24/02/2015 - Parliament of Western Australia

Transcription

Parliamentary Debates
(HANSARD)
THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
2015
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Legislative Assembly
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 2.00 pm, and read prayers.
METROPOLITAN SCHEME AMENDMENT 1228/41 — BELLEVUE URBAN PRECINCT AND
ENVIRONS
Statement by Minister for Planning
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Minister for Planning) [2.01 pm]: I present for tabling metropolitan region
scheme amendment 1228/41, which proposes to rationalise approximately 33.85 hectares of the urban, rural and
parks and recreation zones and reserves in the Bellevue locality. The proposed urban zoning will allow for
residential subdivision of the land following a local scheme amendment, detailed structure planning and
subdivision approval. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of “Directions 2031 and beyond:
metropolitan planning beyond the horizon” and the land that is proposed to be zoned urban is identified as
a future urban area in “Directions 2031”. The amendment also defines the boundary between the urban zone and
parks and recreation reservation for the Helena River and is the subject of a deed of agreement between the
Western Australian Planning Commission and Taliska Securities Pty Ltd, the current landowners.
The deed of agreement provides for Taliska Securities to complete substantial restoration works along the
foreshore of the Helena River and to maintain the completed works for 25 years, both at Taliska’s expense. The
deed also requires Taliska to cede 67.47 hectares of land that is currently reserved for parks and recreation to the
WAPC for $1.00. Although the land along the Helena River is not presently accessible to the public,
arrangements between the WAPC and Taliska will create a public amenity for passive recreation and
environmental education and will also provide facilities for public access. The community will gain access to the
entire length of the river from the existing path on the eastern extreme of the site to the Roe Highway Bridge
using a dual-use path constructed by Taliska and networked with several nature trails. The proposed foreshore
works will include the removal of grazing stock—stud cattle—and introduced weeds and grasses, works that
allow for full-flood events and repair and rehabilitation of the Helena River, and restoration of riparian
vegetation. The works are proposed to increase the health of the Helena River and reduce the level of nutrients
entering the Swan and Canning River system.
A variety of management plans, such as a detailed and fully costed environmental management plan,
construction management plan, foreshore management plan and fire management plan, are to be prepared and
implemented for this site. The management plans will be included as conditions in the subsequent amendment of
the City of Swan local planning scheme 17 and local structure plans, and will be the subject of subdivision and
development approval conditions. Therefore, the future ownership of the proposed parks and recreation
reservation by the state and a variety of specific management plans will provide the legislative framework to
ensure the long-term conservation of the environmentally sensitive areas of this site. In accordance with the
statutory provisions for region scheme amendments, this amendment was advertised for three months in 2013.
Thirty-six submissions were received containing 11 comments of support, eight comments of objection,
six comments of both support and objection and 11 general comments. Copies of the submissions and the report
on submissions are also tabled today.
I am pleased to now table documentation for metropolitan region scheme amendment 1228/41. I commend it to
the house.
[See papers 2658 and 2660.]
CONTAMINATED SITES ACT — REVIEW
Statement by Minister for Environment
MR A.P. JACOB (Ocean Reef — Minister for Environment) [2.05 pm]: I would like to inform the house on
the outcome of the review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, which was conducted by the Department of
Environment Regulation. Two consultation papers were released during the period of the review and more than
60 written submissions were received from local government, environmental consultants, industry, state
government and others. All submissions were considered and addressed through the review.
The act requires that known or suspected contamination is reported to the chief executive officer of the
department and then investigated—and, if necessary, cleaned up. The act provides that information on
contaminated sites is recorded and made available to the public. Since the act commenced in December 2006, the
department has provided more than 15 000 written responses to inquiries about contamination while many more
have accessed information from the online database of known contaminated sites. Overall, the act is working
[ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 24 February 2015]
537
well and we can be confident that the community and the environment are better protected from the effects of
contamination. However, it is important that we review our legislation to ensure that it continues to be
appropriate and meets today’s needs. To this end, the department has instigated changes to its internal processes
to improve the operation and effectiveness of the act.
I table the report on the review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, which will also be published shortly on the
department’s website.
[See paper 2659.]
BUILDING REGULATION REFORMS
Statement by Parliamentary Secretary
MR P.T. MILES (Wanneroo — Parliamentary Secretary) [2.06 pm]: In May 2014, the Building Ministers’
Forum agreed to significant reforms aimed at reducing the burden of building regulation. These reforms include
making the 2015 National Construction Code and future additions accessible online for free and a reduced
amendment cycle for the code. This is an important step in the electronic enablement of our building and
plumbing industries and represents an important advance in the Council of Australian Governments’
deregulation agenda. The NCC brings the Building Code of Australia and the Plumbing Code of Australia
together into a single, consistent performance standard. As of this month, Western Australia’s building,
construction and plumbing practitioners, and anyone else who wants to preview the 2015 NCC, can now do so
via the Australian Building Codes Board’s website in readiness for its adoption on 1 May. The reform will result
in a cost saving of almost $400 a year to building and plumbing practitioners and will encourage greater use of
the code, which has an important role in ensuring that the buildings in which we live, recreate and work are safe,
amenable, efficient and sustainable.
The ABCB predicts that the reform will increase the number of building and plumbing practitioners using the
NCC across Australia from 12 000 to around 200 000 and that it will have the potential to unlock annually an
additional $1.1 billion in economic benefit. The Building Commission is working towards adopting the
Plumbing Code of Australia from 1 May 2015, which means that Western Australia’s 3 341 licensed plumbing
contractors and 3 967 licensed plumbing tradespersons will also benefit from being able to access the code for
free and preview it before it takes effect. The ministers also agreed to move from a one-year to a three-year
amendment cycle for the code, which will commence in 2016. This will deliver more certainty and stability
about regulatory change to the building and construction industry.
I look forward to seeing the benefits of these reforms flow on to the economy, our building and plumbing
industries and, ultimately, the Western Australians who use their services.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
HEALTHWAY SPONSORSHIP MANAGEMENT — PUBLIC SECTOR COMMISSION REPORT
54.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the Public Sector Commission’s report that states on page 28 that “additional hospitality resources” in
addition to the standard requirements were included in sponsorship contracts from 2010–11 to 2013–14.
(1)
When was the minister made aware of the additional hospitality resources?
(2)
Was the minister made aware of them as part of the agreements with Perth Glory, the
Western Australian Cricket Association and Perth Wildcats?
(3)
If yes to (2), what did the minister do about it?
Dr K.D. HAMES replied:
(1)–(3) I do not know why the opposition would waste time asking questions now when there is a matter of
public interest on this immediately after question time. I will go through this in detail then, answering
questions about what I knew and when. The specific details of the sponsorships that were provided were
contained in a briefing note sent by the Auditor General. Following his review, a copy of that went to
the Public Sector Commissioner. That is when the investigation commenced and when I became aware
of it.
55.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Minister for Health:
I have a supplementary question. Minister, it is question time and we ask questions in question time. Does the
minister seriously expect us to believe that he was unaware of any additional hospitality resources for those three
years, whilst he was the minister responsible for health?
538
I was unaware; and not only was I unaware, but also the board and the Auditor General were unaware. The only
person who was aware was the person referred to in the Public Sector Commissioner’s report.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members! Member for Bassendean, that question is over.
LAW AND ORDER — HOME INVASION LEGISLATION
56.
MR N.W. MORTON to the Minister for Police:
The first piece of legislation that will be debated in this house today is the Criminal Law Amendment
(Home Burglary and Other Offences) Bill 2014. Can the minister outline the government’s commitment to tackle
serious home invasions and burglaries in the community?
Mrs L.M. HARVEY replied:
I thank the member for Forrestfield for this question and for his ongoing commitment to community safety in
Western Australia. It is really great to be back in Parliament —
Mr D.J. Kelly interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the first time.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: As I was saying, it is a great pleasure to be back in Parliament to resume debate on one of
the government’s key election commitments—the Criminal Law Amendment (Home Burglary and Other
Offences) Bill 2014. This legislation will have Western Australia bringing in the toughest penalties in Australia
for recidivist offenders who break into homes and also for those people who, in the course of a home invasion,
commit serious offences such as sexual or physical assault against the home owners. This legislation has been
put in place in response to extensive community consultation that I and other members of our Liberal–National
team had in the lead-up to the 2013 state election campaign. The community has overwhelmingly expressed its
frustration with the existing system, particularly some of the sentences that have been handed down when
people’s houses were broken into and, in the course of that aggravated burglary, the offenders seriously assaulted
and injured people, often in sustained and violent attacks. Under this legislation, should an offender receive
a conviction for a rape committed in the course of a home burglary, they will be looking at a minimum penalty
of 15 years in jail. For a serious assault, they are looking at seven years and six months’ jail. For an aggravated
indecent assault, they are looking at a minimum term of five years and three months’ jail. These, of course, are
the proposed new mandated minimum penalties.
The key piece of this legislation, which people in the community are most interested in, relates to changing the
counting rules around the three-strikes legislation. Previously, offenders were able to bundle their offences
together and have them heard in one court appearance. They may have had a number of convictions as a result of
that one appearance in court and that could be counted as a strike. No more—once this legislation goes through,
for adult offenders, every home burglary offence committed over three separate days will result in jail for
a mandatory minimum term of two years. This is a key piece of legislation that people in the community have
demanded from this government. They are really interested to know where the opposition stands on this.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: This is what you said a year ago. It has been waiting on the notice paper for three years!
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: There is a reason for that.
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Midland. Minister, you have been going for four minutes now. Wind it
up.
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: I am winding up, Mr Speaker.
We need to know on this side of the house whether the opposition supports the amendment on the notice paper
of the would-be Attorney General, the member for Butler. The member for Butler’s amendment basically
provides a get out of jail —
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member for Butler’s amendment would —
The SPEAKER: Members! Minister, a quick wind-up; thank you.
539
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: The member for Butler’s amendment has been put on the notice paper on behalf of the
Labor opposition. It will basically give a free get-out-of-jail card to anybody under the influence of
methamphetamine. Anyone who is coming down from a methamphetamine binge would not be subject to the
mandatory penalties in our legislation. It will water the legislation down and basically make it unworkable. The
government will not accept the amendment. We need to know whether that is the position of the
Labor opposition or that of the would-be Attorney General, the member for Butler.
57.
Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health:
I refer to comments made by the Premier on Friday that the board of Healthway must have known about the
hospitality and ticketing issues.
(1)
If the board should have been aware, and there are five senior public servants on the board, including
two senior health department officials, would not the minister also have been aware of these issues?
(2)
Can the minister please provide the precise date that he was informed about the ticketing issues that are
part of the Public Sector Commissioner’s report?
(1)–(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. On 25 July, the Auditor General sent a letter to me as
Minister for Health going through the financial statements and key performance indicators for the year
to 30 June. That gave a tick to Healthway for its management, but attached to that were questions
regarding the number of hospitality tickets and requesting an investigation. I received that in my office
on 28 July. That is the date on which I was informed. The shadow Minister for Health is just as likely to
have known about the hospitality issues at Healthway as I was. In terms of being invited to events, over
the years that I have been minister I was invited to very few Healthway events. It begs the question why
that was the case, but I was invited to very few. In fact, I declined them all. I know that the shadow
minister was invited to some of those events as well. I do not know if he attended or not because there
is no record to show whether he did. The point is if he did not go, he would know as much as I did; if he
did go, he would know more.
58.
I have a supplementary question. The minister said in his answer earlier today that the board did not know. On
Friday, the Premier said the board must have known. Who is right—the Minister for Health or the Premier?
The Premier did not say the board knew. He expressed an opinion as to whether it should have known or not. It
is the view of the commissioner, in his report, that if the board did not know, which is what the board has stated,
it should have known. His finding was that its governance was inadequate and that it did not know that those
things occurred. Remember that this is —
Mr R.H. Cook: I cannot accept that the board did not know about this.
Dr K.D. HAMES: That is his opinion. That does not mean it is a fact; that is the opinion of the Premier. The
board has said that it did not know. The commissioner is saying that it should have known. They are the facts.
EAST PERTH POWER STATION — REDEVELOPMENT
59.
Ms E. EVANGEL to the Minister for Planning:
Could the minister please provide the house with an update regarding his announcement last week of the release
of East Perth power station to the market?
Mr J.H.D. DAY replied:
I am happy to do that and to recognise that the East Perth power station is a very important part of the state’s
industrial heritage. It is a heritage building and some of the machinery contained within it is also heritage-listed.
It is obviously in a very significant location at the eastern approach to the CBD facing the Swan River to the
east. On the other side of the river is the Burswood precinct where ultimately 20 000 people will be living and
where the new stadium is currently under construction. The government has determined that it is an appropriate
time to seek expressions of interest from the private sector for development on the site and for adaptation of the
building in some way. I was pleased to attend the announcement by the Premier last Friday, calling for formal
expressions of interest. Approaches have been made to the government through the Metropolitan Redevelopment
Authority, which has planning authority and responsibility over that area. Those inquiries have been made over
the last couple of years, so we are now seeking more formal declarations of interest and proposals. An
540
opportunity is there for a substantial commercial and residential mixed-use development, together with
hospitality uses, and, we hope also, some form of arts and entertainment precinct. It is a very significant building
with a lot of space. Obviously, the heritage aspects need to be conserved with the adaptation of the building. The
site that is on the market at the moment through the EOI process is actually the three-hectare site containing the
East Perth power station. We are not formally calling for expressions of interest at the moment for the adjacent
lots, some of which are vacant, and one of which has a Western Power substation located on it. However, if
developers and proponents are interested in that wider area, we would like to hear that expressed as well and we
would be prepared to consider the precinct as a whole. The opportunity is there now for proponents with
substantial experience and capacity in the development industry to bring forward proposals. Ultimately, I am
sure that this precinct will be a very active and exciting one.
60.
I refer to the ticketing scandal and the fact that in the Parliament on a number of occasions the minister has stated
that all Healthway hospitality was “in an official capacity to monitor the sponsored activity and ensure
sponsorship strategies are implemented”.
(1)
Is this not contradicted by the Public Sector Commission report that highlights additional hospitality
benefits above the standard hospitality policy?
(2)
Given that the minister made the statement on a number of occasions, why did he mislead Parliament?
(1)–(2) There was certainly no intent. To mislead the Parliament, a minister would have to knowingly mislead.
If I make a statement that, at the time that I made it, was the full extent of my belief, I am not
misleading the Parliament. As it turned out, the information that suggested that that was incorrect —
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: It is good to see that this time at least members are getting up and asking me some questions.
Our good friend from Seven nightly news up in the press gallery made the point very clearly. I saw the member
for Kwinana reading the document when it was released on Thursday before question time. The member made
a very astute comment. He called me lazy, but he was lazy when he could not even get up and ask questions
about an issue that suddenly now requires a matter of public interest debate. I was anticipating some questions on
Thursday.
Mr R.H. Cook: You’re too much of a coward.
The SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana, I call you to order for the first time.
Withdrawal of Remark
Dr K.D. HAMES: I think the member should withdraw his comment. Perhaps you did not hear it, Mr Speaker,
but I certainly did.
The SPEAKER: The member is certainly skating very close to the wind.
Mr R.H. COOK: I withdraw the comment.
The SPEAKER: Thank you. Comment withdrawn.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr P.B. Watson: Sookie la la!
Dr K.D. HAMES: It was rather tongue in cheek, after the sookie la la from the member for Albany last week.
The reality is that when I made those statements, I was not aware—nobody has been aware until the
Auditor General’s investigation and report that there was any untoward activity around sponsorship. That is the
whole issue. We will talk later about the structure of Healthway and the difficulties we have had with the board.
I am sure we will get into all this, but, remember, that structure, which in my view was destined to fail because
of the interests that some parties there had, was created by the Labor government in 1990, and amended by the
Labor government in 2006, but the structure of that committee was left exactly the same. It has no members that
I appoint, other than the chair, who is there on the recommendation of the Premier.
61.
I have a supplementary question. If, as the minister claims, the Healthway board did not know, and the Premier
is just expressing an opinion that it should have known, why was Dr Capolingua sacked, and why should the
board resign?
541
I do not know where the member has been these last few days. If he claims that the chair was sacked, I would
like him to provide me with some evidence of that, because everybody in this room knows that that is not true.
ROAD TRAFFIC — BINDI BINDI BENDS
62.
Mr R.S. LOVE to the Minister for Transport:
Can the minister please update the house on how the Liberal–National government has improved safety on the
notoriously dangerous Bindi Bindi curves in my electorate?
Mr D.C. NALDER replied:
I thank the member for the question, and his interest in the Bindi Bindi curves. This has been a significant
regional issue for decades. I am pleased to announce to the house that today, 24 February, marks the completion
of the project of upgrading this road. It is another project that is on time and on budget. I am sorry if I start to
sound like a broken record talking about projects being on time and on budget. Members may also be interested
that this project created 100 jobs over a 16-month period, which is another great outcome. It is a $40 million
project that was delivered on time and on budget. To give members a sense of this road, around 1 200 vehicles
a day use this section of the highway, 45 per cent of which are heavy vehicles. Sadly, in the five years to the end
of 2011, there were nine serious accidents, including two fatalities. In addition to straightening the curves, we
have made the road wider, provided more overtaking opportunities and installed a new rail crossing at the
Ballidu–Bindi Bindi Road intersection. It is a great project, and I look forward to updating the house further on
additional things that we are doing on Great Northern Highway.
HEALTHWAY SPONSORSHIP MANAGEMENT — CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION
REFERRAL
63.
I refer to the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, specifically section 28, which obliges notifying authorities
to inform the CCC about any issues of misconduct at the earliest possible opportunity.
(1)
Did the minister inform the CCC about the Auditor General’s investigation into Healthway?
(2)
If yes to (1), when did he inform the CCC?
(3)
If no to (1), why did he not inform the CCC as required by the act?
(1)–(3) The issue of that particular act obviously does not come under my responsibility, but it is the
responsibility of any minister to refer those things when he is aware of anything that warrants referral.
This is something that was identified by the Auditor General. It was communicated to the board and the
Public Sector Commissioner, and an inquiry was instigated by the Public Sector Commissioner. Quite
clearly, it would be necessary to wait for the response from the Public Sector Commissioner. My advice
since that time from the Public Sector Commissioner is that, although some issues were found with
what the commissioner believed the board should have been aware of, and issues were found relating to
the executive director, nothing was found that warranted a referral to the CCC.
REGIONAL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT
64.
Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Regional Development:
It was a pleasure to welcome the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Commerce to
Gracetown last Friday to announce the next phase of the Liberal–National government’s investment in regional
mobile telecommunications. Can the minister please update the house on the government’s efforts to improve
mobile communications in regional areas?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
I thank the member for Vasse for the question. The member indeed must have pulled some strings, because not
only did she have a couple of ministers in her electorate for the announcement, she also had the President of the
Legislative Council and the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. So, we had the power of the ministry
and the power of Parliament to support what was a fantastic announcement, and also, as a new member of
Parliament, the member’s strong advocacy for all things in her electorate.
Two things were announced on that day. The first was the second stage of the roll-out of the mobile
communications program that is being done by the Liberal–National government under the royalties for regions
program. The first stage, worth $40 million, rolled out 113 new mobile towers into regional Western Australia.
Along with Hon Michael Mischin, we also announced the next tranche, worth $45 million, which will roll out
542
another 85 towers in regional Western Australia. That will support what is fundamental to commerce, what is
fundamental to those who travel around the regions, and what is fundamental to the provision of basic services to
support people in some of the more isolated parts of the state. We are very, very proud that already the
commitment of 113 towers, and now another 85 towers, will make a big difference to those areas.
Mr M.P. Murray interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Collie–Preston!
Mr D.T. REDMAN: We have already made a commitment to roll out the first 22 of those 85 towers in a number
of electorates, including those of members opposite, and that also will make a difference.
Just as importantly, the Gracetown community has had a black spot in their mobile communications, and they
have been advocating for support for a tower. They will have a new tower in June this year, and that is a fantastic
outcome. In the interim, Gracetown has a portable tower that will enable them to access that service between
now and then. As members know, that small community in the Vasse electorate has been impacted significantly
by recent events around bushfires and shark attacks, and of course the Gracetown tragedy which occurred a few
years ago and which we all know about. Therefore, supporting those services and supporting the people in small
communities, and having a royalties for regions fund from this Liberal–National government, is making
a difference in regional Western Australia. It was fantastic to be part of that announcement. Thank you, member
for Vasse.
PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN — FLYNN GRAY
65.
(1)
Why was it that Flynn Gray, a 16-month-old baby who has a rare and potentially fatal cancer and
should have received chemotherapy last Tuesday at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, was
turned away because, as the ABC news reported, a bed could not be found for him?
(2)
Why was it that during an earlier visit to PMH, Flynn, who is at a high risk of infection, was placed in a
ward in which, again according to ABC news, the toilet was so disgusting that a cleaner refused to clean
it?
(3)
Is the minister aware of the concerns of Flynn’s father, Sean, that PMH is being neglected by this
government and the duty of care to our sick children is being sacrificed?
(1)–(3) For a start, this child does not have cancer. The child has a condition called polyarteritis nodosa, which
is an inflammatory condition caused by immune cells attacking the small arteries of the body and
forming small nodes within the artery—it is a bit like a string of pearls along the artery. It is a very
serious condition and one that is often fatal, because it interferes with the blood supply to specific
organs, so children can die of, for example, a stroke or a heart attack or renal failure as a result of that
condition. One of the treatments for that condition is the use of drugs that are used in treating cancer,
hence the confusion—I can understand that the member might not be aware that chemotherapy is used
as one of the treatments for that condition. But I make the point that the child was not there for
chemotherapy for cancer.
This child had had one treatment for this condition, and that was done in a private ward. The child
needed subsequent treatment; however, when the child came back to PMH for that treatment, no single
rooms were available. The hospital tries, where possible, for children with conditions like this, to find
a single room, but there were no single rooms. So, during the week, because that treatment was not
urgent—it is not like cancer, where the person needs to be given therapy within a specific space of time,
so a mild delay would not have caused any change in the medical prognosis or the condition of this
child—the hospital was trying to find the child a single room. But, as happens at Princess Margaret
Hospital, the numbers go up and down—at times the hospital is full, and at times it might be only
70 per cent full—and, for that week, the hospital was full. Finally, they found a bed in a two-bed room,
and the child was put into that bed. Remember, Princess Margaret Hospital has fewer than 25 per cent
single rooms. The new Perth Children’s Hospital will have 75 per cent single rooms, which is
a fantastic change in the new hospital.
