the association, and
it means what is stated in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), including a person who may not even be a member of the
committee, the management committee, or the association for that matter. The parliamentary secretary may have
already said this to the member for Gosnells, but I assume that by including paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) they
could be brought into the “Duties of officers” in part 4, division 3, and in particular the duty of care and
diligence, and that is the reason these areas have been included so that they can act in good faith and with proper
purpose. My question is about paragraph (b), which states —
a person, including an employee of the association, who makes, or participates in making, decisions that
affect the whole, or a substantial part, of the operations of the association;
Will that mean that funding bodies have a duty of care and diligence to act in good faith and proper purpose in
terms of funding because they will fall under the definition of “officer”?
Mr P.T. MILES: It sounds like the member for Mirrabooka is asking whether that person is an employee of the
organisation. I think that is what the member is referring to in her explanation. I do not know whether she wants
to clarify her question, but it sounds as though she is saying they are an employee.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I refer to paragraph (c), which states —
a person who has the capacity to significantly affect the association’s financial standing;
I had a question about the employee in a funding body and I probably got myself confused, so I apologise. So the
first question —
Mr P.T. Miles: Yes, please. Can you do one at a time?
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I will break it down. Have paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) been included so that those officers
have that broader definition of other than a member of the management committee of the association within
part 4, division 3, “Duties of Officers”—that is, that broader definition of who is captured by “Duty of care and
diligence”, and “Duty of good faith and proper purpose”, as outlined in the headings of clauses in part 4,
division 3?
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes; exactly. They are included because those people will be influencing board or
management committee decisions. Their collective responsibility is still for the club, not themselves.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Under the definition of “officer” paragraph (c) states —
a person who has the capacity to significantly affect the association’s financial standing;
Does that include funding bodies and will they have the duty of care and diligence, the need to act in good faith
and have proper purpose? Will they be tied into having those duties under the new definition of officer?
Mr P.T. MILES: No.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Paragraph (b) under the definition of “officer” reads —
a person, including an employee of the association, who makes, or participates in making, decisions that
affect the whole, or a substantial part, of the operations of the association;
I gather that “person” could be an executive officer, for example. Will that person—someone who is effectively
bankrupt—be covered under clause 39, “Persons who are not to be members of management committee”, under
part 4 “Management”? Does this mean there cannot be a director, CEO or anyone who falls within clause
39(1) —
(a) a person who is, according to the Interpretation Act 1984 section 13D, a bankrupt or person whose
affairs are under insolvency laws;
Let us stay with subclause (1)(a) in the first instance. Does that mean that a CEO, a director or someone else who
is employed by the association and quite separately from the employment of the association because they had
a business or something else, be tied into clause 39 or will they be tied only into division 3, “Duties of officers”?
Is the provision for employees, who are persons not to be members of the management committee, particular to
paragraph (a) under the definition of “officer”?
Mr P.T. MILES: No, under clause 39 the committee is purely, I guess, a group from the main management
committee that might be working on a specific project—that is the committee. That person is not included in
that; they are included only in the officer part.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The definition of association is “includes society, club, institution or body”. We are dealing with
definitions and legality. Is there a legal definition in the Associations Incorporation Bill of a society, a club,
institution or body? I cannot find one in the bill, so how can we have clarification of what they mean?
663
Mr P.T. MILES: We have taken the lead from other jurisdictions. Nobody defines what they are because at the
end of the day the Commissioner for Consumer Protection will decide. When people make applications for an
incorporated body, as it is stated further in the bill, they have to provide their reasoning for creating an
association. They have to make sure they have the associated members and that all the appropriate rules are in
place. It would be up to the commissioner to accept what is being set up. If we start trying to define bodies,
I think some organisations will not be able to become incorporated associations. My understanding is that we are
trying to keep that area fairly broad so that the commissioner can be a bit more flexible when deciding whether
a group can be an incorporated association.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I understand what the parliamentary secretary is saying, but that does not answer the question.
A definition in the bill states “association includes society, club, institution or body”. Yes, of course the
commissioner will decide whether an incorporation can take place based on a number of criteria described in the
bill before us. The bill describes what an association is by reference to other identities but it does not provide
a definition of those identities. It seems to be a strange way of going about legislative drafting.
Mr P.T. MILES: As the member says, the definition describes associations and it includes society, club,
institution or body. At the end of the day, it is about an association of people coming together to create a club or
some form of entity, for whatever reason. That is why we are not defining in this clause exactly what those
bodies are. Further in the bill I think there is a list of things that people can and cannot do. That is why,
ultimately, an applicant has to convince the commissioner why an association should be incorporated. I do not
understand why the member would want to include more detail there.
Dr A.D. Buti: Maybe it would have been best if they had not been included, if you are not prepared to define it.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I refer to the definition of a repealed act —
a repealed Act means —
(a) the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 repealed by section 185;
(b) the Associations Incorporation Act 1895 repealed by section 47 of the Act mentioned in
paragraph (a);
I think the parliamentary secretary may have clarified this for me in his response to the second reading debate,
but I would like it clarified again. Does that mean there will be no grandfathering of any association acting under
any of this legislation? In particular, does it apply to an association that is operating under the Associations
Incorporation Act 1895, which enables an association to act with less, I suppose, regulation and as separate
entities so there can be almost a sort of subsidiary as occurs under the federal act.
I understand the Associations Incorporation Act 1895 was similar to the federal act, which allows the
Law Society, for example, to have a separate organisation with one member sitting. I understand the old
Associations Incorporation Act 1895 enabled that so that a major organisation with a board of maybe 10 or
12 people and a subsidiary or another association could be attached that has just one member, and the member is
the other organisation. Am I making sense? Thankfully, the adviser is nodding and saying they understand what
I am talking about because it is an area of law that I am still getting my head around.
I understand that under the old Associations Incorporation Act 1895 a northern suburbs community association
could have the northern suburbs information association attached to it, and the membership to allow this other
association to operate would be the northern suburbs community association, and that is the only membership.
Will that be completely repealed, and in repealing the Associations Incorporation Act 1895, will there be no
mechanism to allow the capacity to have that sort of subsidiary organisation where the only member to operate it
is organisation A, unless it can occur under the federal jurisdiction?
Mr P.T. MILES: I think I will answer the first part of the question, because I think there were a couple. The
member is doubling up again.
Ms J.M. Freeman: I keep getting told I am speaking for too long.
Mr P.T. MILES: The member can talk for as long as she likes; just give us the first bit of the question. In
answer to the first part, possibly, there is no grandfathering in this legislation. Any new association that comes
into play will be subject to this legislation. Once it is done, that is it; there is no grandfathering. However, the
transitional three-year period remains in place. Can the member enlighten us on the second part of that question?
Ms J.M. Freeman: Under the federal system, a for-profit association comes under the Corporations Act. Which
federal act governs a not-for-profit association? The advisers can tell the parliamentary secretary, and then I can
clarify it for him.
Mr P.T. MILES: The member is referring to the not-for-profit act —
Ms J.M. Freeman: The federal act.
664
Mr P.T. MILES: That is the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission Act 2012.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Yes. It is all right. I am not making sense.
Mr P.T. MILES: I think the member has —
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I will try to make sense. I understand that under the Associations Incorporation Act 1895,
an organisation—organisation A—effectively becomes the management committee. It is not the members of the
board who become the management committee; the organisation becomes the management committee of
organisation B. It can operate and it is incorporated but it does not have to have a separate board. It also has
a constitution, but its constitution states that the board is organisation A. That is what I understand happens
under the 1895 act, and a number of bodies operate under the 1895 act. Will there be the capacity to do that
under the proposed act, or will organisations have to set up a completely new board?
Mr P.T. MILES: No. Once this legislation comes into place, all not-for-profit organisations will have to operate
under it. They will all have to operate under the new act and they cannot operate under anything else. Once this
act comes into place, this is what they will have to operate under, and everything that abides by that. I think the
member referred back to 1895. That is why we will repeal that act as well, and they will come under this
legislation.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Effectively, under the 1895 act, organisations are able to establish an organisation with
a management committee, organisation A. That will no longer be able to be done. I need to know whether there
is the capacity to do that under this bill, or will there have to be a board of management comprising
six members?
Mr P.T. MILES: As I was saying before, we are repealing the Associations Incorporation Act 1895 so that
organisations that were set up 100 years ago will have to abide by this act in WA. This is the new act that we are
bringing in and they will have to change their rules and their association to match this act.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I refer to the definition of “property” on page 4 and the whole gamut of property types,
including current and even future legal and equitable estates and interests. I assume that native title would come
under that definition because it is a property right. My question is: does this legislation have any effect on an
association that has property outside Western Australia’s jurisdiction in other states of Australia and/or overseas?
Is there any difference between the property in the other states of Australia and whether the property is overseas?
Mr P.T. MILES: The asset comes under this bill wherever it may be. Someone may have assets in other states
or other parts of the world, but if it is incorporated in the WA act, the owner would have to abide by the WA act.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I understand that that would apply for the WA act, but how is overseas or interstate property that
someone has an interest in dealt with under this bill? I know that the association is dealt with under this bill, but
what about property that is outside Western Australia’s jurisdiction?
Mr P.T. MILES: It is just as I thought. It is still under the care and maintenance and is an asset of the
association registered in the state. There might be some issues in other jurisdictions whereby the association
must abide by the laws of that jurisdiction, whether it be for taxes or whatever, but the asset remains in the
ownership of the incorporation in this state and therefore would have to be dealt with under this legislation.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Well —
Mr P.T. Miles: Are you going to dob someone in?
Dr A.D. BUTI: No. If there are contrary laws between how certain property interests are dealt with in this
jurisdiction vis-a-vis other jurisdictions, how will any legal conflicts be resolved that arise from holding property
interests in different jurisdictions, whether in other states or overseas?
Mr P.T. MILES: My understanding is that obviously the incorporation in WA would own that asset and that the
incorporation would have to abide by the laws of the land where that asset resides. I am not saying that
everything comes back here, but the association has to abide by those laws.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Clause 3 states —
Corporations Act means the Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth);
Mr P.T. Miles: Sorry, what was that?
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I am just leading to my question. I note that the bill has a definition of “Corporations
Act”. Further down is the definition of liability, which means —
… any liability, duty or obligation whether actual, contingent or prospective, liquidated or unliquidated,
and whether owed alone or jointly or jointly and severally with any other person;
I will ask my first question then sit down and let the parliamentary secretary answer my first question before
asking my second question. Is this definition also in the Corporations Act?
665
Mr P.T. MILES: We are saying that this is a liability under this legislation. I need a bit more information from
the member to further build the story.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: The parliamentary secretary told me to stop asking multiple questions! I understand this
is a definition in the Corporations Act definition. I have looked at the Corporations Act. Obviously the advisers
are not sure whether it is a definition in the Corporations Act. It is a definition in the Corporations Act definition.
Given that the parliamentary secretary is using the definition used in the Corporations Act, why does the bill not
read “liability, as defined in the Corporations Act”, so if that definition of liability is altered in that act, the
definition of liability can be amended to be the leading definition of liability in Australia and therefore
Western Australia will not lag behind?
Mr P.T. MILES: We are putting that in there only for the purposes of our act. We are not trying to pick up
language from other acts—although maybe from Australian Taxation Office liabilities and that type of thing.
I am not sure whether that was where the member was going with her question. “Liability” means that certain
liabilities would need to be met as part of the association. An association must meet those liabilities in the
Associations Incorporation Bill 2014. I think the member is asking whether the liability is from another —
Ms J.M. Freeman: I am asking why it was not put it in as a definition so that there was that flexibility.
Mr P.T. MILES: The government is trying to set up the liability for multiple associations. Can the member ask
a bit more?
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: In his second reading speech, the parliamentary secretary said —
It will also realign Western Australia’s incorporated associations legislation with contemporary
legislation in other Australian jurisdictions.
“Corporations Act” is defined in the bill’s definitions. The definition of “liability” below matches word for word
the definition in the Corporations Act. If this legislation is about realigning WA’s incorporated associations
legislation with contemporary legislation in other Australian jurisdictions, and given it has taken 27 years to get
here, what was the decision-making process? Why does it not say, “‘Liability’ means the definition in the
Corporations Act”?
Mr P.T. MILES: Now I understand a bit more. We are not copying the Corporations Act in this bill. I think that
is where the member got that information from. We are aligning our legislation and creating a definition that is
easy to achieve and sorts out the legislation for our purposes. We do not want to copy the other acts; we want to
keep it a fairly standard definition because it has to apply across the board for three tiers of associations, not just
one. A lot of clubs will not even necessarily use that part or be required to use it. I think the member is getting
mixed up between an incorporated act and an associations act. That is my understanding.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I have a separate issue that I want on the record. “Liability” is a new definition under this
clause; it was not in the definitions of “Terms used” under the 1987 act. The parliamentary secretary’s second
reading speech referred to doing something that is across jurisdictions but that does not seem to be the case.
The bill states that —
model rules means the model rules prescribed under section 26;
Can the parliamentary secretary please confirm for the purposes of the record that that is the same definition as
that in a constitution?
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes, it definitely is for the model rules.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I now refer to the definition of “property” and a question that the member for Armadale
asked. I probably should have asked the member for Armadale this. The definition includes “a thing in action;
and money”. Can the parliamentary secretary outline what the term “a thing in action” means and what it entails?
Mr P.T. MILES: As it states, member, it is a thing! I did not think a thing would be part of law but apparently it
is. Basically, anything that is part of the association comes under it as property. It is “a thing” in law. I have
never seen that before and I too wondered about it. It does not have to be an actual item. A “thing in action”, as it
states, is anything that the association has a right to or to make a claim to. It could include intellectual property
rights. That is why it is “a thing”, without defining it.
Dr A.D. Buti: Does it include legal action and liability?
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes, because it is a thing!
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I will move on from “the thing”! My final question has two parts. Further on in the bill
there is a reference to “pecuniary profit”. The clause states —
An association secures pecuniary profit for its members if —
Mr P.T. Miles: Where is the member referring to?
666
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: It is in clause 5.
Dr A.D. Buti: We are still on clause 3.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: We are on clause 3, but in clause 5 there is reference to “pecuniary profit”. I want to
know why there is no definition of “pecuniary profit” in the “Terms used” given that it is a legal term. My other
question relates to references to “revenue” in the bill. If my recollection is right, other state acts have a definition
of “revenue”. I think the Victorian act has a definition of “revenue”, for example. Why does the
Western Australian legislation not have definitions of “pecuniary profit” and “revenue”?
Mr P.T. MILES: We will obviously need to go into that when we come to that clause. It is more appropriate to
discuss it then.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Are you putting in a new definition?
Mr P.T. MILES: It is not in the definitions. The advice is that it is a drafting convention that it does not go in
because it is very broad.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Broader than “a thing”!
Mr P.T. MILES: We can have a thing of profit!
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I refer to the definition of “full voting rights” under “Terms used”, which states —
full voting rights, in relation to an association, means the right to vote at its general meetings either in
person or by proxy or postal vote;
Why is Western Australia not considering electronic voting given the time that it takes organisations to do mailouts? I know that consideration is being given to allow electronic voting at state and territory elections in some
instances. Surely we could be allowing community organisations to use some form of electronic voting system.
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes. It will be up to the association whether it wants to allow electronic voting or any other
method of voting. The member is right; in this day and age it is easier for some people to vote electronically
rather than postal voting or even putting a ballot in a box. There will be a time line. The votes can be cast as long
as a voter has done it before the cut-off time. Again, this legislation is modernising the act to enable it be used
a lot more freely.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Thank you for that response, but why does the bill not explicitly state that? Many
associations will read this definition and believe that because electronic voting is not mentioned, it is not
permitted.
Mr P.T. MILES: Just like any other club, the government will no longer tell organisations how voting must be
run, whichever system of voting is used. Organisations do not have to accept the rules that we will set as
a standard. We are trying to tell organisations that their rules can decide whether voting will be done via email or
some other form such as a website or a docket that is posted in the mail. As long as it is in an organisation’s
constitution or rules, as they will be called, the organisation can set whichever form of voting the club or
association wishes to choose.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I think anyone reading this legislation will feel constrained by the definition of full
voting rights, which states —
… means the right to vote at its general meetings either in person or by proxy or postal vote;
That definition does not leave open any other form of voting.
Mr P.T. MILES: I understand what the member is saying about the definition, but, again, each organisation has
to go by its rules and an association’s rules have to be approved by the commissioner. If a group has laid out in
its rules that it wishes to run its club with an electronic voting system, those rules would be lodged with the
commissioner and it will be up to commissioner of the day to sanction and authorise those rules as valid for the
organisation’s club members. Under this legislation, a club will have to provide a copy of its rules or its
constitution to every member. Clubs can no longer say, “Yes, there is a book over there on the shelf”; they have
to provide a copy of those rules or a website link or something such as that. We are making it very clear that club
members are entitled to know the rules of their organisation.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Following the member for Gosnells’ excellent contribution, I do not think the parliamentary
secretary is right. Normal statutory interpretation states that that definition of a full voting right is what it states.
The parliamentary secretary said that the definition could be in the rules or that the commissioner could decide
them. The commissioner cannot act contrary to the act and the rules cannot be contrary to the act. The act
categorically states what a full voting right is. As the member for Gosnells said, it is either in person, by proxy or
postal vote. The rules cannot contravene the definition under the bill before us and the commissioner cannot act
contrary to the definition before us.
667
Mr P.T. MILES: The way I set out the answer to member for Gosnells’ question is how we want it to be
enacted, but the printed words on the page may not necessarily be correct. Could we take that question on notice,
because the advisers are not able to find the particular reason that is there? I think that it is there. Look, we all
read this stuff. We will take that particular question on notice and come back with some detail either at the table
or offline.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Can I get clarification and confirmation that the definition of surplus property in relation
to an incorporated association means property remaining after the satisfaction of the debts and liabilities of the
association? Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that debts and liabilities include wages of the employees of
the association?
Mr P.T. MILES: The member is right, that is all part of the costs. Only last year I helped an association wind
up. It had liabilities and there was a small asset that the association agreed to send off to another association as
the current act and this legislation state can be done. Yes; all liabilities—wages, payroll, superannuation,
taxation—must be met and paid for before the distribution of any further assets.
Clause 4: Associations eligible for incorporation —
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I note that this clause does not limit proposed section 11(1), which is the commissioner’s
capacity to refuse incorporations. In effect, although this clause may show that an organisation is eligible for
incorporation, the commissioner may still decline an application for incorporation. I have two questions about
subparagraph (x), which refers to “any purpose approved by the Commissioner”. Firstly, is there any capacity to
appeal a decision on subparagraph (x) “any purpose approved by the Commissioner” to the State Administrative
Tribunal? I am happy to ask my second question. Secondly, in South Australia, the section of the act equivalent
to clause 4(a)(x) is “any purpose approved by the Minister”. Given that the parliamentary secretary said in the
second reading speech that this legislation was trying to create harmony with other states, why was it determined
that subparagraph (x) should be “any purpose approved by the Commissioner” and not “any purpose approved
by the Minister”? Is subparagraph (x) appealable and why is it for the approval of the commissioner and not the
minister?
Mr P.T. MILES: They can go to SAT for a refusal, because the refusal triggers the ability for the proposed
organisation to appeal the reasons they were not approved to SAT. The reason for the commissioner and not
a minister having final approval of an association is because it is better bedded in to the Commissioner for
Consumer Protection, who has a greater ability to approve or not approve—as we have seen—and she is charged
with that duty. I would also say that we have proved just recently that the commissioner’s agency can diligently
undertake these duties without fear or favour. I think it is better if it is handled by the agency at that level.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Clause 4(a)(i) states —
a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purpose;
They are basically the four arms of a charitable trust. Does that refer to the common law? Does it refer to
charitable trusts legislation or income tax assessment legislation? What guideline are we to use to determine
whether something is a religious, educational, charitable or benevolent association?
Mr P.T. MILES: We have taken the common law definition for those particular groups. As the member said,
they are probably the four pillars of most of those larger organisations, so the common law definition is what we
have chosen.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Okay, so they have taken those four pillars of what is a charitable trust, which, of course,
includes religious, educational, charitable or benevolent. But if it is a charitable trust why is “charitable” in the
legislation? Under the common law, a charitable trust includes education, religion, alleviation of poverty or for
another public purpose. They are all charitable. The parliamentary secretary is saying that it is a common law
charity, but “charitable” is included in that definition. It does not seem to make sense. If it is for a charitable
purpose, under common law it is for educational or religious purposes, for the alleviation of poverty or other
public purpose. They are all charitable. Therefore, why does that definition include the word “charitable”? Those
others must have a different meaning.
Mr P.T. MILES: There are a couple of things there. First of all, that is just a carryover from the existing act,
because everybody understands religious, educational, charitable or benevolent purposes. I know it is a bit like
using the same language twice, but it is what people are used to, and when they come to form an association they
can see quite easily which section they fall into. It has been working very well since 1987, so we decided to keep it.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The parliamentary secretary’s initial answer to my question was that he was following the
common law, but his answer just then tells me that he is not following the common law; he is following
a carryover from a piece of legislation. It is not the common law that is being followed now, but historic
legislation. If an organisation is, as the parliamentary secretary says, formed for a religious, educational or
668
benevolent purpose, does it have to promote a benefit to a certain section of the population? Is there a quantum
of the population? If only one person is being assisted, would that be sufficient?
Mr P.T. MILES: An easy answer is that organisations do not have to have a benefit to a particular community
group. We come back to the fact that whether an association of people wants to do good for people, that is up to
the members. They may well start up a gun club or something like that. The organisation does not necessarily
have to be of benefit to other organisations.
Dr A.D. BUTI: Let us just wipe away the parliamentary secretary’s initial answer that the legislation is
following the common law.
Mr P.T. Miles: No, that is not the case.
Dr A.D. BUTI: The answers that the parliamentary secretary has given me after that first answer are completely
contrary to the common law of charitable trusts and charitable purposes. Anyway, let us move on.
Education is included in clause 4(a)(i), and then subparagraph (vii) reads —
the purpose of promoting the interests of students or staff of an educational institution;
Why has the government seen fit to specify that part of education? There is a general education purpose and then
a specific reference to a subsection of education.
Mr P.T. MILES: Subparagraph (vii) refers to organisations like P&C associations and student unions. It is for
the purposes of promoting an interest, as is the case with unions, and some environmental groups that might wish
to organise themselves to get some protection in law. Therefore, they would set up an association to allow them
to go forth and master their turn.
Dr A.D. BUTI: That is fair enough.
With reference to a political purpose, does the commissioner have the right to refuse to accept an application if
the political purpose is deemed to be contrary to the public good—for example, if it was an association
promoting views that we find abhorrent? I am sure everyone here would find abhorrent the views that were
supported by the Nazi party in Germany. Would the commissioner be able to refuse incorporation under this
legislation?
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes, she can. Again, as I said to the member for Mirrabooka, it could be appealed to the
State Administration Tribunal if necessary, but it is possible under clause 11, which is further into the bill.
The member can ask further questions about that when we reach that clause.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I note that amongst the categories of organisations eligible for incorporation the
South Australian legislation has a clause referring to retirement and superannuation associations. I am wondering
why the commissioner and the government did not consider including retirement and superannuation
associations in those eligible for incorporation, or whether that comes under a different clause dealing with notfor-profit retirement or superannuation associations.
Mr P.T. MILES: Can the member elaborate a bit more? What does she mean by the South Australian
government?
Ms J.M. Freeman: The South Australian legislation for associations incorporation includes retirement and
superannuation associations amongst those eligible for incorporation. My question is: why not; and, if not, is
there somewhere else that such organisations fit into this legislation?
Mr P.T. MILES: If someone wanted to do that, they would apply to the commissioner, and it would be up to the
commissioner. It would be under the charitable or benevolent purpose.
Ms J.M. Freeman: A super fund or a retirement fund is not charitable, so I can only gather that it would be
benevolent. Is that what we are saying?
Mr P.T. MILES: From my point of view, I would not have thought that a super fund could come under the
definition of an association anyway.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Not-for-profit super organisations are around. There are a number of not-for-profits; that is
what the industry funds are. They are not for profit. Industry funds are not-for-profit associations.
Mr P.T. MILES: They are not associations.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: There are a number of state funds, such as those for municipal workers. Retirement and
superannuation associations are included in the South Australian act, so there is clearly a capacity for that.
Industry funds are all not-for-profit funds. They are federal funds, so they come under federal jurisdiction, but
there can be state funds for small organisations.
669
Mr P.T. MILES: From the advice I have received, and what I thought, I would wonder why anyone would want
to do that, because an incorporated association cannot distribute funds to its members; that is the idea of an
association. It is not about members profiting from an association. That is what the member is saying. If it is
a super fund or a pension fund, and if that is what the member is referring to, I do not understand how it could be
incorporated under this legislation and still allow members to benefit. It does not make sense.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Under that definition, it could be argued that a ratepayers’ association is purely for the
benefit of the ratepayers, and therefore cannot come under the Associations Incorporation Bill. In any event, they
can clearly come under this legislation, because the South Australian Associations Incorporation Act includes
retirement and superannuation associations amongst organisations eligible for incorporation. The parliamentary
secretary has said that this is about harmonising laws across the states, and the South Australian legislation can
do that.
A benevolent purpose may be for the retirement —
Mr P.T. Miles: But the members still cannot benefit from that. The members cannot benefit from an association;
they just cannot.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Then the parliamentary secretary is effectively saying that a ratepayers’ association
cannot be incorporated under this bill.
Mr P.T. Miles: Yes, it can.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: No, because the members of the ratepayers’ association will be benefiting.
Mr P.T. MILES: No, no, no. The member is going from one extreme to the other. A ratepayers’ association is
quite clear. It is an association of more than likely, at best, 10 to 12 people who are looking after a certain area,
a suburb or two suburbs, that may have 6 000 or 8 000 people. They will not get any benefit personally from
a decision that they make. They are financial members, yes, but they will not get any financial benefit from that.
The members of an association cannot receive a financial benefit under the current act, and nor can they under
this new act. I do not know what they are doing in South Australia. It is an old act over there, by the way.
Ms J.M. Freeman: No; it is a new act.
Mr P.T. MILES: It is a 1985 act. That is not very new. I am quite confident that the members of an association
cannot get a financial gain out of that association.
Dr A.D. Buti: They can, if you go to clause 5.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, do you have a question on clause 4? If not, the question is
that clause 4 do stand as printed.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Subclause (b) provides that an association is eligible to be incorporated if —
it has at least 6 members who under its rules have full voting rights …
Under the current act, an association is eligible to be incorporated if it has at least five members who have full
voting rights. What substantial difference will one additional member make to whether an association can be
incorporated? Why has the number been increased from five to six? What possible benefit will there be from
having one additional member? We have already established that there will be no grandfathering for any
organisation and everyone will be required to adopt the model rules. There might be any number of associations
that were incorporated under the current act and that have only five members who have full voting rights. What
was the reason for increasing the number of members from five to six—other than to make everyone’s life
difficult?
Mr P.T. MILES: No, no, no.
Ms J.M. Freeman: One member!
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes. I get it. The green bill actually had the number six. There is no reason why. Maybe it just
looked nicer on the page. I do not know. But six members to start as a minimum was put out there in the
consultation period. Nobody that we are aware of has actually said it is outrageous that we have gone from five
to six, or anything like that. There is no real reason why. It was put out there in the consultation and it has stayed.
Ms L.L. BAKER: My colleague the member for Mirrabooka has been talking about the need for an association
to have at least six members who under its rules have full voting rights. I ask the parliamentary secretary to
please redirect me if I am off point on this one, but what other conditions will an organisation need to meet in
order to remain an incorporated association? Will it need to hold an annual general meeting? Clause 17 on
page 14, which we have not come to yet, provides that the requirements of section 4 continue after an association
has been incorporated. Can the parliamentary secretary walk me through what those other requirements are?
I ask this question because we all know that there are many incorporated associations that bubble up and get
670
a huge amount of support from the public on maybe a single issue, but they then die down over time. At what
point will an association no longer be eligible to remain incorporated?
Mr P.T. MILES: It must maintain six members; it must hold an annual general meeting; it cannot change its
purposes; and it needs to maintain its bank accounts and remain financial. It also cannot distribute its profits to
members; I think we have already dealt with that one. As we have seen, no matter whether it is a parents and
citizens association or a ratepayer group, it is sometimes very difficult to keep a club going. We are trying to
minimise what a small club with six or seven members will be required to do to maintain that club. It is very
important that we keep the fundamentals in place—they must have sound bookkeeping; they must maintain their
bank accounts and remain financial; and they must maintain their annual general meeting, which is obviously
advertised to its members and the wider community. That is pretty much it, member for Maylands.
Clause 5: Associations not eligible for incorporation —
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Subclause (1) provides that an association is not eligible to be incorporated if it is formed
or carried on for the purpose of securing pecuniary profit for its members from its transactions. Can the
parliamentary secretary please give me the definition of “pecuniary profit”? This is different from section 4(4) in
the current act because it takes out the exclusion for the purpose of trading.
Mr P.T. MILES: The term “pecuniary” means “financial profit”. It does not mean a profit in kind. It needs to be
a monetary-value profit from the sale of an item or something like that. So long as it has a monetary value—
a dollar figure, large or small—it is classified as pecuniary.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Subclause (2)(b) provides that an association secures pecuniary profit for its members if
it has capital that is divided into shares or stock held by its members. That is not necessarily a dollar figure. That
is shares or stocks. Is the parliamentary secretary saying that is still considered in that whole idea of a dollar
aspect of pecuniary profit, because it goes into that area?
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
[Continued on page 688.]
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT — STERILISATION PROCEDURES
71.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Minister for Health:
I refer to yet another failure within the health portfolio in which Serco has been unable to successfully manage
the critical role of the sterilisation of medical equipment at Fiona Stanley Hospital. Health Department staff have
had to work alongside, and take the lead from, Serco staff.
(1)
What is the additional cost to the Department of Health of covering this service?
(2)
What other hospitals or areas have Department of Health staff been taken from to perform services at
Fiona Stanley Hospital?
(3)
By how much will payments to Serco be reduced due to these breaches of contract?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
(1)–(3) Yes, there has been a problem with Serco’s sterilisation procedures at Fiona Stanley Hospital. I have
been aware of this since some time in December. Since that time, our staff have been working very
closely to try to get Serco’s standards up to an acceptable level in providing those —
Mr R.H. Cook interjected.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Remember, Serco provides a lot of other services as well. I think there is something like
30-odd contracts altogether, and this is one area in which it has had problems—one area out of all of those. It is
a very important issue. We have been working with Serco and it has been issued a breach. Again, we have not
been satisfied with the response to these problems that has been provided by Serco along the way, so yes, we
have taken staff from other hospitals. I think they have come from Fremantle Hospital. I am not certain, but
because Fremantle Hospital has significantly downsized its service, it has staff that are now in excess of
requirements for a short-term contract such as this. I think someone who was going to finish in three months is
now going there for that last three months of their contract at Fremantle Hospital, and they are working alongside
the Serco staff to make sure that they get up to standard. If they do not, there is provision within the contract for
the government to take over that service, which is a possibility if Serco does not meet the standards required.
In terms of the cost, there will be no cost to government. The costs of those additional staff will be covered by
Serco. In fact, if the contract is taken off Serco, we will take back the funds that would otherwise be spent on
servicing that contract.
671
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT — STERILISATION PROCEDURES
72.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Minister for Health:
I have a supplementary question. If the minister has known about this since December, why did he not reveal
that information then; what are the exact details of the reimbursement of the cost to the Department of Health for
this failure; and what will the amount be?
There is no way of knowing that at present, because the only reimbursement required at present is the cost of
staff, and they have only just been transferred across, so there is no detail in that space. The details of the fine
will be determined as part of the contract. There is a clear contract in place that has requirements within it to deal
with fines, and that will continue as part of the contract.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Dr K.D. HAMES: This is a $2 billion hospital that has just opened with 5 000 staff altogether. Serco itself has
large numbers of staff in this space across a whole range of different parts of the contract. All of the other parts
are going fine. This is an area of failure and it is being dealt with. Yes, I did know about this in December, but
I do not know why I would want to come out and announce that because our job is to make the hospital work and
to make it safe for patients, and we have done that. My people in the Department of Health at Fiona Stanley
Hospital have done an incredible job in making sure that the safety of the patients is paramount, and we have
been doing that job.
PRIMARY PRODUCERS — LAND TAX EXEMPTION
73.
Mr F.A. ALBAN to the Minister for Finance:
Can the minister please update the house with details of the benefits that primary producers will receive from the
recent amendments to the land tax primary production exemption?
Mr W.R. MARMION replied:
I thank the member for Swan Hills for the question. In fact, the amendments to the land tax primary production
exemption will have a positive impact on some of the people in the member for Swan Hills’ electorate,
especially those who are carrying out primary production on non-rural land.
This is an example of the Liberal–National government delivering on reducing red tape, supporting small
businesses and coming up with a fair and equitable land tax regime.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, you are not answering this question. I call you to order for the first
time.
Mr W.R. MARMION: As I was saying, this is another good example of the Liberal–National government
reforming red tape and making it easier for small primary producers to conduct business in Western Australia.
There are three primary reforms to land tax exemption. The first one is for those primary producers —
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the first time. I want to hear the answer.
Mr W.R. MARMION: We are getting on and doing stuff for small business, and this is a really good example.
I hope to be able to get out my three reasons why this is a good example of what our government is doing.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka!
Mr W.R. MARMION: I will make it easy for opposition members, because they are having trouble listening.
To give the example of a wine producer, currently a wine producer who grows grapes and produces wine on
a non-rural property gets no land tax exemption; they do in rural areas, but not in urban precincts. We are
allowing those primary producers who are based on urban land to access the land tax exemption for that part of
their land that is devoted to primary production. That is great news for primary producers.
Another problem for primary producers on non-rural land was that one-third of their income had to be from
primary production. A primary producer may experience a bad year in which they will not produce any grapes,
in which case they would not qualify for the exemption. We got rid of that constraint, so there is now a far better
and less rigid test on the one-third income criterion.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
672
Mr W.R. MARMION: The test is a simple test; it goes on ad infinitum, but if the property is a genuine business
carrying out rural primary production, the primary producer will get the exemption.
The final important reform is that under the current rigid rules, landowners who have a trust fund or company,
which is a modern practice these days, are not the owners for the purposes of the exemption. Now, however, if
they are the landowner and the main beneficiary of the company, the land tax exemption will apply.
This is a great example of the Liberal–National government listening to our constituents. The member for Swan
Hills has been doing that and passing on the concerns of his constituents to ministers, and ministers have
changed the current red tape regulations to make a positive reform for taxpayers.
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT — OPERATION DELAYS
74.
Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
Before I ask my question, I acknowledge on behalf of the members for Bassendean and West Swan the presence
in the gallery today of members of the extended East Beechboro Primary School community.
I refer to reports that operations at Fiona Stanley Hospital have been delayed or cancelled due to breaches of the
Serco contract, with possible implications for patient safety.
(1)
What other breaches of the Serco contract has the minister been informed of since the beginning of the
staged opening of the hospital?
(2)
Is it not the case that Serco cannot recruit adequate numbers of staff to perform its contracted duties, to
adhere to the contract?
(1)–(2) Serco has approximately 1 000 staff at Fiona Stanley Hospital. It makes a massive contribution in the
service it provides to the state. Serco has 2 500 staff already, and 400 of those are at Acacia Prison on
a contract initiated by the Labor Party. It was not initiated by us, but “Mr Anti-privatisation” on the
Labor side. The Labor Party initiated the contract with Serco.
Point of Order
Mr R.H. COOK: My question was very clear and succinct: what other breaches of the Serco contract has the
minister been informed of since the beginning of the staged opening of the hospital? There are no references to
prisons and no references to previous contracts.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Insofar as I know, standing orders require that my answer be related to the question.
Mr Speaker, my second cousin is related to me, so the degree of relationship is entirely in your hands, not in the
hands of the opposition. I believe that it was related to the question. The reason it is related to the question —
The SPEAKER: Thank you. Minister, you can have a little lead-in, but come to the answer, thanks.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Dr K.D. HAMES: This is the area of difficulties with the contract that I am aware of that have been brought to
my attention. An answer has been provided to the other place—it has just gone back, and I do not exactly recall
what that says; I apologise—that details some minor difficulties in other areas, I think. But as I said, there are
25 areas of contracts.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Only minor; I do not know what they are. I do not.
Mr W.J. Johnston: You are the minister!
Dr K.D. HAMES: It does not matter. With any contract that has 25 components and an organisation that is just
starting up, there will be areas that require clarification and improvement, and those will happen all the time.
I am sitting down with Serco senior staff next week over this issue of equipment sterilisation to go through with
them in detail what we expect of them and what they need to provide, and to make certain that our patients are
safe. In answer to the component of the member for Kwinana’s question around the safety of the patients,
hundreds, if not thousands, of operations have been done at that hospital already, and there have been some for
which the sterilisation of equipment has not been of the standard required. For those instances, either packs have
been sent back and new ones sent up or, where that has not been possible to do in a short space of time, patients
have had their operations delayed. We put the safety of the patient first, and that has sometimes meant some
delays in the operations of patients. No patient’s safety has been put at risk.
673
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT — OPERATION DELAYS
75.
I have a supplementary question. Is the minister saying to me that since December, when he was given a briefing
around breaches of the contract, he has not been informed of any other breaches or potential other breaches of
the Serco contract?
I am not saying that because I do not exactly recall. I said that the briefing I had in December was not a briefing
about breaches by Serco of its contract; it was a specific briefing about the central sterile services department
problems. That is what the briefing was.
Mr R.H. Cook: Didn’t you ask about other issues?
Dr K.D. HAMES: Yes; we discussed all the issues relating to performance and how the hospital was going. To
my recollection, no additional issue where there was a breach of contract was brought to my attention.
ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS — WATER FOR FOOD PROGRAM
76.
Mr R.S. LOVE to the Minister for Water:
The minister recently announced the second stage of the Water for Food program, including a project in the
midlands in my electorate. Can the minister please update the house on this project and how it will support
economic diversification in regional Western Australia?
Ms M.J. DAVIES replied:
I thank the member for Moore for the question and for his interest in water-related issues in his electorate. He is
a great advocate for his electorate, which I am sure all ministers have experienced.
Last year the Liberal–National government announced the Water for Food program, which is a $40 million
investment in expanding irrigated agriculture across the state. It is part of the royalties for regions Seizing the
Opportunity Agriculture program, which is a $300 million investment into agriculture—the biggest this state has
ever seen.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, are you somewhat agitated today? Please let the minister answer.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: A few weeks ago I announced stage 2 of this program, which is $24.5 million into
seven separate projects that cover the length and breadth of the state. In the member for Moore’s patch, where
there is already a significant horticultural precinct, we will be undertaking a detailed groundwater investigation
and identifying suitable land to support the development of horticultural precincts. In the Myalup–Wellington
area we are going to explore alternative water supply options for both the Myalup irrigated agricultural precinct
and the Collie River irrigation district. Wellington Dam is a very significant resource in that area but its salinity
level is limiting the capacity for industry to grow in that space. In preparing for this project we have actually —
Mr M.P. Murray: You took the money away from the desal plant, you dill!
Ms M.J. DAVIES: Does the member —
Ms M.J. DAVIES: Straight to the bottom of the barrel.
Withdrawal of Remark
Mr D.T. REDMAN: I think the comment was unparliamentary, and I ask you to instruct the member for
Collie–Preston to withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: I heard something about a desal plant. I never heard anything else.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: Clearly the member has absolutely no interest in the growers in his electorate and what we
are doing.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: No, he does not! There has been no advocacy into my office in relation to that matter!
The SPEAKER: Member for Collie-Preston, I call you to order for the first time. Through the Chair, please,
minister.
674
Ms M.J. DAVIES: At the end of last year, in preparation for launching this project, we established a steering
group. We invited key stakeholders to be part of the rolling out of this project. We have some key technical
expertise, government representatives and industry on that steering group, assisting us to come up with solutions
to ensure we have great outcomes for growers in that region. Previously all the work in that area has been about
improving water quality in the dam, but the focus of that particular project is changing to providing fit-forpurpose water below the dam wall.
Mr M.P. Murray: You can’t fix it, whatever you do. You can’t fix it.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: Quiet!
The SPEAKER: Member for Collie-Preston!
Ms M.J. DAVIES: It is okay, Mr Speaker. The member has never made any advocacy on behalf of his
electorate.
Mr M.P. Murray: You’d better have a look in Hansard.
Ms M.J. DAVIES: But not to me, member!
In the Gascoyne, we are investigating the scale and quality of the alluvial waters up the river from where we
have done a considerable amount of work as part of the Gascoyne food bowl initiative; that will be between
Rocky Pool and Kennedy Range. In the southern forests area, we will be assessing some options for community
dam structures that are already in place in Tasmania, having been pushed by very progressive growers down
there. In the Kimberley, where we have wonderful water resources around west Canning Basin and
Bonaparte Plains, we are looking at proving up the reliability and presence of water to support high-value
horticultural production. The final project is to digitise our paper-based records so that industry and government
can access the immense amount of information we have in that space. It is an absolutely fantastic opportunity for
the state. It is about finding ways to lift production. We are creating jobs and changing communities and
industry, and it is a great and fantastic outcome for Western Australia.
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT — PORTERAGE SERVICES
77.
I refer to reports that doctors at Fiona Stanley Hospital have had to collect and push or transport patients within
the hospital due to unacceptable delays in the Serco-managed porterage service.
(1)
Is this not a service breach, and why is the system failing?
(2)
Has the minister met with Serco about this and other potential breaches in the contract?
(3)
What is the minister doing about these breakdowns in essential services?
(1)–(3) No, that is not a breach; and, yes, the department dealt with that with Serco. Since that time, Serco has
appointed an additional 50 persons to work in that space.
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO CONTRACT — PORTERAGE SERVICES
78.
I have a supplementary question. Will Serco be fined, or will it have to make recompense to the state for the
failure of these services?
It is not a failure of the service. The numbers were determined as to what was required, and it was decided that
those numbers were not adequate. Serco has been required to increase those numbers, and it has done so—in
fact, well above the requirements of the contract—to make sure that we have a top-quality service throughout the
hospital.
The SPEAKER: Minister for Health, Minister for Police, member for Bassendean and member for Cockburn,
we have finished that question. If you want to discuss it, go outside. I call you all to order for the first time.
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES — ABORIGINAL FIREFIGHTER CADETSHIP
PROGRAM
79.
MR N.W. MORTON to the Minister for Emergency Services:
Last September, the minister informed this house of the launch of the Department of Fire and Emergency
Services Aboriginal firefighter cadetship program. Can he please update the house on that program?
675
Mr J.M. FRANCIS replied:
I thank the member for Forrestfield for his interest in this area. I acknowledge that the Western Australian Fire
and Emergency Services Academy is in the member’s electorate. Hopefully, a number of young Aboriginal
firefighters will enter that academy towards the end of the year. The member is correct; on 8 September last year
the Department of Fire and Emergency Services launched the Aboriginal firefighter cadetship program. I spoke
about it in this house. I believe I emailed every member about it, along with all the advertising that we were
putting out that targeted media to attract suitable candidates; I hope members will spread the word. I thank
a number of members from both sides—I got that feedback.
To put it into context, a year ago only 0.8 per cent—less than one per cent—of the staff and employees at the
Department of Fire and Emergency Services were identified as either Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. That
is clearly unacceptable when we have a population percentage in the state of over three per cent. We are trying to
address that issue. In the last 12 months, along with other proactive issues, that number has risen to about one
and a half percent. I accept that we still have a long way to go, but we want to create meaningful and rewarding
jobs for young Aboriginal people. On 22 January, along with the shadow Minister for Emergency Services,
I attended the launch of the program. We welcomed the first 11 young Aboriginal cadets into the program. It was
a wonderful experience and it was great to see them so motivated. I am sure we all wish them the best in getting
ready for the selection process to become firefighters. Obviously, some of them need to be brought up to
a different level of training or education, but we want to make sure that we can create as many opportunities as
possible for young Aboriginals to enter the DFES workforce. If members still know people who are interested,
please spread the word. I think it will be a wonderful program to attract young Aboriginal people. If we can
attract some young females, that also would be great. I noticed that all 11 of the cadets were males. We want to
create as many opportunities within the Department of Fire and Emergency Services as possible to help promote
young Aboriginal men and women into the DFES workforce.
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — MOBILE PHONE SERVICES
80.
I once again refer to the crisis at Fiona Stanley Hospital and reports that doctors and other clinical staff are at risk
of not receiving emergency phone calls.
(1)
What steps were taken in the planning of services to ensure that all mobile phone customers, not just the
contracted supplier, would be able to receive coverage at Fiona Stanley Hospital?
(2)
Why was this issue not rectified during the many months the hospital was run without patients?
(1)–(2) What a load of nonsense calling this a situation in crisis. I do not know why the member for Kwinana
wants to come down on the hospital, including Serco and its staff. They are all Western Australians
working to provide a great service, and they do exactly that. They create a great service for this state.
The SPEAKER: Members! Member for Kwinana, wait to hear from the minister.
Dr K.D. HAMES: This is a $2 billion hospital; the largest in Western Australia—one of the best hospitals in the
whole Southern Hemisphere. It has only just opened, so of course there will be some teething problems when
opening a hospital like that.
Dr K.D. HAMES: The contract for the provision of mobile phone services was put out last year and was won by
Optus. I think the contract was just over $1 million. Optus put in all the base services required for the hospital
service, and Telstra was to then put in its component. There was a bit of an issue getting the contract with Telstra
over the line. It claimed that Optus did not put in the full range of frequencies that it was supposed to, and Optus
said that it did. That problem has been sorted. The contract with Telstra has been signed. It has done work today
to address the worst of the black spots. It must be remembered that it is not the only space in WA that has black
spots.
Mr R.H. Cook: It’s a hospital.
Dr K.D. HAMES: The black spots are in other hospitals, not just that hospital. Hospitals have areas where it is
difficult to get coverage for individual personal mobile phones. All the phones that belong to the hospital work
perfectly. The wi-fi works perfectly, as do all the internal telephones. In some places, people have a personal
phone linked to Telstra. That is not their required method of communication within the hospital. They have
pagers, phones to the ward, iPads and computers. An offer was made very early in the piece when this problem
676
was identified—that would be late last year when the hospital opened—that any doctor who wanted a free-ofcharge phone from Optus to cover the period until this was sorted would be able to get that. They could have
their phone linked through to their staff, and their staff would be able to get them on a different number or they
could provide the alternative number. That problem could have been rectified. Again, it was not ideal and, again,
it has been a difficulty, but, as I said, with a $2 billion hospital there will be issues that cause problems. This
issue involves only people’s personal Telstra phones that cannot get good coverage where there are black spots
within the hospital. We have addressed that problem.
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — MOBILE PHONE SERVICES
81.
I have a supplementary question. The Australian Medical Association describes this as a real threat to patient
safety. Why does it take an article in The West Australian for the minister to scramble around and hand out
mobile phones today? Is this the way to manage such a serious issue?
I swear that the member does not listen. All he has to do is read Hansard because it will show what an arse he is
in dealing with this issue.
Dr K.D. HAMES: I said “arse”, not A-S-S—an ass.
Withdrawal of Remark
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: My point of order is that the minister, in his frustration, used a most unparliamentary
term and I call upon him to withdraw it.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Thank you, member for Midland. While she was on her feet, I got to my feet and withdrew
because I thought she was going to sit down.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: It was also unruly.
Dr K.D. HAMES: The word I used is unparliamentary. I meant an ass—a donkey—which I am fairly confident
is not unparliamentary.
Dr K.D. HAMES: As the member will know, I said that three months ago when this issue became a problem —
Mr R.H. Cook: But you only managed to sign the contract today.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Three months ago the doctors were offered those free phones. The member for Kwinana just
jumped up and said that I ran around today offering free phones.
Mr R.H. Cook: You did.
Dr K.D. HAMES: I did not run around today offering them phones; they were offered three months ago. That is
what I said. The member for Kwinana needs to seriously focus his attention and stop interjecting all the time.
BUSSELL HIGHWAY — REALIGNMENT
82.
Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Transport:
For almost a decade there have been plans to realign Bussell Highway around the developing Vasse–Newtown
town site to allow for urban —
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the first time.
Ms L. METTAM: Minister, for almost a decade, there have been plans to realign Bussell Highway around the
developing Vasse Newtown town site to allow for urban expansion and to address the significant road safety
issues. Pedestrians are particularly at risk. Can the minister please advise whether the proposed realignment is
any closer to being delivered?