There was another patient in the next bed, and there were some issues around the cleanliness of that
room; and I am happy to talk to the member off the record if the member wants to know what they
were. The hospital denies the claim that there were faeces on the walls or around the toilet. The hospital
denies the claim that the cleaner would not do the cleaning. The cleaner has reported that she cleaned up
as best she could the problem that was there from the adjoining bed. It is a less than satisfactory
situation. For parents who have a child who has a significant medical problem that is probably every bit
as serious as cancer—it is a very serious medical condition—that would have been very distressing to
543
the family, and I apologise to them on my own behalf and on behalf of the hospital. I am not sure how it
could have been avoided, looking back at the causes; and, as I said, I will explain it to the member later.
Every effort is made by Princess Margaret Hospital to give patients the best possible outcome, and it is
unfortunate that in this case that did not occur.
PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN — FLYNN GRAY
66.
I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister assure the Parliament that Princess Margaret Hospital did not
lack any resources to ensure that this child received the services that it needed?
I can assure the Parliament of that. The opposition talks about cuts in all things, as though it were a fact.
Everyone on this side knows that it is not a fact. The health budget has risen significantly. The budgets for all our
hospitals have risen significantly. But, remember, this is an ageing facility. That is why we are spending
$1.2 billion on a brand-new, state-of-the-art hospital; we are doing that because the old hospital has passed its
best time.
SWAN AND CANNING RIVERS — MONITORING
67.
Mrs G.J. GODFREY to the Minister for Environment:
Minister, the Swan and Canning Rivers are an important part of Perth’s landscape. What is the Liberal–National
government doing to maintain the health of these rivers?
Mr A.P. JACOB replied:
I thank the member for Belmont for the question. This government acknowledges, and indeed has continued to
acknowledge, that our Swan–Canning River system faces a range of pressures. However, let me state
unequivocally that the health of our Swan–Canning River system is improving. Indeed, since the mid-2000s,
it has been on a steady improvement trend in its overall health. The health challenges that the Swan and Canning
Rivers face are varied and complex, and many of them are based in history. In much the same vein, there is no
single solution to the challenges that the Swan–Canning River system faces.
I would like to address very briefly, if I could, the issue of nutrient inflow, because that often seems to be a key
debating point when we talk about the health of the Swan–Canning River system. Nutrient inflow does affect
river health. It is one of those areas that can place pressure on the health of our Swan–Canning River system.
Indeed, the historic use of nutrients in particular has been a large contributor to the previously declining health of
the Swan–Canning River system. This is why the Liberal–National government has undertaken a range of
measures to address this problem. One of those measures was our fertiliser regulations, which we brought in in
2011, and which reduced the amount of nutrients that could be contained within domestic fertilisers. We have
also invested some $4.2 million in nutrient stripping wetlands, one at Ellen Brook, one of the largest contributors
of nutrients into the Swan River system, and a new one that we have just commenced at Eric Singleton
Bird Sanctuary in Bayswater, in partnership with the City of Bayswater. This government has also been part of
the fertiliser partnership, which was established in 2012, and which brings together government, industry, user
groups and the community, and tackles ways to prevent or reduce nutrient use, or excessive nutrient use when it
may not be required, and also of the oxygenation program, which I have gone into on many occasions in this
house.
There is one very clear point of difference. Members opposite, particularly the member for Gosnells, continue to
advocate for a broad-scale ban on highly soluble water-based fertilisers within the catchment area. We do not
agree with that. The impact on farmers and our food supply would simply be too significant.
Mr C.J. Tallentire interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Gosnells!
Mr A.P. JACOB: This Liberal–National government does not support a broad-scale ban on highly soluble water
fertilisers for agricultural purposes within the catchment of the Swan–Canning River system. The Liberal–
National government will continue to advocate sensible policy approaches to address the range of health
challenges that the Swan and Canning Rivers face, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, not against
them.
BENTLEY HOSPITAL — ELECTIVE SURGERY AND OBSTETRICS
68.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Minister for Health:
I refer to the meeting last week at Bentley Hospital in which the future direction of Bentley Health Service was
discussed.
544
(1)
Given the minister’s commitment in 2010 that elective surgery procedures would continue beyond
2014, can the minister today confirm that all elective surgery procedures will continue beyond
30 June 2015?
(2)
Given the minister’s statement in 2012 that if the number of births is —
... getting close to the 1 000 that are needed, we will … reinvest whatever dollars are required
to bring that up to a high-quality obstetric service —
I note that last year there were 1 044 births. Will the minister guarantee obstetrics stay at Bentley Health Service
and receive the upgrade as the minister promised?
I thank the member for the question.
(1)–(2) There is a bit of selective quoting there, because the member could have quoted some other statements
that I have made about Bentley Hospital, largely around maternity services. My commitment regarding
maternity services is that we would wait six months after the opening of Fiona Stanley Hospital to look
at the numbers there. It is not in that statement, obviously, but I have said it in other press releases and
other public statements. In fact, I made a statement with the federal member on the steps of
Bentley Hospital in which I said—I have said it numerous times publicly—that we would wait for
six months after the opening of Fiona Stanley Hospital to see the numbers. Members will remember
a report that was done by Professor Harry Cohen back, I think, under the member’s time in government,
and it looked at the number of deliveries needed for a safe maternity hospital. He said something in the
order of 1 000 beds. I remember at the time that the Labor government was going to close Osborne Park
Hospital. I think the member for Mirrabooka would have been devastated if Labor had done that, given
that she and her mum were born there. The Labor government was going to close that hospital when it
was seeing 1 000 delivery patients a year. We announced that we would not close it. In Bentley, we
made the same announcement: if in six months there was fewer than that number, chances are we will
close it—as Labor was going to do under its plan when it was in government; it was going to close
Bentley Hospital maternity services. I am the one who saved it—remember?
Mr B.S. Wyatt: Can the minister guarantee it?
Dr K.D. HAMES: No; I have guaranteed exactly what I said. Listen —
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
Dr K.D. HAMES: I will get to that. What I have guaranteed is exactly what I have said. If Bentley Hospital is
doing that number of deliveries six months after Fiona Stanley Hospital has opened—patients do not vote with
their feet and all go to the fantastic services offered at Fiona Stanley Hospital—I will keep it open and do those
things I said.
In relation to the surgery, I made that commitment in 2010, and I stand by it. We have just discovered that some
discussions were afoot within the Department of Health to change that plan.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
Dr K.D. HAMES: We discovered very recently that the department was planning to change it, and I have given
instructions that that is not to occur. That is now being put in place. The reason is that I believe it is critical that
waitlist surgery continues at that hospital, which is the same position as when I made the statement in 2010.
Those were the plans in 2010. Members opposite might laugh, but I think it was under the Labor government’s
health plan under the former Minister for Health that services were being cut back. Again, we were the ones who
decided to keep it. Before the member throws too much bloody mud around, he should sit down and do a bit of
research into Labor’s history—or perhaps the member is too lazy.
BENTLEY HOSPITAL — ELECTIVE SURGERY AND OBSTETRICS
69.
Mr B.S. WYATT to the Minister for Health:
I have a supplementary question. I refer to the minister’s quote as reported on 7 March 2012 —
“I have said that if they continue to support the Bentley obstetric service and if the number is getting
close to the 1 000 that are needed, we will reconsider …
That was the review timetable —
and reinvest whatever dollars are required to bring that up to a high-quality obstetric service.
Now that more than 1 000 deliveries are taking place each year, will the minister guarantee obstetric services at
Bentley Hospital?
545
Now the member for Victoria Park is not only quoting the bits he wants to quote and not other statements that
I have made, but doing his own interpretation of my use of “reconsider”. I said I would reconsider—and I am
going to reconsider. Six months after the opening of Fiona Stanley Hospital I will reconsider the numbers. It is
exactly what I said. I will find for the member for Victoria Park the quotes of when I said that, because I have
said it on at least half a dozen occasions that I can recall off the top of my head.
Let me tell members exactly what we will do. If six months after the opening of Fiona Stanley Hospital the
number at Bentley Hospital is still somewhere near the 1 000 mark, we will retain Bentley maternity hospital.
TAXIS — NON-CASH PAYMENT SURCHARGES CAP
70.
Mr C.D. HATTON to the Minister for Transport:
This question is about affordable transport. Can the minister please update the house on the government’s plans
to cap non-cash payment surcharges for taxi fares, thereby making transport more affordable for
Western Australians?
Mr D.C. NALDER replied:
I thank the member for the question. Prior to today, taxis have been charging upwards of 11 per cent surcharge
for the use of a credit card, a debit card, an e-voucher or a manual voucher. We have not previously had
regulations for these surcharges under Western Australian law. Effective today, there is a cap of five per cent,
including GST, across the whole taxi industry. From now on when someone uses their credit card or debit card,
the maximum charge is five per cent. This brings us in line with Victoria, which shifted last year, and
New South Wales, which shifted in December. Everybody acknowledges that a surcharge heading towards
11 per cent is unreasonable and unfair. I think it is appropriate that this government has stepped in to regulate
this and put the cap of five per cent in place. I commend the terminal providers and the wider taxi industry for
embracing the change and the work they have undertaken to ensure they comply with this.
RACING INDUSTRY — TOTALISATOR AGENCY BOARD PRIVATISATION
Petition
MRS G.J. GODFREY (Belmont) [2.46 pm]: My petition, with 61 signatures, reads —
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of
Western Australia in Parliament assembled.
We, the undersigned, say that the TAB is a vital component 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 208.]
MOTORCYCLING WESTERN AUSTRALIA — HOME FOR MOTORCYCLING
Petition
MR M.J. COWPER (Murray–Wellington) [2.47 pm]: I have a petition to establish a home for motorcycling in
Western Australia with 100 signatures, and it reads —
We the undersigned say that: More than 68 thousand motorcycle enthusiasts in Western Australia
are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable land for the safe and responsible riding of
Motorcycles. As a result more than 20 people each year are been tragically killed or injured in off
road crashes. The State Governments own report in 2008 has identified many of these issues and
yet little has been done to address this growing problem. Motorcycling in Western Australia
contributes in excess of $150 million dollars per year into the economy and yet receives little or no
investment back into the sport. Both the Queensland and Victorian State government have
invested in similar projects with great success.
Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly to support our campaign for the Government to invest in
Motorcycling Western Australia’s (MWA) unique plan to purchase land and establish a multifunction ride facility near Pinjarra as a home for motorcycling in Western Australia.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration and
your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.
It has an additional 100 signatures and conforms to the orders of the house.
[See petition 209.]
546
BENTLEY HOSPITAL
Petition
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [2.48 pm]: I have three petitions to table. The first one, “Save Bentley
Hospital”, has one signature and reads —
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the Liberal Barnett Government’s severe reduction in services at
our local Bentley Hospital.
Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to call on the Barnett Government to retain local Health Services
at Bentley Hospital so our own community can access health services close to where they live.
[See petition 210.]
SCHOOLS — FLASHING ELECTRONIC SPEED SIGNS — CANNINGTON
Petition
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [2.50 pm]: The second petition I table contains one signature. It reads —
We, the undersigned, put through this request to the State Government to erect ‘Flashing 40’ signs
outside our local schools in the Cannington Electorate.
Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to call on the Barnett Government to ensure these signs are
erected to reduce driver speeds and improve road safety
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your
petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[See petition 211.]
LOTTERYWEST ONLINE RETAILERS
Petition
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [2.51 pm]: I have a third petition that contains 600 signatures. It reads —
We, the undersigned, say that since the introduction of Lotterywest Online, a market share of revenue
has been taken from the Retailers, taking commission income away from them. Further, there has been
a failure of Lotterywest to increase Retailer commission for at least eight years. This has been
significantly detrimental to the livelihood and business operations of Retailers, many of which are
family-owned businesses. Requests for commission increases have been denied despite the rising costs
of living and the rising costs of business overheads.
Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to order the commission that would be attributable from online
sales be distributed pro-rata to the Lotterywest retailers. Further, we ask for a full review of the
commission structure and order an increase in Retailer commission to better assist Retailers with the
rising costs of living and rising costs of business overheads.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your
petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[See petition 212.]
PAPERS TABLED
Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.
TAFE COURSE FEES
Notice of Motion
Mr F.M. Logan gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move —
That this house condemns the Barnett government for its massive increase in TAFE course fees and its
sustained undermining of TAFE.
547
EBOLA VIRUS OUTBREAK — WEST AFRICA
Removal of Notice — Statement by Speaker
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): I advise members that private members’ business notice of motion 2,
notice of which was given on 19 August 2014, will be removed from the next notice paper unless written
notification is provided to the Clerk requiring that the notice be continued.
HEALTHWAY SPONSORSHIP MANAGEMENT
Matter of Public Interest
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) informed the Assembly that he was in receipt within the prescribed
time of a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate a matter of public interest.
[In compliance with standing orders, at least five members rose in their places.]
MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.55 pm]: I move —
That the house condemns the Minister for Health for his lack of oversight within the health portfolio
including the Healthway sponsorship and ticketing affair, and calls on the minister to explain —
•
when he was first advised there were ticketing and sponsorship issues within Healthway;
•
who he spoke to in relation to these issues; and
•
what steps the minister took to address ticketing and sponsorship issues within Healthway.
The problems at Healthway go back a long way. The make-up of the board, with representatives from the arts,
health, sport and so on makes for a heady mix of divergent views. Advancing the interests of public health in the
competition with tobacco, alcohol and fast-food advertising requires hard work and commitment, and in the
Minister for Health we do not have commitment and we do not have hard work. What we have as a result of the
minister’s neglect is a public crisis in the way Healthway is operating. The minister simply lacks the oversight,
the work ethic and the commitment to his portfolio to be across the issues in a manner necessary for a minister of
the Crown.
Let us go back some way and look at when this finally unravelled. I go back to December 2013 when Healthway
announced a $2 million sponsorship deal for the Western Australian Cricket Association, ushering in a great
period of health promotion in a very high profile mainstream sport. Our understanding on this side of the house
is that this announcement was followed by a barrage of communications from the Premier’s office. There was
a whole range of criticisms and queries delivered with Peta Credlin–like zeal asking Healthway why the Premier
was not involved in this particular announcement and quizzing the leadership of Healthway about why the
Premier was not allowed to be associated with this and other important and good news announcements inside
Healthway. We have been told by a number of sources that Dixie Marshall called in staff and members of the
board of Healthway to give them a dressing-down and to explain to them that the Premier had to be involved in
these sorts of announcements. Following those criticisms, it was pointed out to the Premier’s office and
chief communications adviser that these were inappropriate and outside the Tobacco Products Control Act,
which states —
… no money is to be paid under subsection (4) in such a manner that any Member of Parliament is, or
appears to be, associated with that payment.
This is the downfall of Healthway. From thereon, the Premier’s office sat waiting for the opportunity to pounce.
It was provided with that opportunity by virtue of the Auditor General’s inquiry and the so-called
“Carmen affair” towards the end of last year. This was the opportunity that the Premier had been waiting for—
the opportunity to reel in these sorts of independent authorities that give out money for important events and
important health promotion processes in order to make sure that we continue to drive down the incidence of
tobacco use in this state. This sets the stage for what has essentially caused the downfall of staff and board
members at Healthway. In July 2014, the Office of the Auditor General came to Healthway and said that
concerns had been raised and that therefore it would undertake an inquiry into Healthway and its functions.
We understand that Dr Capolingua then went to the minister to raise these concerns and the minister confirmed
today that that was on 25 July 2014. This is not the first time that he would have been told of these issues. This
would have been one of the final chapters of a range of complaints that have come to this minister about the way
Healthway has been operating. We understand and know the tensions that exist inside that organisation. We
know that there was a great deal of conflict amongst the board members and between board members and some
staff. Indeed, back in 2011, it was reported that Mike Allenby had to resign from the board at Healthway,
because, as he said —
“I have attempted to improve the performance of Healthway from within but have been overwhelmed
by the numbers of the ‘public health’ faction.”
548
The health minister at the time said that the apparent breakdown of relations between Healthway and some
sporting bodies was a concern, but it was not unreasonable for Healthway to push the boundaries.
This, as I said, is not the first time these issues have been raised. Back in April 2011, the department had
undertaken a review of the Tobacco Products Control Act. Amongst the recommendations of that review was
that the board should be reformed to mirror the modern imperatives and pressures in relation to the Healthway
board carrying out its duties. In April 2011, we had this report recommending changes. What happened to that
report? Nothing. We had warning signs around issues such as the resignation of Mike Allenby from the board,
and, again, what did the minister do? Nothing. We had these ongoing tensions inside the board and ongoing
potential dysfunction, which the minister himself said yesterday in the media that he had been aware of ever
since he had been a minister—so, for six years. What did he do about it? Nothing. We have a minister who quite
frankly does not have the work ethic to inquire into these matters and to bring about change in his portfolio,
which everyone understood was required and needed through reforms to the tobacco control act. The only person
who was not actually acting on these concerns and the only person who was not concerned and merely brushed
them away and ignored them was this minister. What we have here is a systemic, pathological lack of capacity to
respond to the issues in his portfolio. Once again, we had a minister who was saying, “It’s not my fault, I don’t
know anything about this, and I’m not going to do anything about this.”
We roll forward to the Public Sector Commissioner report which was brought out last Thursday. The
Public Sector Commissioner report raises some very significant and serious issues, which, as a result of the
departure of the executive director the previous week, we are unable to inquire into—issues which call for
Healthway and the minister to account for their actions. As it happens, there has been some accountability for
that. We have heard from the chair of Healthway, who responded immediately in the media to account for her
actions and for the actions of her board in Healthway. We heard from the Premier, who then seized upon the
Public Sector Commissioner’s report to essentially trash the reputations of a range of people in order to gain
political advantage about the future of Healthway. It was within that first press conference that the Premier
raised the issue of now perhaps looking into Healthway and its independence. Remember the actions of
December 2013? The Premier and his office have had their eye on this organisation for some time, and this was
their opportunity to act.
We saw the chair of Healthway accounting for her role as chair of the Healthway board. The only person who
was not accountable was the minister. I was speaking to the media, the Premier was speaking to the media, and
the chair, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, was speaking to the media. The only person in this whole sad and sorry saga
who was not speaking to the media was the minister himself. The minister said earlier today, “Why don’t you
ask me a question in question time?” We did consider that, but we thought: no, this was the minister’s
opportunity to speak to the media. We wanted to see the minister answer a sustained round of questions from the
media as to his role in all this. We were not looking for the set piece from the minister in question time; we were
looking for him to account to the media through a sustained series of questions about his role in this whole sad
and sorry saga. Of course the media said to us, “But he won’t talk to us; he won’t come out of the building.”
They said, “We just can’t get a word out of him”.
Dr K.D. Hames: What day was this?
Mr R.H. COOK: This was Thursday. The minister refused to speak to the media.
So we roll forward to Friday. The Premier is still dining out on the reputations on the staff and board members of
Healthway. He was trash-talking their reputations up hill and down dale, and who did we not hear from? It was
the minister. Perhaps the minister would have taken the opportunity of the weekend’s media. No word from the
minister on Saturday. Perhaps Sunday—a slow news day, when the minister had the opportunity to account for
his actions and talk about the organisation for which he is responsible. Nothing. At cabinet yesterday, the
minister was fronting the doorstop—coming up blinking a bit like a man who has been hiding behind the dark
curtains, hiding in his bedroom, trying to avoid the media. What did we hear from him yesterday? He trashed
staff of Healthway as well. We have the Premier out there trashing the board members. We have the
Deputy Premier in this place trashing the staff members. The one issue they are not talking about is: what is the
Minister for Health’s role in this whole sad and sorry saga? Why was the minister not aware of the policy
changes back in 2011 when Healthway changed its policy and significantly ramped up the content of the
leverage contracts? Why was the minister not on top of this portfolio matter to ensure that he was keeping on top
of these issues? Why is it that the Minister for Health was so keen to talk about everyone else in this issue? The
executive director of Healthway, who cannot defend herself, Dr Capolingua, is doing her best to explain the
actions of the Healthway board, but what about the minister’s actions? Nothing. There has been no
accountability for his own actions. There has been no accountability for how he allowed this situation to unravel
over time, how he allowed this organisation that is responsible for such an important part of the public health
promotion in this state to reach crisis point. Why was he not asking the right questions? Why was he not
oversighting this organisation?
549
It is the minister’s portfolio, it is the minister’s oversight, and it is the minister who is responsible for the actions
of Healthway under his portfolio. Is it not extraordinary that today we have the Premier saying that the chair of
Healthway has to go, and by her example, so should members of the board. The Premier said that the members
of the board should go as well, but he has such low standards for his own ministers, such as the
Minister for Transport and the Minister for Health on this occasion. How is it that he manages to maintain such
a high standard for members of this board, but has such a neglectful and low standard for his own ministers?
Why is it that we have a minister that on this occasion is allowed to say, “It’s got nothing to do with me; I am not
involved in this. Go speak to the Premier”? How is it that today he can say these things and not account for his
own actions? Remember that this is the same minister that said he knew nothing and heard nothing about the
delays at Fiona Stanley Hospital. This is the same minister that said that the cost overruns at Fiona Stanley
Hospital, because of the oversight of the contract with Serco, are entirely outside his influence. This is the
minister who said he could not put another floor on the new Perth Children’s Hospital, despite being involved in
that project all along. This is the minister who, quite frankly, does not have the work ethic and oversight of his
department to maintain his portfolio. This is the minister who is basically on the way out. He has already said he
is going to retire at the next election; he could not be bothered to ask the hard questions. Quite frankly, he is not
keeping his eye on the ball. The government is happy to trash the members of the board and staff of Healthway
and act all tough in relation to that, but not happy to own up to the fact that this is the man who has neglected his
portfolio, this is the man who should be held accountable, and this is the man who should be sacked, not
Rosanna Capolingua!
MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [3.10 pm]: Last week the Premier promised a year of stability and
consolidation. Today we have seen the collapse of WA’s key health promotion agency. So much for stability and
consolidation! Within a week, more chaos and dysfunction has swept through the Barnett government. I want to
go through some key points, and I will pick up on one that the minister talked about today—that is, when did he
and the board know? I want to differentiate between two key aspects: firstly, the additional hospitality
requirements provided under the new arrangements struck in 2010–11; and, secondly, the actual abuse of the
hospitality services. There are two distinct parts.