Mr D.C. NALDER replied:
I thank the member for Vasse for the question. I am well aware of the safety concerns for the local primary
school children who walk or ride to school every day. The state government has been liaising with
Vasse Newtown for a number of years in regards to the realignment of Bussell Highway. I am pleased to advise
677
that I recently gave approval for a $12.8 million project to deliver this 4.2-kilometre realignment. Construction
will be undertaken by MACA Civil Pty Ltd and BMD Constructions Pty Ltd. It is a joint venture with the
developers. We are very pleased with the progress that is being made. It includes not only a new 4.2-kilometre
highway, but also a bridge over the Buayanyup drain and a new pedestrian underpass. Works are planned to
commence in March this year, to be completed by early 2016. I would like to thank the member for Vasse and
her predecessor for their work on behalf —
Mr B.S. Wyatt: “Varse”—is that like arse? Is it the member for Vasse or the member for Varse? I think you’re
the donkey, minister.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I have obviously adopted the Minister for Health’s use of grammar!
I thank the member for Vasse and her predecessor for their work on behalf of the local community in bringing
this safety upgrade to fruition.
TOTALISATOR AGENCY BOARD — PRIVATISATION
83.
Mr M.P. MURRAY to the Premier:
I refer to repeated warnings about privatising the WA TAB, including from the former Premier of Victoria
Jeff Kennett, the chairman of Racing Victoria, and most recently one of Western Australia’s legendary and
leading trainers in Fred Kersley. Will the Premier now categorically rule out privatising the TAB; and, if not,
why should the racing industry pay the price for the Premier’s financial mismanagement?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
When the Ernst and Young report was done for the government, a number of assets were identified as potential
privatisations—the TAB being one of them. I think most members would agree that if we had a clean sheet of
paper or whatever else and were inventing government, a betting agency would not be a part of government.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: We wouldn’t have a potato marketing board either.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, we would not.
That is the reality. It is not a natural or even proper —
Mr B.J. Grylls interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Pilbara, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: A betting agency is not a proper or normal function of government. However, it plays an
important role in the racing industry, which is a big employer, and provides revenue to that industry. I would say
to the racing industry that this is the great roll of the dice. The racing industry is in difficulty. It is not just one
Magic Millions sale. The industry is in difficulty —
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Sometimes in this Parliament it is difficult to make a reasoned comment on an important
issue. I am trying to do so. The TAB, if it were sold, arguably could realise up to $1 billion. I do not know what
the final figure might be. The Australian Capital Territory’s TAB sold for about $150 million. It is a financial
asset of some value.
There are other issues facing the racing industry. We are trying to maintain two racetracks side by side in the
eastern suburbs. My view is that those facilities are well below standard. They date back to the 1960s. They are
not up to standard. That might be part of the reason why crowds are 2 000 or so.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, it is so difficult to have a sensible debate in this Parliament.
These are the issues. This is the big roll of the dice for the racing industry. There could be a scenario in which
the TAB is privatised, one of the major tracks in Perth is closed and the land sold, and the building of an outer
metropolitan racetrack, training facility, stables and equestrian area could be all done, all funded. That is the one
chance the racing industry will probably have in the next 50 years. The Minister for Racing and Gaming, the
parliamentary secretary, the member for South Perth and I are talking to the racing industry. We are informally
discussing the opportunities with the racing industry. There is a great opportunity for racing right now. The easy
thing is to simply say, “No change—let’s stay back in the 60s.” That will not serve racing into the future. Racing
has a great opportunity to connect with major racing clubs throughout Asia, not only in racing but also in horse
678
breeding, selling, training—the lot. That is where the discussion is at. The government will not progress with
privatisation this calendar year, but that discussion is taking place around the racing industry. It is the one great
opportunity, the one roll of the dice, for racing. The member for Collie–Preston should be a part of it. He should
engage in that because it could have wonderful implications for racing in WA.
TOTALISATOR AGENCY BOARD — PRIVATISATION
84.
Mr M.P. MURRAY to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. If the Premier intends to privatise the TAB, why will he not take it to the next
election and let the people decide on this issue?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
The government has made no decision to privatise. It has not been discussed at —
Mr M.P. Murray interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It has not even been discussed at cabinet. It is a proposal of a list of assets from
Ernst and Young basically on what might be privatised.
Mr M.P. Murray: Rule it out!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Why not rule in a rebirth of the racing industry in Western Australia and build something
great! The member for Collie–Preston should expand his mind. It might be a good idea for him to jump out of
the 1960s and into the twenty-first century!
CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS — ACTIVITIES
85.
Ms E. EVANGEL to the Minister for Culture and the Arts:
The Perth arts and cultural precinct is a hive of activity. Can the minister please update the house on events
taking place at the state’s cultural institutions?
Mr J.H.D. DAY replied:
I am very happy to remind members and the wider community of the value and importance of the arts sector and
community in Western Australia, particularly in relation to the visual arts. For the purpose of the question, I was
pleased to open two important exhibitions in the last week and a half or so. One is at the Art Gallery of
Western Australia and the other is quite a different exhibition at the Western Australian Museum. The exhibition
at the Art Gallery is the work of Mariko Mori entitled Rebirth. She is a significant, internationally recognised
Japanese visual artist. The exhibition in Western Australia follows successful exhibitions in New York and
London. Western Australia is the only location in Australia where this exhibition is being presented. As I said,
she is a very well recognised international artist. Her work features sculptures, installations, photographs,
drawings and videos. I would certainly encourage anybody with an interest in the arts, which is just about
everybody in the community, to visit the Art Gallery while that exhibition is on over the next three months or so.
A quite contrasting exhibition at the Western Australian Museum is Spaced 2: Future Recall. The exhibition
features the work of a dozen Australian and international artists who have lived and worked for extended periods
in remote and regional parts of Western Australia, extending from Esperance in the south right up to Derby in
the north. The artists present aspects of local communities, landscapes and the observations and comments of
these artists from very diverse backgrounds during their time in those communities.
It is an exciting time for both the Art Gallery and the Museum. The Museum is increasing its community
engagement as the planning work for the new Western Australian Museum—so much-needed—is now well
advanced. The Art Gallery has recently released its vision and program for 2015. I am pleased to say that the
government has also supported the appointment of two new board members, Jason Ricketts and Seva Frangos.
I welcome them to the board. They will bring a significant amount of business and visual arts expertise to the
board of the Art Gallery, which is now chaired by Nicholas Hasluck. Finally, I am pleased to advise that for the
remainder of the Perth International Arts Festival the Art Gallery will be open Fridays to Sundays until 7.00 pm,
including the newly opened and accessible rooftop bar, which is certainly a wonderful venue.
LATE-NIGHT TRAIN SERVICES
86.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to claims the minister made in this place last Wednesday that the two late-night train services were free.
I also refer to a correction the minister made last Thursday that the 1.15 am service was not free but in fact was
considered free as payments by passengers were not enforced.
(1)
In an answer provided yesterday in the other place, did the minister claim that in fact payments were
enforced and passengers had received fines for not buying tickets?
(2)
Why did the minister mislead this house once again on this very important issue?
679
(1)–(2) I have not misled the house. The insinuation from Hon Ken Travers that I have been lying in this house
is quite appalling.
I was pretty clear about this situation last week.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington!
Mr D.C. NALDER: The advice I received from the Public Transport Authority was that the two services were
free, and it was incorrect. On the next day, I advised the house that it was incorrect, and because of the
information that I was provided with and the misinformation that I was given, I said to the house that I sought
clarity from the Public Transport Authority—and on the basis of the information that I had, I asked it to ensure
that it made the service free effective immediately. I therefore took charge of the situation and insisted that the
service be free. The advice that I received was that the PTA was not enforcing it.
The SPEAKER: Member for Midland!
Mr D.C. NALDER: Again, the Public Transport Authority in this process said that it was not enforcing payment
for the 1.15 am service. The PTA did not say that there was no actual infringement, but it said that the majority
of people were riding free. I have since followed up. I am not happy with the advice that I received from the
Public Transport Authority; it is aware of that. I received an apology from the director general of Transport, and
I accepted that apology. Effective last weekend, we made both services free and formalised that they were both
free. That is what I said last week and that is what is occurring.
LATE-NIGHT TRAIN SERVICES
87.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI to the Minister for Transport:
I have a supplementary question. If issuing infringement notices is not enforcement, what is it?
If the PTA had been enforcing it, I would expect that everybody would have been systematically working
through the trains to ensure enforcement.
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr D.C. NALDER: I did ask a question on this —
The SPEAKER: Okay—thank you, member for West Swan! Member for Cannington, I call you to order now
for the first time. Minister, wind this up, please.
Mr D.C. NALDER: Mr Speaker, I am definitely trying to. The Public Transport Authority advised me that it
was not being enforced. I followed up as to exactly what that meant.
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington!
Mr D.C. NALDER: The PTA said that the majority of people had been riding on the 1.15 am service free. It has
since come back to me and said that there was a potential infringement or so. I asked the PTA what that meant,
and the PTA advised me that for the calendar year, there were a total of 11 infringements on the 1.00 am or the
1.15 am service.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan!
Mr D.C. NALDER: Mr Speaker, they have told me that the majority of people —
Mr W.J. Johnston: They told you?
Mr D.C. NALDER: The Public Transport Authority advised me that the majority of people were riding on the
1.15 am service free, and yet it issued a total of 11 infringements. I have taken this information that I was
provided with and ensured that the 1.15 am service is now free. I have formalised it, and that is the end of it.
680
FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Standing Orders Suspension — Motion
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [2.43 pm] — without notice: I move —
That so much of standing orders be suspended so far as to enable the following motion to be moved —
That this house condemns the Minister for Health for the privatisation of facilities management
at Fiona Stanley Hospital and the subsequent failures and mismanagement.
This is an important issue that requires some discussion because members of the medical profession themselves
have indicated that these failures have compromised patient safety. That is what members of the medical
profession themselves have said, and it is important that we get to the bottom of all the issues involved. The
Leader of the House has summoned me to sit down, as I understand that he is going to indicate there is
agreement on this matter, so I will.
Standing Orders Suspension — Amendment to Motion
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Leader of the House) [2.44 pm]: The member for Midland and I have
discussed this issue, and the government will agree—with a certain degree of reluctance but we will nevertheless
agree—to suspend standing orders to allow a matter of public interest–type debate. However, I move to add
words to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition as follows —
To insert after “moved” —
, subject to the debate being limited to 20 minutes for government members and 20 minutes for
non-government members.
Amendment put and passed.
Standing Orders Suspension — Motion, as Amended
The SPEAKER: Members, as this is a motion without notice to suspend standing orders, it will need the support
of an absolute majority for it to proceed. If I hear a dissentient voice, I will be required to divide the Assembly.
Question put and passed with an absolute majority.
Motion
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [2.45 pm]: I move —
That this house condemns the Minister for Health for the privatisation of facilities management at
Fiona Stanley Hospital and the subsequent failures and mismanagement.
Another day, another disaster for the Minister for Health. Another day, another ministerial failure on the part of
this government. This is an extraordinarily important issue that deserves some proper explanation from the
government for what has occurred. The reason that is the case is that members of the medical profession
themselves, as members who follow the press will know, have indicated that these failures have compromised
patient safety, and that requires a full explanation from the minister on a range of things. How has it happened
that sterilisation procedures have not been put in place properly at this hospital? Why did it happen? What has
the risk been to patient safety over the course of the last few months that this hospital has been in operation?
Where exactly have the services been taken from to replace the services at Fiona Stanley Hospital? What
services have been taken? Where exactly have they been taken from, and what was the cost of it? What is the
entire cost to the public system and to Fiona Stanley Hospital, and what other services have been impacted at
other hospitals across the metropolitan area or indeed Western Australia as a consequence of this failure?
When this contract was signed, it was explained to the public of Western Australia by this minister. On
30 November 2011 in Hansard, the Minister for Health said this regarding Serco —
This company offers an extremely good product that we have gone through in absolute detail. Sure, the
contract is bigger than the contracts Serco has with hospitals in the United Kingdom, but we have gone
through this contract in absolute detail. … I think that anybody who goes to that hospital as a patient
will be totally impressed by the service that they will receive.
That is, if they do not want to receive treatment with properly sterilised instruments!
What did this minister say when information came out on the huge delay in opening the hospital and on the
consequent payment—it turns out—of $136 million or thereabouts from the state to Serco to operate a hospital
without patients? The delay went on for month after month with the glowing new facility sitting there with
everything in it bar a patient; it was fully operational without a patient. What did the minister say about that
when explaining that? On 10 June 2013, as justification for that hospital not having patients and as justification
for taxpayers paying over $130 million for a hospital to operate without patients, he said —
681
“Our … priority is patient safety, and thus we have to be sure the hospital is opened progressively
where all systems can be thoroughly tested.”
That is one quote after another. This government and this minister have said one thing about this contract and
have justified it on some grounds, and it turns out today that those grounds were false. Those answers in question
time that do not provide any detail, do not allow us to understand the full extent of what has gone on and do not
explain who is paying for the additional staff for the porterage services are not good enough. We seek answers
for each and every one of those questions. We seek proper and full details on each and every one of those
questions. The fact that the minister knew about this in December and did not reveal it to this house is, frankly,
not good enough. I would not say that it is unforgivable, but it is not good enough. That was two or three months
ago. That is two or three months during which we have known that patient safety was compromised and the
public was not informed—that is not good enough!
Dr K.D. Hames: Not true.
Mr M. McGOWAN: Is the Australian Medical Association wrong? Is Dr Michael Gannon wrong?
Dr Michael Gannon is wrong according to the minister. He is wrong and the minister is right.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected.
The SPEAKER: Minister for Health!
Mr M. McGOWAN: Services have already been stripped from Serco, including electronic records management,
internal logistics—essentially orderlies—and now we find that sterilisation services are not working. Did
members hear the minister’s explanation in question time? The minister said, “There have been a few other
difficulties and a few other issues”, but the minister did not say what they were! His answer was that he could
not remember. Maybe the minister should focus on the health portfolio and give up tourism. Maybe that is what
the minister should do; he should focus on patient safety and give tourism to someone who can apply proper
attention to that portfolio. The contract that the minister entered into has caused these issues. We have received
an inadequate explanation of that and there is an additional cost to taxpayers from these matters. According to
the minister’s own report from a committee chaired by a Liberal Party member and with a Liberal Party
majority, there has been additional funding for the hospital of $330 million, up in the midyear review by another
$16 million. That is an additional $346 million, predominantly because of the contract the minister signed with
Serco. All around there has been failure.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN: That is the minister’s own report. All around there has been failure and the minister needs
to answer the questions I indicated up-front: What happened? How did it happen? Why did it happen? What has
the risk been? Where have the services come from? Who is paying? What other services have suffered across the
system? And, what are the other difficulties that the minister has been advised on in relation to this contract?
MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [2.53 pm]: I do not know how many times the Leader of the
Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have attacked Fiona Stanley Hospital or whether members
opposite have taken the time to go to Fiona Stanley Hospital and talk to the staff and look at the hospital. It is
a magnificent hospital. The clinical services and the hospital management systems that it provides are highly
sophisticated. It is a huge, massive complex. It is not as though existing hospitals do not have problems from
time to time, but a new hospital that is such a leap up in sophistication and size will inevitably have more issues
during the commissioning and settling-in process. Although the member might argue philosophically about the
outsourcing or contracting of services, I find it offensive—I think it is offensive to the people working in that
hospital—that he denigrates the hospital and the people who work in it. He absolutely does that all the time; he
denigrates those people.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Members opposite jeer and carry on, but I have been out there on a few occasions—they
probably have not—and talked to the staff, particularly the Serco staff. Many of them have come from different
occupations, and for many of them it is their first good job and they are proud of it. They wear their uniforms
and they are proud of the hospital, the company they work for and the service that they provide yet members
opposite jeer at them, denigrate them and criticise them publicly. One of the big issues during the commissioning
of that hospital over the summer period was staff morale. It was high, but people felt let down by the constant
carping and criticism, primarily from opposition members of Parliament. It was demoralising for young people,
many of whom were in their best and future jobs. Who are these people?
Ms M.M. Quirk: Doctors.
682
Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, they are not doctors. I will tell members who the Serco staff are. Serco staff fall into
25 categories, including cleaners. Do members reckon they are highly qualified or highly paid? I do not think so.
Another category is external transport. Do members opposite think they are highly qualified and highly paid?
I do not think so. There are grounds maintenance staff; the people maintaining those beautiful gardens. Linen
services is another category. These are the people members opposite are criticising —
Mr D.J. Kelly interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Another category is patient catering; the people who help make and take all the food
around. Other categories are pest control, reception services and waste management services. So the great
champions of the Labor movement are out there criticising and making derogatory comments about the hospital
that are affecting the lowest skilled, lower paid workers in that hospital. So much for the champions of the
working people —
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: They are proud Western Australians working in a magnificent hospital and the only
criticism they are getting is from Labor Party members. Go out to the hospital and talk to these people and see
them in their nice new uniforms proudly doing their jobs. Opposition members do not do that; they come in here
day after day to criticise them and the work they do. The Labor Party today has sunk to that level; it cares
nothing for working Australians, for young people in their first job or for the unemployed who have been trained
and retrained to work in that hospital. Many of them who had never used a computer terminal in their life have
been trained to use one. Literally hundreds of people fit into that category. They have been trained in skills they
did not have. All opposition members do is criticise and make fun of them. The Leader of the Opposition sneers
and giggles now. I wish those 1 200 Serco people could see his attitude towards them. This is a great hospital
and it has brought great employment for people who did not have a job or who have now got a better job.
Opposition members should better themselves and make constructive comments rather than just criticise.
Opposition members knocked Perth Stadium, Elizabeth Quay and our hospital. They knocked the Albany Health
Campus the other day and the National Anzac Centre. Do opposition members see anything of value in
Western Australia? No they do not. They are the most pessimistic, negative, boring bunch of people I have ever
come across!
MR D.J. KELLY (Bassendean) [2.58 pm]: What an extraordinary performance from the Premier. The Premier
is the workers’ best friend! Honestly, for the Premier to say that he is such a great friend of Serco staff is just
incredible. If the Premier went out and talked to the Serco staff at Fiona Stanley Hospital, he would find that
each and every one of them would rather be employed by the Department of Health than by Serco. But they are
not because the government decided to privatise the work at the hospital so the government could save some
dollars.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected.
The SPEAKER: Premier, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.J. KELLY: Unlike the Premier, I have actually met and talked to Serco employees. I consider some of
those people to be my friends. I can tell the Premier that each and every one of them —
The SPEAKER: Member for Carine, I call you to order for the first time. The member for Bassendean does not
like being interrupted when he is speaking.
Mr D.J. KELLY: Each and every staff member out there would prefer to be employed by the Department of
Health, but they are not because this government —
The SPEAKER: Member for Forrestfield, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.J. KELLY: They are not employed by the Department of Health because this government and this
minister made a decision to privatise services at Fiona Stanley Hospital.
Point of Order
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I heard the member for Pilbara and member for Kalamunda interject.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much for that; I will remember that.
Debate Resumed
Mr D.J. KELLY: This hospital was planned and paid for by the previous Labor government. The only
significant decision that this government has made —
683
The SPEAKER: Member for Wanneroo, I call you to order for the first time. We are getting nowhere fast.
I want to hear the member for Bassendean.
Mr D.J. KELLY: The only significant decision that this government made on this hospital was to give the
contract to Serco. The government was warned; it was told by numerous people that to go down this path would
lead to increased costs and disruption at that hospital. But did the government listen? No; this minister put the
contract out to tender, and what did he get in response? Three companies were shortlisted. One company pulled
out, the second company was Brookfield, which was building the hospital but had no experience in running
a hospital, and the third company was Serco. One company pulled out, one company had never run a hospital,
and the third company was Serco. In that sort of a contest, Serco was always going to be ranked first, because
there was no-one else. The way the government structured it, Serco was always going to get this contract. I have
the assessment panel documentation here. The panel’s assessment was that it was “reasonably confident” that
Serco could do the job—not confident, only reasonably confident. The panel gave Serco a rating of 65 per cent,
but the government went ahead and gave it the contract. The minister could have done the responsible thing and
said, “I know the Department of Health can run a hospital, because Royal Perth Hospital, Sir Charles Gairdner
Hospital, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, and King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women are all run
by the Department of Health. I would be ‘confident’ that that the Department of Health could run a hospital.”
Instead, the minister opted for Serco, of whom the selection panel was only “reasonably confident”. The minister
chose the reckless option because he and the government have a fetish for privatisation. He believes that if we
privatise everything, we will improve it. The minister was warned, and exactly what he was warned about has
come to pass.
The SPEAKER: Member for Pilbara, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr D.J. KELLY: In question time today the Minister for Health said there was no crisis, but operations are
being cancelled and delayed, and doctors are pushing their own patients because of delays of up to two hours to
get an orderly or a porter to move a patient. This is in a hospital that was left for 12 months without patients to
iron out teething problems. If the minister does not think that having operations delayed and doctors pushing
their own patients is a crisis, he should be ashamed of himself. The minister was warned that this would happen,
and what people warned him about has come to pass.
This government is merely repeating the mistakes that it made when it was in power during the 1990s.
The government of that time privatised the orderly contract at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. It was one of the
first contracts that it handed out. The Minister for Health and the Premier were both ministers in that
government. P&O Catering and Services got the contract, and cut the number of orderlies from more than 100 to
56. There was chaos in the hospital, so P&O came back to the government and said it could not do the work, and
the government agreed to pay additional money. The company still could not do the work, so the
Court government threw it out. The government is going down exactly the same path with Serco. It agreed to
a contract at a price, with a number of staff, and the minister has just told us that he has agreed to pay for an
additional 50 staff. That is exactly the same scenario. At Royal Perth Hospital, the government privatised the
cleaning during the 1990s, and what happened? More than 100 patients caught a superbug infection, and the
government admitted in this Parliament that privatising the cleaning was a significant contributor to that
vancomycin resistant enterococcus outbreak. The Minister for Health said that he had learnt his lesson, but
clearly, at Fiona Stanley and elsewhere, when it comes to privatisation the minister has not learnt his lesson at
all. If patients being pushed by doctors instead of porters and having their operations delayed or cancelled is not
a crisis, I do not know what the minister thinks a crisis would look like.
Fiona Stanley Hospital is supposed to be the flagship hospital in our health system, and all the minister has done
is complicate this process immensely by having Serco sign that contract. The minister needs to tell us today what
he intends to do to fix it. He should get rid of Serco, using the provisions under that contract to remove it from
this hospital.
MR J.M. FRANCIS (Jandakot — Minister for Corrective Services) [3.07 pm]: The reality is that there is
nothing new here. We are seeing here today the typical tugging of the forelock and genuflecting to the union
movement that the Labor Party always does.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the first time. Now, through the Chair, minister.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: The only fetish in this place is the Labor Party’s fetish for the union movement. Time and
again, members opposite come in here, genuflect and say yes to the unions. We saw The Giants in the streets of
Perth last week and I can see the giants every time I walk in here. They are having their puppet strings tugged all
the time. They will never have the guts to stand up to the union movement. I have dealt with this in corrective
services many times. The classic example is Acacia Prison, a contract awarded to Serco by a Labor government.
684
According to the Labor Party, if it wins the next election, it will rip up that contract—1 400 prisoners, at
$150 a day; a saving of over $200 000 a day to the taxpayer or $1.5 million a week—that it originally gave to
Serco when it was in government.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, please listen to the member for West Swan. Do not interject when other
people are speaking.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: The reality is that 400 extra prisoners a day, at $150 per prisoner per day, is a significant
saving to the state taxpayers. The Labor Party would just rip up that contract. The real issue here is, if the
Labor Party wins the next election, will it rip up the Fiona Stanley Hospital contract? What would that cost the
state of Western Australia? The opposition has absolutely no credibility because it is too busy paying lip service
to its union bosses. The Labor Party is not hurting the union movement; it is the union movement itself. We only
have to look at what happened yesterday with the Maritime Union of Australia at Fremantle. Members need not
take my word for it; it is all there in colour on the front page of The Australian. The union movement in
Western Australia, which is pulling all the strings of members opposite, like The Giants —
The SPEAKER: I call the Premier to order for the second time.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: Members opposite will never have the guts to stand up to the union bosses, because as we
all know, the union bosses control their preselections, and they are terribly afraid of losing their seats. We have
seen it happen. That is the whole reason the member for Bassendean even got here in the first place. It was
because his union bosses pulled the strings over his predecessor.
Point of Order
Mr M. McGOWAN: I moved a motion that standing orders be suspended so that the Minister for Health can
explain himself about the privatisation of facilities management at Fiona Stanley Hospital and subsequent
failures and mismanagement.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany!
Mr M. McGOWAN: It is a question of relevance, Mr Speaker. This is a very specific motion about a very
specific subject matter. It is not about a broad range of issues across Western Australia on any subject matter.
Members on this side restrain themselves to issues surrounding the privatisation of Fiona Stanley Hospital. I am
calling on the government to have the same rules apply to them as the opposition forces on itself.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: To the motion, which actually is not one, what have they got opposite? They have brought
on a philosophical debate about contracting-out and unions. We talk about unions, and then opposition members
all shy away; they are too scared to deal with it. Stand up and have a debate!
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the second time. I am on my feet. You can
make some analogies and whatnot, Minister for Corrective Services, but come back to the point, thank you.
Debate Resumed
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: I will just wind up, Mr Speaker, because I know other people want a say.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr J.M. FRANCIS: The truth is that those workers out at Fiona Stanley Hospital are human beings doing their
very best, and the only reason that opposition members do not like them is because they have got Serco written
on their shirts.
The SPEAKER: I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.12 pm]: Mr Speaker —
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the third time, and the Minister for Health for
the second time.
Mr R.H. COOK: Once again, we see the Minister for Health doing his utmost best to avoid any form of
accountability when it comes to this place. He was not able to come in when Parliament started today —
685
The SPEAKER: There are five minutes left on the clock. I want to hear from the Member for Kwinana, and
then we will come back to the government.
Mr R.H. COOK: The minister was too gutless to come in early today and he managed to contrive some reason
why he was elsewhere, and now we see he is too reluctant to get up and face the music today. What do we get?
While the Premier is on the subject of thuggery, I think that is where we were really at when he was making his
contribution earlier today. It was the most ridiculous rant, as though somehow this is about attacking staff in the
workplace. This has nothing to with that. The Minister for Corrective Services over there talked about a contract
in the corrective services area. This motion has nothing to do with that. We have no problem with the staff
working at Fiona Stanley Hospital. We have the task of holding the government to account for the biggest public
sector privatisation in this state’s history. We are responding to the reports in the newspapers, to correspondence
coming to our offices, and to the very failures of this hospital.
The minister said today in the media that this is all about teething problems: “This is about teething problems;
you’ve got to expect this sort of thing to arise in a hospital that has just opened.” But let us not forget for
a second that this is a hospital that had staff in place since April last year. This is a hospital that had the longest
soft opening in the history of the health sector. This is a hospital that had the management in place all last year
supposedly working out these bugs. We had this extraordinary rant from the Premier today—the sort of rant we
are only used to seeing in the post-dinner period—pretending that this is about staff. This is not; this is about
accountability. We want to know how these service failures happened. It is not about us, Premier. This is about
the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Nursing Federation and other concerned staff. Why are these
things allowed to happen? What has been the risk to patient safety? How is it that these services so badly fail
when they have had so long to bed them down? Who is paying for the results of these service failures? What are
the other services, as the minister says he was advised, that are confronting difficulties? This is all what this is
about—it is a failure to oversight a contract. This is not about an attack on staff, which is a ridiculous straw man
effort to try to distract the debate. This is about a minister and the management of the most expensive contract in
privatisation in Western Australia’s history. What other services are in trouble? Who is paying for these service
failures, and what are the other areas of difficulty? The minister has to answer these questions. We hear about
these problems day in, day out. We get letters from people, and I will quote just one letter on these matters; it
states —
While the technology is impressive, it is worse than useless when the staff clearly haven’t been trained
properly in how to utilize it, and in addition it seems the simple but important things like catering,
communication systems and cleanliness have been overlooked and or lost in the process.
This is a typical example of a patient going in there and experiencing the services that they expect at a hospital
that is so expensive, but did not receive. We simply ask the questions. Why is it that the phones could not work
and that that was considered to be a danger to patient safety? Why is it that we are having all these porterage
problems when they have had so long to bed down these issues? Why is it that a whole range of complaints at
the moment are coming through around machinery, equipment failures, and why is it that doctors are
complaining about the sterilisation services—confirmed via the minister’s own people yesterday in the media?
This is not about knocking staff; this is about holding a minister to account—the same minister who has failed
time and time again to be accountable to this place and to the people of Western Australia. We saw it last week
in the Healthway affair; we see it this week in the privatisation affair. This is an embarrassment for this minister.
Privatisation was his key initiative and, as we are seeing, the privatisation birds are coming home to roost, and it
is his key failure.
DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [3.17 pm]: It is good to have the opportunity once
again to discuss this issue, but I cannot believe the member for Bassendean getting up and talking about the
“fetish” for Serco. I do not know: Who was it in the member’s government who appointed Serco and gave it the
contract for Acacia Prison? Who was it? Who was the current opposition’s minister who had this so-called fetish
for Serco? Do opposition members remember? No answer. No-one wants to cough up. I bet opposition members
know, but they do not like him using the word “fetish” about their minister, their government, that appointed
Serco to the Acacia contract.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
Dr K.D. HAMES: It did not come from one contract those opposite inherited. It was not something that Liberals
put in and members opposite took over and said, “Bad luck; we have gotta put up with the rotten mob, Serco.”
Members opposite appointed it and gave it the contract, and so suddenly, because they figure privatisation is
a dirty word, and they are so desperate for government, and so desperate to win and get in, that they will say and
do whatever it takes.
686
Dr K.D. HAMES: Here is the local union rep, whose union looks after the lowest —
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean.
Dr K.D. HAMES: I think I was prevented from interjecting on that member, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Yes, he is very sensitive, minister!
Dr K.D. HAMES: Not so happy now, is he?
The SPEAKER: Member for Mirrabooka! Right, minister—through the Chair.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean!
Dr K.D. HAMES: He represents the union that represents the lowest paid workers in state government, yet
those members are the highest contributors to the Labor Party. So, those poor bloody workers who do not get
paid very much have every dollar that they have got ripped out of them to make sure they give it to support the
Labor Party and the member’s cronies, just to give him a free ride into Parliament—a free ride into that seat over
there. What a hypocrite! He is always complaining about the low-paid, yet he grabs everything off them for his
mates in government!
Dr K.D. HAMES: Yes! The member for Bassendean does not want to stay on that subject for too long, does he?
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro!
Dr K.D. HAMES: A contract to the private sector was initiated by the Labor Party to Serco. They are the ones
that brought Serco to this state. In my view, Serco has done a very good job. It has a large number of other
contracts as well—Acacia, Wandoo, Court Security and Custodial Services, and Transperth.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro!
Dr K.D. HAMES: Federally, Serco has contracts in defence and immigration. Around 2 500 staff in this hospital
are working for a private contractor and doing a very good job.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Let me back to the comments that the Premier made about Serco and its staff. Some of those
staff, sure, have come from outside the public sector, outside the health system and outside government. But a lot
of them were working already in our other hospitals. A lot of them might not have been their members —
Dr K.D. HAMES: They were actively discouraging people from signing up with Serco. They were trying to
stop them.
Dr K.D. HAMES: The Labor Party, and the union in particular, was actively discouraging its members from
signing up to work with Serco at the private hospital. A lot of those workers have worked for the state
government. They are proud public servants, who have worked for years in our public hospitals. These are the
same people who members opposite are now denigrating and saying they do not care about the running of the
hospital.
The SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: I recall being at that hospital on opening day, and what a proud day that was.
687
Dr K.D. HAMES: That is a magnificent hospital, and we had a fantastic opening, with Professor Fiona Stanley
being there to be part of it. We then went to the wards, where the media were, and the first cohort of patients—
the rehabilitation patients—were brought into the hospital, and standing side by side with our health department
nurses and doctors and other staff were the Serco workers, in their uniform. Not only are they proud as punch to
be working at that hospital, they are proud to be Serco workers. They are proud of the work they are doing.
Those workers are doing a fantastic job, working hand in hand with the state government staff and making
sure —
Dr K.D. HAMES: Mr Speaker, there is a constant interjection from the other side. It really is getting difficult to
say anything.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean! Member for Mirrabooka! Member for Albany!
Dr K.D. HAMES: They are proud to be there and to be part of that system and part of setting up the hospital,
and so are all the other staff who are working at that hospital.
We have gone through in question time the issues that we have had at Fiona Stanley Hospital, particularly with
sterilisation. I put it to members that patients were not put at risk, because if there was any possibility that the
health of patients would be put at risk, those operations were pushed back to make sure that all the necessary
equipment was available. This happened in only a handful of cases. It was not a large proportion of cases. Most
of the operations went exceptionally well, as smooth as silk, and everything was done correctly.
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the second time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: There was only one area in which some things were done incorrectly. It was serious. I am not
trying to downplay that.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected,
Dr K.D. HAMES: The member for Girrawheen just has no control!
The staff who were working there —
The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the third time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: What I do not understand is that every time the member for Girrawheen interjects, she either
looks to her mates to see whether they are watching her, or she looks to the media to see whether they are
watching her—every single time she interjects—and they are not! They are all looking somewhere else!
These staff have done a fantastic job. There are problems to be sorted out. Part of the problem is that they have
not been able to get enough staff with sufficient expertise to run such a major procedure, given that they need to
provide all the equipment which is required to run the surgery, which is cranking up all the time. They have
taken a specialist from both Fremantle Hospital and Royal Perth Hospital. Surgeons often have special
requirements and special needs; they have favourite instruments and favourite packs, and they like certain things
to be in there —
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the third time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Surgeons can be very specific in their preferences and requirements for instruments, and they
have to take all those instruments from the other hospital and move them to this hospital, as well as all the stuff
they have purchased, and make sure it is all sterilised in a pack. We now have a senior person from
Fremantle Hospital—I am not sure whether more than one person has come from Fremantle, but certainly one
person has come from Fremantle—to assist in that area and make sure Serco gets it right. Serco will either get it
right or it will not. If Serco does not get it right, the contract will be terminated. If Serco does get it right, the
problem will be solved and we can proceed along the path that we have gone down. For example, the acting
director general of Health told me that he has been involved personally in frequent meetings about this matter, as
is his responsibility as the acting director, and next week I will be meeting with Serco as well to go through those
issues.
The question is: why did we go out to the private sector in the first place? It is because the state government is
determined to do things in a way that will save money for the government. The former Labor government had an
opportunity with Joondalup hospital when the Joondalup contract was coming to an end. A proposal was put
forward by Joondalup for a combination of Ramsay Health Care funding and state government funding to
significantly expand the size of that hospital. The Labor Party could have said, “No. We are against privatisation.
688
We are not going to be in this. Thanks, Ramsay; see you later”. But it did not do that. When we came to
government, the former Labor government was well down the track in negotiating a new contract with
Ramsay Health Care and had put in a significant amount of money, and it then significantly abandoned that
service. I have reminded members opposite on a few occasions that after the Labor Party lost government and
I became the Minister for Health, one of the first things that the former Minister for Health, Jim McGinty, said to
me was, “I am sorry, but we are $100 million under budget to get the work done at Joondalup. You will have to
go and find another $100 million to finish the contract that we have done.” The former Labor government
entered into that contract, and it stuck with it. Why did it do that? It did that because it was a good contract. It
saved money for the taxpayers of this state. If the former Labor government had taken back that contract and had
taken over the running of Joondalup hospital, there is no way on this earth that it could have run that hospital
with the same efficiency and for the same price as it is currently being run by Ramsay Health Care. The health
department, under the former Labor government and under its health minister, made that decision.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Why are we going down the path of using Serco for all those services that are not direct
patient services? It is because it is a saving to government. It is the best use of taxpayers’ money. It will save us
in the order of half a billion dollars over the 20 years of the contract. So, why would we not do that? Why would
we stick to a system that will cost us half a billion dollars more? Members opposite say that is because in the
public hospitals, we provide a better service. We do not. We provide an excellent service in our public hospitals,
but it is not better than the service that is provided by, for example, Ramsay Health Care.
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
Dr K.D. HAMES: I have answered the opposition’s questions over and over again. This is the third time it has
moved a matter of public interest on this hospital. It raises issues all the time.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Members opposite never get up any questions, until someone tells them that a doctor has said
there is a problem somewhere, and then suddenly they think, “We are on a winner here. We want to win
government. We want to make the government look bad on health.” That is despite the massive success we have
had within the health system, taking it away from all the rubbish that the Labor Party had year after year when it
was in government, with the health system failing. We have made the health system work, and the only thing
members opposite can do is run around and pick on little things that are going wrong, in a massive $2 billion
project that is the best hospital in the Southern Hemisphere.
Division
Question put and a division taken with the following result —
Ayes (21)
Ms L.L. Baker
Dr A.D. Buti
Mr R.H. Cook
Ms J. Farrer
Ms J.M. Freeman
Mr W.J. Johnston
Mr D.J. Kelly
Mr F.M. Logan
Mr M. McGowan
Ms S.F. McGurk
Mr M.P. Murray
Mr P. Papalia
Mr J.R. Quigley
Ms M.M. Quirk
Mrs M.H. Roberts
Ms R. Saffioti
Mr C.J. Tallentire
Mr P.C. Tinley
Mr P.B. Watson
Mr B.S. Wyatt
Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)
Noes (34)
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
Mr B.J. Grylls
Dr K.D. Hames
Mrs L.M. Harvey
Mr C.D. Hatton
Dr G.G. Jacobs
Mr S.K. L’Estrange
Mr R.S. Love
Mr W.R. Marmion
Mr J.E. McGrath
Ms L. Mettam
Mr P.T. Miles
Ms A.R. Mitchell
Mr N.W. Morton
Question thus negatived.
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION BILL 2014
Consideration in Detail
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
Clause 5: Associations not eligible for incorporation —
Debate was interrupted after the clause had been partly considered.
Dr M.D. Nahan
Mr D.C. Nalder
Mr J. Norberger
Mr D.T. Redman
Mr M.H. Taylor
Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)
689
Mr P.T. MILES: Before I ask for questions, I took a couple of questions on notice before debate was
interrupted and would like to answer them. Can I do that?
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Sure.
Mr P.T. MILES: Thank you. First, the member for Armadale asked me about the definition of voting rights
under clause 3, so I sought clarification from Parliamentary Counsel. I said that we wanted to do electronic
lodgement of votes; that is because it comes into play under the Electronic Transactions Act 2011, which permits
electronic voting. That is why we said electronic voting could be done, because that act covers it. Under clause 2,
we were talking about royal assent. Parliamentary Counsel wanted me to confirm that clause 2(b) contemplates
certain sections commencing after the legislation has received royal assent. For example, where a section of the
act provides for a regulation, it may be best not to commence that section until the regulation is finished.
However, we are a long way down the path on those regulations. For the past two years, that wording has been
used in all accepted drafting, so it has been in all legislation the last couple of years. It is deemed standard
wording for all legislation.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Clause 5 will enable incorporated associations to basically be able to make proceeds from
trading arms so that they can operate. Can the parliamentary secretary advise whether that is his understanding?
The clause has taken out the purpose of trading and added new provisions under clause 5(3), including exclusion
from ineligibility under subsection (1) as a result of any one of a number of circumstances including, for
example, a member receiving a payment in good faith as an employee or member of the management committee
of the association, or through deriving pecuniary profit from the association by way of remuneration paid in
good faith. There are a couple of other new subclauses that I will probably go into a bit further. I am looking at
the purpose for these changes to clause 5, which under the previous legislation was section 4. Two clauses have
been split, a number of things have been added, and the exclusion for the purposes of trading has been taken out.
It is my understanding that associations are now capable of trading if the proceeds go to the benefit of the
association, but not necessarily to the benefit of the board members of the association or members of the
management committee. However, if those payments are made in good faith, that can also occur. What I want to
know is, as part of that payment in good faith for a member of the management committee of the association,
does that envisage payment of board fees as such? I am assuming that the payment in good faith as an employee
is basically to derive a salary for people who are employed. I would appreciate, I suppose, a bit of clarification
on how the government sees clause 5 and the purposes of clause 5.
Mr P.T. MILES: The idea of splitting the section as it appeared in the previous act was to make it clearer and
more defined. Clause 5(1) states that an association is not eligible to be incorporated under the act if it is formed
to carry out certain transactions. Clause 5(2)(a) to (d) sets out the information associated with those transactions.
The member is right in what she says about clause 5(3) and beyond—that is, for an association that would pay
wages to staff, such as a sports and social club and stuff like that, that is clearly a not-for-profit organisation
overall because it is not actually deriving a benefit back to the members, but it needs obviously to pay wages to
staff, caretakers and the like. Also I think the member asked about the remuneration of office-bearers.
Mr P.T. MILES: That would be covered as well; they can receive some remuneration for the time spent —
Ms J.M. Freeman: Is it remuneration or is it a board fee? Is that what you are talking about, or is that —
Mr P.T. MILES: No, it would be a remuneration. The secretaries and treasurers of some organisations, such as
the one I visited the other night, receive a “sty”. They called it a “sty”, and it was quite hefty; it was $8 000.
Ms J.M. Freeman: What do they call it; sorry?
Mr P.T. MILES: They called it a “sty” because they are working with the old act. It is old language, but it is a
fee for that person putting up a considerable amount of time doing secretarial work and treasury work.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Do you mean a stipend?
Mr P.T. MILES: Yes, that is right. So it is okay to receive remuneration, and nothing has changed from the
previous act to this bill.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Returning to clause 5(3)(c), which relates to a member of the management committee of
the association, I take us back to the conversation in clause 3 about the terms used, when we looked at “officer”,
which reads —
officer, of an incorporated association, means any of the following —
(a) a member of the management committee of the association;
(b) a person, including an employee of the association, who makes, or participates in making,
decisions that affect the whole, or a substantial part, of the operations of the association;
690
(c) a person who has the capacity to significantly affect the association’s financial standing;
(d) a person in accordance with whose instructions …
All those officers were defined for the purpose of the new clause that is codifying the duties of an officer in
division 3. We established that the new definition of an officer had been expanded for the purposes of division 3,
“Duties of officers”. But we are not talking about an officer for the purposes of clause 5(3)(c); we are talking
about a member of the management committee of the association. We get that a member of the management
committee of the association is covered by division 3 under the duties of the officer and that they have to act
under those duties and in good faith, and perform all the duties and diligence and proper purpose. My question
goes to what happens to those other persons who are —
(b) a person, including an employee of the association, who makes, or participates in making,
decisions that affect the whole, or a substantial part, of the operations of the association;
(c) a person who has the capacity to significantly affect the association’s financial standing;
(d) a person in accordance with whose instructions or wishes the management committee of the
association is accustomed to act …
Are they not allowed to receive any remuneration?
Mr P.T. MILES: My understanding is that they cannot receive remuneration unless they are an employee—we
discussed that earlier—and also that they would have to be a board member to receive the remuneration.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: The member for Maylands raised the distinction to ensure that a consultant would not
come within paragraph (c) of the definition of officer, “a person who has the capacity to significantly affect the
association’s financial standing”. Where does an association get the capacity to pay them, or is that just
a contractual thing that happens outside of the act and there is no provision, necessarily, for that in terms of its
financial aspects?
Mr P.T. MILES: When outside organisations deliver a service, whether it be window cleaning, an assessment
of whether there is asbestos in the roof or something like that, that is a payment for service, so that can be done
quite legitimately. This clause on payments specifically deals with board members and people who are employed
by the association. I think that anybody who is doing other work and who is not on the board or, I guess, receives
a normal salary or wages, may invoice the club for other works that are being done legitimately.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: That is great.
I am interested in clause 5(3)(f). Clubs have always been able to give members trophies or prizes. Section 4(4)(e)
of the old act states —
that the members of the association compete with each other for trophies or prizes other than money
prizes;
This bill will change that, so that paragraph (f) reads —
that the members of the association compete with each other for trophies or prizes in contests directly
related to the purposes of the association;
I am just wondering what brought about that change. It is quite interesting in terms of restricting what people can
do. For example, the local bowling club has a machine, which is not a slot machine, from which members get
prizes and the club makes money. The prize is usually a couple of drinks or things like that. It is not related to
the purposes of the association; it is related to making money for the association. I wonder why this was done,
and whether that restriction will mean those sorts of activities can no longer take place.
Mr P.T. MILES: No; the member is right. As we are all aware, most clubs around the place offer trophies, and
sometimes people might get a gift voucher or something like that. This paragraph defines it a bit better; so,
saying, that, yes, people can do that.
Ms J.M. Freeman: You could do it before; you have just restricted it.
Mr P.T. MILES: No, we have not.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Yes, you have restricted it.
Mr P.T. MILES: No; clause 5(3) reads “An association is not ineligible”.
Ms J.M. Freeman: Yes, I get that.
Mr P.T. MILES: We are saying that can be done under that.
Ms J.M. Freeman: By way of interjection, it has gone from —
that the members of the association compete with each other for trophies or prizes other than money
prizes;
691
To —
that the members of the association compete with each other for trophies or prizes in contests directly
related to the purposes of the association;
Mr P.T. MILES: But it says “other than prize money”.
Ms J.M. Freeman: My issue is that it is directly related to the purposes of the association. That is a new
provision and that seems to me to reduce it, not enhance it.
Mr P.T. MILES: No; we do not believe it does. We have included it to clear it up and make it a bit easier for
people to do what they are already doing. This will tidy up that section; we are very comfortable with it.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: For the record, I assure the advisers that I understand the double negative that “the
association is not ineligible”. I am on the same page. Indeed, I am on the same page and want to ask about clause
5(3)(d), which states —
that any member of the association derives pecuniary profit from the association by way of
remuneration paid in good faith;
That is a new provision and refers to “any member”. The key word is “member”, yet the definition of officers
refers to persons employed in other areas, and we are not using that. In the parliamentary secretary’s example in
response to, I think, the member for Gosnells, he said —
(b) a person, including an employee of the association, who makes, or participates in making, decisions
that affect the whole, or a substantial part, of the operations of the association;
The parliamentary secretary said the person would not necessarily be a member. Firstly, why is that definition in
this Associations Incorporation Bill, because it is quite new? Secondly, how do we know that this member—they
do not fall within the definition of officer—will act within the duties of an officer in carrying out duty of care,
diligence, good faith and proper purpose. There are two questions: why is this paragraph in the bill and will that
member not be required to act with duty of care and diligence, in good faith and for proper purpose?
Mr P.T. MILES: It has been inserted in the bill because it is known in the past that people have invoiced for
works in lieu of some sort of remuneration. Members of associations are not supposed to gain anything from
a not-for-profit. An association is purely for the benefit of all and not for gain privately unless one is employed
or a board member, as we discussed earlier. If a member does a genuine job for the association such as install
a flyscreen or something, for example, and needs to be reimbursed, it is covered in this paragraph.
Ms J.M. Freeman: They are not covered under the duty of care, diligence, good faith and proper purpose.
Mr P.T. MILES: No; because that person may not be a decision-maker on the board. We are talking about two
different things there. They are not a board member—they could be, but in this case we are talking about a nonboard member doing work for the club and being remunerated for their time or whatever they did for the job.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: But they could not be a board member because above is the management committee of
the association. A board member falls under paragraph (c), not (d).
Mr P.T. Miles: A person could. Paragraph (d) covers more of a contractor.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Yes; that covers any member. If they are a board member, they are covered by (c). It is
quite separate, is it not?
Mr P.T. Miles: Yes.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Are we clear about that, because the parliamentary secretary just said they could be
a member of a board? I want to clarify that they cannot be a member of a board and come under paragraph (d).
Mr P.T. MILES: If a board member is a contractor and doing work for a club, again as a member of the club,
they would be able to invoice the club for the work.
Ms J.M. Freeman: That would be only “in good faith” under (c), would it not?
Mr P.T. MILES: No; it would be under paragraph (d).
Ms J.M. Freeman: But then they would not be covered by the duties of the officers; therefore, they would not
be practising duty of care, due diligence and avoiding the use of position.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Just be mindful that Hansard is trying to record the dialogue,
please, members.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Will the parliamentary secretary clarify this for me? When we talked about any member
of the association deriving pecuniary profit from the association by way of remuneration paid in good faith, the
parliamentary secretary said that person is probably a contractor and could be a member. Then he said they could
also be a board member or management committee member.
Mr P.T. Miles: Exactly.
692
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: But the management committee member is in paragraph (c) and a management
committee member would be covered by the duties of the officers in division 3, which has been included in the
legislation to codify common-law duties so that people act with a duty of care and diligence, in good faith and
with proper purpose.
Mr P.T. MILES: All the answers are correct. One may be a board member.
Ms J.M. Freeman: It is “the thing”!
Mr P.T. MILES: A board member may contract to do work for the organisation and be paid for it or they may
be just a member of the association that has done work and will need to be paid for that work. Is the member
saying that once a person is elected to the board, they are not entitled to do any other contract work?
Ms J.M. Freeman: Yes.