The Leader of the Opposition asked a question on the first part today: when was the minister made aware of the
additional hospitality and sponsor benefits? Let us go through this key point. From about 2010–11, Healthway
started getting into major sponsorship deals with Perth Glory, the Western Australian Cricket Association and
Perth Wildcats. It changed the nature of the sponsorship deals. It was not attending the under-12 T-ball game on
a Saturday anymore; these were big events with corporate boxes and different types of hospitality. The
Public Sector Commission report found that all this additional sponsorship started happening after those
agreements were struck. It cannot be said that the board did not know, because the board signed off on the
agreements. The minister cannot tell me that he was not briefed on the agreements and the activities of
Healthway. This is key. Under these new agreements, hundreds of tickets and corporate suites and boxes at the
cricket and basketball were flying around; it was an entirely different playing field. These new agreements
brought hundreds of additional tickets and corporate facilities—and that was on top of the standard requirements
in the previous Healthway contract. Under the standard requirements, Healthway officers attend events that it
sponsors to ensure that the sponsorship deal is being complied with. This Public Sector Commission report
found that all these new hospitality requirements were on top of the previous requirements. The minister cannot
say that he knew, signed off and was aware of the WACA deal, the Wildcats deal and the Perth Glory deal and
that he did not know about all this additional hospitality. The minister defended the Perth Glory deal in this
Parliament, and I will go through what he said later.
As we know, the board signed off on the agreement. The board was aware. The other key point is that the
minister defended the agreements. When we came into this place to ask questions about the Perth Glory deal,
which I will talk about in a minute, the minister stated —
Secondly, I want to spend the last two minutes defending Healthway. Both the member for West Swan
and the Leader of the Opposition made some dreadful comments about Healthway. Not only did they
denigrate someone I regard as the best Minister for Sport and Recreation we have ever had in this house
while I have been in Parliament, but also they denigrated Healthway.
We were asking questions about the Perth Glory deal that had so many issues of which the minister should have
been aware. It was the minister’s job to be aware.
The other key point—I cannot stress this enough—is that the opposition has asked questions year after year
about the hospitality and accommodation benefits from Healthway. I will quote an answer provided by this
minister in September 2013. Remember, this is the time frame in which the Public Sector Commission found all
these additional hospitality and other benefits being provided to Healthway officers—the same time. We asked
a question: what was the total level of sponsorship and other free accommodation and hospitality? This is what
the minister said —
550
Healthway provides sponsorship to over 700 organisations per annum. Healthway officers are required
to attend sponsored events in an official capacity to monitor the sponsored activity and ensure
sponsorship strategies are implemented. Excluding these circumstances …
No more hospitality or free accommodation—that is what the minister said in the Parliament on a number of
occasions. That is not right! The minister misled the place. He misled the Parliament. It is very clear if we look
at page 29 of the Public Sector Commission report that highlights that there are the standard requirements—that
is, the Healthway officer going to the T-ball game to make sure that the signs are up—and then we have the
additional new hospitality requirements that were struck in the new agreements. The minister told this house that
they were not there, yet the Public Sector Commission reports that they were. The minister has a duty to explain
to this house why he misled it not only on 2 September 2013, but also on 13 June 2012. He has an obligation to
inform this house.
As the member for Kwinana said, crisis in Healthway is not new. Basically, if we go through the history, since
2011 there have been accusations of bullying and sponsorship deals being struck before any real analysis was
undertaken. There has been accusation after accusation. It was becoming dysfunctional, and the minister did
nothing about it.
I do not have much time left, but I will spend a few minutes on the Perth Glory deal. Do members remember that
one? The government came into Parliament and said, “No, we never offered Healthway funding as part of the
compensation deal.” We then received a letter through a committee that showed that Healthway funding was part
of a compensation deal offered to Perth Glory; even worse, that the same officer who signed the briefing note
recommending that it should look at Healthway funding sat on the Healthway board. That is an absolute conflict
of interest that that officer never actually declared. In referring to Healthway officers, page 46 of the
Public Sector Commission report reads —
Some officers interviewed were of the opinion that the high value multi-year sponsorships for the Wildcats,
Perth Glory and WACA were decided before the assessment process was undertaken.
As Parliament can see, this minister must have been aware of these new high-end deals. There were millions of
dollars’ worth of sponsorship deals with the WACA, Glory and the Wildcats. As I said, these were different from
the previous ones, and as a result the benefits were greater automatically, but Healthway sought to make them
greater to a value of more than $200 000, as outlined in the Public Sector Commission report. We need to know
when the minister was first aware of these additional hospitality issues. He must have been aware; he cannot say
he was not.
Dr K.D. Hames: I have answered already.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: No, we were talking about the Auditor General’s report. This is the fact that the entire policy
of Healthway changed around the type of sponsorship. The minister must have been aware earlier, and I ask him
to do some proper research and come into this place and actually defend the decisions of his government.
Ultimately, the minister is to blame. We have now complete chaos and dysfunction in the Healthway board. Our
key health promotion agency is falling apart, and the Minister for Health was just sitting here basically giving us
glib answers during question time. He has to provide a full account of when he was first aware of these
additional sponsorship arrangements and why he did not act earlier to stop the chaos and dysfunction in
Healthway.
DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [3.20 pm]: I thank members for bringing up this issue
through a matter of public interest, because it is far better than doing it in question time, as it gives me an
opportunity to respond adequately. It will take me some time, so I will go through it steadily.
Mr W.J. Johnston: When did you know?
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington!
Dr K.D. Hames: Mr Speaker, the first opening of my mouth —
Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Let me make it clear that I will not be answering all the questions that opposition members
put to me as we go through.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington!
Dr K.D. HAMES: I will be going through it in detail in my own time with my own answer.
551
The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, you are on notice.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Such an aggressive member of Parliament!
Let me just go back to the creation of Healthway. Healthway was created under the Tobacco Control Act 1990.
At that time it received funds through taxes on tobacco, and its remit was to use its funds to try to move cigarette
sponsors out of funding sports, the arts and similar organisations. Healthway was to use its funds aggressively to
replace the funding that came from the tobacco lobby, and it was extremely successful in doing that—so much so
that in 2006, again under the opposition’s leadership, the act was rewritten and hypothecated the amount of
money that would have been taken through the tobacco tax as a general revenue component. There were
requirements on how that money should be spent; there was to be so much spent on sports, the arts and so on.
Members can look up what those percentages were. Healthway was required to change its focus and try to do
away with advertisements in support of sport that were sponsored by fast-food operators and alcohol suppliers.
That was Healthway’s remit; that is what it was there to do. However, the committee remained the same; hence
the start of the problem we have had in Healthway, because there were so many different players from different
sides of the argument. The Premier nominated the chairperson, who was appointed by me.
The member kept talking about the review of the Tobacco Control Act that made recommendations to change
Healthway and asked why I did not do that, as though that was in some way the start of this problem. However,
the recommendation of that review was only that I should change the balance and have more health sector people
on the board. I did not agree with that, because we already had on the board Dr Capolingua, who was the chair
and former national president of the Australian Medical Association. Representing the AMA we had
Dr Gary Geelhoed, who, clearly, is also a doctor. We had a representative from the Australian Council for
Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and that was clearly someone who had a very good understanding of
health issues and requirements. We had Professor Mike Daube, a former director general of Health, representing
the Australian Council of Social Service. Again, he was someone with extensive health experience. We also had
a representative from the Department of Health on that board. There was a large number of people with a health
background, so I did not agree with the view —
Mr R.H. Cook interjected.
Dr K.D. HAMES: The recommendation was to put more people from the health sector on the board when there
were already all those people with a health background on the board. The recommendation was not to do
anything else. I agreed with that. If the member keeps interjecting on such petty points, I will never get to the
main context of what he is asking me, so he really should wait until I turn to something more serious. That is
why I chose to take no action on the recommendation of that review of the act.
As that body moved forward and was making —
Mr D.J. Kelly interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the second time.
Dr K.D. HAMES: It is confetti in the ear, so it does not matter.
As Healthway progressed forward, it was doing some amazingly good work. As I have said earlier, it was
sponsoring a large number of grassroots programs for children. Forty-five per cent of its funding programs are
under $5 000, so it looks after grassroots cricket and football, such as soccer and rugby, and all those things. It
provides a significant portion of funding for people with disabilities. It does a large number of things at
a grassroots level, and that has been extremely successful. On a larger level—I had meetings with the chair,
discussing this along the way—there was conflict within the board because those who were from the health
lobby wanted a much more aggressive attitude to sponsorship with those large players, which were the ones
getting the big bucks from fast-food outlets and alcohol providers. All members would have seen the
advertisements on television with cricket, football and soccer. Under the new remit of Healthway, its job was to
try to move them aside in the same way that it had moved smoking sponsorship aside in the past. That was
Healthway’s remit. With Dr Capolingua as the new chair, the board formed a view that it should take a more
aggressive approach with the companies in doing that—in fact, it should withdraw funding when those bodies
accepted funding from the alcohol lobby. If one alcohol provider is sponsoring a body, and the body being
sponsored then takes sponsorship from a different alcohol provider, obviously, Healthway would not provide
funding. In the same way it was reasonable for Healthway to say, “Okay; if you’re going to promote fast food
and take money from those organisations, we’re not going to provide you with the money.” There was a hell of
a stink over that, and the sports groups lobbied me and got angry and a bit aggressive because they were missing
out on serious amounts of funding.
What I wanted the chair and the board to do—I had quite a few discussions on this—was to take a more middleof-the-road approach. I thought we should try to minimise the alcohol advertising, but not take a yes–no
approach. I believed they should do it over time and progressively use their funds to push out the alcohol
advertising. But that was still Healthway’s remit, and I encouraged the chair to do her best to try to replace the
552
funding of those other organisations in the same way as Healthway had done with smoking. Rather than being
overly aggressive about it, Healthway should use its funds in a manner that would help it form deals to push out
alcohol advertising. It was successful in doing that. I was informed by the chair that Healthway had struck deals
with rugby and cricket at some time—I forget the order. There was a sequential presentation of deals that
Healthway was able to negotiate with those boards to get rid of that alcohol sponsorship, and I encouraged it to
do that.
Healthway is a body independent of government. I do not even nominate any member of the board. They are all
required to be nominated, and I appointed one of them on the recommendation of the Premier. They are
deliberately set at arm’s length from government. They are much more at arm’s length from government through
legislation that the other side created, not our side. The opposition created legislation that made them totally
independent of government and totally independent —
The SPEAKER: Members!
Dr K.D. HAMES: This is my answer, not the opposition’s.
Members of the board are totally independent of the minister. They told me that they had reached those deals,
but it is not my responsibility to study the intricate details of those deals. As it comes about —
Mr M. McGowan: They told you about the sponsorship deals?
Dr K.D. HAMES: No. The Leader of the Opposition is thinking that because I said they told me about the
sponsorship deals, that means I know all the details of the sponsorship. I said that they told me about sponsorship
deals, but what they told me was in the newspaper. The Leader of the Opposition could have read it, the same as
I did. Healthway said, “We have reached a sponsorship agreement with soccer to get rid of other advertising.”
That is the extent of my knowledge of the sponsorship deal. I knew about it about the same time as the
Leader of the Opposition knew about it because exactly what happened was in the paper.
Mr M. McGowan: Did they give you a briefing?
Dr K.D. HAMES: The briefing I got was the chair informing me that Healthway had reached an arrangement
with different clubs to get rid of or move out groups such as alcohol sponsors. That is what I was told by the
chair. The chair said, “Great news! We’ve managed to do that. Isn’t that great?” I said, “Yes, it is great. Well
done, Madam Chair, that’s an excellent outcome.” The responsibility for negotiating and signing those contracts
had nothing to do with me—in fact, the advice I received from the chair and the things that she has said publicly
were that the board did not have full knowledge of the deals that were being done. As the Public Sector
Commissioner said, the board was concentrating on its overall direction. Most of the board’s discussions were
about Healthway’s overall direction and what it was trying to achieve in its negotiations. The details of finer
negotiation were left to the staff, which is the whole point of the commission’s findings. Let me give members
a little story about how this was discovered in the first place, because, remember, the Auditor General did not
know. The Auditor General put Healthway at the top of his tick box in his assessments for at least the previous
five years. He ticked it off as being good. However, one senior staff member within the department became
concerned about the activities of another staff member’s use of tickets and attendance at events, so that person
started a register of what was going on.
Mr M. McGowan: Within the department?
Dr K.D. HAMES: It was within Healthway. A senior person in Healthway started to keep a record.
A government member interjected.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Nobody knew. Problems can arise when you are a minister. A good example is the recent
fraud of the health system by two doctors. How am I supposed to know that two doctors are defrauding the
health system? How am I supposed to know that someone in Healthway is undertaking activities that are not in
line with the Public Sector Management Act, and that, allegedly, that person did not provide the board with that
information to give it that understanding.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
Dr K.D. HAMES: Why don’t you listen? What sort of lawyer are you going to be when you do not listen to the
defence’s argument?
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the second time. Member for
Armadale, I do not want to hear from you either.
Dr K.D. HAMES: This person in Healthway started to record the people who attended those events. Therefore,
that came to the attention of the Auditor General for the first time when he did his review in 2014 and he
immediately took action. The Auditor General provided me with that information on 28 July. He said it was
553
provided on 25 July, but I got it on 28 July. At about the same time, I had a phone call, which is not recorded,
from the chair of Healthway who advised me of these things. In my discussions with her, I said that the situation
sounded very serious and that we should report that immediately to the Public Sector Commissioner. She said
that that was her view also and proceeded to do that. Of course, the Public Sector Commissioner was made
aware of the situation at about the same time because the Auditor General provided the same report to the
Public Sector Commissioner, so the Public Sector Commissioner had received the information from both sides.
In terms of the timing of events, on 28 July I received that information. On 6 August the Public Sector
Commissioner finalised the terms of reference for the inquiry, following feedback from the chair of Healthway.
In mid-August the Public Sector Commissioner commenced a review of Healthway. On 8 September I had
a meeting with the chair of Healthway at which we discussed issues relating to the allegations of improper
behaviour by the executive director and her concerns about him. The Leader of the Opposition and the
Deputy Leader of the Opposition have made the arguments in this matter of public interest, but neither of them
want to listen to my answer.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Member for Cannington!
Mr R.H. Cook: Did you meet with the staff member involved?
Dr K.D. HAMES: No.
The SPEAKER: Members! That is it—through the Chair, please.
Dr K.D. HAMES: On 8 September I had a meeting with the chair of Healthway and discussed her concerns
about the executive director. Prior to this, about a year and a half ago, there had been allegations of bullying
against that member. Members opposite said that I sat back and did nothing. The allegations of bullying were
referred to the Public Sector Commissioner, as they should have been, and were investigated by the
commissioner. He found them to be of no substance, so no action was taken against that member. On 2 February,
the Public Sector Commissioner’s report was received and was forwarded to me. He asked if I had any objection
to it being released publicly and my response was no, because I thought that it was totally appropriate that it be
released publicly. On 16 February I responded and on 19 February it was tabled. That is the sequence of events
that led to this. Clearly, there was misbehaviour at a level below the chair. Although the board stated that it did
not know what the executive director was doing and that the executive director’s family members and friends
were attending all of these functions, the commission found that it should have known because it was the board;
hence the problems with the current board. The board is responsible for the governance of Healthway. It should
have been aware of those attendances at events. Mind you, I have heard the chair say that during the 15 years
that she has been a board member, she has attended only half a dozen events. As members have heard, I have not
attended any events. I do not know whether guys from your side or, in fact, other members from our side
attended any.
Mr P.B. Watson: Are you saying that the chairperson went to only half a dozen?
Dr K.D. HAMES: That is her public statement. She said that during her time at Healthway, she did not attend
a lot of events. The large bulk of the events in question, where there are issues of rorting, were attended by staff,
friends and family of a particular staff member, and so on. That is where the tickets have gone. It is a difficult
line to draw, because we have all been to events. Ministers are often in booths or corporate boxes, as are
members of the opposition—it happens all the time. It is a fine line to be drawn. Clearly, this was well to the left
of where that line should have ended—well to the left. It is totally inappropriate for a staff member to be taking
friends and family to a large number of events where sponsorship has been granted.
One of the problems, and the way the sponsorship packages came about, is that in negotiation with organisations
such as the Western Australian Cricket Association and in an attempt to displace alcohol and fast-food sponsors,
funds came from Healthway. Instead of Carlton & United Breweries sponsoring an event, Healthway would do
so, provided that there were health messages at the events, no alcohol signs and certain things were done.
Healthway took over whatever sponsorship package had previously been available to
Carlton & United Breweries, which included hospitality and a booth.
Ms R. Saffioti: So you knew about it?
Dr K.D. HAMES: No, I did not know about this; I am just telling the member now.
Ms R. Saffioti: So you’re justifying it.
Dr K.D. HAMES: No, I am not justifying it. I am telling the member this in a factual sense. This was put to me
by the Public Sector Commissioner. I am relaying to members opposite the words that were spoken to me
recently by the Public Sector Commissioner’s staff who were investigating the matter. The commissioner said
that Healthway took over corporate boxes. I was certainly not aware of that. The board said that although it was
aware that there were boxes, it was under the impression that they were paid for and supported by the WACA.
554
The Public Sector Commissioner—quite rightly in my view—has not accepted that position, which is why we
are here today. Those activities were not supported by me or known to me, but they occurred and the
Public Sector Commissioner has said that they were inappropriate. What Healthway should have done is what
the Department of Sport and Recreation did under its previous minister. The member for Wagin is listening now!
The Department of Sport and Recreation negotiated those things out of contracts for better benefits and that is
what Healthway should have done. It should have not accepted —
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Albany, I call you to
order for the first time. I am sure there is adequate time for both of you to put your names down.
Dr K.D. HAMES: The member for West Swan is carrying on as though that had something to do with me or
that I approved it. That is not the case. All I am doing is passing on, in a factual sense, the Public Sector
Commissioner’s view of how those things came about. Clearly, the view of most people around here is that that
was not appropriate, and that is something that we need to get rid of. I strongly support the Healthway
organisation—sorry, I support the goals of Healthway; the things that it does; the funding, especially for
grassroots sport and for disabilities; and I strongly support the concept of it trying to prevent the excessive
promotion by fast-food companies and alcohol companies of their products. I do believe there needs to be a more
balanced, middle-of-the-road approach that still provides support for those organisations but without the
excesses that we have heard listed, particularly without the corporate boxes and the tickets. That is something
that the Premier and I will discuss.
A point was made about why I made no response but the Premier has. I point out again that the Public Sector
Commissioner has undertaken an investigation as a result of the Auditor General’s finding against a particular
person.
An opposition member: It is your department.
Dr K.D. HAMES: It is my department and I have been deeply involved in all of those things, particularly —
Mr R.H. Cook: Not with the media, you haven’t!
Dr K.D. HAMES: The reason I have not been involved with the media is the Premier is the lead person with
responsibility for the Public Sector Commissioner and spokesperson in this house on matters to do with the
Auditor General. I am more than happy to have the opportunity to stand here and defend myself and report to the
house on the actions as they occurred. I hope it is seen as factual so that people now have a clear understanding,
instead of all the hyperbole that we have heard from the other side. I do not blame the opposition really. That is
what oppositions do—they try to find some little thing that a minister might have been involved in and hammer
away and call for the minister’s resignation.
Dr K.D. HAMES: I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition call for
me to be sacked.
Dr K.D. HAMES: In fact, I wish I had more than a dollar for every time he did some serious work because
I would not get much money!
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 pm]: It is a great pity the Premier will
not stand and defend his minister. This is a very serious matter. Once again, the Minister for Health stands and
just denies any knowledge whatsoever about what is going on inside his own portfolio. This has been a scandal.
A moment ago the minister, in his longwinded explanation, said one thing that was of note: he was briefed on the
sponsorship deals. He admitted that he was briefed on the sponsorship deals. Those sponsorship deals, as
contained within the Public Sector Commissioner’s report —
Dr K.D. Hames interjected.
The SPEAKER: Minister for Health, I call you to order for the first time. I want to hear the Leader of the
Opposition in silence. That includes people sitting behind me.
Mr M. McGOWAN: Those sponsorship deals with the Perth Wildcats, the Perth Glory and the
Western Australian Cricket Association were significant. This report by the Public Sector Commissioner
describes them as “extravagant or unnecessary hospitality resources” and basically states that what went on was
inappropriate. In the first question in question time today, I asked about the Minister for Health’s knowledge of
these matters and he said that he had no knowledge whatsoever. Then we find, in the minister’s longwinded
response, that he was briefed on the sponsorship deals. He said, “Oh, yeah, but I didn’t actually know anything
about it; I was just briefed they were there.” He said he did not know anything about it. The minister is trying to
555
tell us that he did not question anything. The minister either misled the house in his first answer or is
incompetent when he is briefed on major agreements by the major health promotion body in this state, and he
does not ask for any detail! The minister is hung either way in relation to this.
In a range of questions on notice that the opposition asked about hospitality provided to government, the minister
answered “Nil” when the question was asked —
(a)
how many officers have accepted any hospitality, invitation to an event, free accommodation
or free travel from a private company or individual;
That question was asked in relation to Healthway. The Minister for Health answered directly to that question,
and the answer he provided was “Nil”. That is misleading. The minister put some mealy-mouthed words at the
start of the answer about sponsorship strategies, sponsorship activity and the like, but we asked him specifically
what was provided and he said “Nil”.
The SPEAKER: Member for Cockburn and Minister for Health, I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr M. McGOWAN: On three occasions the minister misled the house in relation to this matter. I do not believe
the minister. This has gone on from 2010 until today. I do not believe that the minister found out only in the
second half of last year. I do not believe he did not formally or informally get some advice in relation to these
issues. I do not believe the minister. The minister said in some of his public commentary that he is very close to
the chair—as she was until this morning—of Healthway. The minister is telling me that in all of those
conversations, it was never mentioned.
What is more, as the member for Albany pointed out to me, if the minister was so appalled about what has been
going on, why were the Paul Simon concert tickets going to Healthway until a couple of days ago? Why were the
tickets to a concert, worth hundreds of dollars each, going to Healthway until a couple of days ago? Basically,
the Minister for Health took no action at any point along the way. He took no action. The minister drifted along
and let this scandal fester inside this organisation. It has brought discredit on the state of Western Australia, once
again from inside the minister’s portfolio. I am saying to the minister that he has misled the house or he has been
tricky in relation to these questions on notice. He has been tricky and misleading in relation to the answer today
and he has brought discredit on the state.
MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [3.47 pm]: This has been a failure of the Healthway organisation.
An opposition member interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I did not think it was that funny.