Mr P.T. MILES: Is she saying that she thinks that once a person is a board member, they should not be allowed
to do any other work for the association? That is what she saying but I do not agree.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: The whole purpose of codifying the duties of an officer, outside common law, is to avoid
conflict of interest. The committee might say, “We need to get the lawns outside this office mowed”, and the
treasurer of the committee, who is a lawn-mowing contractor, could say that he can do that and, under this bill,
the committee members agree to have that done and paid for. I thought the whole purpose of codifying duties
around due diligence, acting in good faith and with proper purpose was to avoid conflict of interest. The reality is
that a lawn-mowing contractor on the committee should excuse himself from the decision. But the reality is that
probably, with all good judgement and to meet the codification of the duties of officer under division 3, that
person should not do that contract work. I think it would be a conflict of interest; it would be a questionable
action.
I want clarification from the parliamentary secretary, who has recorded in Hansard that he thinks a person can be
on a committee, dealing with the financial arrangements of the committee, and contract themself to do work for
the association and that would not in any way breach the duties of an officer under division 3. If that is what the
parliamentary secretary thinks, I would like that very clearly and succinctly in Hansard. I honestly do not think
that is what is intended by this bill.
Mr P.T. MILES: I think the member is getting confused. Later in the bill, clause 42 clearly defines what is
expected of a board member and that the person must declare their interests, especially their pecuniary interests,
and everything to do with their decision-making process, just as does anyone else who sits on a board, whether
they be on a council or any other management board. If something comes before them that they have an interest
in, they declare it or leave the meeting; the member is correct. However, that does not preclude them from being
paid as a board member to do work around a building or whatever. They would declare that they can do the
work. Providing it is minuted that the person has left the room and makes it very clear they understand that they
cannot vote for their own remuneration on those items, they are quite able to do the project.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I note that a number of organisations currently use the term “Inc” at the end of their
names but they would no longer meet these definitions. Organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry of Western Australia have “Inc” at the end of their names. To me, that suggests the CCI believes it
comes under the current rules of an associations incorporated–type body. What provisions are in place to
transition organisations such as the CCI?
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
TAFE COURSE FEES
Motion
MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn) [4.02 pm]: I move —
That this house condemns the Barnett government for its massive increase in TAFE course fees and its
sustained undermining of TAFE.
The Barnett government has successfully —
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Member for Cockburn, I am terribly sorry; I am confirming that
you are moving the motion.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: I thought I just did.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I thought you did, too.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: I will restart. Over the past six years, the Barnett government has abandoned and effectively
undermined vocational education in Western Australia. Looking at the history of Ministers for Training and
Workforce Development under the Barnett government, we can see that there has been an amazing attitude of
ignorance by those ministers and an attitude of ministers who are simply not interested in vocational education.
693
I give as an example the very fact that in six years there have been five Ministers for Training and
Workforce Development. The member for Scarborough is the latest minister to hold that post. No minister has
really taken the issue of vocational education seriously. No minister has taken a keen interest in that portfolio at
all. When Treasury called for cuts from departments across the board in the form of efficiency dividends or
savings, as it has for the last six budgets, whoever held the post of Minister for Training and
Workforce Development was more than happy to rush to meet the requirements of the Department of Treasury.
The ministers handed over responsibility for those cuts to the director general of the Department of Training and
Workforce Development, who then applied the cuts at the coalface—that is, in the TAFE colleges around
Western Australia. They were all too quick to do that. That meant that the answer to meeting Treasury’s
requirements for one of their portfolios was, “Tick; got that one out of the way.” There was no consideration of
or interest in the impact of those cuts. It was simply a matter of the ministers saying, “Treasury needed efficiency
dividends and savings. I have directed the director general to find out how those savings can be implemented”,
and bam—it has been done!
Despite the fact that over the last six years TAFE has been the subject of literally hundreds of millions of dollars’
worth of cuts, the cuts continue. They continue on a six-monthly basis. In the midyear review, the Department of
Training and Workforce Development effectively delivered to WA state training institutions the full $53 million
budgetary cuts from the federal government. That was passed straight through to the colleges and will be applied
over the next few years. For good measure, the midyear review delivered the Department of Training and
Workforce Development another $15 million efficiency dividend requirement. I can guarantee that that
$15 million efficiency dividend requirement will be passed straight on to the state training providers—the
colleges—and they will then have to find ways to meet these cuts. How have those cuts been met over the last
six years? Course numbers have been cut and there has been a reduction in the number of student contact hours,
as well as in the material available for courses, and a reduction in maintenance services and the number of
overall full-time employees. There has been a general wearing down of the state training providers consistently
year in, year out by a conga line of disinterested ministers.
As of January this year, job cuts in TAFE colleges have started. Two hundred targeted separations for state
training providers are currently underway, so 200 positions across WA state training providers are currently
underway. I will give the minister an example of the impact of these job cuts. Midland TAFE has lost five of its
most experienced lecturers from the metalwork and metal industries section—five! What impact does the
minister think that will have on the capacity of Midland TAFE to deliver metalwork courses and metalwork
apprenticeship training when five of its most experienced metal training lecturers are lost? That is out of one
college. There has been not one or two, but five, from the one section. They will be the most experienced people
in that discipline. That will have a devastating impact on that college’s capacity to offer not only courses in
metals and engineering training, but also post–trade training leading up to the diploma level. Also, the number of
people who can gain access to that training will be limited, obviously, by the number of staff employed. It is not
as though those five metal trade lecturers can be replaced.
Over the last two years, there has been a freeze on the number of employees, particularly full-time employees,
who can be hired by state training providers in their colleges. On one hand, state training providers are getting
rid of probably the most experienced lecturers they have and, on the other hand, they cannot replace them
because there is an employment freeze in place. What does that all add up to? It adds up to a lack of capacity and
an undermining of the capacity to deliver training in our TAFE colleges. Those job cuts will continue. As of
January, 200 targeted separations were put in place. Rest assured the job cuts will continue; we will wait for the
outcome of this year’s budget that I guarantee will contain more funding cuts for the Department of Training and
Workforce Development. Given the changes made last year to public sector employment conditions, I will not be
surprised if redundancies are not even offered. The minister will call on the Department of Training and
Workforce Development to reduce its staff numbers but not to pay them redundancies. Now it has the ability to
do so, it will get rid of the underperforming assets—people it believes it can line up for the sack—out of TAFE
and therefore provide it with a reduction in total numbers without having to pay out redundancy. I bet that will
be applied to TAFE and state training providers. I bet it will happen as a consequence of the next round of
funding cuts that will come out of this year’s budget.
Not content with six years of continuously undermining the budgets of the Department of Training and
Workforce Development and therefore Western Australian state training providers, our TAFE colleges, reducing
the funding and services that those colleges rely upon, terminating the positions of 200 of the most experienced
lecturers and other employees within TAFE—with more to come—since 2013, this government has increased
course fees for TAFE students on a massive scale. For example, taking into account this year’s increase as of
January, there have been increases of over 515 per cent over the last two years at the diploma level and above. If
a person were to undertake the diploma of early childhood education and care at West Coast Institute, which is in
the minister’s electorate —
Mrs L.M. Harvey: It’s not in Scarborough.
694
Mr F.M. LOGAN: That is right; it is in Joondalup now. That is right; the government closed that one in
Scarborough.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Members at the back of the chamber, can you please keep your
voices down.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: It is in the member for Joondalup’s electorate. I forgot it had moved.
If a person was to study a diploma of early childhood education and care at West Coast Institute, in the member
for Joondalup’s electorate, the cost for that three-semester diploma would be $10 087.75. That is over $3 000 per
semester over three semesters. Originally, that course would have cost in total just under $2 000. That is just
over $600 per semester, or just under $2 000. It will now cost $10 087.75. A person studying a certificate IV in
mental health, which is a one-semester course at the same college, would have originally paid just over $600, but
today would pay $2 800. I used those two examples because of the requirements called for by employers in those
two key industries. For example, a person cannot work in the area of mental health without a level of
qualification. One of the minimum levels of qualification that employers call for is at least a certificate IV in
mental health. It was just over $600, but it will now cost students $2 800. Child care and early childhood
education, which are critical areas of work, are significant areas of demand, as is the area of mental health
because of the high turnover of labour. There is a constant requirement for people to work in early childhood
education and child care. Again, there is a requirement of a minimum qualification to work in the childcare
industry. In this case, the minimum qualification is a diploma. It did cost just under $2 000, but it now costs over
$10 000 to get that qualification in order to get a job in an industry that is looking for people; it is calling for
workers.
That is what the Barnett government has brought to Western Australia over a period of six years of incompetent
management by Ministers for Training and Workforce Development. We have had massive funding cuts—
physical funding cuts to the operation and maintenance of colleges—job cuts and, over the last two years,
enormous hikes in course fees. The annual maximum course fee under the Department of Training and
Workforce Development guidelines on increases to vocational education and training fees and the charges
policy, which are issued every January, , for 2015 for a diploma is now $7 700 per annum. The fees for a three or
four-semester course over a two-year period—the diploma of early childhood education and care is nearly
$11 000—could go as high as $14 000 to $15 000.
I turn to apprentices. The course fees for certificates II to IV covering traineeships and priority industry
qualifications and apprenticeships have gone up by 24 per cent this year alone. That is from the minister’s own
policy guidelines. The worst and nastiest part of the announcement of this year’s fee hikes by the Department of
Training and Workforce Development, which were obviously signed off by the minister, whether it was the
current or previous Minister for Training and Workforce Development, was that the maximum cap of $2 000 per
semester on fees paid by apprentices for their courses has been removed. That has been taken away, leaving the
door open for apprentices to pay more for their training. That is, I think, a heinous action by the state
government. Apprentices are the lowest paid workers in Australia. An indentured apprentice is required to
undertake training under the direction of an employer at a lower rate than that for another employee who is not
undertaking training. An apprentice is paid a minimal amount of money in the first year, rising to the trade
qualification rate immediately on completion of their apprenticeship, which may be in the third or fourth year.
However, they are paid a very, very low rate of pay, and that has always been the case going right back to the
Middle Ages. This government has now removed the cap that protected fee increases for people undertaking
apprenticeships and basically said, “Future increases for certificates III and IV will now apply to you. The
$2 500 cap is gone as of this year.” That means, again taken from the minister’s own department fee structure set
out last year, that the 24 per cent increase will now take the student curriculum course fee on a per-hour basis to
$3.09; in January next year, it will go to $3.68, which is a further 19 per cent increase; and in January 2017, it
will go to $4.29, which is a further 17 per cent increase in that year. The reason the cap on apprenticeship fees
was removed is that the minister and the department had planned and knew of further fee increases for
certificates II to IV over the next two years, and they wanted those increases to apply to apprentices, as they will
apply to every other person who is not an apprentice undertaking certificates II to IV qualifications. This year
apprenticeship course fees went up by 24 per cent; next year, as set out by the department, they will go up by
19 per cent; and in January 2017, they will go up by 17 per cent. Going back from January 2017 to 2013, the
course fees for apprentices undertaking certificates III and IV will have risen by 72.28 per cent. Why is this
happening? Why is the Barnett government smashing students who are attempting to improve their skills and get
jobs? Why is it doing this?
I come back to what I said in my opening statement about the attitude of ministers. Successive ministers have
simply not concentrated and focused their attention on what has been happening within the department and on
the impacts of what they have been asked to deliver by Treasury. They have not dug down and looked at the
impacts at the college level. Why is that? It is because it is not a portfolio that they really wanted. Let us cast our
mind back to Hon Peter Collier in the first term of the Barnett government. Peter Collier did not want the
695
training portfolio; he wanted education. He was not interested in vocational education. He really wanted to get
his hands on the portfolio that had been given to the then member for Churchlands. That is why he was not
interested.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: He loved training.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: He did not love training.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Just ask him! He loved it.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: Yes? Go and ask him whether he wanted education instead of training. Ask him whether he
wanted that. That is what he told everybody, and he was dirty that the then member for Churchlands got the
portfolio that he wanted. Since then, we have had successive ministers. I think the member for
Warren–Blackwood was one of them.
Ms R. Saffioti: A conga line.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: Yes, a conga line of ministers.
We have had Terry Redman as the minister; he was not interested. He simply signed off on everything that was
put before him by the department. The Minister for Health, Hon Kim Hames, simply slept through his
responsibility for the Department of Training and Workforce Development. His attitude was, “I didn’t want the
Department of Training; I wanted to hang on to tourism.” The last thing he wanted was the training portfolio.
Now it is down to this minister. She has caught the training ball and now we will see what she will do with it.
One of the reasons that TAFE fee increases and job cuts have occurred is the attitude of ministers. The second
reason is the contempt that the Liberal Party and the National Party have for TAFE. As far as they are concerned,
vocational education at TAFE is second-class education. It is not university; it is second-class education. That
was beautifully set out by Hon Terry Redman when he was the Minister for Training and
Workforce Development. After I questioned him about why TAFE cuts and fee increases had to occur, his
statement was, “This means that those students will appreciate their studies more and will take them more
seriously.” That was the response by the then Minister for Training and Workforce Development to questions
from the opposition about why diplomas had gone up in price at that stage by 490 per cent. His attitude was that
it would make them take their studies more seriously and appreciate their courses. What a contemptuous,
dismissive attitude towards vocational education! It highlights my point on the second reason that all these cuts,
job losses and fee hikes have gone through; it is the contempt that Liberal Party and National Party members of
Parliament have for vocational training in Western Australia. There is a contempt for people who attend TAFE
because, after all, this is second-class training!
The third reason I put to the house for why this is happening, which was again beautifully set out by the former
Minister for Training and Workforce Development, Minister Redman, is the impact of state debt and the
statements that students can contribute more to the cost of course delivery. In fact, the minister has said that
herself. The minister has said publicly that TAFE fees have to increase because they have been too low for too
long.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is true.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: That is true, is it? The minister should put herself in the situation of a 19-year-old who is
trying to get a job and just think about that. This is an example of the contemptuous, pompous and dismissive
attitude of the Liberal Party to vocational education and training.
When I asked the former training minister, Minister Redman, in an estimates committee why TAFE fees have to
increase, he was quite blunt about it. His attitude was that the Department of Training and Workforce
Development has to contribute to resolving the state budgetary situation. Therefore, TAFE students, who are
subsidised—as the current minister has indicated, by too much and for too long—will have to pay more.
Therefore, what Minister Redman was really saying was that students who are trying to improve their skills in
order to get a job will now be required to pay for the budgetary situation that has been created by the
Barnett government. That is exactly what that means. The Department of Training and Workforce Development,
and state training providers, now have to contribute to the issues that are put to them by Treasury, and to the
budgetary situation, and the only way they can do that is by increasing TAFE fees, which, as the minister herself
has just indicated, have been subsidised by too much and for too long. What the government is really saying is,
“Our state debt, and our budgetary situation, which we have created ourselves because of our incompetence, can
now be paid for by students who are going to TAFE and attempting to improve their skills in order to get a job.”
That is exactly what the government is saying.
Mr J.R. Quigley: Member, if I may, if their education is so curtailed, they might never learn the difference
between AA and AAA and what this government has done!
696
Mr F.M. LOGAN: I am sure that would be the case, particularly if they were doing a diploma of finance, for
example. I am sure that when they deal at TAFE with Moody’s-type ratings, they would take that into
consideration, particularly as they will be the ones who will have to pay for the drop in the state’s credit rating
from AAA to AA. I believe that is why the funding cuts to TAFE have happened, the job cuts have happened
and the TAFE fee increases have happened. It is because of the attitude of ministers and their unwillingness to
concentrate on their portfolios. It is because of the contempt that the Liberal Party and the National Party have
for TAFE and the fact that they see it as second-class training. It is also because, as the former training minister,
Minister Redman, and the current minister have both said, TAFE students have had their course fees subsidised
for too long and now it needs to change. The reason it needs to change is that the Department of Training and
Workforce Development needs to contribute to the state budgetary situation, and that means that students will
have to pay for the financial stuff-ups that have been made by the Barnett government. That is basically it.
We will hear from various members in this house this evening about how the funding cuts to TAFE, the job
losses at TAFE and the fee increases at TAFE are impacting on the ability of people to undertake TAFE courses.
What the government is doing to TAFE will also impact on the Western Australian economy and the declining
employment opportunities in this state. Many of the people who will be seeking training to enable them to work
in a different occupation will be required to go to TAFE. There is also a constant demand for apprentices in this
state that is not being met by the state training institutions. Mr Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz), you have seen me
stand in this house on numerous occasions to appeal to the Barnett government to take some positive action that
would increase the number of apprentices and incentivise employers to take on more apprentices.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Members, can you please keep your voices down a bit, please.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: However, nothing has occurred over the past six years. There has been a continual decline in
the number of apprentices. I have some information from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research
in Western Australia on training rates for apprentices and trainees in the construction trades. In 2008, the rate
was 12.3 per cent, and as of 2013 it is down to 8.2 per cent. The Master Builders Association, as quoted in
The Australian of Wednesday, 4 June last year, has said that the construction industry now has fewer than half
the apprentices who are needed. Report after report has been given to successive ministers for training from the
Building and Construction Industry Training Fund, which I questioned the minister about the other day, calling
on the state government to concentrate on the declining number of apprentices going into the building trades.
Do members know what the government’s response was? The Department of Training and Workforce
Development, in its “State Training Plan 2014–2017”, determined through an econometric modelling exercise—
that is, a desktop theoretical modelling exercise—how much funding should go into the budget of state training
providers for the period 2014 to 2017. That was based on the belief by the department of training that there
would not be an increase in demand for apprentices in the construction industry over the time of the
“State Training Plan 2014–2017”.
That proposition was put into the econometric model, and what came out was a significant cut to construction
industry training across the state training providers. It has been indicated to me, and I would like the minister to
confirm or deny this, that the construction industry training courses at Bunbury TAFE will be closed. That would
have come straight from the advice of the “State Training Plan” and the econometric model that had cut funding
to state training provider courses for the construction industry. That took place despite the fact that the Building
and Construction Industry Training Fund—for which the Minister for Training and Workforce Development is
still the responsible minister, as were her predecessors—had told the Department of Training and Workforce
Development and successive ministers that there had been a decline in the number of apprentices and that
something had to be done about it to increase the number of apprentices needed.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, if you want to have a noisy conversation, please take it outside.
Thank you.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: The Master Builders Association and other building industry groups are now calling on the
state government to allow more 457 visa bricklayers to come to Western Australia. What the hell is going on in
that department, minister? How can those boofheads get it so wrong—seriously? I do not know whether the
minister has read the “State Training Plan”, but she should have a look at it and at what it states about the
construction industry. At a time when the industry is calling for more places for apprentices and more training to
be offered by TAFE, these meatheads at the Department of Training and Workforce Development have gone the
other way and cut training. What is the matter with them?
The worst part about it is that it is not as though the department can say, “Oh, we didn’t know.” The BCITF
provided it with advice and it is required under its act to present its reports to Parliament. It should have set it out
that over the previous four years something needed to be done. This is a clear example of the point I have made
several times earlier—that successive Ministers for Training and Workforce Development have had no interest
in their portfolio. If they had, they would have met with the BCITF, listened to what it had to say, gone to the
department and asked what it was doing and then, when they had read the “State Training Plan”, they would
697
have challenged the department and asked, “What the hell are you doing? That’s clearly not the advice from
industry.” That is why we find ourselves in this situation. We have had successive training ministers who were
not interested in their portfolio and have taken no interest in vocational education and training in
Western Australia.
The undermining of vocational education and training in Western Australia is one of the results of the
incompetence of successive Ministers for Training and Workforce Development. Another impact is far more
personal and far more emotional—that is, kids trying to undertake training that will get them a job. Kids have
turned up to enrol in courses thinking that the cost of the course would be around $1 800 to $2 000 and are
discovering that instead they are between $8 000 and $10 000. I pointed this out to Minister Redman when he
was Minister for Training and Workforce Development, and he had no idea at all about how apprentices paid
their fees. Potential apprentices have to go to their parents and ask them to fork out the money up-front so that
they can enrol in a TAFE course. Minister Redman at the time said, “That’s not right; the employer pays it.”
Yes, that is right: the employer pays it to an indentured apprentice, after the apprentice has shown them that they
have successfully completed the course at the end of the semester. That is what they do. I can count on one hand
the number of generous employers who say, “Here, I’ll pay your TAFE course fee up-front while you undertake
your TAFE attendance.” The rest of them say, “I’ll reimburse you for the cost of undertaking your TAFE offthe-job training when you bring me a certificate showing that you’ve attended and you’ve passed the course for
that semester.”
We need to remember that apprentices are being paid $6 or $7 an hour as first-year apprentices, and they are then
faced with $2 500 for enrolment in a particular course. They do not have that kind of money, so what do they
do? They go to their parents, grandparents, relatives or friends to pay, and then hopefully they pass the course
and get that money back. That is what happens. Another former Minister for Training and Workforce
Development, Hon Kim Hames, also had no idea at all. I do not think he ever spoke to an apprentice, so it is not
surprising that he did not have any idea.
I could go on and on with examples of how the TAFE course fee increases are causing devastation and financial
hardship out there in the community, because obviously every parent wants the best for their kid. If they have not
attained the TEE results to get them into university, they undertake vocational education and training. Quite
often they undertake vocational education and training courses at school, and they then want to continue on after
school so that they can improve their chances of gaining employment. Their parents, grandparents and relatives
all stand behind them, so when it becomes difficult for them to enrol because of the course fees, it hits the whole
family and it is emotional for the whole family.
I refer to an article by Victoria Laurie in The Australian of 28 January 2014, headed “Downturn hits the tradies’
nursery”. Mr Ken Marshall was one of the very lucky ones who did his plumbing apprenticeship in the early
1980s with Western Australia’s then Public Works Department. The article states that Mr Marshall —
… despaired that his 17-year-old son Neil would not get that opportunity due to a downturn in
apprenticeships, laying off of trainees by employers and a stiff hike in TAFE training fees for trades.
He said boom-time Western Australia should be the state that offered its young people opportunities for
upskilling, but it was heading down the wrong path.
On Friday on my way home from my electorate office I got a phone call from Ms Karen Keeffe. She talked
about her son, who had discovered the cost of undertaking the diploma he wanted to do, and it had really upset
her and her son. They were upset about the cost of the diploma that he wanted to undertake and the bill he would
be left with at the end of the day. Ms Keeffe just could not believe that the course fees had gone up so much.
As a working mum, she would struggle to help her son meet the costs of those courses. She was disgusted by
how much the Barnett government had increased course fees and the fact that the government was basically
cutting off training opportunities for her son.
Far more stories will come out tonight from my colleagues, and all of them will go to the point I have made over
and over again: the Barnett government, under five successive Ministers for Training and
Workforce Development, has completely abandoned vocational education and training in Western Australia.
Those ministers are not, and have never been, interested in TAFE. They have continually agreed to the cuts
handed down by Treasury, they have not defended their portfolio, they have not defended the Department of
Training and Workforce Development, and they have not defended the state training providers by shielding them
from the impacts of the cuts or arguing against the need for the impacts of the cuts. They have appeased the
Department of Treasury by going along with the job cuts through the redundancy program, and they have further
appeased the Department of Treasury by agreeing to and implementing massive increases in TAFE fees, thereby
cutting off training and job opportunities for young and older people in Western Australia. It is a disgraceful
situation that we find ourselves in, and one that is building a head of steam out there in Western Australia
amongst mums and dads. It is one that will hang around the minister’s neck right the way up to the 9 March 2017
state election. So far, what the minister has said in the press and what she has said in this house show that she is
698
going to continue on the same path as the other ministers who preceded her. She believes that TAFE students
and their courses are subsided too much by the state of Western Australia, and that the cost burden should shift
more to the students. That cost will shift more to the parents of those students. Remember, as I said earlier, we
are looking at cost increases for certificates II to IV of 24 per cent this year, 19 per cent next year, and
17 per cent in 2017. I will bet you, Mr Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz), that the latest Minister for Training and
Workforce Development will just go along with what the Department of Treasury wants, despite her saying in
the press that she will have a look at the TAFE fee increases. I will bet that she will go along with those fee
increases, and I bet she will be implementing the further cuts that will come to the Department of Training and
Workforce Development and state training providers out of the next state budget. I will be watching very, very
closely what actions this minister takes to try to defend her portfolio. I put it to the house that she will do
nothing, except implement everything the Department of Treasury wants.
MR P.B. WATSON (Albany) [4.53 pm]: That was a very fine speech by the member for Cockburn.