It is a failure of the Healthway organisation. Healthway has done some very good work in its role in terms of
preventive health measures, including anti-smoking, alcohol, obesity, mental health, skin cancer and other
campaigns. For many recipient organisations, it has been an important source of funding. It is a public sector
body but has behaved as though it were not a public sector body. As I said this morning in the media conference
with Dr Capolingua, I think all of us acknowledge that in the areas of sponsorship by government, whether it be
Healthway, Sport and Recreation, Tourism or whatever, there are circumstances in which senior staff, and
perhaps ministers or opposition members, will be invited to events. That is appropriate. I do not have a difficulty
with that. What is wrong is that the number of free tickets, entertainment, hospitality, corporate boxes and the
like was grossly excessive. Not only was it excessive, but also it was used by senior staff for personal benefit.
Indeed, that extended into the board—not to the same extent, but it extended into the board. That was wrong. It
could border on fraudulent. It was identified by the Auditor General and referred to the Public Sector
Commissioner, and the Public Sector Commissioner investigated that. I have no doubt—in fact, I would be
confident—that the Public Sector Commissioner would have kept the Corruption and Crime Commission
informed throughout that process.
That is point number one. That is unacceptable. As I said from day one, it is unacceptable. It is interesting that it
has taken five days for the opposition to raise the issue.
Mr M. McGowan: Parliament doesn’t sit on the weekend, Premier; don’t you know?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The opposition has had five days.
Ms R. Saffioti: Five days, when Parliament is not even sitting.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: There are other avenues. It has taken five days for the opposition to have a view. It is
five days later, but I will carry on.
The other issue is governance. The minister has talked about some dysfunction within the board and
disagreements between public health advocates, the sports community and perhaps, to some extent, the arts
community as well. I am not familiar with those details, but that has clearly been identified. The other more
556
substantive point about the board is that it seems to me that it did not do what it was required to do in examining
sponsorship deals and questioning senior management. It failed to go to the minister or to the Public Sector
Commissioner to seek clear advice. It would have got advice, had it done so. The number of free tickets and the
hospitality used for personal benefit and for friends and relatives was inappropriate for a government body.
It may be accepted in the private sector but it was totally inappropriate for a government body. That was the
major failing, in my view.
Ms S.F. McGurk: When you found out, what did you do about it?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I did not wait five days. The report was released on Thursday morning. The opposition, for
some reason totally unbeknown to me, failed to ask a question. It would be thought that it was an obvious
question.
The SPEAKER: Thank you. Through the Chair now, Premier.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I had a detailed briefing with the Public Sector Commissioner and the officer who had
undertaken the inquiry. That was on Thursday or Friday. I also discussed it with the minister. I made it clear that
I was not at all pleased with what had gone on. I articulated very clearly to the media what the problems were
and that we would take action as a government. Yesterday, the first day of the working week, I met with
Dr Capolingua. We discussed the issue and potential changes and reforms to the legislation and the operation of
Healthway, and we discussed what should happen next. Dr Capolingua and I agreed that Healthway needed
a fresh start and a clean slate. We also agreed that Dr Capolingua would resign, and this morning I called on the
other members of the board to similarly resign, so that we can reconstitute Healthway and solve these problems.
That is what I did day by day, and that is where we are right now. Interim arrangements will be put in place for
the management of Healthway, and the minister and I will obviously then work on structural change and who
might ultimately form the board. We did not wait five days; we dealt with the issue as soon as we became aware
of the detail in the Public Sector Commissioner’s report.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Opposition members might laugh, but they took five days to comprehend a fairly simple
and straightforward report.
Division
Question put and a division taken with the following result —
Ayes (19)
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 P. Abetz
Mr F.A. Alban
Mr C.J. Barnett
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
Mrs G.J. Godfrey
Mr B.J. Grylls
Dr K.D. Hames
Mrs L.M. Harvey
Mr C.D. Hatton
Mr A.P. Jacob
Dr G.G. Jacobs
Mr R.F. Johnson
Mr M.P. Murray
Mr P. Papalia
Mr J.R. Quigley
Mrs M.H. Roberts
Ms R. Saffioti
Mr C.J. Tallentire
Mr P.C. Tinley
Mr P.B. Watson
Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)
Noes (34)
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
Dr M.D. Nahan
Mr D.C. Nalder
Mr J. Norberger
Mr D.T. Redman
Mr A.J. Simpson
Mr M.H. Taylor
Mr T.K. Waldron
Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)
Pairs
Ms M.M. Quirk
Mr B.S. Wyatt
Mr I.C. Blayney
Mr J.M. Francis
Question thus negatived.
DECLARED PLACES (MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACCUSED) BILL 2013
Returned
Bill returned from the Council without amendment.
AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BILL 2015
Introduction and First Reading
Bill introduced, on motion by Dr K.D. Hames (Minister for Health), and read a first time.
Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister.
557
Second Reading
DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [4.01 pm]: I move —
That the bill be now read a second time.
Western Australia’s aquatic biological resources comprise over 5 000 identified species of fish and other aquatic
organisms. These valuable resources are distributed across a highly diverse range of marine and freshwater
ecosystems, from the tropical waters of the Kimberley to the cool south coast. Unlike other places in the world,
Western Australia’s marine ecosystems are relatively low in nutrients, hence primary productivity is low also.
Driven by the variable effects of the Leeuwin current, our continental shelf fish populations are diverse,
relatively small and highly variable in abundance from year to year. As a consequence, they are particularly
vulnerable to environmental change and the risk of over-exploitation.
Under the offshore constitutional settlement between Western Australia and the commonwealth government,
Western Australia’s responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of aquatic resources extends beyond the limit of
state waters. It reaches out 200 nautical miles to the western boundaries of Australia’s exclusive economic zone.
These resources support over 40 commercial fisheries and a range of aquaculture ventures, which include pearl,
finfish, abalone and algae production. They also support a range of world-class recreational fishing experiences,
for not only the state’s 700 000 recreational fishers, but also national and international visitors. The continuing
quality of these experiences makes an important contribution to the value of Western Australia’s regional
outdoor leisure and tourism industries.
Collectively, the state’s aquatic resources support activities that have an estimated economic impact of more than
$1.5 billion per year. Population growth, coastal development and the latest wave of fish-finding,
communications and fishing technologies continue to place pressure on these resources. On top of these factors,
in recent years we have seen a shift in ocean temperatures and climatic conditions that appear to be affecting the
abundance and distribution of aquatic species, including blue swimmer crabs, scallops, herring and
Roe’s abalone. Increased trade and shipping movements also bring biosecurity risks through the introduction of
diseases or harmful aquatic organisms. During the 1990s there were outbreaks of a herpes virus that reduced
southern pilchard populations by over 60 per cent. An infestation of highly invasive black-striped mussels in
Darwin Harbour in 1999 posed a major threat to northern Australia’s pearling and other aquatic industries.
Despite these pressures, Western Australia’s aquatic resources have been, and continue to be, managed
sustainably. Audited key performance indicators from the Department of Fisheries’ 2013–14 annual report show
that 97 per cent of the state’s fish stocks are managed sustainably. Effective action being taken in the other
three per cent of fisheries that have been adversely affected by unusual environmental events—such as the
2011 marine heatwave—show that our management systems are working. The passage of the Fish Resources
Management Act 1994 signalled a major change in policy focus, from the conservation and development of
fisheries to the sustainability of fish stocks and the conservation of aquatic habitats. This change recognised the
critical importance of healthy aquatic ecosystems for sustainable fisheries.
This bill builds on, and extends, this change in focus, from the management of commercial fishery target species
to an integrated cross-sectoral approach to the management of aquatic resources. The bill is firmly based on the
internationally accepted principles of ecologically sustainable development and ecosystem-based fisheries
management. These principles are also laid out in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development. The bill has been developed in close consultation with the commercial, recreational and
aquaculture sectors over a five-year period. It emphasises continued high standards of accountability and
transparency by providing for review by Parliament of subsidiary legislation, and review by the
State Administrative Tribunal of administrative decisions made under the bill. The bill also seeks to reduce the
burden of red tape by repealing general provisions for fish processing licences and permits, and providing
a foundation that will enable a review of the fisheries licensing structure.
The broad principles on which the bill is based encompass the conservation and sustainable use of our aquatic
environment, while giving due balance to the economic and social benefits Western Australia derives from
healthy aquatic ecosystems, profitable fishing and aquaculture industries, and valued recreational and customary
fishing opportunities.
In the national context, there has been increased recognition by the commonwealth and state governments of the
need to manage the conservation and use of aquatic biological resources in a more integrated fashion. The bill
adopts this approach and provides the department with a contemporary and innovative legal and administrative
framework to ensure the long-term sustainability of Western Australia’s aquatic resources, after taking into
account the total impacts of fishing and environmental effects on aquatic ecosystems. Resource sustainability
under the bill will be achieved through risk-based aquatic resource management strategies that will be developed
in consultation with the community. These strategies will provide greater transparency for the policy and
administration that is already undertaken for these natural resources. They will need to be approved by the
Minister for Fisheries and will specify, among other things, the method for setting the total allowable catch for
558
the resource and the proportion that will be available for use by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors.
These proportions will be fixed for the duration of each strategy. The total allowable catch will be set after
making provision for the amount of the resource that is required to be left unfished to ensure its ecological
sustainability, and the amount of the resource set aside to meet customary fishing and public good requirements,
such as fisheries research. With respect to customary fishing, it is expected that the amount of the resource that
will be set aside for customary purposes will reflect the estimated historical customary use of the resource. These
strategies will give rise to aquatic resource use plans that will specify the rules by which an aquatic resource may
be harvested by each sector. Like existing fisheries management plans, an aquatic resource use plan may be
disallowed by Parliament.
The legislation will facilitate resource sharing between the commercial and recreational sectors by enabling the
minister to make “temporary” resource reallocations between the commercial and recreational sectors. The bill
provides strengthened biosecurity powers to deal with aquatic disease outbreaks and introduced aquatic pests.
A further important feature will enable the making of co-management arrangements with the non-government
sector.
The bill will repeal the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 and the Pearling Act 1990. With respect to
pearling, the bill enables the making of an aquatic strategy for the management of the wild stock pearl oyster
resource, and provides that hatchery production of pearl oysters and pearl cultivation will be managed under the
aquaculture provisions of the bill.
The bill maintains the existing relationship between the fisheries and environment portfolios for the
establishment of marine reserves under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. Responsibility for the
management of marine mammal, reptile and bird populations will continue under the Wildlife Conservation Act
1950. An important part of the balance that the bill strikes between conservation and resource use is the inclusion
of a structured approach to the provision of secure rights for all sectors to benefit from the use of aquatic
resources within the context of sustainability. The framework for these rights has drawn on international
experiences with rights-based systems, such as the model used in New Zealand’s quota management system, and
systems in use in Canada, Norway, Iceland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
International and Australian experience has clearly shown that more secure rights of this nature will facilitate
greater investment in, and stewardship of, the state’s aquatic resources. In addition, the bill promotes a culture of
high professional standards in the commercial sector, with provision for a system of sureties that will apply to
operators with a history of noncompliance with fisheries legislation.
Importantly, the bill ensures that existing management arrangements and resource access rights for the state’s
commercial fishing, pearling and aquaculture industries will be carried forward undiminished. I am confident
that the bill, and the framework it will establish, will serve our state well as we meet the challenges of the next
20 years. It will also make a significant contribution to Western Australia’s reputation as a world leader in
aquatic resource management.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman.
AQUATIC RESOURCES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015
Bill introduced, on motion by Dr K.D. Hames (Minister for Health), and read a first time.
Second Reading
DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [4.12 pm]: I move —
This bill complements the Aquatic Resources Management Bill 2015. The purpose of this bill is twofold. Firstly,
it will amend the Aquatic Resources Management Act 2015 to provide that to the extent that a fee prescribed in
the regulations under that act will include an amount that is a tax, the regulations may impose the tax. This is
similar in effect to section 258(3) of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994. Secondly, it will amend the
Fishing Industry Promotion Training and Management Levy Act 1994 to authorise the imposition of a levy for
the purpose of that act. The amendment will have the effect of extending the capacity to impose a levy for
fishing industry promotion, training and management purposes to a person who holds a resource share allocated
under the Aquatic Resources Management Act 2015.
559
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Bill introduced, on motion by Mrs L.M. Harvey (Minister for Police), and read a first time.
Second Reading
MRS L.M. HARVEY (Scarborough — Minister for Police) [4.14 pm]: I move —
The Sentencing Amendment Bill 2014, which I introduce to the house today, will resolve an anomaly in
Western Australian sentencing legislation that has been found to avert the proper operation of laws that allow for
the transfer of prisoners from interstate prisons. In Australia, a national transfer scheme allows prisoners to
transfer interstate for welfare reasons. Until recently, it was understood that prisoners who transferred under the
Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1983 would stand in the same position after transfer as they did before the
transfer. These prisoners would maintain their original sentences, including the set minimum parole periods,
made by courts in the original jurisdiction. However, it was recently found that due to the operation of
section 93(1) of the Sentencing Act 1995, the Prisoners Review Board did not have the legislative authority to
grant parole to interstate prisoners in cases in which that parole period exceeded two years. This was brought to
the government’s attention in the case of Mr Joseph Dino Diana.
Mr Diana was sentenced in Queensland on 12 May 2010 to seven years’ imprisonment with eligibility for parole
to be made available on 12 May 2013. Early in 2013, Mr Diana was transferred to Western Australia under the
prisoners transfer act. Mr Diana was released from custody on 15 May 2013 on the basis of his original sentence
that made him eligible for parole. However, on 15 October 2013, Mr Diana was advised that his parole had been
cancelled and a warrant issued for his arrest because on review of its decision the PRB found that it did not have
the authority to make a parole order relating to Mr Diana until 2015 due to the conditions set by section 93(1) of
the Sentencing Act 1995.
On 5 March 2014, the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal delivered its finding in the case of Re Cock;
Ex parte Diana [2014] WASC 63 and confirmed the PRB’s view that the operation of section 93(1) of the
Sentencing Act 1995 meant that prisoners like Mr Diana would not be eligible for parole in WA, despite the
intent of the prisoners transfer act. Under section 26 of the prisoners transfer act, Western Australia has accepted
prisoners from other states over many years on the premise that interstate prisoners’ sentences will remain the
same as provided under section 26. Until 2013, the PRB had continued to operate under this premise and
considered the release of these prisoners at their earliest eligible date. Thus, the proposed amendment to the
Sentencing Act 1995, by the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2014, will match the legislation with what has been the
custom and practice within WA for many years.
I am informed that there are currently seven other interstate prisoners who could be adversely affected in the
same way as Mr Diana and, therefore, there is a pressing need to amend the Sentencing Act 1995 to ensure that
these prisoners are treated with the fairness that was meant to be afforded to them under the national transfer
scheme. The Attorney General has worked closely with the Minister for Corrective Services, as the minister
responsible for prisons in Western Australia, to develop this bill to recognise the original court’s sentences of
these prisoners who have transferred from other states and territories.
The bill before us ensures the smooth operation and legislative consistency between three acts: the Sentencing
Act 1995; the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1983; and the Sentence Administration Act 2003. In doing so, it
ensures that prisoners with translated sentences from other states and territories may be considered for parole
eligibility at the time determined by the original court in the prisoner’s original sentence.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (HOME BURGLARY AND OTHER OFFENCES) BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 25 September 2014.
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [4.20 pm]: I rise to address the Criminal Law Amendment (Home Burglary and
Other Offences) Bill 2014. I want to get through it reasonably speedily as there is a lot of ground to cover.
The first thing I want to observe is that this bill has not been brought to the Parliament by the Attorney General,
the person responsible for the Criminal Code. On 21 March 2013, by His Excellency’s proclamation, the
Attorney General was assigned the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act and the agency principally assisting that
is the Department of the Attorney General. We note from today’s notice paper that this bill was not brought here
560
before Parliament by the Attorney General or his representative, nor was it on the last occasion; instead it was
brought by the Minister for Police. That is my first observation to make because this bill has been handed to the
Minister for Police as a political exercise and not as one of thoughtful intelligent legislative preparation. It was
a political exercise from the word go. I want to get it on the record that during the election campaign, after
Metronet, or whatever it was called, was getting a lot of traction, the Premier came out and slandered 55 judges
in Western Australia by saying that everybody knows that some judges are not doing the right thing; that is,
everyone knows some judges are doing the wrong thing. The member for Balcatta is nodding. This is an
outrageous slander by the Premier and I challenge him. He has not been in the house at all. This is the third time
this bill has come on. It came on in March last year, it came on in September and it has come on today, and the
Premier is absent from this chamber. I challenge the government and I challenge the Premier of
Western Australia to come into this chamber and name the judges who are not doing the right thing—who are
doing the wrong thing. This is a dreadful slander and it has just been said that the judges are doing the wrong
thing without reference to those judges. He then sends in the Minister for Police. This is a strategy; this was not
done by the Attorney General. Remember when sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code were amended at the
urging of the member for Hillarys, in opposition and in the government—that is, mandatory sentences for
assaults on public offices—to introduce them? Of course it was not the Minister for Police who introduced these
significant amendments to the Criminal Code; it was the Attorney General—not someone who is so light on the
law and, in fact, has no knowledge of the law, which I will come to in a moment.
The minister today answered a dorothy dixer. It was a surprising dorothy dixer because, first of all, she got asked
the same dorothy dixer last year, so this is a government running out of steam. When it goes to “d” for dorothy,
the same questions are pulled out and again handed to the minister. She does not dream up her own questions nor
did she write the second reading speech for this legislation. I suspect that this second reading speech was written
by Dixie Marshall or some political apparatchik, not by someone who understands the Criminal Code. I go to
one of the comments the minister made today that exposed her lack of knowledge of the law, even at its most
rudimentary level. She is a good political beast. She knows how to smile for the cameras, she is good for five
seconds on Channel Seven, but if we scratch a bit deeper to find out what she knows and what she is telling this
Parliament, it is zilch—she is a vacuum. Today she said that if the amendment on the notice paper in my name as
the shadow Attorney General got up, it would give every methamphetamine addict a get-out-of-jail-free card.
That is a load of nonsense on two bases. Firstly, mental impairment is defined in legislation—of all places—in
the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act. Does the minister know what year?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: That is not what your amendment does.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Does the minister know the year of the act? The minister does not know the act. The
amendment refers to those people who are mentally impaired as not being subject to the onerous provisions of
this bill. The minister said it would be a get-out-of-jail-free card for methamphetamine addicts. I read the
definition of mentally impaired in the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act; it states —
mental impairment means intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility;
There is no mention of intoxication by methamphetamine or any other drug—alcohol, morphine or whatever.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: It’s a bit dangerous that the minister just makes things up like that, isn’t it?
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: As I said, when it comes to the law, she is a political beast. She is not across the law, but
she has been given this task. When we look at the law on the matter, not only do we have mental impairment
defined in legislation. I refer to paragraph 39 of the judgement of Thorn v State of Western Australia [2008]
WA Supreme Court appeal case 36 delivered on 28 February 2008, which I do not think the Minister for Police
is familiar with. She has not read it, but it was given to me by her office as one of the cases that she was referring
to. Paragraph 39 of the judgement states —
The critical feature which must be established before a psychiatric condition can mitigate punishment is
a causal connection between the condition, on the one hand, and the commission of the offence, on the
other, which reduces the offender’s moral culpability in respect of the offence.
We will come to that later on. So on two counts the minister was wrong and misled this Parliament today. This
amendment could never give a person intoxicated on methamphetamine or anything else a free card to get out of
jail; nor would the court allow it because it has to establish a causal connection between the illness and the
offence. So that is just poppycock.
I go back to some of the broader considerations this bill throws up. Firstly, as I pointed out, the Minister for
Police is bringing this forward, and she has very seriously misled this Parliament—to a degree, I think, that the
Procedure and Privileges Committee should have a look at her. The first thing she said was that it is proven that
mandatory sentencing has been effective in reducing assaults on public officers. In that respect I would like to
say two things. Firstly, I will read out the WA Police Union’s own report on this. The report provides a table that
I will seek leave to lay on the table for the rest of the day. It lists the number of offences for assaults on public
561
officers in table 6 and that is broken down to metropolitan and regional figures, but I will only give the total
because of the constraints of time today. In 2010, there were 884 assaults; in 2011, after the amendments kicked
in, there were 825; and by 2012, it had risen to 960. I will give the percentile increases. For 2000 to 2011, after
the legislation, assaults on public officers fell by 6.7 per cent. Then they rose the next year, 2011 to 2012, by
16.4 per cent, and from 2010 to 2012, there was an overall rise of 8.6 per cent. The police union noted this —
The Minister’s Office also provided us with a table (that can be viewed in Appendix A) outlining (what
we believe are, as the title is somewhat ambiguous) assaults on Police Officers. The table serves to
highlight the reduction in … assaults before (1346 assaults between September 2008 and August 2009)
and after (974 assaults between September 2009 and August 2010) the introduction of the mandatory
sentencing legislation. However, the table also serves to highlight the conflicting data we received from
the various Agencies …
It then notes that the police department supplied it with these figures to show that there had been an overall
increase in assaults on public officers. It gets worse for the minister, and she will have to answer this in
consideration in detail. In June last year, the report on the amendments to sections 297 and 318 was tabled; has
the minister read that report?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Keep going; this is your time.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: No, she has not.
That report tabled in June 2014 was a statutory review of the operation and effectiveness of the
2009 amendments to sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code. They were the amendments to deal with
mandatory sentencing on assaults on public officers. The police union considered the evidence and at the end
quote the Commissioner of Police. The report states —
In the circumstances, the Police Commissioner’s suggestion that ‘[t]o determine if the legislation is
achieving its intended objectives and meeting community expectations, it is likely that a formal longer
term study and evaluation will be required’ …
Not even the police commissioner himself in his submission to this Parliament’s statutory review would say that
the amendments had had the effect desired by the government. The Commissioner of Police said, “No, we need
a longer term study; you can’t decide that after five years on the figures available.” In light of all the submissions
received, is it any surprise that the Attorney General’s report makes two recommendations? One is that the
Department of the Attorney General investigate the feasibility of including an exemption—I will come to that in
a moment—and that there be a further five-year review. The review by the Attorney General also stated —
That the Department of the Attorney General investigate the feasibility of including an exemption for
persons with a mental illness, cognitive impairment or disability in the relevant provisions of
sections 297 and 318 of the Criminal Code so that a judicial decision maker would retain the discretion
to consider any mental impairment an accused may have when imposing a sentence.
That is for a person who is facing a mandatory term. The Attorney General of the Barnett government states in
his report to Parliament that consideration has to be given to making an exception where there is mental
impairment. That is not what this minister told the chamber this afternoon; nor did this minister reveal to this
chamber this afternoon that that is the government’s position on the report on mandatory sentencing taken so far.
The minister says she is waiting to see what the opposition’s position on this is. That is further evidence that she
is a political beast because she wants to see what the opposition will do. She will not worry about the legislation,
and she cannot read or is too lazy to read it. This matter that she says is urgent was first brought on nearly
12 months ago and then adjourned, and then brought on on 25 September. I now refer to page 6975a of Hansard,
where in the fourth line I repeated what the Leader of the Opposition said during the election campaign:
Labor will not oppose this bill. Here is the minister today saying she cannot wait to find out what Labor is going
to do. The government was told what Labor would do during the election campaign; this minister was told what
Labor would do during the parliamentary debate on this on 25 September 2014, and here she is waiting in
anxious expectation because she is hoping to wedge Labor. The Criminal Law Amendment (Home Burglary and
Other Offences) Bill 2014 has nothing to do with public policy; it has everything to do with politics.
As I said, I formally challenge the Premier of Western Australia, who has sought to slander the judiciary of this
city, to come into this chamber and name the judges and cases in which the judges were not doing the right thing.
I challenge him to. He sent in this ditzy Minister for Police and she referred to three cases in her second reading
speech. She said that these judges are not doing the right thing and they are not coming up to expectation.
Page 3 of her second reading speech states—I am not reading from Hansard, but from the second reading speech
circulated in this Parliament —
However, it is arguable that the punishments imposed by the courts for home burglaries and for
offences committed in the course of home burglaries, are limited as they are by long-standing court
562
established sentencing tariffs and precedents, and Court of Appeal judgments, are out of step with
community expectations.
By way of example, I refer firstly to a case where an offender with a lengthy record broke into a house
after disconnecting the victim’s home telephone. He entered the victim’s bedroom where she was asleep
with her four year old daughter and sexually assaulted the victim while her daughter slept beside her.
The burglary alone was punishable by 20 years imprisonment, —
Wrong —
as was the sexual assault.
Wrong —
He was sentenced to seven and a half years.
I wrote to the minister asking her to provide the case citation for that example. I did not get a response, so
I wrote to her at her electoral office and her ministerial office. I wrote to her, I think, four times, and I eventually
let her office know that I would be taking the refusal to name these cases to the media. Mr Gary Hambley wrote
back to me, after I had written on 14, 25 and 27 March, and informed me of the cases. If members read the case
referred to by the minister and if this is a case of the judges doing the wrong thing, I say it is the minister doing
the wrong thing. This case is an example given of these judges doing the wrong thing. This sentence was struck
a decade ago. It came up before Judge John Wisbey. Anyone who knows Judge Wisbey—it is not relevant to
current judges; this judge has long retired—knows that when he was on the bench, he was one of the strict ones;
one of the real stiff ones. He was not a bleeding heart criminal lawyer; he was the lawyer for the Insurance
Commission of WA and he used to give plaintiffs a really hard time. However, 10 years ago when he was
passing the sentence—the minister did not tell the Parliament this; she has misled the Parliament—he was
passing a sentence for a series of crimes committed 10 years before that. Then the judge, when sentencing, as
required by law, had to inflict a sentence that was apposite for 1995, for heaven’s sake, in the second year of
Richard Court’s government. The law has changed plenty of times since then, and I will come to those changes
in a moment. But the minister kept from this Parliament what she knew: that this had no relevance to what is
happening in the courts today. It was an offence 20 years ago —
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Either that, or she deliberately misled the Parliament.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am going to seek leave to lay this on the table today, so that when she responds she
cannot plead pig ignorance. She has to say, “I know the law now. You’ve read it out and it’s on the table; I got it
wrong.”
The minister then referred to the judgement of Judge Buss—he is still there; the minister has defamed him. He is
still a very senior judge on the Court of Appeal—and Their Honours Judges Wheeler and Miller. The minister
should read the judgements of Geoffrey Miller, QC. I will give the minister the tip: he was no slouch on
sentencing! I know Mr Miller well, and in the Court of Appeal he was very tough. They both agreed with
His Honour Judge Buss when they said, at paragraph 41, to help the minister —
Clause 2(1) of Sch 1 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), which is part of the transitional provisions
introduced by the Sentencing Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA) (the Amendment and Repeal Act),
requires that a court which has decided to sentence an offender to a fixed term of imprisonment must
impose a fixed term that is two-thirds of the fixed term that would have been imposed under the law as
it stood prior to the Amendment and Repeal Act.
Paragraph 42 reads —
So, for example, the maximum sentence which may now be imposed for sexual penetration … in
circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code, is 13 years and 4 months.
In her words, the minister misleadingly put to this Parliament that these judges were doing the wrong thing and
coming up with sentences. She said —
… by long-standing court established sentencing tariffs and precedents, and Court of Appeal judgments,
are out of step with community expectations.
The court had its hands tied by this Parliament! If it thought the maximum penalty was 20 years, the real
maximum it could start to consider is 13 years and four months. That is the starting point. So if he could not give
the maximum from the get-go, it had to be something less than 13 years and four months, and we came up with
seven years and six months. But to couch this as the fault of the judiciary is cowardice. It is political populism.
Call it for what it is. That is why we are not opposing it. But to blame the judges for their grab for the vote on
populism is dishonest. The government should say, “Look, Dixie Marshall and Ben Morton have come up with
a terrific idea to wedge Labor in the middle of the campaign. We’ll promise mandatory sentencing, and they
never will, so we’ll have wedged them and taken the votes that they might have got for Metronet.” The truth is
563
that it was politics, not policy, that drove this, and that is why the Premier will not show his face in this chamber,
I predict, for the entirety of the debate. If he does, he will be called upon to name the judges that he disgracefully
slandered on Channel Seven and in all the media by saying that they are not doing the right thing.
I will now come to the second case, and I will take the minister through these cases in detail during consideration
in detail.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Member, did you want to lay the first one on the table?
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will do so at the end of this. Thank you.
The second case that the minister noted was a dreadful burglary and rape. Let us go through it. This sentence was
imposed, as I recall—I might be wrong—by Judge O’Neal. I am now referring to the second of the cases that the
minister referred us to, or Mr Hambley referred us to—I doubt that the minister has ever read this—The State of
Western Australia v Miller [2005] WASCA 53 (24 March 2005). In that case the person was, I believe, given
a sentence of six years’ imprisonment. Again, I will go back to the minister’s second reading speech, in which
she said the following, as reported in Hansard —
In a second example, the offender smashed a window to gain entry to a unit in a senior citizens’
complex —
This is the third case. I am sorry; I have marked them wrongly —
and confronted the resident, a 78-year-old woman.
We welcome the Premier back. Is he going to tell us who the judges are who are doing the wrong thing? Is he
going to name them?
Mr C.J. Barnett: What are you on about?
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The Premier said on television that he knows that some of the judges are not doing the
right thing. I want to find out which judges he is saying are not doing the right thing. What are their names?
What are the cases? The Premier sits there in mute silence.
The Minister for Police came into this chamber and cited the second case; that is, a 78-year-old woman in
a senior citizens’ home was confronted by a person who sexually assaulted her. I am not even going to read into
the transcript here the filth and deprivation that this 78-year-old woman was subjected to. It was gross; it was
shocking; and it involved numerous sexual acts that she had never been subjected to in her 78 years on this
earth—the poor woman. The minister said that the offender was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, and she is
quite right. This was the worst sort of sexual assault that anyone could think of. I do not even want to mention
the details here. Anyone who is interested in that sordid detail can read it in the report. The offender was
18 years and nine months old at the time of the offence. This is the case of Ugle v The State of Western Australia
[2012] WASCA 104 (10 May 2012). This is to show that the minister got it wrong—I will come to this later—
when she said that the judges are not listening to the Parliament or the public.
The judge gave the offender 11 years. The minister said that it had to be 15 years’ imprisonment. Let us work
this out. The judge gave the offender 11 years after he, the judge, was required by law of the Barnett government
to give effect to a 25 per cent discount for a plea of guilty. We know that this is the law of the
Barnett government. It was an amendment to section 9AA of the Sentencing Act. It applies to everyone who
pleads guilty. It applied to Troy Buswell when he pleaded guilty. Do members not remember? He went before
the Chief Magistrate—there had been a lot of talk about his mental impairment before that—and pleaded guilty.
The Chief Magistrate when striking his penalty said, “This is the penalty I am giving you after the 25 per cent
discount, as required by law”—because a lot of people thought that that was a bit light—“because your plea of
guilty saves all those victims of your crime out there in Subiaco who had their cars smashed up having to take
time off work, get ready for trial and come along and be cross-examined.” There was no complaint by this
government, by this police minister or by this Premier that the judge was too soft in giving Mr Buswell
a 25 per cent discount, as required by law enacted by the Barnett government. Here we had a judge who was
sentencing an 18-year-old—hello—on a plea of guilty, so he had to give a 25 per cent discount.
Let us do the maths on that for a moment. Eleven years equals 132 months. If 132 months equals three-quarters
of the sentence, we must add to that 44 months. That was the discount that the judge was required to give under
Barnett government law. That brings it to 176 months, so that was his head sentence—176 months or 14 years
and eight months. The judge arrived at that conclusion prior to any of this announcement by the Premier that
some judges were doing the wrong thing. Thus far the Premier has refused to name those judges in this
Parliament. He will get his opportunity. The judge came up with 14 years and eight months—four months in
between. In a sentence that is nearly 15 years long, would anyone in this chamber say that 16 weeks is a material
difference? It is poppycock. That is not a lone case of course.
564
When the amendments to section 9AA were introduced, the Attorney General informed the Parliament of this.
Perhaps I can pick up the Attorney General’s exact words on this, but he said words to the effect—I have the
Hansard with me, and I will come to it later as we go through all this in consideration in detail—that there are
many benefits in a person pleading guilty. It saves the community a lot of money in court expenses and it saves
the police department a lot of time with all the forensic evidence and preparing for court et cetera. He went
through all the virtues of having a person plead guilty and said, “That’s why the Barnett government is
legislating section 9AA of the Sentencing Act to give statutory effect to the 25 per cent discount, so that the
judge can consider the 25 per cent discount when the person pleads guilty.” That is what the Attorney General
said. Where has this judge gone wrong? Where has he done the wrong thing? He looked at the sentence. We had
finished with the transitional provisions that in those two earlier cases the minister cited suppressed sentencing.
They were fixed by Mr Porter in 2009, and the sentences went up dramatically to a head sentence of 14 years
and eight months. As I said, this legislation was introduced by the Minister for Police, not by the
Attorney General, so she is at odds with the Attorney General on this, because the Attorney General says that
there is a virtue in giving a discount for an early plea of guilty.
I return to the instant case—the case of the 78-year-old woman. The experience with assault causing bodily harm
on public officers has been seen on television. We see the vision of a woman thumping a police officer in
Northbridge, who then goes down—and what does the woman do? She pleads not guilty, because no-one wants
to plead guilty to a mandatory offence; that is obvious. We see it on television all the time. They are all pleading
not guilty hoping to avoid the mandatory term.
I turn to the case of the 78-year-old woman—I will not go into the filthy detail, but it included cunnilingus,
fellatio, sodomy and other sexual intercourse. I will not go on. It was just the grossest thing. Any 78-year-old
woman will be told under this police minister’s legislation that the likelihood of this guy pleading guilty is
infinitesimal. The woman is 78 years old. He will plead not guilty and the woman might not live until trial
because it will be in another two years. The woman has to prepare herself for 18 months of interviews by the
police, reinterviews by the police and attending at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to tell her
whole horrid story. I cannot imagine how bad it was for that poor lady. She would have to recount all that to
a strange prosecutor, and then, to top it all off, when she is about 80 years of age, she will be required to go to
the Supreme Court and recount all of this in public and be cross-examined on her recollections. That was the
very thing that the Attorney General, Mr Mischin, said that amendments to section 9 of the Sentencing Act were
designed to avoid. I want to find out what conversations the Minister for Police had with the 78-year-old victim
and what she thinks about this—or what conversation the Minister for Police and the Premier had with the
Commissioner for Victims of Crime and what she thinks about this. What I cannot get over—I say “woman” and
“female”, but not in a sexist way—is that a female police minister would be hell-bent on subjecting women to
secondary victimisation in having to recount all this in public and be cross-examined. The Attorney General,
Hon Michael Mischin, said in the upper house that that is the evil that the government was trying to avoid with
section 9 of the Sentencing Act.
I have not spoken to the 78-year-old woman. I doubt whether the Minister for Police has, but we will ask her
what feedback she got from the 78-year-old lady. We have some insight to the thinking of the 78-year-old
victim, who was quoted in an article under the by-line of Luke Eliot and Amanda Banks on 26 April 2001. The
article states —
Last week, the woman said she was relieved the matter was over and she could move on with her life.
That is exactly what Mr Mischin said was the object of section 9A of the Sentencing Act. It continues —
I just hope he finds a good place in life and changes his ways”.
Outside the Court, Detective Senior Constable Travis Healy said the case ranked in the top one per cent of the
worst sexual assaults. I agree, but the reason his sentence was not announced as 14 years and eight months’
imprisonment is because the Barnett government legislated that the judge had to consider giving him
a 25 per cent discount if he pleaded guilty because of the cost he would be saving the community—but most of
all, it avoids secondary victimisation of women who have to tell all this.
In a very similar vein, another case was referred to in an article entitled “Brutal rapist ‘showed no mercy’”.
A 22-year-old man was sentenced to 11 years in jail for the brutal rape of a woman in her home. He left his
victim with no choice; she had to submit to his demands to protect her children. This was a tragic case in which
the children of the woman were sleeping in another room. The man went in with a weapon and demanded
money. He threatened to kill her before raping her and indecently assaulting her. He then forced her to drive to
an ATM to withdraw cash. Judge Chris Stevenson, a very decent and noble man, who, no doubt, the Premier
would characterise as one of the judges who does not do the right thing, sentenced him to 11 years’
imprisonment following the other case that had been approved by the Court of Appeal. Eleven years’
imprisonment after a plea of guilty means a head sentence of 14 years and eight months—the minister has not
said that. She does not say that these people end up with 11 years because of what the government decided some
565
time ago, in the virtue of offering an inducement to rapists to plead guilty early so the women could get on with
their lives and not relive the crime over and over again, as I have already detailed.
The Barnett government is not concerned about victims; it is not concerned about looking after the welfare of
victims. The Barnett government is concerned about harvesting votes. Well, we are not mugs; we can play that
game, too! There is no public policy behind this. Rather, this is contrary to public policy. We said that we would
not oppose the government: “You do it!” We said it during the election campaign and we said it in Parliament in
September last year, and still today the minister said that she could not wait to find out what Labor will do. I will
tell members what Labor will do. The next time a victim of burglary and sexual assault has to go to the
Supreme Court and to be examined and cross-examined on the worst experience of her life, and not just be
examined and cross-examined, but to do so in public in front of a public gallery and with the press present, we
will remind them that the secondary victimisation is theirs as a gift from the Barnett government. It is the tradeoff: “You women who have to go through all this again, which the Attorney General tried to protect them from,
because we wanted votes; we do not care about your welfare.” We will not oppose the government if that is its
sort of thinking. That is the government. The government got a mandate and we respect that mandate. We do not
oppose the government. It is only the Barnett government that trashes mandates. We have gone through the
many broken promises—Metro Area Express light rail, Yanchep District High School, the northern rail
extension—the whole lot! It will trash any mandate that will cost it money. It will turn any mandate that suits it
to trash. It thinks this one is the big vote winner. The government can go to the next election and say that it will
do mandatory sentencing for this.
The Attorney General is not so in favour of that. The Attorney General and I impart from the same page. I will
look at what the Attorney General was quoted as saying in the media. He said that campaigns based on
individual cases do not lead to good law. I rather gather he has been shanghaied into the position of having to
vote with the government. Before I move on, I seek leave to lay on the table for the rest of the day the cases that
I referred to, because I would hate it if the minister misled the house again and have the defence of ignorance
available to her!
[The paper was tabled for the information of members.]
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: We now know that as we go into the next election, the government will say that it will
double the sentences on everything—and we will say, “Okay; we’ll not oppose you. We are not going to be
wedged on this. There is a bigger issue at stake.” We could see that the Barnett government was going to trash
the Western Australian economy. We could see that if re-elected the Barnett government would inflict pain on
all working families in the state. There is a better way to do this, which I will come to now. I will read the
Attorney General’s words as reported on page 4 of The Sunday Times on 2 March 2014. The article states —
Attorney-General Michael Mischin acknowledged that “the risk of injustice is increased by rigidity”,
and high-profile campaigns based on particular cases did not enable a measured consideration of
sentencing.
The opposition is at one with the Attorney General on this matter. The Attorney General was responding to the
Chief Judge of the District Court that any reduction in sentencing increases injustice rather than decreases it.
The Chief Judge is quoted as saying —
“Experience has shown rigidity increases, rather than decreases, injustice.”
That is right.
I want to touch on two matters in the last 10 minutes. Let us go back to the preposterous proposition made by the
Minister for Police this afternoon when she said if the proposed amendment on the notice paper standing in my
name were successful this would be a free get-of-jail card for methamphetamine addicts. I have already dealt
with that. That is absolute errant nonsense spoken by an airhead. We are talking about people with serious
mental impairments. Did I just dream this up? Did I just say, “This would be a good idea”? Foetal alcohol
spectrum disorder is rife in the Fitzroy Valley. FASD is a mental impairment. I have already read out the
definition of “mental impairment”. These people say, “What happens?” Let us say that an 18-year-old kid with
FASD, with a cognitive ability of about a 12-year-old, is approached by a 24-year-old who says “Over in Quigs’
house there’s a carton of Peroni beer”—that is my taste; probably not theirs—“let’s go and pinch it.” They
burgle the house and pinch the carton. On the way out they are confronted by the home owner. The 24-year-old
then thumps the home owner right in the face and breaks his jaw. What does that constitute? We know from the
Marley Williams case in Albany and the Newman case—the Collingwood and West Coast Eagles footballers—
that a broken jaw equals grievous bodily harm. This was not the plan of the 18-year-old kid with FASD. We also
know about parties to an offence under section 7 of the Criminal Code—that is from memory; I have not looked
at it for a while—so that 18-year-old is also prosecuted and gets a 10-year mandatory term of imprisonment. It is
said that people with FASD are easily manipulated. An older offender says to an 18-year-old kid with FASD,
who has a cognitive ability of a 12-year-old and the social skills of an eight-year-old, “Come with me while we
566
steal this carton of booze.” When the older guy punches the home owner in the face and breaks his jaw, the
18-year-old kid, who is a party to the offence, faces 10 years’ imprisonment. Where is the justice in this? Am
I just dreaming it up that this is unjust? No, I am relying on no less —
Mr J. Norberger interjected.
Mr D.A. Templeman: You only just walked in!
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The member only just walked in. We are playing politics with the government; this has
nothing to do —
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: He will have his say.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Joondalup! The member for Butler is not taking interjections, and I ask
members to respect that.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Where did I get this idea that I need to move an amendment? It was from the Premier of
Western Australia! From what higher authority can I get it? During a recorded interview with Yasmine Phillips
published on PerthNow on 24 July 2014—after the Minister for Police introduced this bill—the Premier of
Western Australia was asked —
Perth Magistrate Catherine Crawford recently said that she believes Foetal Alcohol Syndrome should be
considered a disability and a mitigating factor when you’re sentencing young offenders in the
Children’s Court. What do you think of that?
Here is the Premier’s response, which leads straight to our amendment. Member for Joondalup, here is your
boss’s response —
Well I think it is. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, which can result in a severe mental impairment, and
therefore that mental impairment is considered by judges and magistrates in sentencing. It is treated no
differently—it is basically a disability, probably one of the saddest disabilities you can imagine that
a child is damaged before even being born.
The Labor Party’s amendment gives air to the Premier’s statement. For the Premier to vote against our
amendment exposes chicanery with the media. Member for Joondalup, stand and say, “He was wrong; he should
never have said that to PerthNow; the Premier is a goose!” The member for Joondalup can get up and say that—
good luck to him. That is the first area.
As I said, I will only speak through the Chair. We have an amendment on the notice paper. We will be relying on
the Premier to stand by his word in relation to “severe mental impairment”. I will be voting for that amendment.
Those members who do not give a whit about people with mental disability will vote to strike it down because
when we go back to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, what does it include? It includes
senility. Do government members think that elderly people are offenders! Let us say that a person in a rest home
enters another person’s room and commits the offence of burglary. That person is suffering from Alzheimer’s,
a mental impairment—senility. Under the mentally impaired accused act, that is mandatory imprisonment. What
a disgrace. I agree with the Premier of Western Australia that the magistrate should be able to take that into
account in striking a sentence. That is why I will move the amendment.
I now move onto the three strikes aspect of this bill, which will take up a lot more time in consideration in detail.
This whole debate kicked off on 23 April 2012, before the last state election, in an opinion piece written by none
other than the Commissioner of Police. He said —
The law states that a circumstance of aggravation includes being armed with a dangerous weapon, being
in company with others, threatening people in the house or causing harm.
It should come as no surprise that the majority of burglaries and other offences committed by juveniles
in WA are, at the very least, committed in company with others.
In writing this article, the commissioner said —
The documents provided to me referred to juvenile offenders … who had between 50 and 114 court
charges …
He said they had not been sent to jail—and nor will they go to jail under the police minister’s
legislation. The Commissioner of Police was looking at the record of a 15-year-old. These people are
not captured by the new legislation. Who comprises the bulk of these offenders? It is young Indigenous
people. If members go out to Banksia Hill and look in there, 85 per cent of prisoners in Banksia Hill are
young Indigenous people on burglary offences. They are all in there; they are stuffed. The
commissioner will be left short; they will not go to jail under this legislation because they are not
captured by it. What did the police commissioner go on to say? On radio later that morning, the
567
commissioner wanted to soften his stance a bit. He said — We want to try to get these repeat offender
kids into detention. It is an opportunity to get these kids into schooling to get them away from negative
influences. If they are a little older than going get some sort of trade qualifications. It is not about
locking them up and throwing away the key. Could construct a detention type place on a farm
somewhere, not necessarily jail. They just need to be taken off the streets to some kind of care.
That is what the Commissioner of Police said on Mr Hutchinson’s program on 720 ABC radio in the morning.