This government has its priorities all wrong. We have had the budget blowout, Elizabeth Quay, the footy
stadium, the empty Fiona Stanley Hospital, nib Stadium, for which we paid out $7 million because someone
wanted to get out of a contract; and we have the Pelago developments. Who do we hit? We hit the people who
are most vulnerable in our community. When I look at the other side of the house, I see all the people who would
have had an education paid for and assisted over a long period, as would some of their children. But when they
get into government, they say to the people in my electorate who want to improve themselves, “Well, if you
want to go to TAFE, we’re going to charge you, and charge you a lot.” It might be all right for the minister and
the Premier, who are in safe seats, but I would not like to be one of the marginal seat holders sitting on the
government side. They came in on a swing and they will go out on a swing.
TAFE affects many people, including young people coming out of school and people who want to be retrained.
I do not know whether members opposite are not listening to their constituents, but we have fly in, fly out
workers who have been going up north earning a lot of money, and all of a sudden they are coming back to the
city. That will put more and more pressure on jobs. A lot of young people who are coming back to the city went
up there for the boom in the construction industry without any training, and they earned a lot of money. I was
talking to one of our training industry representatives in Albany who is getting people coming in in droves
saying, “I’ve got a big mortgage and debt on my car.” People thought it would last forever, and now they want to
be retrained because they do not have a trade. They will have to go to TAFE to be trained, but they cannot afford
to.
I spoke to some young people at the Great Southern Institute of Technology in Albany; we had a bit of a meeting
there and they came and spoke to us about the issues. They cannot get in there because they cannot afford it.
Some told me they have a certificate IV and want to improve their skills and chances of gaining a better-paid job
by studying a diploma course. They are angry that the discount for concession card holders is no longer
available. It is out of the question for them to do a diploma course that now costs between $6 000 and $8 000.
What do they do? They cannot get training, so they cannot get a job. I think the latest unemployment figure in
Albany—actually, the Parliamentary Library put it out today—is 3.8 per cent. I can see that roaring right up; it is
going to get right out of control because all our FIFOs are coming back. I am a FIFO—I fly in and out of Albany
when I come up for Parliament—and I see these people at the airport. I can see that the number of people sitting
around is diminishing at a great rate. I go back to Albany at 5.00 am on a Friday morning, and there used to be
maybe 400 people in the departure area; now there are probably 150 people. That is 250 fewer people just on one
shift changeover. They have come back to Perth and they will put pressure on not only people who do not have
jobs, but also those people who have jobs, because there are other people who have jobs but who are not
performing well—they probably need training too, but they cannot afford it.
The other problem is that the cap on fees has gone, which has meant that certificate courses at Great Southern
Institute of Technology now have the bare minimum of electives, which keeps student hours down and,
therefore, fees down. The problem is that if someone fails just one elective, they fail the whole course. Having
caps made it possible for all young people to go TAFE, but not anymore.
How are young people now meant to afford to pay for the training they need to get jobs? By 2017 it will be more
expensive per student hour to be enrolled in a certificate course than a diploma course. Students are telling me
that we need to go back to the fee caps. I spoke with a childcare worker yesterday who told me she has
a certificate III in children’s services and was looking to do a diploma of early childhood education and care to
improve her skills and further her career. Last year, under the National Partnership Agreement on TAFE Fee
Waivers for Childcare Qualifications, fees were waived; this year they have to pay $7 700. I do not know
whether members know, but child care is one of the sleepers in our communities. I have families in the
community of Albany in which the husband and wife both work and they cannot afford to pay their bills because
a lot of their money goes to child care. I know the childcare providers in Albany are very concerned that they
cannot get staff, and if they do not have staff they cannot allow people to enrol their children, so the wife cannot
699
go to work and there is more pressure on the family. It has a domino effect, and it is a huge issue. It is happening
in my electorate and it will be happening in electorates of members on the other side. I am disappointed that noone from the other side, especially some of the regional members where things are a lot tougher than they are in
the city, have stood up for their community and young people who want to do something. We keep saying that
our young people do not get off their backsides and do anything. A lot of them cannot do so now because of
these fees. The VET FEE-HELP was not an option for her because she did not want to go into debt knowing that
with the job reclassification and overtime, she would quickly hit the $53 000 income level whereby the loan,
with the 20 per cent loan fee, would need to be repaid and would be a big commitment. The massive increase in
these fees for the certificate or diploma courses in Albany is proving to be a disincentive to people wanting to
enter that industry. As I said, there is a huge flow-on effect.
Courses on the priority industry qualifications list, such as the diploma in conservation land management or the
diploma in horticulture, have strong enrolment numbers because the fees are less than they are for other
diplomas. This leads to more enrolments and places being available. Again, some students do not want to go into
debt to pay for them. Other courses are not available this year in Albany due to the drop in applications. The
diploma in sustainability will not run this year due to lack of numbers, nor will certificate III in laboratory skills
or certificate IV in environmental monitoring and technology.
As I mentioned in my contribution to the Premier’s Statement the other day, panel beaters in Albany are trying
hard to keep apprentices, but they are having a lot of difficulty. This is a city versus country issue and I am very
disappointed that the National Party has not raised this. A young apprentice panelbeater in Albany has to go to
Perth twice for three weeks at a time. They have to go to Perth for three weeks, come back to Albany and then go
to Perth for another three weeks. This does not happen to apprentices in Perth. They have the option to go to
TAFE one day a week, so that means they have one day a week away from their work. Employers in Albany
have to send their apprentices to Perth for three weeks at a time. They also have to do another part of their TAFE
course in Albany. That might add up to four weeks and if they have, say, two weeks’ sick leave during the year,
that employee is not working for six weeks. Why would an employer take on an apprentice under those
conditions? This is what the apprentices were told, so I followed it up with the TAFE in Perth. After I raised it in
Parliament the other day, suddenly the TAFE is saying that the apprentices have to be in Perth for only one lot of
the three weeks. If I had not intervened, these apprentices would have had to go to Perth for two lots of
three weeks. Not everyone tells their member of Parliament these things. The guy I rang personally, whose name
I will not mention, was very good. After we sat down and had a chat, he understood how difficult it is for people
in regional areas. With his supervisor he made a decision and now they are saying the work can be done in the
home environment. The minister and her advisers obviously did not read the information to learn that these
people would have to come to Perth. The people travelling to Perth are all young apprentices, and for some it
would probably be the first time they have driven to Perth. Yet, that was compulsory. No commonsense is
applied to these requirements. There are also accommodation costs. As I say, a lot of the apprentices want to go
home from Perth at the weekend during the three weeks because they are involved in sport; they do not want to
stay in Perth. I do not know whether members opposite realise, but people cannot get much accommodation in
Perth for under $200 a night. I was told that 80 per cent of apprentices in the panelbeating industry come from
the country. Surely that would have been taken into account when this decision was made.
I do not think members opposite or the minister realise that this is a huge issue that affects people who want to
get a job. As I said before, people say that our young people today do not want to get off their backsides. Here
there are people who want to train and go to work but they are being charged these outlandish fees. Members
opposite, including ministers, had a free education or an education that did not require them to pay these kinds of
TAFE fees. Members opposite and the minister should mark my words: this is a real sleeper that could well pull
down the government at the next election.
MR J. NORBERGER (Joondalup) [5.05 pm]: I thank the members for Cockburn and Albany for their
contributions. A lot of points have been raised this afternoon, some of which are well beyond my pay grade or
experience to talk about. However, I believe I can add some value to the discussion. I have made a few notes in
response to some of the comments made by the member for Cockburn and, more recently, the member for
Albany. I am mindful that I will be travelling with the member for Cockburn for three days next week so I have
to be somewhat nice to him!
I am the lead speaker.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: You’re not the lead speaker.
Mr J. NORBERGER: I am sorry; I am not the lead speaker. I cannot read properly; I should have gotten
a better education! I want to make it clear that I am not the lead speaker—thank God for that. I thought, “Gosh,
speak for 60 minutes, steady on!”
The member for Cockburn started and finished his speech with the statement that this side of the house has
completely abandoned and undermined the vocational education training sector. That argument will be a bit hard
700
to justify. The other day I came across a great quote from Mark Twain, who said, “There are three kinds of lies:
lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Some pretty amazing statistics have been bandied around the place, not so
much tonight by the two members who have spoken, but certainly in some of the media releases from members
opposite. We have heard that fees for such and such a course have gone up 524 per cent and we think,
“Holy moly, 524 per cent!” We have to understand that TAFE fees have come from an extremely low base. A lot
of what I will talk about tonight, I suppose, is probably more from a philosophical level. The two members have
raised some individualities. The member for Albany talked about panelbeating apprentices and issues in the
country. I am sure the member for Kimberley will chat about some of the challenges up there. I am not qualified
to speak about them. Certainly, at a philosophical level, I will have a look at that.
Historically, on average, under Liberal and Labor governments, however far back we want to go, TAFE courses
have been subsidised to the tune of 93 per cent. That is why the member for Albany referred to the fact that
people would more or less—bar the seven per cent contribution—get a free TAFE education. The changes we
are talking about now have been phased in over a number of years. If as the member for Cockburn said, we are
completely abandoning the VET sector, we would not be providing any subsidy or any help or support. Quite
frankly, that is just not the case. In fact, as a state, across the board, on average, we will be contributing
80 per cent to help people get the qualifications we have just been hearing about that will help them get a job.
That is phenomenal. The question we have to ask ourselves at a philosophical level is: why do we train people?
We know, of course, that we train people because we want to create job opportunities. We want to see people get
employment and become engaged in our economy and further their careers. We also want to train people in the
right areas; we want to train people to fill skill shortages in the workforce. Under these changes, which are called
priority skills, we have identified what jobs and qualifications employers are asking for in the economy at the
moment. That is where we are putting in the maximum amount of financial resources. We are supporting and
subsidising those courses because we know that is where the job opportunities will be. There are some fantastic
courses on offer out there. I wrote some of the more obscure ones down. Courses can be undertaken in stone
therapy massage as well as certificates in calligraphy and in spray tanning. I think it is absolutely outstanding
that our TAFE colleges offer those courses. But if that is not where the jobs are, we have to ask the philosophical
question —
Ms M.M. Quirk: It will be, once you ban tanning beds!
Mr J. NORBERGER: There will be a few more jobs in spray tanning, admittedly.
Should the taxpayer pay? When we talk about providing subsidies, we are also talking about opportunity cost. It
all comes out of one pot. It is taxpayers’ money—the taxes all Western Australians pay. Should we provide
subsidies towards courses that will not realistically end in meaningful employment for the masses? If people
want to do a course in stone therapy, I think it is fantastic, but it is quite right that they should pay for it. If
I decided tomorrow that I really wanted to get a certificate III in origami—I am not even sure whether that
exists—and if I was passionate about it and there was a TAFE course for it —
Mr F.A. Alban: It would suit you!
Mr J. NORBERGER: I am sure it would suit me. It would give me something to do during question time! But
I should pay for that.
I digress a little. I do not for a moment question the member for Cockburn’s passion and commitment to the
training sector. I know him well enough to know that he is very passionate about the sector. However, there was
something he said that I cannot agree with. The member said that a TAFE education is a second-class education.
I think that demeans our TAFE system. I do not believe that a TAFE education is second class. An example was
given that related to the West Coast Institute. It would be remiss of me not to mention how phenomenally proud
I am to have West Coast Institute in my electorate as part of the Joondalup learning precinct. To Michelle Hoad
and her staff, I say that I think it is an outstanding, high quality and superbly professional educational facility.
I intend to come back to the example related to nursing. West Coast Institute has an outstanding nursing college,
or nursing arm, and is fairly close to Joondalup Health Campus. A big part of what it does is offering a diploma
in nursing. The first thing I want to say before I come back to that other example is that our TAFE system is
highly professional and I have phenomenal respect for it.
A lot of members will probably know that for five and a half years prior to joining Parliament I had the great
privilege of being very actively involved in the vocational education and training sector. Admittedly, I managed
and ran a private registered training organisation. It was not a public registered training organisation; I ran
a private RTO. The courses that we offered attracted no subsidies at all. That is not entirely true—some of the
courses we offered attracted funding —
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected.
Mr J. NORBERGER: A lot of the training that we provided —
701
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Members for Butler and Forrestfield, the member for
Joondalup has the floor. Please do not interject. It is against standing orders. You are not allowed to interject.
Mr J. NORBERGER: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. I appreciate your protection.
Mr N.W. Morton interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Forrestfield, I call you for the second time.
Mr J. NORBERGER: That was a really short stint!
A lot of the courses we provided attracted funding through what was called the Building and Construction
Industry Training Fund and is now called the Construction Training Fund. That was about the limit. Other than
that, people paid full training fees. People came to us for the same reason that people go to TAFE—they wanted
to improve their career and their job prospects.
One of the examples that the member for Albany gave, which I thought was interesting, related to some fly in,
fly out workers who had worked up north and earned phenomenal amounts of money. In the example he gave,
they were laid off, which is unfortunate. The industry can be cyclical and it can be very project driven. It is not
entirely uncommon for people to earn a phenomenal amount of money on a particular project for, say, nine
months but not have any work for three months before picking up another project. Unfortunately, there is an
element to the industry where that is the nature of the beast. The company I worked with was heavily involved in
construction activity in the north west. I know firsthand the type of opportunities that were available to people
working up there, either with qualifications or with none. A forklift operator up north could earn
$160 000 plus—earning more than a member of Parliament.
I have to say that I find it a little rich for the opposition to say that there is now an obligation on taxpayers. That
individual might have had a job for nine months, or one or two years. He or she might have been up there for
three years earning a six-figure salary. In the example that the member for Albany gave, he or she indebted
themselves by buying the jetski and the car, but did not plan their finances. Upon their return they want to do
some training, which I appreciate—I have no issue with that—but it is somehow now incumbent on the taxpaying public of WA to foot the entire bill! The government is not saying it will not contribute anything. We
have to keep within the paradigm of the argument here. The average subsidy for these courses will still be
80 per cent. As it is, we will be subsidising that man or woman’s further training to the tune of 80 per cent. But I
find it difficult to argue that we should subsidise so much more because that poor person earned only between
$160 000 and $180 000, and they had to sell the jetski! I know we are arguing around the periphery and that
members will always find examples in which it might not be the case —
Mr J. NORBERGER: I know the minister will talk about apprenticeships. I am just referring to opposition
members. I am referring to what was said recently. I do not know whether it was a gentleman or a lady in the
member for Albany’s example—it was not disclosed—but they came back after working up north. He or she
already had a certificate IV qualification. Because they have now been laid off, they want to upgrade their
qualification to a diploma. Good on them; I appreciate and admire that. Somewhere along the line, apparently,
with everything that was happening with the fees, it was unfair that that person would be asked to pay
20 per cent towards their diploma. The other thing that was not mentioned is that at the level of diploma and
above—a diploma or an advanced diploma—that individual could have applied for a higher education
contribution scheme equivalent–type scheme; I think it is called FEE-HELP. They would not have had any upfront costs at all. They could have completed the training without paying up-front costs. If that diploma led to
gainful re-employment, hopefully in a higher earning capacity, once they earn over $50 000 the money is repaid.
I do not understand what is wrong with that.
Ms M.M. Quirk: A lot of courses would not reap those sorts of wages.
Mr J. NORBERGER: Member for Girrawheen, I am talking about the example given by the member for
Albany. That is all I am doing. If the member has an issue with it, she should talk to the member for Albany.
The member for Albany’s example on this motion was a FIFO worker who had earned over $100 000. I saw
firsthand how much they earned. He or she lost their job, and I am sorry for that. They already have
a certificate IV and they want to upgrade to a diploma, which I applaud. The state says, “I’ll tell you what; we’ll
subsidise 80 per cent to further your career”, which is great, but apparently the FIFO worker said, “I’m not
happy that I’ve got to pay the 20 per cent.” Even then, we say, “Hang on; we’ll even allow you not to have any
up-front costs.” It is a bit like a person attending university; they do the course and if they do not get a job
afterwards, in theory they will never repay the money and the government will be left footing the bill. But if they
get a job and earn over $50 000—this is no different from any uni graduate—bit by bit they pay us back. I do not
have an issue with that.
702
The other example given by the member for Albany related to one of his constituents, I assume, who currently
holds a certificate III in child care. I have phenomenal respect for childcare workers. The example that the
member for Albany gave applies to me. My wife and I both work full time. We take turns in the morning
dropping my little three-year-old at child care. In this very chamber I made a 90-second member statement
expressing my phenomenal gratitude to the very childcare centre we go to and to the childcare workers to whom
we entrust, really, our most precious possession, if I can even call him that, my son Daniel. I drop him off in the
mornings, teary as it might be, and he gets loved and doted upon and educated. I have phenomenal respect for
childcare workers. When someone is already in that industry, which I think has to be a personal calling, and
decides they have an opportunity to do a diploma, do not quote me, but I think a diploma-level qualification can
open up career opportunities at a supervisory level. I am about to get called to order. It would have been a really
good argument, Madam Acting Speaker, but, all right, I will not go there. It does not matter.
Remember, help with fees was available. The person wanted to do a diploma, but did not end up doing the
diploma because—the member for Albany even admitted this—they did not want to get indebted. Golly; okay—
so what are we saying to our university students? If we want to have a philosophical argument, does the
Labor Party believe in and will it commit to a policy position federally that all university courses should be free?
I do not understand how we can say that it is okay for university students to be indebted over the course of their
studies and to pay that money back to the federal government when they get a job, but a person’s only stumbling
block to doing a TAFE diploma, clearly knowing in this example that they had FEE-HELP available, is that they
did not want to be indebted.
Why? The member for Albany went on and said that that person knew that once they got the diploma, they were
going to be reclassified, earn above $50 000 a year and have to pay back their debt. That is great; that is
fantastic. That person should be reclassified. We want them to get that pay rise and earn more money; it is the
whole notion of a person investing in their own future. To make out as though there is no support at all is just
rubbish. If a person is of secondary school age, the fee cap is still in place. There is a $410 per annum fee cap in
place for anyone of secondary school age wishing to do TAFE training. Lower income earners, and I do not
know the exact threshold, can get up to a further 50 per cent concession. Of course, we know that for diplomas
and above there are HECS-style loans.
Coming back to the member for Cockburn referring to TAFE as a second-class education, I disagree with that.
We have seen increased employability and increased recognition by employers of the value of TAFE courses.
I have also noticed, certainly in my electorate, a huge increase in cooperation between universities and TAFEs.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr J. NORBERGER: More and more these days, higher TAFE courses such as a diploma or an advanced
diploma, depending on the course, can easily count as credit for the entire first year of an equivalent university
course. Let me give an example. One course offered at West Coast Institute of Training is a diploma in nursing.
We have heard that that is a three-semester course with a fee of roughly $2 700 a semester. That is a diploma
course, so the fees do not need to be paid up-front. By doing a diploma in nursing, a person is getting, I believe,
a first-class education at a great training institute in West Coast. When that person graduates as a level 1 enrolled
nurse, according to the awards scale, they will start off straightaway on $54 000 per annum before penalties.
Before penalties, shift allowances, overtime and all of that, the starting salary after having potentially left high
school and done 18 months of training at a first-class training institution is $54 000. So, yes, from the moment
they start, that person would be paying back their education—but I think that is great. Eighteen months ago that
person was potentially graduating from high school and now they are an enrolled nurse.
Furthermore, most universities will give recognition of prior learning or credit towards a nursing degree from
that diploma. If that person had gone straight to university, they would have paid at least as much for their study,
if not much more. What are university fees these days? Surely, we are looking at 15 grand, 20 grand or 25 grand
for a three-year degree. If the argument opposite is that the diploma should have been free or of negligible cost,
why would anyone do their first year at university? Why would everyone not just do their diploma of nursing
courtesy of the WA state government, and then just get that recognised by universities and then pay only for
years two and three of the university degree? I do not think that is a sensible argument.
It comes back to what I mentioned before. It is the discussion about opportunity cost. As a government, like any
government, we are charged with the efficient allocation of scarce resources. What are those scarce resources? They
are taxpayers’ moneys. We need hospitals, we need schools, we need police resources, we need transport
infrastructure and, yes, we also need to assist people with their training; that is part of it, but it cannot be the only
part. We need to look at what is fair and equitable for the allocation of taxpayers’ money, and whether we apply it
to get maximum value and a fair and sustainable—that is the other key word—model. Is something funded to the
tune of 93 per cent sustainable? Possibly not. That is not the case with the growing demand of our state. We can
quibble about whether we think the freeway should have been widened or the third lane should have been put in the
tunnel, but it is the job of government to look at the resources available and the demands of our society.
703
I will not rabbit on about this, but it is interesting that just last week we heard talk yet again from members
opposite in debate on the Premier’s Statement about the current impact on our budget by falling iron ore prices.
In the media we heard the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer say that if we were to go into
deficit, it would be inexcusable: there was no reason to have gone into deficit; it was entirely avoidable. I do not
want to repeat the speech I made last week, but it would be interesting to look at it. It is a big claim by members
opposite because they are basically saying that irrespective of falling iron ore prices and their volatility, the
government should never have counted on them in the first place—and shame on the government for even
thinking it could even budget on volatile iron ore revenue. They said that the Labor Party would never have
made that mistake and that it would have delivered surpluses. When we ask members of the Labor Party how
they would do that, they cannot answer. They do not know. All we know is that they want more of this, more of
that, more subsidies here and more support there, but we do not have a magic pot of money. No government
does. The Labor Party would not if it was in power.
At the end of the day, I support our TAFE system. I am proud of the TAFE system we have in Joondalup.
The member for Albany alluded to the fact that we all got a free education, but I do not think that is the case.
I will be honest. I am one of those people who did not get as high a tertiary entrance examination score as
I would have liked. I was very immature during high school. My parents got divorced and that probably threw
me around a bit. When I graduated year 12, I had to do my TEE, but I cannot remember my exact score. I do not
think it was flash, but it was over 300, which is a start, is it not? However, it certainly was not enough back then
to get into university. I could not get into university, so I went to TAFE. I went to Central TAFE here in Perth
and enrolled in an advanced diploma of applied science (computing). In that regard, the member of Albany is
right. I cannot remember how much I paid for my fees; it would not have been a huge amount. In fact, I got
Austudy as well, but on top of that I went out and got a job. My first job was earning $5.40 an hour working for
a company called Instant Gardens out the back of Wanneroo weeding the nursery. That was my start to my
working life. I never finished that course. I am more than happy to admit in this chamber that at that age, 18 or
19 years, I was too immature.
Mr C.J. Tallentire: Did you pay your Austudy back?
Mr J. NORBERGER: I would have, and I will come back to that. I did not finish that course; I ended up joining
the Air Force. Fast forward to when I was 26 years old, having matured a bit I decided I wanted to advance
myself. At that stage I had no qualifications; I had nothing. I thought: I want to advance and improve myself.
I went to Curtin University as a mature-age student to do a degree in accounting and finance. At that stage I was
already working, so I have no HECS debt, as I was literally paying for my units up-front. The member for
Albany said that we all got a free education; I did not. I might have had a year or so at TAFE that I squandered.
In hindsight, there may well be a bit of truth in what Hon Terry Redman said, but in my case, certainly, I did not
make the most of that opportunity and later in life I have paid my way ever since. I have no regrets about that;
I do not think that that is wrong. I think that is exactly how it should have been. I was earning a wage and I
wanted to improve myself.
I know we will shortly hear from the minister, especially in and around some of the claims that have been made
about apprenticeships. I worked in the industry around traineeships and my recollection is that our traineeship
students never paid a cent. Their fees were paid by their employer. The wonderful Indigenous people on the
traineeships that I helped to manage and was very proud to be a part of earned an income from day one—on
average $90 000 a year. Admittedly, that was in the resources industry. It was with Karajarri people in
Port Hedland—I hope I pronounced that correctly—and the Martu people in Newman. They are wonderful
people who were sick and tired of taking course after course. They had more tickets than you could poke a stick
at, but no-one would give them a job. The traineeship program we were involved with—we administered it—
was through BHP Billiton, and credit goes to BHP for that. BHP held the view that that was rubbish and that
these people did not need more tickets; they needed employment. As a group training organisation, we took
people on board and on average they earned between $80 000 and $90 000 a year from day one. We put them
through either certificate II or III level in civil construction, open-cut mining, and some of the girls did certificate
III in business and site clerk work. When they graduated at the end of the program, we had a huge uptake of
graduates by the host companies, and they went on to earn $160 000-plus a year. I am happy for them and they
deserved it; they were working four weeks on, one week off, which is not an easy roster in the construction
industry.
My experience has not been with apprenticeships, which I am sure the minister will talk about. It comes back to
the final philosophical argument that we are not abandoning the VET sector. I know that the minister feels
extremely proud of the VET sector—as I do. I am very proud of our TAFE system and the trainers who work in
that sector. We are continuing to subsidise people’s training on average to 80 per cent of the total cost and to
provide additional forms of assistance through FEE-HELP, discounts for those on low incomes and the cap for
school-age students. To say that we have abandoned the industry is a little bit rich. We are putting funding where
we know it will result in the jobs that are needed and the skills asked for by industry. If people want to do
704
something else, I think it is outstanding that our training providers provide such a rich variety of courses, such as
stone therapy massage, calligraphy and spray tanning. That is great, and we should have as many options as
possible available, but not all are in hot demand. If people want to do those courses, they should pay full fees for
them, because potentially they are almost studying them as a hobby. We provide FEE-HELP for apprenticeships
for plumbing and carpentry and some diploma courses because we know that there are jobs for people at the end.
At the end of the day, I very much appreciate the member for Cockburn’s passion for this subject. I think it is a
passion that we share. I know we obviously look at it slightly differently in some respects, and I appreciate that
as well. Having heard some of the examples given, I felt that it was important to look at the flipside of the
issue—and I thank the house for giving me the opportunity to share some of my thoughts on this matter.
MS J. FARRER (Kimberley) [5.34 pm]: I rise to support the member for Cockburn’s motion. I would like to
speak for the people of the Kimberley who feel that they are very disadvantaged in pursuing higher education
because a lot of the courses they look for in TAFE are not available. The region’s only university, the
University of Notre Dame Australia, supplied a lot of courses for people, but the university recently modified its
services and no longer delivers the courses it once did. Due to distance and the financial cost of travel and
accommodation, it has proven challenging for Kimberley locals to study through another university, although
that is now their only option. People across the Kimberley in the remote communities, those Aboriginal people,
were told that they have to make work available to look after their communities. Some such people attended the
Kimberley Training Institute Broome Campus and Notre Dame campus where they could take up the courses
they wanted to do to help their communities. But because of the changes at Notre Dame, they can no longer
pursue some of the things they want to do to get a better paid job instead of living on unemployment benefits.
Notre Dame is a special place that was set up to accommodate the needs of those people with courses in enrolled
nursing and bookkeeping for the financial work that Aboriginal people take on in their communities. But we
have seen some changes since then.
The Kimberley TAFE has always provided a great alternative for locals across the Kimberley. In my town there
is a TAFE facility but the intake and number of people who can apply is restricted. There is a deadline for how
many people it can take for the courses that are available. In the years when I could not find work anywhere,
I applied to TAFE to do some courses in ecotourism, which are courses that I believe would have benefited a lot
of our people. But because the course was not administered through that TAFE, we were told it could not be
done anywhere except at the TAFE in Broome—and the lecturer who taught that course was not able to come
further because of the distances involved.
Many people see TAFE as an affordable and local solution to gain qualifications to enhance their career
prospects. We have seen this with a lot of the young Aboriginal men who took on courses such as driving
forklifts, machine operating and driving big trucks to qualify to get jobs in the mines, but some of those courses
are not available anymore. For the ones who were able to do those courses, they have qualified and have got
work with some of the mines, but some of those courses have been taken away for the majority of people. We
talk about upskilling our people, and these are the courses that our people need, but we find that the fees for
TAFE courses are so high that people cannot afford to pay them. I would like to make that point very clear: this
Barnett government has now shattered those people’s prospects with this outrageous decision to skyrocket TAFE
fees. That is what a lot of people in the Kimberley are saying. They do not have the opportunity to further
enhance their skills and qualifications to bring them to the level so that they can also qualify.
Mr J.R. Quigley: Can’t they just go out and sell their jet skis?
Ms J. FARRER: Where I come from we do not have jet skis.
Students who are enrolled to commence study in a childcare course must now pay $7 000 more than was paid by
previous students. In places such as Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing, there is a great need for qualified local
people. However, because the local people cannot afford to do their training through TAFE, because of the cost,
those people are not there. It has been reported that the childcare centre in Fitzroy Crossing cannot find local
qualified staff and has to advertise interstate and overseas for workers. That is also the case with aged people’s
homes. They have to advertise for staff all over the place, and many of the people who are working in these
places are people from overseas. That is because courses are not available to upskill our local people. Therefore,
most of these jobs are taken away from them.
The government’s decision to increase fees for the majority of TAFE courses has crippled the potential to grow
the local workforce in the Kimberley. A lot of our young people have not gone to high school, and TAFE has
been their only link in helping them to acquire the skills that they require. However, we are seeing more and
more that a lot of these young people do not have the money to go to TAFE. We would like to see local people
get local jobs. We believe that the money that grows in our area should stay in our area. However, most of the
money, along with the work, goes out of the area. We are talking about growing the Kimberley. We want young
people to be able to stay in the Kimberley and not have to leave the region to look for work in the city or
elsewhere. Time and again, people come and talk to us about how they feel and how they would like to do a lot
705
more for their families but they are not able to. Recently, a young woman came to see me, and I will quote what
she said —
I work every day to afford to live. I have no option but to work and hold off studying, as now I could
never pay the fees. I am depressed that I may never get a better job or more money, because I can’t
financially afford to stop working or pay the fees to start studying. I feel stuck in this situation.
That comes from a young mother who is the sole carer of her children. I can honestly say that I understand that
very well. One of my girls has two little ones, and she had to leave her job because she could not put her children
into child care, not only because there were no vacancies, as there was not a qualified childcare supervisor or
manager, but also because she could not afford the fees.
It seems to be a cycle that if people have money, they can get a better education and better jobs and better pay.
We see that in a lot of places. The Barnett government’s policy means that the rich will get an education and
become richer, and the poor will stay poor, with fewer education opportunities and employment prospects.
I believe this is not fair. More opportunities need to be created and made available to all who desire higher
education—not fewer options for a fewer number of people. The Barnett government needs to spend money
where it matters. Education and training, and employment opportunities, for our youth is what matters. People in
regional Western Australia deserve the same opportunities as people in Perth. Our young people cannot choose
to go to university or college. TAFE is the lifeline in education for a lot of our people in the Kimberley. I want to
make that point very clearly. I cannot just say to my kids and grandkids that they should go to that university or
that college, because a lot of money is involved.
I believe that a residential agricultural college should be established in the Kimberley. I have been lobbying
groups and talking to different people for some time to support the establishment of a residential agricultural
college based in the Kimberley. This college could provide agricultural experience and training for high school
students, who could attend as boarders from across the country. This college could also provide all the necessary
skills for students to enter into career fields such as agriculture and horticulture, or the international cattle
industry, or they could become a vet, which is something that is needed in the Kimberley. It would also create
pathways towards many more employment options. I believe this would provide opportunities for the Kimberley
region in supporting local training and employment and would boost the economy of the Kimberley. This college
could support more local people, and other Australians, to become involved in the Ord irrigation scheme and the
Water for Food projects. A concept such as this could enable a lot of our young people, whether they are
Indigenous or non-Indigenous, to find employment, because it would boost their enthusiasm to attend school and
to learn so that they can receive an education.
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [5.47 pm]: I want to make a few brief comments about this issue because,
more than anything else, this increase in TAFE fees indicates how heartless and how out of touch this
government is with ordinary families in the community. The first point is that there are families in my electorate
who are absolutely struggling with the current cost of living. The amount of money that they now have to pay for
housing has become an astronomically high proportion of their income. No matter whether they are pensioners
or the beneficiaries of social security, or whether they are ordinary working families, people are struggling to
meet their household costs. The cost of housing is the first and biggest cost for most people, whether that is
mortgage payments, if they are fortunate enough to own their home, or rental payments, if they are in that
situation. On top of that, people have had massive hikes in utility fees for electricity, gas and water. Water bills
are now arriving every two months. On top of that, this government has withdrawn some of the supports that
people used to get for their family. Members will remember the It Pays to Learn allowance that all high school
students used to get during the time of the Gallop and Carpenter governments. That allowance has been removed
by this government. That is a support that families used to get at the start of the year and that they now do not
get. People are really struggling. I wanted to make that point with respect to young people and the overall cost of
living.
The second point I want to make is that whether people are from a low socioeconomic background, or whether
they have been a new migrant to this country at any time since this country’s inception, just about, their one
ticket out of poverty was an education, getting some training and skills, or doing an apprenticeship. What
Australia offered to so many migrant groups over so many years was that if they worked hard, went to school,
got an education or did a trade, there were great opportunities in this country for them. But, sadly, this
government is locking people into poverty, because it is not affording them the opportunity to get an education.
It is all very well to talk just about young people. Young people are, of course, very important. Providing people
aged 17, 18 and 19 with the opportunity to get some skills can set them on the path to become self-sufficient,
earn a good living and make a great contribution to the community. If however it is too difficult or costly for
them to gain the skills they require, they become locked into doing menial work. Ironically, we then end up with
a skills shortage in many areas. The Liberal Party’s solution for that is to just bring in more 457 visa workers.
I am appalled that the government is apparently bringing in 457 visa workers to work at the Midland Public
706
Hospital, when there are people currently working at Swan District Hospital who have not been given an offer of
a job there. That concerns me.
In the brief time I have left to speak, I want to highlight a couple of other issues. One is in the portfolio area of
culture and the arts. There is probably no greater losing area in the TAFE sector than the area of the arts.
We have lost our art course at what is still referred to locally as the Midland TAFE, rather than
Polytechnic West, or whatever name it is currently going under. We used to have a very well regarded art course
there, but it has been withdrawn over the last couple of years. Many young people will miss out on the
opportunity that others have previously had to develop their artistic and creative talents. The government might
regard that as some kind of luxury, but I do not think so. I think developing the creative talents of everyone in
our community, including young people, is very important. As most people in the arts area will know, training in
the arts does not necessarily lead to a well-paid job; not everybody becomes a great sculptor or painter, but
I have spoken to some celebrated artists in the Midland and Swan region who have been beneficiaries of the
TAFE system and are now recognised at a national level, in some cases. People might say, “They’ve done very
well; therefore, they can afford to put back into the community.” Those individuals probably have, but they have
given back to the community already in so many different ways. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people
were the beneficiaries of those courses, but they have been cut. There will be less creativity and fewer people
engaging with the arts because they simply will not be able to afford to do so.
A lot of constituents come to see me, including a lot of young people and parents, but I want to highlight the case
of a middle-aged woman working in the food industry—I will not identify the particular business—serving
lunches and dinners at a particular establishment in my electorate. She is a migrant who has been in Australia for
a number of years, trying to better herself and to provide opportunities for her children into the future. She has
been doing a social work course and is in her second year. This year her TAFE fees were so high that she could
not continue the course. It is all very well for the member for Joondalup to say, “Well, if you do nursing or
something else, you can potentially upgrade your wage to $54 000 a year.” I do not know what this woman
earns, but she is working long hours and earning perhaps three-quarters or thereabouts of that wage at the
moment. However, she has to pay rent. She is not like the member of the Joondalup, who probably lived at home
when he was studying and had his parents covering his rent and food. I would expect that a low rent is currently
between $300 and $400 a week. Well, $300 a week is $15 000 a year; $400 a week is $20 000 a year, so if you
earn, say, $54 000, you have to pay your tax and after you have taken your rent out, I do not know how people
would be able to afford to pay the rest of their bills or afford to do anything, let alone pay very high TAFE fees.
I just point out that this heartless government is denying opportunities to a lot of migrants, particularly migrant
women and other people in low socioeconomic circumstances. Although it may be that young people aged 17,
18 or 19 years can effectively get sponsorship and support from their parents, it is not the case for migrants or
single mums who have to send their children to school and work full time and go to TAFE, which many people
struggle to do. The moment they add into the equation having to come up with up to $5 000 or more per semester
for their education, it becomes impossible. Over a two or three-year period, that is $20 000. That is more money
than they can afford to pay, which just locks them into working in positions for which they do not need
a qualification. I have heard about a lot of other similar circumstances, so I just think this is particularly
heartless.
The comments made by the member for Joondalup really need to be exposed; he joked about FIFO workers
having accumulated assets and having to sell off their jet skis to pay their TAFE fees. I think it is pretty heartless
and horrendous for the member for Joondalup to make light of FIFO workers who have lost their job. I will tell
members what is happening in my electorate at the moment. MIDLAS, the Midland Information, Debt and
Legal Advocacy Service Inc, is currently absolutely swamped with people who have huge financial issues that
they are trying to work through and sort out. The biggest increase in demand for MIDLAS is from FIFO people
who have lost their jobs. They are often in situations in which, because of their previously high earning capacity,
they have signed up to significant debt. They are not able to keep any jet skis or luxury items; they are all gone.
These are people who are looking at a potential mortgagee sale of their home, losing their car, and not being able
to afford the basic necessities for themselves and their families. They are in shocking debt situations, so I do not
know how the member for Joondalup can come out with these trite words that are frankly insulting to people
who find themselves unemployed. I do not think it is funny; I think it is a very serious matter for people to have
unexpectedly lost their jobs, and some of them lost their jobs to 457 visa workers.
I have heard of at least two separate situations in which people have lost their jobs to 457 visa workers. I was
made aware of the circumstances of one fellow who lost his FIFO job about three years ago, and found out from
some of his former colleagues that he had been replaced by 457 visa workers who were being paid significantly
less than he had formerly been paid. Three years ago he was able to get another FIFO job because there was
plenty of work available at that time, but again a few months ago he and his mates in one particular area were
told that there was no longer a job for them and that they were surplus to requirements. Again, he has since
found out that that company has taken in 457 visa workers who are being paid significantly less. People like him
707
still have mortgages to pay, children to send to school, utilities to pay and council rates. They still have to meet
all those bill payments and they simply cannot do it on unemployment benefits. That means that if they want to
retrain, it is not a simple matter of selling a jet ski; it is a matter of, “How do I pay off this debt and still keep my
car so that I can drive my children to the doctor’s or wherever?”The prospect of going to TAFE is absolutely
unaffordable for them. Those kinds of comments show us how completely out of touch members on the
government side are.
I said I would speak briefly, and I believe I have. In summary, the Liberal Party is totally out of touch with what
it is like for ordinary people and their cost of living. The Liberal Party is relegating young people, migrants,
Indigenous people, as mentioned by the member for Kimberley, and other people with a low socioeconomic
status to a life locked into poverty and menial work, rather than being able to better themselves and contribute.
To my way of thinking, it is un-Australian. This is not the land of opportunity that used to exist in the 1950s,
60s, 70s, 80s or 90s, when people could get a good education or learn a trade very affordably and could better
themselves. It is a very sad thing that the massive increases in TAFE fees have, without warning, left a lot of
people stranded, including people in my electorate who have had to discontinue their courses and have no option
but to keep working in menial jobs.
MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah) [6.01 pm]: I was perplexed by the comments of the member for
Joondalup tonight. He did a very dangerous thing in his contribution as an apologist for the Liberal-National
government and what it has failed to deliver in training in Western Australia, and he did a great disservice to his
electorate of Joondalup. Many, many young families call Joondalup home. Many young people in those families
are seeking to embark on a career path, and for many of those people that career path involves accessing TAFE
courses. The member for Joondalup came into this place today and was the great apologist for the government,
while failing to recognise the genuine impact that cuts to TAFE and the huge increase in fees are having on
people in his and other electorates in the metropolitan area and on people in regional Western Australia. What
a stupid thing he did. I do not know who put him up to it, but I tell members it was one of the worst
performances in terms of representing our communities that I have ever heard. It showed appalling ignorance,
and he fell for the three-card trick: he had to get up and defend the indefensible. There has been a conga line of
training ministers under the Liberal-National government since 2008. The member for Cockburn made that very
clear and highlighted it. The current minister is the latest in that conga line. Her predecessor, the member for
Dawesville, should hang his head in shame for the pathetic performance he gave as Minister for Training and
Workforce Development. The minister before him, the National Party leader, was appalling. As the member for
Cockburn said, the government bought Treasury’s argument box and dice, and now genuine people in our
communities—young people and not-so-young people—are suffering every day. They now have huge
impediments to their future training. There is now a disaster not only in apprenticeship training in this state, but
also for people, including single parents, who are seeking to improve their education and training so that they
can take that step up and get a job that will make a difference for them and their families. Young people seeking
out a career path are finding—the government having boosted fees by hundreds of a per cent—that fees or
course costs that were a couple of hundred dollars are now a couple of thousand dollars, and most of them are
paying them up-front. People in the government, including the new members and backbenchers over there, sit
there with their rose-coloured glasses on. They are not listening to their own communities, and they will pay for
it.
I have selected a few examples of real people in my community, but they are also examples of real people in the
minister’s community and all communities represented in this Parliament—people in the member for
Kimberley’s community, people in the member for Maylands’ community and people in the member for
Gosnells’ community. All of us have people in our electorates like the ones I am going to highlight, because the
minister is sitting on a disaster and she is doing nothing about it. Real people are being affected by what the
minister is doing by sitting on her hands and simply accepting Treasury’s bunkum and not realising that genuine
people are affected by these disastrous changes to TAFE, particularly the appalling increases in course fees.
I want to highlight a couple of examples of the effect they have in my electorate.
I will start with a grandmother called Joy Ware from Mandurah; she lives in the member for Dawesville’s
electorate. Joy and her husband, Terry, because they believe in education have, like many grandparents, taken in
their grand-daughter who was educated in Northam. Many more grandparents in our communities are doing
this—taking in their grandchildren and giving them a hand. Their young grand-daughter who graduated from
Northam Senior High School was seeking to further her education through TAFE, so what did she do? Like
many thousands of people—many thousands of young people in particular—she went along to the course open
day to sign on. Joy told me the story. She went there with her grand-daughter to sign on for a certificate II
course. She went through the process of filling out the application, and then there was the fee. It was nearly
$3 000 for the course. They were gobsmacked, but they were not the only ones in the room who were. They were
shocked!
Mrs L.M. Harvey: How much was the course?
708
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: It was nearly $3 000 for this course. They were gobsmacked, but they were not the
only ones, particularly in an area like Peel where there are so many people on fixed and low incomes who are
seeking to make a better pathway for themselves but get slapped with a $3 000 course fee. In Joy’s case it was an
up-front cost. She had to pay there and then or her grand-daughter would not have been on the list or enrolled.
Because Joy is a great grandparent and she is on a fixed income, she got the credit card out and paid it herself.
I reckon that story has been repeated around this state this year and last year when this government—this
Premier—allowed this appalling thing to happen to TAFE in Western Australia. She paid the fees, but she said
that the gut-wrenching thing was that when she looked around, the longest line, apart from those who had just
signed up, was the line seeking advice and assistance from the officer there who might have been able to help
people who might be eligible for fee relief. As we know, with a number of these courses people who do not fit
the eligibility test have to pay up or they do not sign on. She said she saw a countless number—dozens and
dozens—of young people, some with their parents, some by themselves, some with their mates, and some of
them, like this young lady, with their grandmother. They were desperate. If you guys over there in the
government do not think this is real, you are living in la-la land, because it is real! This is one grandmother.
I reckon there are hundreds of examples like that.
Let me read from an email from Mr Jamie Jones of Mandurah. I have known him for a little while. He has been
the P&C president at North Mandurah Primary School and was heavily involved in sport and a range of
community initiatives. He is a very positive man and believes in supporting young people. In his email to me he
states —
Now your question comes about them —
That is the government —
putting up TAFE fees to the thousands of students and adults trying to better their careers and lively
hoods and make their families live a little better with a better paying job. Most of these people are
average wage earners and with paying rents and mortgages trying to feed clothe and support their
families.
So I guess the question has to be asked if the education department and the minister don’t know what is
going on in their own departments —
That was a key point made by the member for Cockburn. To continue —
and meetings how do they know to put up fees for an education system that they have no idea of what
or how it works.
I am also involved in sport with the Peel District under the Western Australian Football Commission as
the Peel District Mulga Team Manager for indigenous youth aged between 13 and 15. These boys are
all indigenous and come from as far north as Rockingham as far east as Waroona and as far south as
Australind.
Most of the indigenous families I have had the opportunity of meeting and working closely with all
have the best intentions for their boys.
They have the same dreams as you and me a better life for their children than what they had, get a fine
education and find a good job and have a family and live a nice life. So with fee rises how do these
families afford for their children to attend TAFE to study for better paying jobs.
Some of these boys have excelled at school and some have now got themselves full employment and
a couple now have apprenticeships some have gone the wrong way and some are going that way but
with the staff of this program and some good mentoring the success stories outweigh the bad.
What of the future for not just our indigenous community but all our youth in the Peel area if they can’t
afford TAFE fees to better themselves. I try to help all and any children and youth in our community to
be better citizens and better students by going to school and getting an education and making their lives
better than what they would have been.
I am on a fairly decent wage and I and my wife volunteer in the community all year and I have got to
see the good and bad and sad in our community and with a mortgage and bills and kids schooling and
swimming and sport the money only goes so far. My wife would like to do an education course at
TAFE to help out at school but it is simply too expensive for us to pay for her to do it.
That was from Mr James Jones of Mandurah. He puts the situation in context. Genuine families are now finding
out what the Liberal–National government has done to them by putting up these fees and putting an impediment
in front of people who are simply seeking to find a pathway to good quality jobs and good employment so they
can then support their families. Members opposite sit there, and backbenchers are so frustrating because they do
nothing but articulate from the mouth of their Premier, who does not care about them in the end.
Mr J.R. Quigley: He won’t be there.
709
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Of course not. He will retire from this place with a beautiful superannuation scheme.
He does not care. It is upon the backbenchers of the Liberal Party and National Party members, who supposedly
represent and support the people of regional Western Australia, to stand up against that man who is creating
a disaster in education and training in Western Australia. The training and apprenticeship situation is a debacle,
yet they are sitting back and blindly following him because they will not stand up to him. A lot of them will pay
at the next election. I hope a lot of them will pay at the next election so that we will be on that side because our
commitment to TAFE is a strong training and apprenticeship scheme in Western Australia that genuinely
delivers opportunities to people. I will tell members opposite one thing: under Labor, TAFE fees will be much
less. They will not be the sorts of fees members opposite have jumped them up to in their pathetic handling of
that portfolio.
I want to finish with an example of an employer, because it is important we understand that this policy is
affecting not only people seeking to go into employment and follow career paths, but also employers. I want to
highlight what Mr Peter Bensley, a senior massage therapist at Applied Body Therapeutics in Mandurah said. He
wrote to me and articulated in his email the effect that the government’s cuts and the minister’s pathetic handling
of the training portfolio is having on his capacity, as a local small business, to employ people in his profession.
Mr Bensley wrote —
Hi David,
I saw your Facebook post regarding the Barnett Govt having dramatically increased fees for many
TAFE courses.
My wife and I have used their services in the past. The email continues —
We have been operating in Mandurah for 14 years now and we have a well established Clinic in
Cooper Street, Mandurah and we employ a staff of 12. We employ therapists who attain a Diploma of
Remedial Massage through the TAFE or private college system. Generally they complete CERT IV
portion of the course first then continue on to complete the Diploma.
From an employers point of the view, the proposed changes made by the Barnett Government to
increase the fees for TAFE courses have directly impacted on our ability to find qualified remedial
massage therapists.
We had a representative from the Beaconsfield TAFE (Fremantle) who coordinates the Diploma of
Remedial Massage course, visit us in November 2013 when these changes were being implemented by
the Government. We were warned then that due to these proposed increase in fees, they were
anticipating a significant drop in potential students taking up the course because many couldn’t afford
the initial outlay.
This is from an employer, minister. He goes on —
This would impact on our industry’s future ability to find enough qualified therapists to meet the
demand.
Well, 15 months later we find ourselves in the situation where we have been advertising for 3 months
now for qualified therapists with no luck. We have been in contact with Beaconsfield TAFE
(Fremantle) and again, they are telling us that the cannot produce enough therapists so ‘join the queue’
of businesses like ours, chasing staff.
Add the geographical issue we have with Mandurah being 1 step further down the road from Perth, and
we are in a situation where we have so much work we can’t keep up and not enough therapists to do the
work. The current demand for our services is so high we could expand and employ even more
Western Australians, but there are not enough people taking up the course.
I can only see this situation getting worse and we have even resorted to interviewing applicants from
overseas and inter-state. We just aren’t getting anybody from WA applying.
This seems to be a short sighted decision by the current Government and if something isn’t done about
it, the supply of qualified therapists being produced will continue to dwindle and stifle growth in our
industry.
Why is the minister not listening? Why?
Mr J.R. Quigley: Because she doesn’t care!