That is not what this government is about—building some place they can go, perhaps on a farm somewhere or
elsewhere, and be taught a trade. That is not what this government is about. It is about stuffing them into an
institution that is already packed to the rafters, to coin a phrase. As I say, the minister’s legislation will not
address these cases that were put before the public by the police commissioner because it does not even cover
those people. What will happen under this legislation is exactly what the commissioner said should not happen—
that is, put them in there and throw away the key. Of course that is what the government is going to do with
16-year-olds who commit offences. They will get the mandatory term. While everyone is bending over
backwards to try to prevent them from becoming entrenched offenders, this government is running contrary to
not only the suggestions of lawyers but also its own Commissioner of Police. It is breathtaking.
The minister has already said—we will come back to this in consideration in detail—that no economic modelling
has been done about the cost to the community of this legislation. In a briefing the other day with the sentencing
manager of the Department of Corrective Services, he estimated that there will be between 350 and 400 extra
prisoners. The minister says she does not know how much this will cost. Sooner or later, the community will be
looking for another way. The minister is pushed out there to look tough, but let us never forget that
Attorney General in short pants from Queensland, Jarrod Bleijie, who brought in the toughest laws in Australia.
However, when the election campaign came around, the community was so affronted by his slandering attack on
the judiciary, that he had to be locked in a cupboard during the whole campaign. It was not tough on crime. They
had to lock the Attorney General away because he was so out of favour with the electorate.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Member for Joondalup, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Zero, zero—I wish I could get that at the casino on the first go.
The ACTING SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Can I hand the Parliament its documents back, and have them tabled?
[The paper was tabled for the information of members.]
MR N.W. MORTON (Forrestfield) [5.13 pm]: What is Parliament if not the battleground of ideals? The people
of Western Australia will have a clear point of difference come 2017—a Liberal Party that is tough on law and
order and community safety, or a Labor Party that is as soft as butter. I do not say these things lightly. I want to
start my remarks on the Criminal Law Amendment (Home Burglary and Other Offences) Bill 2014 with some
quotes from Hansard by the member for Butler. I was in the chair at the time, so I remember this from the
middle of last year when the member for Butler —
Mrs M.H. Roberts: You can’t even remember the question you asked last year; you asked it again today!
Mr N.W. MORTON: I will get to the member for Midland. The member for Butler said —
Some of these backbench members of the government … shout slogans; that is all they are—slogans.
“Liberals are tougher on law and order than Labor; always have been and always will be.”
I think he was referring to me, because I have made that statement in this chamber. It is not just a slogan, and
I will spend the next little while articulating the argument of why it is not just a slogan. Any day of any week of
any month, the Liberal–National government will always be tougher on law and order and crime in this state.
That is why we toughened the cannabis laws and the hoon laws, introduced legislation on assaults on public
officers, and that is why we have introduced this legislation—to make sure we introduced the toughest home
invasion legislation and fixed three-strike laws. The Liberal–National government will always be on the side of
the victims and will always be working to ensure that fewer Western Australians become victims of crime in this
state.
I support this legislation because when I get around my community and talk to people, I find that people have
been genuinely affected by the impacts of home invasions and criminal and antisocial activity. I will not mention
this lady’s name, but I was chatting to her in her house last year some stage—she lives in High Wycombe—and
she told me she awoke to find a man standing at the end of her bed with several of her household effects, her
purse and those sorts of things. She lives in a small block of apartments, and only her bloodcurdling screams
scared the offender off. Thank God for that; we know it could have worked out far worse. Another retired couple
contacted me and said that they had been broken into for a second time, and in the process their dog had been
568
hurt and the woman’s wedding rings were stolen. All members would understand the sentimental value of those
sorts of items that cannot be replaced. Another lady who lives on Stretton Way in Kenwick has been broken into
five times, as at the last time I spoke to her. She has gone to putting barbed wire around the front of her house to
try to prevent people from getting in, which is a very extreme measure for someone living on the streets of
suburbia to have to go to.
People should not have to live in fear, particularly in the sanctity of their own homes. That is why we have
introduced this legislation. I will talk briefly about some of the measures it will address. The legislation
mandates minimum jail terms of 75 per cent of the maximum available for an adult offender who commits
a serious physical or sexual assault during the course of a home burglary. This means that an offender who
breaks into a house and violently rapes someone will face a minimum of 15 years’ jail. It also means that an
offender who breaks into a house and seriously physically assaults someone will face a minimum of seven years
and six months’ jail. An offender who breaks into a house and seriously indecently assaults someone in
aggravated circumstances will face a minimum of five years and three months’ jail. It also means a three-year
mandatory minimum period of detention will apply to juveniles aged 16 and over who commit serious offences
of physical or sexual violence in the course of the home invasion, and it will also address the three-strikes laws
so that a series of offences is not bundled into one strike. An offence actually means one strike.
During last year the Minister for Police came out to my electorate. We met in Kenwick, and met with a number
of residents. When we talked through the legislation we were bringing forward into this Parliament to address
these issues, there certainly was not anyone saying, “No, don’t do it.” Everyone was in strong support of a strong
stance against these kinds of offenders within our community—and rightly so.
The Labor Party has always been soft on law and order and community safety. I was sitting in here late last year
listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have his speech here somewhere. This is the man who, in
a Labor government, would be the Deputy Premier of Western Australia. In his speech, he said that the
Labor Party was soft on cannabis laws a decade ago because no-one knew it was harmful. A decade ago, I was
working in schools teaching teenagers about the harmful effects of marijuana and other drugs. I am not sure that
that would be the policy that we are implementing in our public education system, yet the Labor Party was on
planet cuckoo when it came to the harmful effects of marijuana. However, we should not be surprised. Let us go
on and have a look at the person who would call himself the Attorney General in a Labor government. We have
heard plenty from him—the member for Butler. I think we need to get some oxygen readings from that side of
the chamber. When referring to mandatory sentencing, he purports that he supports it and says that the
Labor Party supports it, yet when he is out of this place and he thinks no-one is watching, he goes on to say,
“Mandatory sentencing is bull….” We all have a big enough imagination to work out what the dots stand for, so
I will not say that for the purposes of Hansard. That is really what the alternative Attorney General of Western
Australia thinks about mandatory sentencing in this state. It is good to know that the alternative
Attorney General—the person who wants to be the Attorney General of Western Australia—has got the backs of
our men and women in blue, who put their lives on the line to make sure that the member for Butler can go to
sleep safely at night along with his family—yet if police officers are harmed in conducting the business of
making sure our streets are safe, he is missing in action. Missing in action! It is a disgrace; an absolute disgrace.
In fact it is a sham that he can stand here and pretend to support it, when really out there, he is white-anting and
undermining the measures that we are taking and putting in place to ensure that the people who support and
serve our community on the frontline are safe and have measures in place to protect them if people decide to take
violent action against them. Of course, we should not be surprised by this because being soft on law and order
and community safety is in the Labor Party’s DNA. I say that because I did a little bit of research.
Mr P.B. Watson: That’d be a first.
Mr N.W. MORTON: I did a little bit of research. The member for Albany might want to listen.
In doing so I obtained some documents under freedom of information. They refer to Labor cabinet documents
and it makes for some very interesting reading. I am going to refer to these documents, and it is a strategy for
reducing the rate and cost of imprisonment and it is a quote. The recommendation was that the Labor cabinet
“endorse the overall strategy outlined in this submission”. I am going to go into some detail of this submission,
as I said it makes for some very interesting reading. There were three components to what the Labor Party was
trying to do when it comes to this initiative—remember it was endorsed by cabinet. The first aspect was the
exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, and for members who do not know, this is a measure that is held by
the Governor of the day, and is applied to the early release of prisoners in exceptional circumstances or on
compassionate grounds. That is what it is there for. I will repeat that: the release of prisoners in exceptional
circumstances on compassionate grounds. However, and it is right here in black and white that in the
Labor Party’s own cabinet document they say they wanted to roll this royal prerogative of mercy out across the
entire prison population. We are starting to get a gist of how tough they are on law and order and community
safety. People who have committed crimes, these are not people who have just been caught with their hand in the
569
cookie jar, these are people who have committed crimes and been sentenced. The Labor Party wanted to remit
their sentences to the tune of 30 days and release them to freedom. It went on to state —
•
all prisoners who become eligible for parole within a specified 12 month period be made eligible
for parole release 30 days earlier …
Thirty days early. It then went on to state —
•
the sentences of those received within a specified 12 month period who have been sentenced to
a term of imprisonment of 6 months or less and have served 50% of their sentence, including those
sentenced for driving offences be remitted and the prisoners released to freedom.
That is three months off for some certain offenders. It is interesting when we go through and we read some
remarks from the Leader of the Opposition with regards to spending time behind bars in prison. This is an extract
from Hansard of Wednesday, 11 June 2014. The Leader of the Opposition, who is so scared of prison —
… I spent a couple of hours touring through the various cell blocks and parts of Hakea Prison. I spent
two hours there. The thought that I might spend longer than that is an appalling thought.
Yes, he is starting to catch on. He goes on to say —
To actually go and see the prison up close in operation has been one of the more interesting things
I have done recently. I realised when I went there that it is neither a nice place to be nor a good place to
be.
You don’t say! —
It is not somewhere that anybody would really want to be if they did not have to be there; —
You don’t say! —
and if they are there, they would not want to be there a minute longer than they absolutely have to be.
Of course—it is a deterrent. We put penalties in place so that people do not commit the crime. If they do commit
the crime, then they know what is going to happen to them. Here we have in black in white—
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected.
Mr N.W. MORTON: We have heard enough from you, member!
Then we go on to read that they are releasing them for 30 days across the entire prison population, or in some
cases, if they are really generous, three months. It goes on to state, on the same page of this cabinet submission
—
Risks: Government could be criticised for using the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in the way proposed
since it is usually only applied to the early release of prisoners in exceptional circumstances on
compassionate grounds.
It goes on to state —
Some released prisoners could re-offend, perhaps seriously.
But let us not let that get in the way. The second part of this cabinet submission related to administrative change.
This makes for some very interesting reading, too. They wanted to introduce —
… discretion by supervising Community Based Services … to reduce the number of parolees returned
to prison for non-compliance with the conditions of their orders …
I sit here and listen to the —
Point of Order
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I was just trying to ascertain whether the member is misleading the house. He says that
he has obtained a document under FOI, he then says that it is a cabinet submission. My understanding of FOI
laws is that one cannot get cabinet submissions under FOI.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): I do not think that is a point of order.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, points of order are to be heard in silence. Member for Cannington, my
advice is that it is not a point of order.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: Just to educate the member about that, cabinet documents older than 10 years are
accessible under FOI, so do your homework first, champ.
Getting onto the administrative change —
570
Point of Order
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am seeking to understand how the cabinet submission from 10 years ago relates to the
debate on the particular provision. Perhaps the member can explain to the house whether this matter relates to the
substance of the matter that we are debating, which is respect of home burglaries, or whether the document that
he claims to have got from FOI relates to a matter that is not related to —
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, that is not a point of order. He has already indicated the context.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: What I have asked, Mr Acting Speaker, is whether the document he is quoting from
relates to the question of home burglaries and perhaps the member could let us know that.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, I have said that it is not a point of order. I expect you to respect that.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I will continue.
The second part goes on to talk about administrative change and I said they wanted to introduce discretion by
supervising community based services to reduce the number of parolees returned to prison for noncompliance
with conditions of their orders, and I sit here and listen to the member for Warnbro bang on and on about TJD
and how appalled he is, and yet his own party wanted to release them, and in fact it went on to say a —
… (broader interpretation of term “minimum risk” may need legislative change …
Their own risk statement —
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, I am on my feet.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I am on my feet and I expect you to be silent, and everyone
else as well. I have to call you next time.
Mr J. NORBERGER: The member for Cannington repeatedly accused the member for Forrestfield of lying.
I ask him to withdraw that unparliamentary language.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, if that is what you said I ask you to withdraw.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I withdraw.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: It goes on to state for the implementation of this that their broader interpretation of the
term “minimum risk” may need legislative change. Again, in their own risk statement it went on to state —
The number of breaches of early release orders could increase thereby drawing adverse community
comment.
Again they are demonstrating their tough approach to law and order and community safety. The third part of the
document goes on to talk about legislative change, specifically to target offenders who currently would receive
a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years. We have already established that the Leader of the Opposition
is scared of spending a second longer than he needs to behind bars and yet the Labor Party was pushing to target
offenders who currently receive a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, specifically with regard to
traffic offences: “Provide for management in the community of these offenders”. I challenge the Labor Party that
they come out to my electorate and they speak to Deb and Graham Harris, who had a drunk-driver smash
through the front of his home over the Australia Day long weekend two Australia Days ago, and come out and
tell him that it is okay for that guy to walk scot-free without being held to account.
Point of Order
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Mr Acting Speaker, driving has nothing to do with any clause of this bill—drunk or
reckless, or any other form of driving—otherwise we could have had a good examination of Mr Buswell, in
detail. I would have liked to have done that, but it is not relevant to the bill. What does crashing a car into a
house have to do with this bill?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Butler, the second reading allows for a fairly broad canvassing of the
issues. The member for Forrestfield is canvassing the whole issue of being tough on crime. I simply rule that this
is an issue that is related to that.
571
Debate Resumed
Mr J.R. Quigley: Broad and shallow!
Mr N.W. MORTON: A bit like the member! They do not like the truth, Mr Acting Speaker!
The only thing that I would suggest is probably more un-Australian than the fact that members opposite would
let drink-drivers go free is perhaps this cabinet submission in the first place. The submission goes on to state that
the Labor Party would enable the court to impose —
… an order of suspended imprisonment.
Mr N.W. MORTON: Keep rabbiting on! They do not like it when they hear the truth! It continues —
Given this option, courts may be willing to order suspended imprisonment where they currently
imprison for 24 months or less.
Their own risk statement goes on to state —
The police and community may question the appropriateness of the proposal relating to driving
offences.
I went on to look at the sorts of offences that draw a sentence of two years or less, and the sorts of people who, if
Labor were in charge, would not be in jail but would be walking our streets. I want to take a few moments to go
through this, because it makes for compelling reading. I looked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for
length of custody in a correctional institution in Western Australia last financial year. There is a range of
categories, and I will go through them. For homicide and related offences—the people we would take home to
meet our mum—six people were put behind bars. Under Labor, these people would be walking the streets. For
acts intended to cause injury, 754 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets.
For sexual assault and related offences, 83 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the
streets. For dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons, 233 people were put behind bars. Under Labor,
they would be walking the streets. For abduction, harassment or other offences against a person, 50 people were
put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets. For robbery, extortion or related offences—
these are stand-up individuals—127 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the
streets. For unlawful entry with intent—which perhaps is the most closely related to this legislation—530 people
were put behind bars. If Labor were in control, these people would be walking the streets. For theft and related
offences, 184 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr N.W. MORTON: For fraud, deception and related offences, 95 people were put behind bars. Under Labor,
they would be walking the streets. For illicit drug offences, 176 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they
would be walking the streets. For prohibited and regulated weapons and explosives offences—that is very
creative—26 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets. For property damage
and environmental pollution—I am sure the member for Gosnells would be heartbroken by these figures—
64 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets. For public order offences,
34 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets. For traffic and vehicle
regulatory offences, 314 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets. For
offences against justice, 160 people were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets.
Mr N.W. MORTON: I will get to the member for Midland in a minute.
For miscellaneous offences—apparently these offences do not fit within any of the other categories—six people
were put behind bars. Under Labor, they would be walking the streets. The total number of people who received
sentences of two years, or less, was 2 842. That is the Labor Party’s stance on being tough on law and order and
community safety. That is a disgrace. Possibly the most telling part of this entire cabinet document is that the
Minister for Police at the time was none other than the member for Midland—the person who would call herself
the police minister under a Labor government—yet the member for Midland comes into this place and tries to
get —
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Forrestfield has said that he has an official
document that he got under freedom of information. I call on him to lay that document on the table for the
remainder of this day’s sitting so that we can see what he is referring to, because it is certainly not a document
authored by myself, if that is what he is now intending to imply.
Mr N.W. MORTON: I will consider it. It is at my discretion whether I do that.
572
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, it is at the discretion of the member as to whether he wishes to lay it on
the table.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: The shadow police minister at the time was the member for Midland.
Mr N.W. MORTON: The member for Midland is finding her voice now! The member for Midland would
actually make a good case study in how to turn a safe Labor seat into one of the most marginal in the
Southern Hemisphere! She is like a cling-on! Does she know that her own staff —
Point of Order
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Mr Acting Speaker, I understood what you were saying previously, and I am not
seeking to canvass any of those matters. But I am not quite sure what the ridiculous comments of the member for
Forrestfield have to do with the bill, and I would appreciate if you could ensure that the member for Forrestfield
adheres to the standing orders by making his remarks relate to the bill.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Forrestfield, I would encourage you to get back to the bill.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: Mr Acting Speaker, I am just giving a historical account here. The fact is that members
opposite come in here and pretend to be tough on law and order, yet the person who wants to be police minister
in this state was the police minister at the time and sat in that cabinet room. When they think no-one is listening,
and when they are behind the closed doors of cabinet, their true colours come out, and now, 10 years later, we
can see it in black and white. It is a disgrace.
Mr N.W. MORTON: You are a disgrace! You have no credibility!
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Acting Speaker, the member in question is making an unsubstantiated attack on my
integrity. I would call upon him to table whatever document he is referring to. Let us see what the document is.
Mr N.W. Morton: I cannot table it, member. I can lay it on the table.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Lay it on the table for the remainder of today’s sitting.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, that is not a point of order.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I am not the subject of this bill, Mr Acting Speaker, so I fail to see how the member for
Forrestfield’s comments are remotely pertinent to the bill, other than by way of personal insult to me.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Midland, that is not a point of order. People variously attack the
integrity of members and so on. That is part of the cut and thrust of the debate.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the use of the term “You are a disgrace” by
the member for Forrestfield to the member for Midland. That is clearly —
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Albany, we hear points of order in silence.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Indeed, Mr Acting Speaker; I am very happy to be heard in silence. That comment by
the member for Forrestfield is clearly unparliamentary, and in accordance with the standing orders I ask you to
enforce the standing orders and make him withdraw.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: And there is also a standing order on adverse reflection, in case you are unaware of that.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, my recollection is that the words “You are a disgrace” are bandied around
this place very frequently.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: Mr Acting Speaker, if it helps the sensitivities of members opposite, I will say, “The
actions of members opposite were a disgrace.” Anyway, I think I have made the point that the wannabe police
minister presided over this disgraceful document —
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Mr Acting Speaker, the member has again accused me of presiding over this document.
I have asked him whether I am the author of it. I have asked him whether he is prepared to lay it on the table.
573
I do not think you can let him continue to impugn my character in this way without him substantiating it with the
actual document.
Mr J.R. Quigley: He’s a coward! He won’t put it on the table!
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Butler, we hear points of order in silence, thank you. Member for
Midland, I do not believe that is a point of order.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. It is interesting to hear the member for Butler refer to me
as a coward, when out of this chamber he refers to mandatory sentencing as “bull-dot-dot-dot-dot”! Interesting!
And I loved the member for Butler’s misogynistic and sexist comments last week!
I think it is very clear that when there are no cameras and no media, and they think there is no public scrutiny,
the true colours of the Western Australian Labor Party come to the fore and we see how insipid they are, how
soft on law and order they are, and how they are always angling for the criminal vote. But that should come as
no surprise when we look at some of the people who have held Labor membership, like former Labor Premier
Brian Burke, who also has in his curriculum vitae “former inmate at Wooroloo Prison”.
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have a point of order.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Butler! The member for Midland is on her feet for a point of order.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I seek your ruling on whether it is parliamentary for the member for Forrestfield to say
that we are always angling for the criminal vote and whether that is acceptable to you presiding as
Acting Speaker of this house.
The ACTING SPEAKER: It is an opinion that the member has expressed. I do not believe that is a point of
order.
Debate Resumed
Mr N.W. MORTON: Maybe members opposite, rather than listen to the faceless union officials, should listen
to the people of Western Australia and stand up for the vast majority of law-abiding mums and dads who go
about their business day in, day out, doing the right thing. Members opposite are as soft as butter when it comes
to law and order and community safety.
I will conclude my remarks by saying this: I fully support this legislation that targets criminals. I want
Western Australians to feel safe in their houses whether in my electorate or across the state. That is why, when
I speak to families —
[Interruption.]
The ACTING SPEAKER: What is that noise?
[Interruption.]
Mr N.W. MORTON: When I get around and listen to my constituents, they tell me about some of the things
that concern them. I want to be here and represent them in Parliament to make sure that this legislation is passed
and that we introduce these measures to protect people in their homes. That is why I commend this legislation to
the house.
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [5.40 pm]: I remember talking to former member of this Parliament
Alannah MacTiernan. Sometimes she would do the mobile booth at the prison in the southern suburbs. She used
to point out to me that prisoners would take how-to-vote cards, but there was one group of prisoners who only
ever took the Liberal how-to-vote cards. That was the rock spiders. They never voted Labor. The rock spiders
always voted Liberal.
Point of Order
Mrs L.M. HARVEY: Mr Acting Speaker, I ask the member to verify that accusation. He has made an offensive
slur against every Liberal supporter in Western Australia.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, we hear points of order in silence!
574
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Butler, I call you for the first time. When I am on my feet, I expect
silence. Minister, I do not believe that is a point of order. There would be lots of points of order if we asked
people to verify what they were saying.
Debate Resumed
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: As I said, Hon Alannah MacTiernan used to always point out to me that the rock spiders
all voted Liberal. That is the sort of party that is lecturing me about my position on law and order.
That was an embarrassing contribution from the temporary member for Forrestfield. He told me the other day
that he will not win his seat at the next election. I am happy for him to tell me why he thinks he will not win his
seat.
Mr N.W. Morton interjected.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is what he said. He accused me of having said that the Liberal Party is going to win
and he said that that is not right; he did not say that the Liberal Party would win.
Point of Order
Mr N.W. MORTON: The member for Cannington is again in cloud-cuckoo-land. I never said that. He should
correct the record.
The ACTING SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Debate Resumed
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Last week the member for Forrestfield started a speech by saying he had never claimed
that the Liberal Party would win the election, and now he says that the Liberal Party will win the election. He has
to make up his mind.
Let us make a couple of things clear. The fact that that member is too scared to table the document and provide it
to the opposition shows that it is worthless. I bet members that there is no stamp on that document stating
“released under FOI”. The member should come and show us that document and the stamp that states “released
under FOI”, because if there is no such stamp on that document, the member has deliberately misled Parliament.