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: Why? This employer wants to employ more Western Australians. The minister’s
changes to the TAFE system prevent it. As Mr Bensley said, it will only get worse. Why should he have to
search interstate, and even overseas, for jobs that can be delivered and created here in Western Australia?
The Minister for Training and Workforce Development is overseeing a disaster. The minister has her hands on
710
the rudder but she is doing nothing about it. I fear it has already hit the iceberg. The minister knows that course
enrolments have already dropped 26 per cent. Surely, the minister needs no other indicators to tell her that this
situation is unacceptable. The minister has to take control and stand up to that fellow who sits next to her—the
arrogant Premier of this state. For goodness sake, backbenchers of the Liberal Party, before you end up being the
rats that start jumping into the water because the boat is sinking stand up for your communities! Stand up for the
young men and women who want to have a future, who have a willingness to work hard and follow a career
path. They should stand up for the single parents in their communities who realise that they need to look at how
they can retrain or improve their skills to get jobs to provide for their families. They should stand up for the
grandparents of the world who are looking after grandchildren, paying for their grandchildren and parenting for
a second time—people like Joy Ware of Mandurah—because they believe in education and training, and they
know that a well-skilled, well-trained young person is far better placed to pursue a life that brings with it all the
benefits of knowing that they can have good and quality employment. Government backbenchers have
a responsibility to represent their communities. They should not do what the member for Joondalup did earlier
this afternoon and make excuses and even blame some of these people. What did he say? He said, “Sell your jet
ski.” Goodness gracious! Who is he listening to? For goodness sake, stand up for the people who need a quality,
affordable training system in Western Australia, because that is the responsibility of the elected members of this
place; they should not just follow blindly the hollow words of the Premier and the hollow words of the conga
line of training ministers that we have had since 2008.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [6.22 pm]: I am pleased to speak on and support the motion of the member
for Cockburn that this house condemns the Barnett government for its massive increase in TAFE course fees and
its sustained undermining of TAFE. I am pleased that the Minister for Training and Workforce Development is
looking to get to her feet on this issue. She has been in the role for some time now and I see that she has been
taking careful note of things. I hope that through the course of this debate she has learnt about the situation that
people are facing when it comes to going to TAFE, paying for TAFE courses and finding that a career path that
they had hoped for, a training opportunity that they had been wishing for, has suddenly been taken away from
them due to excessive costs. These cost increases have come as a total surprise to people. They had anticipated
a fee of some sort, but when they applied for their courses, they found that the cost was significantly more than
they had ever thought; in many cases it is double or many times more than it was previously. These price hikes
on TAFE fees have happened under this government, so the minister, as part of this government, sitting around
the cabinet table and now as the minister for TAFE, is responsible for these price hikes. They are price hikes that
cause people to think twice about getting a higher education. It puts them off and makes them look at other
options; it makes them think that working in a fast-food outlet is all that they can actually afford at this point in
time, when really they are crying out for the opportunity to get extra skills to make a more meaningful
contribution to our community. They do not want to stay as the flippers of burgers; they want to be able to go
onto better things. However, if they are not allowed to do the courses and if they are not allowed to get that
essential training, it just cannot happen.
I know of people in my electorate who thought that they just had that perfect opportunity to get a skill together
and it has been ripped away from them, or they have had to undergo incredible financial sacrifice to pursue
a particular course of study. I think about the case of Jason Kowalski. I know Jason’s mum, Diane Kowalski,
very well. She is the president of the Southern River College P&C. The Kowalski family values education and
encourages their children to do whatever they can to get the skills together to improve their capacity to have
a good job and to make a good contribution to our community. Jason enrolled for a certificate II cabinet
furniture–making course at TAFE and had anticipated that the cost of that six-month course would be $1 500. He
went along to enrol and was told the course would cost $3 000. This government has doubled the cost of learning
to be a cabinet-maker—a six-month course that contributes to the building industry and this growing need we
have for housing. We know about 20 000 new dwellings are built each year and the industry is crying out for
people with good skills, yet the government has doubled the cost of acquiring one of the key skills that go into
the industry. Jason, to his absolute credit, was so determined to get those skills together that he decided he would
sign on to the course costing $3 000, and although it was incredibly difficult for him, he managed to pay off the
amount on a fortnightly basis. He enjoyed the course, but like many young people, now that he has completed
his course, he is wondering whether he could perhaps look at something else in the building industry. That is
perfectly reasonable and he has good foundation and experience from cabinet-making, but the government has
just provided the perfect disincentive for a young person to want to go on to develop further skills in the building
sector.
I go to other examples from my electorate such as that of Lauren Adams, who has enrolled in a certificate III
course to do education support. I know Lauren’s mum, Karen Adams, well too. She is the former parents and
citizens association president at Ashburton Drive Primary School and she did a fantastic job there. If Lauren is
anything like her mum, she will have thought about how she will continue her education so she has a really good
skill base. She has identified a career she is interested in—that is, being involved in education and helping kids
who might be struggling at school by being on the education support staff. That is a fantastic choice. Lauren
711
went to enrol for the course in January this year and, first of all, she found that a course that had previously cost
$600 for six months had gone up to $2 740. To make matters worse, she just missed out on getting the under-18
concession. She missed out by three months because when she enrolled in January she was 17 years and
nine months of age, but she had to be 17 years and six months of age or younger to be eligible for the under-18
concession. The fact that she is under 18 does not seem to matter. It has something to do with some cut-off date
and so she missed out. She is doing this course, but as Karen Adams, her mum, said to me, this is exactly the sort
of thing that turns people off doing further education. Is that what we want in our society, to be turning people
off doing higher education?
I also think of the struggles and pressures that I know TAFE teachers face—increasing class sizes, less resources,
and often machinery and equipment that needs replacing. They should not be left with those challenges. They
should be able to provide the very latest facilities that will help them communicate with their students. That is
only reasonable.
I go to another example from my electorate, the case of the Eastley family. David and Jenn Eastley do the very
best for their children, but it is a struggle. They are on a very low fixed income and Rochelle, their daughter, also
wanted to be a cabinet-maker. Rochelle is really keen to be involved in building houses. That is what she wants
to do. It is perhaps an unusual career choice for a young woman, but it is something she is really passionate
about. They live in Corfield Street in Gosnells and they realised that the Thornlie TAFE, Polytechnic West, was
running the perfect course for Rochelle. They had a look at the prices, thinking that it would be perhaps around
the $1 000 mark, but then they got a kick in the guts when they found that it would be $3 000. Jason Kowalski
was also told it is $3 000 for six months. If someone does not pay, they cannot do the course. That is simply too
big a debt. In the case of Rochelle it meant, unfortunately, that she has not been able to go ahead with the course.
It is simply too big an impost on a family that is really struggling to get funds together. Where does that leave
Rochelle? It leaves her in some sort of trap of temporary minimum-wage casual work with conditions that cause
instability. It is exactly what this young person does not need. She needs the opportunity to develop her skills,
plan a career and pursue her passion to be involved in the building industry. As we know, the building industry is
very male-dominated, so an opportunity for a young woman such as Rochelle to be involved would be an asset
to the industry, but the $3 000 price tag is too much.
I hear the comments from other members about how people can go to TAFE. I am pleased to see that the
member for Joondalup has come back into the chamber. I was in a situation similar to that of the member for
Joondalup. I also had to go to TAFE after school because my grades were not satisfactory. I went to
Leederville TAFE, as it was in 1981, and I had a wonderful education there, but the cost was not an issue as it
was free education. We had the benefit of that. I did not get Austudy, as the member for Joondalup did. These
people are not getting any kind of support for their studies. They are just being hit with massive fees. Surely we
should be advocating for a system that enables people who often have come from very difficult financial
situations to have the support they need. We should not be assuming that all people have riches.
The member gave an example of a jet ski sitting in the garage ready to be sold. We should not be telling people
to sell off things that, in the case of my constituents, they do not have. They do not have that sort of asset just
sitting around idle to flog off. These people are desperate to enter into some form of higher education. They want
to gain skills that will be with them for life, to use for the rest of their days. They want to build upon those skills
and perhaps become small business people, or work for one of the major building firms or, in the case of
Lauren Adams, the Department of Education. They could work in the private Catholic school education system
or wherever they choose, but they need to gain those skills. We should not be talking about the sacrifices that
they might have to make as though it is easily within reach. These people are really struggling. The sort of
sacrifice that the member is asking them to make is beyond their comprehension. They do not have those assets
that the member is talking about that they might be able to sell off. Those assets do not exist for these people.
It is a gross unfairness in the system.
I think of other people who have done a university degree and then found that that degree does not necessarily
lend itself to a position in the job market as it is today. I can think of one person in particular, Sara Saberi, who
did a degree in environmental management at Edith Cowan University and then went to TAFE to do a diploma
in occupational safety and health. She had that base of a degree but then needed to fine-tune it. To do a similar
course in occupational health and safety costs many thousands of dollars before she could have that fine-tuning
done to her skill set to enable her make a contribution in the jobs market.
Most of us in this chamber are of an age when we had these opportunities and benefited from free education.
When I first enrolled in a degree, I was one of those in that era who had no university fees to pay. It was
obviously an amazing opportunity that we had at that time and we did not appreciate it. Who are we to be now
saying, “Young people of today, you should have to pay huge amounts”? The amounts proportionate to the asset
base of the families involved are absolutely astronomical. Who are we to be saying that they should pay these
amounts? I believe it is hypocrisy. Given the way the member for Joondalup spoke about this matter, I do not see
712
how he can justify it. He admitted that he had received Austudy and that he did not have to pay it back. He was
able to take and take from the system, and he perhaps did not make the most of that opportunity. People make
mistakes, as young people do.
Mr J. Norberger: By way of interjection, member for Gosnells, that was my whole point. I cost the taxpayer
money for training that I never put to any use or good for this economy; so whatever training I did later on in
life, I paid for myself. Later in life I did find my niche, if you like, and I enjoyed it. I went and paid my own way
at university and I continue to do that right now.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: But the member for Joondalup was able to benefit from it. Perhaps he did not take full
advantage of it but he received a free education. He received Austudy from the state to assist him in his study
and now he is prepared to support these incredible costs associated with an education today. That is unfair.
Mr J. Norberger: No, no, no.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Is the member for Joondalup supporting a fee of $3 000 for a six-month course at
TAFE—yes or no?
Mr J. Norberger: The very course that I started —
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: No! Could the member for Joondalup answer my question? Is he supporting
a $3 000 TAFE fee for a six-month course to be a cabinet-maker?
Mr J. Norberger: What qualification is it?
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: It is a certificate II in cabinet-making. Does the member for Joondalup think that is
reasonable?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Member, can I interject? I am actually quite concerned about what you said because I do not
think that information is correct. Ordinarily, the cost of that certificate is $2 500 for the whole course. It is
actually normally done by way of an apprenticeship and it is a four-year apprenticeship.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I have two examples, minister.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: You can’t complete it in six months, so I think perhaps your constituent might need a little
bit more information, and I am happy to connect her with the TAFE.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I have two examples of people wanting to do that. I am not sure if they both wanted to
go to the same TAFE. However, I have information on Jason Kowalski who, as I say, paid fortnightly to do the
course at $3 000 for six months. He previously understood that it was going to be $1 500.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I have information on the case of Rochelle Eastley as well who was enrolled in the
six-month certificate II course in cabinet-making. I know for Rochelle it was at Thornlie TAFE, or Polytechnic
West. They were told that the charge would be $3 000 for six months. I can quote to the minister what
Rochelle’s mum, Jennifer Eastley, told me. She said —
“Whatever Rochelle chooses to do, she makes a good job of it.” Thornlie TAFE (Polytechnic West) had
a place for her, but they wanted to charge $3000 for 6-months—a two term course.
I understand two terms fits into six months. Am I correct on that, minister?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: It is therefore a six-month course at $3 000; that is what she is saying. Unfortunately,
Jennifer Eastley, Rochelle’s mum, went on to say —
That was the end of that. How can anybody take on a $3000 debt unless they have family wealthy
enough to cough up the fees? People who are not in that position are priced out of training and kept
from the skills that would benefit them, their families, the community and Australia.
It is grossly unfair. If the minister has some other information, I would be keen to hear it. But I have two
examples with this particular cabinet-making course that clearly indicate that the cost is $3 000, for a six-month
course.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Member, I think there might be some confusion about the duration of the semester as well,
so we might need to find out exactly what those two constituents of yours wanted to enrol in, and the information
that they were given. I think that some of the information that has been relayed to them does not sound right.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: The minister is right. It does not sound right at all.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: No, it does not sound right to me, and I would ask the member to write to me, because
I would really like to follow up on it.
713
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: It is absolutely wrong. I imagine that the minister would have advisers who are able to
communicate with her now, just to double-check this. The minister can check how much it costs to do the
certificate II course in cabinet making at Thornlie TAFE, Polytechnic West. I have two people who have clearly
indicated that the cost is $3 000. That seems outrageous. The other is a certificate III to be an education support
teacher, at a cost of $2 740, again for a six-month course. I do not think there is any doubt about it. I could have
come up with more examples. I have just picked out those ones. It confirms all that we hear in media reports and
elsewhere about these massive hikes in fees for people who wish to go to TAFE.
There is also the issue that I raised about the cut-in point at which the under-18 concession applies. I am not sure
how much or how significant that under-18 concession is.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: It is a 50 per cent discount, depending on whether they are on a concession card. It is
complicated.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Right. Obviously we are talking about people who have been through around 12 years
of schooling, so they would be close to 18 years of age, especially as the system works now. The government is
kind of manipulating it. It is hoping that a whole lot of people will be ineligible for that concession. That is
certainly the case for Lauren Adams. She missed out by three months on getting a 50 per cent reduction in her
fee of $2 740 for a certificate III in education support.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Member, can I just clarify something by way of interjection? Ordinarily, a semester is
six months. Therefore, if it is two semesters, it would be a 12-month course. Usually if people are looking at
a two semester course, it is a 12-month program. But it depends on the course as well.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I am sure that in this case, though, it is a six-month issue that the family is looking at.
That is how families do their budgeting. Families want to know upfront what the fee will be. For the
Adams family, their bill for that course was $2 740, and they just had to wear it. To Lauren’s credit, she is going
ahead with that course, and the family have really had to stretch to find that money. I do not know what will
happen if there is a second semester or a third and fourth semester to take it up to a diploma level or something
like that. But the reality for Karen Adams and her daughter, Lauren, is that for six months starting in January and
through to the middle of this year, she will have to pay $2 740 for this course. Lauren just missed out on what the
minister has told me would have been a 50 per cent reduction. She missed out on that by three months. Had she
been born three months later, she would have been given a 50 per cent reduction. How unreasonable is that?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: There is a course fee cap for school-age children, which is $410. So, those fees are capped.
But there is also a concession for concession card holders, which is a 50 per cent discount. I think from the sound
of it that your constituents may have been in contact with somebody who potentially does not understand the fee
structure, because the information that you are giving to me does not mesh with the information that I have.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: It was only in the case of Rochelle that the family was not able to go ahead with the
enrolment, so I suppose there is a possibility that they did not get all the information. But in the case of Jason
Kowalski and Lauren Adams, they did go through with their enrolment. Therefore, if any error has been made, it
is with the Department of Training and Workforce Development, and with TAFE. So, they have made an error,
and the minister is suggesting that they might be reimbursed.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: No, I am suggesting that if you could write to me about your constituents and their courses,
I would like to clarify what the fees should be, how long the course should go for and if there are options. If
some of these training programs are linked to an employer and they are done as an apprenticeship, the
apprenticeship is very heavily subsidised and the fees can be significantly reduced because the employer picks
up a lot of the cost. It may be that your constituents need better information, particularly, if they are talking about
a certificate II or II in cabinet making, because those courses are available through the apprenticeship program as
well.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Maybe for some reason an apprenticeship was not an option for my constituents. Is
the minister suggesting that these people have enrolled and a mistake has been made? I do not think there has
been a mistake; they are doing the courses and I think any mistake would have been revealed before now. Yes,
I am happy to write to the minister with further details, but the only case in which there is the potential that
a mistake was made is that of Rochelle Eastley, and her case mirrors that of Jason Kowalski; in fact, it just
confirms what Jason faced. I think we are seeing that some families can stretch just that little bit further to come
up with the $3 000 for fees, but meanwhile others such as the poor Eastleys cannot manage it so their daughter
misses out. This is a young person’s future. She is now destined to do very low-paid work with all the precarity
that goes with working in a McDonald’s, a Red Dot store or something like that. If people are in difficult
financial straits, they just cannot get beyond that. She will not be able to put money aside to save for this
$3 000 course, yet it is something that she really wants to do. We are dashing young people’s hopes and
ambitions. It is unfair for these people, and as a society we are missing out as well. We are missing out on
encouraging and nurturing the enthusiasm and goodwill of young people who want to get into a particular career
714
or trade. We are missing out on the opportunity to harness their enthusiasm and instead we are dashing their
hopes, and we will reap the consequences of that.
MRS L.M. HARVEY (Scarborough — Minister for Training and Workforce Development) [6.47 pm]:
There is not a lot of time left this evening for me to canvass all the issues raised by members in this debate, but
I shall make a start. Firstly, I would like to put on the record that this government is committed to funding
a student-centred, industry-driven and sustainable training system. Future Skills WA is the opportunity for us to
take that step into a sustainable vocational training system that will continue to meet the needs of our community
and industry into the future. It is fair to say that the system we inherited from the former Labor government had
grown increasingly inefficient and there had been no real attempt to ensure its long-term survival. I would say
that to allow the vocational training system to become moribund and inefficient is to perhaps treat it with the
highest level of contempt one can muster.
The Liberal–National government has been accused of treating the TAFE sector with contempt. I will put on the
record examples of the serious work that this government has put into the training sector that absolutely refute
those assertions. Since 2008, under the watch of the Liberal–National government, the sector has grown by
14.8 per cent. That hardly sounds like a failure to me. The Western Australian training system is recognised as
one of the best in the country; indeed, we are the envy of the other Australian states. Most of our apprentices will
pay less than $1 000 when they start their course. They pay a maximum of only 15 per cent of the total cost of
their training. The government at present subsidises 85 per cent of the training for apprentices and the employer
picks up the rest. The member for Albany spoke about the Great Southern Institute of Technology. He might be
interested to know that the Great Southern Institute of Technology last year recorded a 91.8 per cent satisfaction
rating from students with their courses delivered through that institution.
This week I announced that we had doubled the accommodation assistance for our regional apprentices and
trainees. That is effective from 1 February 2015. To put this in context, up to 30 September 2014, over
42 000 apprentices and trainees were in training in Western Australia. Thirty per cent, or 13 000 of those were in
regional areas. We have doubled the accommodation allowance. Last year 541 regional people took advantage of
the accommodation allowance, and we expect around 650 students to take advantage of this bonus from the
Liberal–National government, which will allow students and lecturers to now claim $70 per night in
accommodation allowances for accommodation below the twenty-sixth parallel, or $110 per night above the
twenty-sixth parallel. This will also give some flexibility in having lecturers moving to regional areas as the
student numbers build up for particular courses, when otherwise it may not be a sustainable option to have a fulltime lecturer based at one of those institutes.
One of the issues that the member for Albany raised was the diploma of child care course. This is a very
interesting course to choose, because the federal government used to fund the diploma of child care course
100 per cent. That funding has now stopped for that area of training. There have been increases in the cost to
students who want to engage in that course but, being a diploma course, students who enrol in those advanced
diploma courses can access vocational education and training FEE-HELP. We have heard about this before; it is
like a higher education contribution scheme fee. Students normally would be eligible for a charge of 20 per cent
in loan funding, but students who receive VET FEE-HELP in a publicly subsidised training course do not pay
the 20 per cent loan fee. Someone wanting to obtain a diploma in child care would have access to
VET FEE-HELP, which means that they would not pay a cent until they were earning over $50 000 a year.
Mechanisms are in place to ensure the sustainability of the sector. I do not think anybody would disagree that if
numbers for course enrolments anywhere in the sector are low and the courses are not sustainable to run, the
government cannot be subsidising the courses if there is no sustainability. We are working with the state training
providers and the sector to try to ensure that we achieve those training outcomes. It may be that the appearance
of those courses changes over time.
In regional areas we have made a huge investment that I would really like to get onto the record. We have put
funding into ensuring that we are covering the lecturers’ travel allowance, so they can travel from Perth to
regional areas to deliver off-the-job training to groups of apprentices in regional training settings. We have
increased the availability of local training providers and the flexibility in the provision of training services. We
have invested a huge amount in our regional training infrastructure to improve access to our training facilities.
Through the Liberal–National government’s royalties for regions scheme, we have invested $6.9 million in the
extension of the Derby campus and workshop facilities, and $2.8 million in upgrades to the Halls Creek facility,
and a new auto workshop there, which I am sure the member for Kimberley would be interested to know. There
is a sustainability challenge in regional areas, and, indeed, we need the enrolments on deck to make delivery of
the courses sustainable, but we are committed to that. In 2012–13 this government spent $8.126 million on
delivery of training and upgrades to training institutes in regional areas. For 2013–14, $76 million is allocated to
that.
Mr F.M. Logan interjected.
715
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I listened to the member in silence; I would appreciate the same courtesy.
The government is committed to moving long-term unemployed people through training and into employment.
Indeed, the member for Joondalup spoke very passionately about his experiences in that space. His experience in
the training sector is quite extensive, and we heard the passion with which he spoke of the Aboriginal students he
had moved through the training system to be employed in high-paid jobs in the mining and resources industry.
I find it somewhat abhorrent that members opposite chose to take one comment made by the member for
Joondalup in his very worthwhile contribution and tried to present to the community of Western Australia that
that one comment epitomises his great commitment to, and depth of knowledge of, the training sector.
The government is spending money where it matters in subsidising training programs that will deliver
employment opportunities, and that is what it is all about. It is a shame that the member for Kimberley and,
indeed, most opposition members are not here in the chamber; I acknowledge that the member for Mandurah and
the member for Cockburn are here. Apparently my contribution and my response to their queries are not worth
listening to, but I know that members on this side of the house will be interested to know that in 2014,
Aboriginal students who went through our TAFE courses had a 93.7 per cent satisfaction rating with their
training program. Of those Aboriginal students studying vocational education and training, 80 per cent ended up
either employed or undertaking further study. I think that is a pretty good record.
Another of our strategies for putting long-term unemployed people through the training sector is offering
unemployed concession card holders up to a 50 per cent discount on their fees. We are very sensitive to cost-ofliving issues and we are committed to moving people from unemployment, through training, and into
employment. That is the entire purpose of this sector.
That is where Future Skills Western Australia comes in. Future Skills WA is designed to ensure that the highest
level of government subsidisation goes to the courses we know will lead to employment. We have 600 state
priority training areas. These are areas in which we know that there is demand for employment in those
occupations and that students have a very, very good chance of moving from our training programs into
employment. These programs are heavily subsidised by government—up to 80 per cent in most cases, and
sometimes, for apprentices, for example, almost 100 per cent. We are deliberately putting our effort into those
courses that we know will lead to employment outcomes, and that is an appropriate spend of taxpayer money.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member needs to look at the facts. If he wants to understand a little bit about the
success of Future Skills WA, he should listen. In the face of a four per cent decline in enrolments in our training
institutes, we have seen a nine per cent increase in enrolments in priority areas of training, for which the
government has made available its maximum subsidisation effort. Our policy lever of Future Skills WA and our
choice and decision to put funding into areas of priority that we know will lead to employment are showing up in
the figures. We have seen enrolments shift into courses in which we know employment outcomes lie for people
engaging in training. I am proud of that outcome. The member for —
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There have been a lot of outrageous statements made. The member for Midland, who
pretends to be connected to her community and to understand —
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Member for Cockburn, I call you for the second time.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member for Midland, who says she understands what is going on at Midland TAFE,
has apparently found a course that does not exist but has cost one of her constituents $20 000.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
House adjourned at 7.00 pm
__________

25/02/2015 - Parliament of Western Australia

Transcription

Similar documents

M.Sc. English Maths EVS - lfconventschoolsangrur.org

CNA asks federal industry minister to reinstate long

Awana Upcoming Events - Faith Baptist Church

community - DailyNews Archives

FOOD S AFET Y SHOR T COURS ES 201 5 How up to date is your

CurrentAffairsEdu.com November 2014 Current Affairs

39292QLD Certificate IV in Justice Studies Course summary

Moderator: Dr. Art Hister 12:00 – 12:45 pm Food

June Bulletin - Faith4Life Church

with TAFE NSW Teacher/Consultants 21st Century Learning