I would love to know what is on that document because I do not know whether he has deliberately misled
Parliament, but he can solve that problem by giving us a copy of the document because every single page will be
stamped “released under FOI”. I bet members that that document was not released to him under a freedom of
information application. We have to ask: what would the FOI application have looked like? I will tell members
something: I will make a FOI application to the Premier’s department for the member’s letter requesting the
document. I will FOI the Premier’s department and ask for any FOI request by the member for Forrestfield.
It will be interesting to see what I get back, because if there is no letter in there dated some time last year—
because that is how long FOIs take to get to us—that member has deliberately misled Parliament. He thinks he is
a very clever man. Sadly, he is not. Sadly, he is a no-hope Liberal backbencher, which is very common in this
chamber.
Mr D.A. Templeman: He’s left the chamber now.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Of course he has left the chamber because he does not want to be here to be held
account for his behaviour. He has snuck off.
I would also like to know—the minister could probably help us later in this debate—what legislation was
amended following that cabinet submission, if that cabinet submission is true? The minister should tell us what
legislation was amended. That member said all those people are running the streets, so when did the government
change that legislation? When were those changes reversed? Let us understand what is being said. The member
for Forrestfield is saying that those legal changes have led to prisoners escaping and people who should be in jail
running the streets, but the government has been in for six and a half years. Has it changed that piece of
legislation, whatever it was? No, it has not. The member for Forrestfield should not come in here, puffing up his
chest and pretending that somehow he is interested in law and order, rather than interested in running a campaign
in the community about law and order.
Let us look at the facts. The Minister for Police has failed to deliver the number of police promised at the
2008 election and at the 2013 election. The government came in here and changed its promise retrospectively.
Having promised at the time of the 2008 election extra police, we got in here to find that it did not mean extra
police; it meant extra auxiliary police officers.
Point of Order
Mr J. NORBERGER: Having been lectured relentlessly by members opposite on relevance, I think it is
hypocritical that they talk about whatever they want.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Points of order should be heard in silence.
575
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: On the point of order, as you explained to me, this is the second reading debate and we
are allowed to roam freely across the broad issues. All I am doing is exactly what you told me to do,
Mr Acting Speaker.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I did not say “freely”. I said “widely”. There is a slight difference. There is no point
of order.
Debate Resumed
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is the sort of Liberal Party that we have; the Liberal Party is interested in slogans
and not outcomes. As the member for Forrestfield said, if we go into the community and ask people whether they
feel safer since the Liberal Party has been in power, the answer is no. That is exactly what the Minister for Police
said at the time of the 2013 election. She said that we need these new laws to toughen sentences because people
did not feel safe under her government. That is what she said at the time of the election and that is why this
legislation has been brought in. Of course, it is two years late. She promised it two years ago and now she is
bringing it in, but she said that crime was a problem under her watch as Minister for Police. The Minister for
Police’s position was that crime was a problem and she was the minister and responsible for that crime. We all
know that crime rates in the community are increasing, clean-up rates are falling and fewer people are being
found guilty of crime under this minister. That is what has happened in our community.
Government members come in here and lecture us and pretend to have a document that they do not have. They
pretend they got it through an FOI application when they did not. That is the sort stuff this government does. It is
not about outcomes; it is about three-word slogans. The minister should be better than that and should be
interested in doing her job. Is it not amazing that the member for Forrestfield comes in here and lectures us about
being soft as butter on law and order while crime rates in his own community are going up, while crime is not
being solved in my electorate and the rate of conviction for offences has fallen? And they lecture us—my God!
What sort of people are these people on the other side? Do they not have any respect for the community? Why
do they not tell it the truth? For example, the Minister for Police has not told the public that nobody will be jailed
for raping a person during a home burglary for any longer than they are now. She cannot point to a single
sentence that has gone up for somebody who has committed a rape during a home burglary—not once; not
a single occasion. The minister smirks there and she might jump up during this second reading debate and
provide one case, but why did she not do that two years ago? Why did she not do that when the bill was
introduced? Why was that information not included in the explanatory memorandum? Why, up to this very
moment, has the minister not told us of a single time that one person will go to jail for one day extra for raping
somebody during a home burglary? Having a minimum sentence does not automatically increase the amount of
time a person spends in jail. People always get jailed for longer periods than the minimum anyway. That is good
because the Liberal Party can go to the media and say, “We’re being tough; we’re bringing a 10-year minimum”,
but everybody gets more than that anyway. As I say, to this very second, on not one occasion has the minister
ever told anybody of an example of when a person has not got 10 years for committing a rape during a home
burglary. It is good for the media, but come on, minister—tell the truth in the chamber. No wonder the member
for Forrestfield slinks out of this chamber. He had a choice. He knew I was going to talk about him, because
I started talking about him while he was still here, but he is not prepared to defend any of his comments. As I
have said here before, my father fought for Australia in World War II and he died in 1965 due to the illnesses he
obtained while he was serving. I will not be lectured by anyone about my patriotism—not by anyone. The weasel
at the back of the chamber who pretends to be the member for Forrestfield can say what he likes —
Dr G.G. JACOBS: The member for Cannington used an unparliamentary word and I ask him to withdraw.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Further to the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, given the standards that you have been
upholding during this debate, I would think that that was entirely acceptable.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): I do not consider the term “weasel” parliamentary, and I ask the
member to withdraw.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I withdraw.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you.
Debate Resumed
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Perhaps, I could think of another word to describe the member for Forrestfield.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: Say he is weasel-like.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Weasel-like—he is the weasel-like temporary member for Forrestfield. The man with no
guts. The man who is not prepared to stand up for the words he used in the chamber.
Mr M.P. Murray: He has got guts; he hasn’t got courage.
576
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, very true. He is a man with no courage. I have no idea what the election result will
be in this state in two years’ time—no-one knows. A Liberal government may well be returned, but on the
performance of the member for Forrestfield, this government does not deserve to be returned. It does not deserve
to be returned when there is that type of behaviour. Who gave that member that document? As I say, if it was
truly released to him under freedom of information, he would give it to us so that we could see the stamp that
says “released under FOI”. I bet the proverbial $64 that he will not do that. I bet he does not come back into this
place tomorrow and cross the chamber to give it to me. I bet he does not do that because I bet it is not true that
the document was released to him under freedom of information. I bet it was given to him by somebody in
government. On Friday when my research officer is at work, she will prepare an FOI request. I will attach a
$30 cheque and I will sign the letter and send it to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That FOI request
will be for the application letter from the member for Forrestfield for the FOI document; it will be for every FOI
request he has ever made. Watch what I get back. How would he have known what document to ask for? The
member is not here because he has slunk back to his office or is doing something else. Why will he not tell us
how he knew what document to ask for? How did he actually know that there was a document available on this
topic? What legislation was being discussed in that document? What was the context of the discussion? These
are questions that the member is not prepared to answer.
Let us go back and look at what has happened in Western Australia. Sure, there are more people in jail: fine
defaulters. That is the reason that there are so many people in jail in Western Australia. Often they are women
from poor backgrounds. I commend the hardworking member for Warnbro who, unlike his Liberal colleagues,
has actually done some work in opposition with no resources. He has not had resources provided to him by
somebody from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet but off his own bat has actually done some research
and written an excellent paper on the question of women, in particular, being jailed for fine default. As we know,
that has led to deaths in custody that are not being dealt with in accordance with the recommendations of the
royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody.
Where is this government going? The government winds up the member for Forrestfield and sends him into the
chamber because the Minister for Police is not prepared to say the things that the member for Forrestfield has
said. The minister will not bring that document into the chamber because she knows that the minute she stands
up, we will ask her to table it.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: I haven’t seen the document, member.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Who knows? I bet the minister is not prepared to read out those words, is she? She is
not prepared to say the same things; it is a disgrace. The government winds up the man with no courage, down
the back of the chamber—the expendable one; the temporary member for Forrestfield—because the minister will
not come in here and make these stupid allegations. That is left to the expendables down the back. What
a disgrace. That is the type of government we have to put up with in this state. No wonder the current Premier is
the most unpopular Premier in the history of Western Australia, and the equal most unpopular Premier in the
history of the entire nation; only one other Premier has ever been as unpopular as this man.
Mr F.A. Alban: Is this another rerun from last week?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The member is on the list; he should stand up and speak. He should stand up and tell us
whether he wants the current Premier to remain Premier. Does he? See? Even the member for Swan Hills will
not endorse the current Premier; that is how unpopular he is! He has had his chance. That is how unpopular the
current Premier is—the member for Swan Hills will not say that he wants him to stay. He has had his chance.
He could say it if he wanted to, but he will not do it!
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, I am on my feet! Let us have some order in this place. The member for
Cannington has the floor, and I encourage him to head back towards the bill.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am just highlighting the hypocrisy that we have had to put up with here tonight. All
I am doing is answering exactly what the Acting Speaker allowed the member for Forrestfield to say. I have not
deviated from my intention to answer the comments of the member for Forrestfield.
I look forward to the member for Forrestfield providing us with copies of the documents he read from so that we
can see the context of what he was saying.
Mrs M.H. Roberts: He won’t do that.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: He has a test here; it is a big test for a new member of Parliament. He has been in this
place for only two years. Does he have the respect of this chamber or not? Is he prepared to come in here and
make outlandish allegations without backing them up? That is something that the Premier always complains
about: do not make allegations unless you can back them up. Let us see what the member for Forrestfield is
capable of doing. Let us see the documents stamped “Released under FOI”. He is probably right now running
577
back to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to get something stamped “Released under FOI”! That is
probably why he is not in the chamber, although I could not speculate. Perhaps that is why he is not in the
chamber.
This has been a disgraceful incident for the Liberal Party. Although it is not unexpected, it is just a disgrace.
The Labor Party is proud of its law-and-order agenda. Do not forget, we were the ones who introduced
mandatory sentencing in Western Australia. Members on the other side run around saying, “Oh, well, you don’t
support mandatory sentencing.” We brought it in, during the Lawrence government. The bill the minister intends
to amend tonight was introduced during the Lawrence government.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Because it’s not working.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Six years in, and now the minister says it is not working.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: It’s your legislation.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Was it working when the minister was Minister for Police in the last Parliament?
I cannot hear the minister.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, please speak through the Chair.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: That’s why this legislation’s here now.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So what was the minister doing during the last Parliament?
Mrs L.M. Harvey: I was —
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: “I’ve got to think of something, I’ve got to think of something.” What an
embarrassment. The minister never delivered her police promise, and she knows it, so she should not come in
here and tell me that.
Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.00 pm
Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr J.H.D. Day (Leader of the House).
NORTH WEST GAS DEVELOPMENT (WOODSIDE) AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 26 November 2014.
MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn) [7.00 pm]: I am not the lead speaker on the North West Gas Development
(Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014, as that falls to the shadow Minister for State Development, who
is currently committed to a matter outside the Parliament and will return in the near future, but I am a speaker on
the bill so my allotted time will be as indicated on the clock.
I rise to make my contribution to the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill
2014. The bill is supported by the opposition. However, we have a number of points that we wish to make about
both the domestic gas market, which a significant amount of the bill refers to, and the bill itself. Effectively, as
set out by the Premier in his second reading speech, the provisions of this amending bill go to a number of
changes for the approval of an additional 86 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas to be produced from the
Woodside joint venture operations on the North West Shelf. New clause 46(1B) provides that the joint venturers
need to obtain the minister’s approval before any arrangements are entered into for the export of LNG from gas
to be recovered from wells in the agreement area that goes beyond the existing approvals, and such additional
LNG will be subject to the agreed domestic gas commitments. New clause 46A provides that the joint venture
parties are required to reserve, market and make available new domestic gas equivalent to 15 per cent of new
LNG exports approved for marketing under new clause 46(1B).
Of course, the most important part of this amending bill also opens up a possibility for third party tolling of gas
through the North West Shelf joint venture operations that are managed by Woodside. That in itself, if it is
agreed to by the partners in the North West Shelf operations and the third party who may wish to use the
facilities on the North West Shelf, is a critically important part of the agreement. I put it to the house that it is
unfortunate that provisions were not included in the bill that will put even greater pressure on the North West
Shelf operators to seek third party usage of their facilities in the North West Shelf for the tolling of gas. I say that
because of a number of things. Firstly, as the volume of gas that is actually fed into the North West Shelf
operations continues to decline, the operators will be looking for other sources of gas for both domestic and LNG
exports. Secondly, should that volume of gas not be available, discovered or in the volume they thought, they
will obviously be looking at other operators that may well have a large volume of gas. I believe
Hess Corporation is in discussions with the North West Shelf joint venturers; it has discovered a very large
volume of gas offshore but it does not have the facilities to liquefy it or even make it available to the domestic
market because it has no infrastructure.
578
We see from the history of the North West Shelf operations, as outlined by the Premier’s second reading
speech—he knows more about the history of those operations than probably anyone else in the house—that the
whole of the LNG export industry was underwritten by the state of Western Australia. The state undertook
a take-or-pay contract with Woodside, as the lead management company of the joint venturers in the North West
Shelf, to take a higher volume of gas from the operations than the state could use at the time. That take-or-pay
contract, in effect, underwrote the unbelievably dynamic export LNG industry that currently exists in
Western Australia. I believe that long-term contract has been replaced with a further contract for an extension of
the volume of gas to be taken from the North West Shelf operations, but not at the volume originally committed
to by the Woodside joint venture operators. The North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement
Amendment Bill 2014 does not require the operators to increase that level. Effectively, the volume of gas that
will be made available to the domestic market from the North West Shelf operations is 700 petajoules. That gas
commitment is equivalent to a little under 100 terajoules a day, or about 10 per cent of the current consumption
in Western Australia.
That leads one to say that if that is to be the official volume of gas out of the North West Shelf operations, it will
certainly not meet the demand from the domestic gas industry. It is the view of the government and the market
that the rest of the volume of gas that will go to meet domestic demand will be made up of supply from
Chevron’s Gorgon operation when it comes onshore, the Wheatstone operation, and of course the Apache
operation outside Onslow, which has just started up and is pumping into the domestic gas market as we speak.
The view of the Department of State Development, Woodside and, I believe, the market is that the difference in
the decline in the volume of gas made available to the domestic market from the North West Shelf operations
will be made up—even though a further long-term contract has been signed—from the increase in the volume of
gas from existing and new Apache operations, and also the new supplies of gas that will come onstream from the
Wheatstone and Gorgon operations.
That leads to a continuation of the volumes of gas at probably not much more than what the domestic market
consumes at the moment. Therefore, that will not provide a market condition in what upstream suppliers would
say will be an oversupply of gas into the market and what the downstream consumer—for example,
DomGas Alliance—would argue will be a healthy supply of gas for marketing. It will not lead to market pressure
to bring down the price of gas. The shadow Minister for State Development will probably refer to the fact that
the spot-market price for gas in China is now at $6 a gigajoule, which is cheaper than the price domestic users of
gas get from upstream suppliers in Western Australia. If a larger volume of gas is not made available for
domestic consumption, two things will occur: firstly, it will continue what I believe is the unsustainable current
price of domestic gas; and, secondly, it will not give the state government, whichever party is in government at
the time, the economic levers to attract new energy-consuming industries to Western Australia, and that is where
a major number of jobs are created. Any country in the world with vast volumes of gas will attract energyconsuming industries for the purposes of carrying out production. Look at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain or
Malaysia, for example. All those countries have vast volumes of gas that they are able to offer access to at
a cheap rate. Mineral processing or energy-intensive industries will locate in those countries for obvious
reasons—because it is cheap energy. Our ability, particularly in Western Australia as a major resource producer,
to process those resources and even manufacture those resources downstream, is constantly constrained by the
cost of energy. One of the main drivers of that cost of energy is the volume of gas available to Western Australia
and the price of gas marketed in Western Australia. For example, even in my own electorate—the Premier
knows this, because I have raised it a number of times and he has commented on it—Cockburn Cement used to
have a fuel mix of 80 per cent gas and 20 per cent coal, but it is now using 80 per cent coal and 20 per cent gas.
It found itself in that situation because of the volumes of gas available and the price at which gas can be sold to
Cockburn Cement. That is a classic example of the impact of the volume of domestic gas.
One good thing about this bill—there are a number of good things in it—is that it confirms the state
government’s commitment to the 15 per cent gas reservation policy. The gas reservation policy is under attack
and continues to be under attack. A recent report by the federal Minister for Industry and Science has already
criticised the Western Australian reservation policy, while the Western Australian Economic Regulation
Authority has recommended that the gas reservation policy be removed because it does not allow for proper
operation of the marketing of gas and restricts the ability for upstream players to make whatever choices they
want to make about gas. The reservation policy is continually under attack by certain sections of the business
community, the ERA and certain sections of the Western Australian government, and it is certainly under attack
by the federal government, whether it is the Productivity Commission or the Department of Industry and Science
and the Minister for Industry and Science. Ironically, as much as our reservation policy is under attack, it is
being considered by New South Wales and Queensland as an option to protect their industries and their supply of
gas. We will see what happens in that area in the future. The one good thing about the North West Gas
Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014 is that it confirms the importance of the domestic
gas reservation policy.
579
The second benefit that will come from this legislation is, as I indicated, the possibility of allowing third parties
to gain access to North West Shelf infrastructure for the purposes of tolling gas. Significant volumes of gas off
the north west coast of Western Australia have yet to be harnessed and brought onshore. ExxonMobil is still
a long way from doing that with its Scarborough field, given the international price of gas at the moment. It is an
enormous field that has massive potential for Western Australia in the future, but it has yet to be considered for
production. Hess Corporation’s operations have resulted in significant finds. I believe that that company would
like to see the processing of its gas, but with the cost of infrastructure being what it is at the moment, whether it
is onshore or offshore, and the global price of gas continuing to decline, it would only make sense for companies
like Hess to harness and monetise the value of their gas by tolling it through an existing facility. If that facility
can be made available in the North West Shelf, that is a great thing; indeed, it would be good for the North West
Shelf players, the state and obviously for Hess. The legislation will also provide that beneficial outcome.
I will point out further criticism about the situation in which Western Australia finds itself in the marketing and
availability of gas, particularly from the North West Shelf. This bill has not addressed that issue, and I do not
expect it to be addressed by the bill, because it cannot be addressed by the bill. However, in discussing the bill,
I would like to hear the Premier’s comments about the joint marketing approach by North West Shelf players to
domestic gas. Under Australian Competition and Consumer Commission provisions, for many years Liquefied
Natural Gas Ltd from the North West Shelf was allowed to be a single joint venture selling operation of
Australian LNG for the international marketing of Australian liquefied natural gas. That monopoly selling
position was allowed also for marketing domestic gas. Over the years, the six players in the North West Shelf
operations have decided that they do not want to market their gas through a single marketing body such as
Australian LNG Ltd, and they have gone their separate ways and now organise the sale of their gas with separate
contracts through the six individual players of the North West Shelf. Even though it has been referred to the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on a number of occasions, the monopoly marketing of
domestic gas continues to be allowed. Buyers, whether they be the state government through Synergy or private
buyers, still have to deal with a monopoly seller on the North West Shelf. That is wrong and it should be
changed so that some further competition can be brought into the market and some market pressure can be
applied to the delivery of gas. In the long term, that may well bring down the price of gas for domestic
consumers. I know the DomGas Alliance supports that position, as do many other players in the industry. It is
one position I put to the government that we must continue to support and push for.
MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [7.21 pm]: I, too, rise to make some brief comments on this North West Gas
Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014. As the member for Cockburn pointed out, the
member for Cannington is the lead speaker on this bill, which the opposition supports. The Premier outlined in
his second reading speech the purpose of the legislation, which is, effectively, a variation to the North West Gas
Development (Woodside) Agreement Act 1979 to take account of a number of different things. I thank the staff
from, I assume, the Department of State Development for their briefing today; it was very enlightening. I always
find the story of gas and state agreements in Western Australia very much a story of Western Australia, and
I always find them interesting. I came into the Parliament in 2006 without a huge understanding of the history of
gas, but I certainly became aware of the North West Shelf mainly during my time in the Army Reserve, funnily
enough. Having spent many years in the Pilbara, I knew it was there, but never really had anything to do with the
LNG facility in Karratha, but during my time in the Army Reserve we spent time doing what I think was called
vital asset infrastructure protection. I cannot remember now what it was called; it goes back to the 1990s–early
2000s. Junior officers travelled around the state to various vital assets with the idea of assessing how we would
protect them in the event they needed protecting. I will not pretend for a minute that I know, but it was certainly
an interesting time to get a better understanding of the importance of these assets to Western Australia and
Australia.
In his second reading speech, the Premier outlines the history of the original agreement for the North West Shelf
joint venture and the purpose of this particular variation. As was pointed out by the DSD staff during the briefing
today, the joint venture was, of course, conceived originally as a domestic gas project with, effectively, an export
component but over time it has become the most lucrative part of the project.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I think it is the other way around in reality. It was always going to be an export project.
Domgas was a way of phasing into the export stage. Export was always going to be bigger.
Mr B.S. WYATT: I think that reflects what I was told today. If I did not say that, effectively, that is what the
briefing told us today. Of course, we are all aware of what LNG has done over time, compared with what the
price of domestic gas has done. Interestingly, that commitment has delivered over 5 000 petajoules into the
domestic market. That obligation was met last year. We all know the facility is looking for more gas. It is my
understanding from the briefing today that there are pressing final investment decisions around a couple of
different gas fields—Persephone and Greater Western Flank. There is a developing sense of urgency about the
passage of this legislation through Parliament, which will of course pass with the support of the opposition.
580
With the declining reserves and increased capacity at the plant, as the member for Cockburn outlined and as the
Premier referred to in his second reading speech, a variation agreement allows third parties to bring gas through
the facility, but that, of course, is also subject to the domestic gas policy. The reservation policy was raised by
the member for Cockburn, specifically the 15 per cent requirement. Everyone would accept that a gas plant,
regardless of its age, needs to be run efficiently and effectively, and nobody, least of all the owners, wants to see
a facility not being used to its maximum capacity.
I was interested to hear during the briefing today that the state has a new right. Obviously, the company has the
obligation to supply gas regularly, and in the event that the project meets all its domgas commitments and it
wants to put the facility into a non-operational phase, it has to give the government six months’ notice of this
intention. The government also has the capacity, if it is not satisfied with the reasoning behind the project putting
the facility into a non-operational status, to effectively refer that position to an expert third party to arbitrate that
decision. The state has been given an important right, particularly as we enter into a different phase in the supply
and demand of domestic gas and liquefied natural gas going forward.
The bill also provides for offsets. I do not think they are envisaged at this stage, but it provides for offsets and
a credit for 43 petajoules has already been provided. In his second reading speech, the Premier emphasised the
importance of providing for regularity of supply, but the rate is, of course, being left to the parties to sort out on
a commercial basis.
This morning, the staff who briefed the opposition made the same point that I made at the beginning of my
speech about changes in the gas market and access to infrastructure over the last four or five years. I am mindful
of the rapid development in technology since I was elected in 2006 and how, in that time, the development of
floating infrastructure seems to have also progressed remarkably quickly. It seems to be changing some of the
dynamics around the commerciality of various gas reservations, as is no doubt the gas price itself.
I want to make points about two things. I have a little bit of flexibility in my contribution tonight. Some years
ago legislation was introduced by the Premier regarding Bankwest. We made some changes to Bankwest through
the Bank of Western Australia Act, or whatever it was called, in light of the fact that the Commonwealth Bank
had purchased Bankwest. My contribution that night related to the story of Western Australia’s bank debt, which
in the past 40 or 50 years has been for gas. I do not know whether the Premier is aware of this book, but late last
year I was sent—I do not know whether anyone else was sent one; I assume we all were—a copy of a 2014 book
written by Kristin Weidenbach titled Blue Flames, Black Gold: The story of Santos. I have not read the book in
its entirety, but I would certainly recommend it. Santos is a proud South Australian company that has operations
that now go very much beyond South Australia. I have pulled bits and pieces out of the book about
South Australian gas and oil, and the story of Santos—the South Australian Northern Territory Oil Search. If
members look through the index, it certainly is the story of gas as it has matured as a market and is produced
here in Australia, including Western Australia, because Santos has a significant presence in Western Australia
now. It also refers to the involvement of Alan Bond in the 1970s, which left a long-term hangover, if you like,
with a 15 per cent shareholding cap on Santos. It was not until 1979 that that cap was introduced into Santos by
the South Australian Parliament, effectively to thwart Alan Bond’s attempt to take control of Santos. When
I read through this chapter, it is an interesting history of not only South Australian and Western Australian
politics, but also national politics at the time in respect of Santos and oil and gas.
As members would expect, there is criticism when a state Parliament passes legislation to limit a shareholding.
At the time, it required Alan Bond to sell down a significant percentage of what he then owned—some
20 per cent of the company, I think, from flicking through the book. The book states, “Bond would have to sell
22.5 per cent of his stake” in Santos. At the time, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and his Treasurer John Howard
were very critical of the then state government of South Australia that introduced the cap. Interestingly enough,
I think this was the same year that the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Act 1979 was
signed between the WA government and the joint venture partners in the North West Shelf. It goes on to make
the point, which is interesting to read bearing in mind where we are now in the price of gas, that it is a cyclical
product; it rises and falls. It will only take a minute or two, but I will read in a part of the book about Santos
struggling with the price of gas. I quote from page 111, which reads —
‘The price of gas we were getting was so abysmally low and we were spending money to find more
gas … It was very, very tight,’ remembered Zehnder. ‘We were very close to the bone at times. We
really were.’
The Managing Director —
Who was Zehnder —
didn’t try to hide the seriousness of the situation from his employees. Zehnder had only been at the
company a relatively short time but already he had earned a reputation as a caring, honest straighttalker, and the trust of those around him. He gathered the staff together and said: ‘“Now fellas, look
we’re in a bit of trouble,”’ recalled David Partington, ‘“I don’t know whether we can pay you next
week.”’
581
The early 1970s were interesting times for Santos to be going through. The author makes the point again,
highlighting that in countries such as ours commodity prices generally dictate politics and vice versa, and what
happens during those times. She goes on to make the point —
While Santos was wrestling with a widening gap between income and expenditure, the Whitlam-led
Labor Party took federal office in December 1972 and quickly introduced a whole suite of measures
that would have drastic and far-reaching consequences for Santos operations.
The author goes on to talk about Rex Connor’s ambitious plans of effectively buying back the farm for Australia.
For Santos, the first significant announcement was the then government’s intention to establish a national
pipeline authority to construct and operate a nationwide natural gas grid. The removal of the shareholder cap did
not actually take place until 2006–2007. It has been around for a long, long time, bearing in mind it was
introduced in 1979 to thwart a rampaging entrepreneur, which I guess was the thought at the time by the
Parliament—probably the correct one. It would also be worth members going through and enjoying the writing
of the politics around trying to remove the cap.
The person who had that job in Santos was Christian Bennett, a former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
official. It sounds like he was employed by Santos effectively to ensure that that happened. A journalist by the
name of Nigel Wilson, as the member for Cockburn knows and as we all know, was writing for The Australian
at the time. John Ellice-Flint was the managing director of Santos at the time. He made the point that it was in
the interests of the shareholders to remove the cap. Wilson, writing for The Australian, wrote some quite
scathing pieces about the South Australian government not being at all keen on removing the cap in 2001.
Kristin Weidenbach, the author of this book, astutely makes the point that the looming South Australian election
may have had an impact on the success of that removal. Either way, the cap was eventually removed and Santos
has continued to grow. No doubt it is having some trouble with the gas price at the moment.
Mr F.M. Logan: And its share price.
Mr B.S. WYATT: No doubt the gas price is flowing through to its share price. Santos is a South Australian
company at heart. We have companies such as Woodside and Bankwest, that I referred to earlier. We should
bear in mind that we had to deal with our own cap effectively. It was not a shareholder cap but we had to make
some changes as a result of the purchase of Bankwest by the Commonwealth Bank.
Mr F.M. Logan: And Woodside by Shell.
Mr B.S. WYATT: That is right. These stories are not just about Western Australia but also Australia. They are
interesting stories. We are very fortunate to have a process in which Western Australian state agreements and
variations come through the Parliament. They are unique but it gives us, whether we are in the Parliament or
outside the Parliament, a transparent way to watch the politics and the history of gas or iron ore or whatever the
state agreement act is dealing with as they come and go over time. Last year the Premier brought in some
amendments to an old state agreement act relating to iron ore that needed to be updated or abolished. I cannot
remember the details now; it was something like that. They are always interesting debates to listen to because
they tell the story of what we are and what we have created in Western Australia.
I did not intend to speak for long other than to make the point that we will be supporting this bill. Although I did
not deliberately do so, I did a bit of a pitch for Kristin Weidenbach’s book. It is an interesting read not just in
terms of Santos but it gives the history of Alan Bond and others, where Santos is now and the role it plays in
Western Australia.
DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [7.38 pm]: I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the North West Gas
Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014. I believe that the lead speaker has returned, for
which I am glad because there is no way I would be the lead speaker on this bill. This bill seeks to amend the
North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Act 1979. As other speakers before me have mentioned,
we have a domestic reserve gas policy in this state which I think we all agree is necessary. Through this variation
agreement, the government is continuing its commitment to a gas reserve supply amount, which I think we
would all be very supportive of. It is important to have a gas reserve policy because gas as a form of energy is
incredibly important to the economy of Western Australia.
In 2011, there was a parliamentary inquiry into the domestic supply of gas in Western Australia. We should
remember that under the original domestic reserve policy or the original domestic gas contracts, the domestic
supply of gas was rather cheap. As time has gone on, it has become more expensive to source gas from other
fields. They are different from the gas sources that were available when the original contracts were entered into.
It has become a lot more difficult for suppliers to retain that 15 per cent domestic reserve limit because the
margins have been squeezed.
In regards to this 2011 domestic gas reservation study, it is interesting to look at some of the documents that
were produced. The “2011 Domestic Gas Scorecard” had a number of factors as headings—“2011 Market”,
“Status” and “2015 Vision”. The status of “Gas brokers active in market” was completed and the 2015 vision
582
was for greater liquidity and transparency. The 2015 vision for “New aggregators active in the market” was to
have more market participants. The 2015 vision for “Short Term Trading and Gas Bulletin Board” was to have
more short-term gas trading. There are other criteria. The 2015 vision for “New LNG projects selling domgas”
was to have multiple sellers. The 2015 vision for “Unconventional gas developments” was to have direct
competition between sellers. Greater diversity of supply was the 2015 vision for “North West Shelf State
Agreement — State to prioritise domgas supply over new LNG contracts”.
A discussion paper published on 1 June 2011 from the DomGas Alliance, headed “Meeting Domestic Gas
Obligations: Discussion Paper” reads —
Domestic gas reservation remains the single most effective policy available to the State to promote
supply and competition in the WA domestic gas market.
A strong, transparent mechanism to implement the domestic gas reservation policy will balance the
needs of producers to cover their costs and deliver an acceptable return to their shareholders, and the
needs of gas and electricity users to manage their energy costs at a level which allows them to compete
in their markets and support the state economy.
It mentions in this paper the key elements —
To meet this minimum requirement, a 15 per cent commitment needs to be applied on all existing and
potential gas reserves.
This must include the remaining reserves from the North West Shelf Project, the expanded reserves
supporting the Gorgon, Wheatstone and Scarborough projects in the Carnarvon Basin, and the
discoveries in the Browse Basin …
The paper very supportive of this 15 per cent reservation policy and refers to other issues about obligations in
regards to joint venture and how obligations should apply to existing and expanded LNG production. It
concludes by stating —
Strong enforcement penalties should be applied to enforce domestic gas supply obligations. These could
be incorporated as part of a project State Agreement or through other export licensing / land access
arrangements.
Some people may seek to advocate for a greater minimum domestic reservation policy, and one could argue
there is a lot to be said for that; we should be seeking to secure much of the domestic gas supply for domestic
consumers. That is a very laudable aim for us to work toward, but the issue of the cost factor is something that
must be considered, because it costs us more to access or source the gas in Western Australia than it does in
much of Australia and also much of the world. Therefore, we have to always be mindful of the cost issues in any
policy that we seek to advocate about energy sources for Western Australians and the export market.
It was very busy in 2011. The February 2011 “Domestic Gas Reservation Study” key points state —
•
The State’s gas reservation policy aims to ensure secure, affordable domestic gas supply to meet
WA’s long term energy needs and sustain growth, development and value-adding investment.
It is interesting and it refers to the various levels of gas that need to be committed to Western Australia.
The study then states —
•
The State is likely to fall well short of this target.
•
This exposes it to serious gas shortages, energy disruptions and even higher gas and electricity
prices.
That we do not have security of gas supply for the domestic market is quite an alarming prediction. Of course,
when we advocate for a secure domestic reservation policy, or gas supply for the Western Australian market, we
must ensure that it will be viable, and it will be viable if there is a very strong export side to the equation,
because that creates the economic value for producers and allows them to supply gas to the domestic market.
We know that energy is paramount for any civilised society and any vibrant economy and that engaging in
policies that create uncertainty in energy production has adverse effects on many levels of the economy. We talk
about not wanting negative multiplier effects in the economy, because the consequences can be quite alarming.
I will read from the 2011 document, “The facts on Domestic Gas”. Things would have changed somewhat since
2011, but not by a significant magnitude. The document states —
•
Western Australia depends on natural gas for 60% of its primary energy and 70% of its electricity
generation.
•
Despite the State’s “abundant” gas resources, businesses and households face serious gas shortages
and sharply rising prices. This is threatening manufacturing, investment and jobs.
583
•
The State’s 15% domestic gas reservation policy is the most effective means of ensuring secure and
affordable supply.
•
Without reservation, large LNG export projects are unlikely to develop sufficient supply to meet
the State’s energy needs.
Gas is an incredibly important energy source for the Western Australian economy at many levels.
Manufacturing, investment, small business and households depend on a secure and affordable gas supply.
The bill before us recognises the importance of gas supplies to the WA economy and the significance of the
domestic gas policy we have had for a number of years, and that should be welcomed. But, although we have an
abundant gas supply in Western Australia, a lot of that gas is in commonwealth waters. That brings me to
another point—the Premier is much more learned on these matters than I am—is there a national gas reservation
policy?
Mr C.J. Barnett: No.
Dr A.D. BUTI: I think that is a bit of a problem. We have our own Western Australian gas reserve policy, which
is important, but considering that much of the gas is sourced from commonwealth waters, I think it would be
advantageous to have a national policy on this. That is the case in many other countries, including Egypt and
Qatar. Of course, they are not a Federation like Australia is but they do have national policies. Energy sources
feed into our national security policy. It is interesting that we do not have a national approach to this that
includes the ability for state variations because we will always want to have control over our own domestic gas
supplies. The bill before us seeks to continue the longstanding Western Australian tradition of having a domestic
gas supply reservation policy. We should always be mindful that it is very important that the citizens, residents
and companies of Western Australia have constant certainty about the gas supply. Legislation and contractual
obligations should always work in a way that helps that to continue and should not inhibit or reduce our ability to
supply gas to the citizens of Western Australia.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [7.50 pm]: I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate on the
North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014. I acknowledge that this bill seeks
to ratify a variation to the agreement that has been made for the delivery of gas to our domestic market. I begin
by saying that I support the legislation and the notion of domestic gas reservation. It is important for the delivery
of a cleaner energy form, via the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline, to those of us who live in the
south west of the state, and we benefit from that. It is also important for the economic wellbeing of this state.
I also want to make some comments about the use of liquefied natural gas. I note that according to the Premier’s
second reading speech, in the last 25 years this state has exported around 220 million tonnes of LNG. That was
at a production efficiency level that I think would be typical of the levels expected 25 years ago. However, I note
that in the Canadian province of British Columbia, under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control
Act, natural gas cooling facilities must meet a benchmark of 0.16 CO2 equivalent tonnes per tonne of LNG
produced. That is a good figure, I think. I notice that more recently, our own Environmental Protection Authority
has been talking about an efficiency target of only 0.26 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of LNG produced,
and it is prepared to see that further improve over time. Therefore, there is some discrepancy between what we
are aiming for in Western Australia and what British Columbia is aiming for. The British Columbians are going
further than us. We are pitching this state as being a global leader when it comes to LNG production, yet on this
one indicator of efficiency of production in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, in our very latest plant—I am
looking here at the EPA report on the Chevron Wheatstone project—we are not keeping up. We are not in the
game compared with the British Columbians. That is very disappointing.
However, I want to go on further about the Wheatstone project, and I touched on this briefly in my response to
the Premier’s Statement last week. Chevron, which is the proponent for the Wheatstone project, agreed to be
covered by the federal emissions trading scheme. We need to bear in mind that Wheatstone involves the
emission of 10 million tonnes of CO2 a year. That is a significant amount of CO2. That was to have been covered
by the federal emissions trading scheme. However, the people of Australia, in their wisdom, heard the
Liberal Party with its slogans and voted against the retention of that emissions trading scheme, and that scheme
has now been removed. Therefore, the approval for Wheatstone is no longer covered by any form of constraint
on greenhouse gas emissions, even though Chevron, with its Wheatstone project, had agreed to be constrained in
some way. Chevron even accepted, and the Environmental Protection Authority put this forward, that should
there be some change in circumstance, meaning that there would no longer be a federal scheme, there still should
be some form of state coverage. It is really disappointing to see that we do not have that. For some reason the
current state government has decided to give the Chevron company a free kick that they were not even asking
for. Chevron was prepared to pay the price to some extent. I refer to condition 19 in the ministerial approval
statement covering the Wheatstone project. The proponent and the minister had signed off on this project to be
covered by some form of state-based system should the federal system fall over, yet that has not happened. The
latest comments from the Minister for Environment were along the lines of, “Well, I’m not going to revisit this.
584
I’m just going to let it off scot-free.” It is amazing! The EPA said that of those 10 million tonnes to be emitted
per year, it expects coverage of about 2.6 million tonnes at an absolute minimum because that is the reservoir gas
level. The EPA expects coverage of that, yet no effort has been made at all. If we conservatively price that out,
we can see that we are giving Chevron a free kick of around $50 million to $60 million a year, depending on the
way a tonne of carbon is priced. I note that the British Columbians have figures not dissimilar to the figures we
were using. They refer to the sequestration rate as around the $25 to $30 per tonne mark. However, it is very
interesting to note their situation in reports I have with me. A report of 20 October 2014 states —
Today, the BC Government introduced new legislation aimed to help BC meet its greenhouse gas
emission targets by imposing environmental standards on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities
operating within the province.
Under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, natural gas cooling facilities must
meet a benchmark of 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent … tonnes per tonne of LNG …
I mentioned that benchmark earlier. The idea of a domestic gas reservation is all very well, but we should be
making sure that our plants are as efficient as possible.
I also want to question how our market-based system works when it comes to individual producers each wanting
to have their own gas processing facility. There is something a little odd that the companies in the North West
Shelf joint venture are currently facing a situation of there almost not being enough gas coming in for
processing. We are looking for means to bring in gas from other fields owned by the holders of other acreages,
yet we had to construct the Pluto LNG trains to deal with Woodside’s LNG held in the area that was owned only
by Woodside. We then had to duplicate things further down with Chevron and its Wheatstone project. Then we
are looking at other options as well. There was talk of BHP Billiton having a dedicated facility for the
Scarborough field. We, of course, have the Gorgon facility. It seems sometimes that the corporate world cannot
work in a cooperative fashion that we know intuitively would mean greater efficiency. But of course those
companies are in competition. This legislation is therefore an interesting example of competition not giving
everyone the best price. Perhaps it is an example of competition leading to the unit cost of production being
higher because everyone wants their own gas processing facility rather than combining in some joint user
facility. I think that is something that should be explored further. I realise that it is not always a popular notion
when we want to encourage competition, but we must acknowledge that there are times when that competitive
force leads to everyone going their own way and going to the extra expense of having their own facility. To use
a suburban example, it is like the idea that if everyone wants to buy their own lawnmower, we would not be as
well off as if one person in the street buys a lawnmower and shares it around. There might be a comparison there
that is applicable to this situation.
The issue of pricing comes into play. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has dominated the
energy prices in the global market and changed things around dramatically. It has put projects, such as some of
the shale gas projects, into difficult circumstances and made it no longer viable for some of the US projects to
sustain production. No doubt OPEC remains a major player in the global energy market. It is a master at
providing just enough energy on the global market so that we then turn to its produce, rather than switching to
alternatives. That is certainly a very interesting development that we have seen in recent times. I noticed the
member for Victoria Park mentioned the situation with Santos. We know that the share price for Santos has
fallen dramatically in recent times.
Another point is the role of floating liquefied natural gas processing into the future. I heard federal member for
Brand, Gary Gray, talking on this. I know it is a contentious issue, but there is an argument that it will perhaps be
the most efficient way of extracting gas from offshore gas fields. That, of course, has implications for the
capacity that we Australians have to acquire some of that gas as domestic gas. It has implications for the
potential for us to use that gas in downstream processing. In Western Australia we have not been particularly
successful at the development of downstream processing facilities. With the North West Shelf joint venture and
the development of the Burrup Peninsula, I recall talk around the Maitland industrial estate and the idea of
having there a whole series of gas processing facilities and downstream processes and using that North West
Shelf gas to develop a range of products, from methanol plants through to fertiliser plants. To the best of my
knowledge, on the Burrup Peninsula we have only Burrup Fertilisers, when at one stage there was the
opportunity for a company called Methanex to be there, and several others were looking to be on the Burrup
Peninsula. However, at the time we were telling them that perhaps it would be better that they go to the Maitland
estate to avoid the whole contentious issue of being in the vicinity of the petroglyphs of the Burrup Peninsula. I
know that the Premier took that campaign very much to heart when he was Leader of the Opposition. He has
deserted that campaign now, but that issue was of concern to many interested in the cultural heritage of the
Burrup Peninsula. The thought was that if we could transfer that industry over to the Maitland estate, it would
mean that there would not be any damaging properties in the air to corrode the petroglyphs.
Mr C.J. Barnett: It was Pluto that disturbed the rock art—the Pluto project.
585
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: The Premier is right. Prior to that, the joint venture also moved a lot of rock art.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Originally. Hearsons Cove, which was originally designated for Pluto, could not have affected
the rock art.
Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: It was a beautiful beach. It was the only swimming beach for the residents of
Karratha. Now people who go there are pretty aware of the Burrup Fertilisers plant. We have allowed industry to
be put in places where that rock art has either had to be moved or has been damaged in some way. That is a sad
fact and hopefully we will learn from it. I know that amendments to the Aboriginal Heritage Act are set to come
before the Parliament at some stage. I hope those amendments will lead to a toughening up of the laws around
the protection of Aboriginal heritage so that similar events do not arise. However, from what I hear in
preliminary discussions about those amendments, I fear that it is actually the other way and the government’s
intention is to weaken those laws that protect Aboriginal heritage. We will no doubt debate that on this side of
the house and we will be extremely questioning of any weakening of the current laws and will question the
government if it does not seek to toughen laws.
I support this legislation. There is very clearly a benefit to Western Australians of having a domestic gas
reservation policy. There may be some economic arguments about certain distortions that come in when
a percentage of gas supply is reserved for domestic use, but I think we can manage those and ensure instead that
we have a reliable gas supply to the rest of the state that can be enjoyed by all Western Australians.
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [8.06 pm]: Mr Acting Speaker (Mr I.M. Britza), I let you know that I am
the lead speaker for the opposition on the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment
Bill 2014. I start by saying that we will support the bill. My colleague the member for Cockburn also has
a couple of questions and we will spend some brief time in consideration in detail, but I do not expect it to be too
long.
I do not want to go over old ground too much, but on behalf of the Labor Party it is worth putting on the record
how we have come to be debating this bill. Of course, we have to start back in the 1970s—in 1979—with the
first part of this project. Let us make it clear: with five export trains and two domestic trains, this is a world-scale
project. The companies involved have helped Australia because it is probably the single largest industrial project
in the country and it has been exporting since the 1980s. It has been a tremendous contribution to Australia’s
economy. Having said those things—I know the Premier says this himself, and it is no surprise—I put on record
again on behalf of the Labor Party that it was of course the domestic contract, the take-or-pay for the domestic
supply of gas, that underpinned this project. Without that domestic supply contract, the North West Shelf project
would never have proceeded at that time. Gas would have been used eventually because that is the way with
natural resources—eventually there is a project that works—but at the time the only reason the project proceeded
was that the state government took the risk and bought the gas. Remember, much of the gas that was paid for
was never used in the early years of that take-or-pay contract because there was not the demand for the gas here
in Western Australia. Later on, of course, the gas contract was renegotiated and became a volume contract, and
even later it was broken up into separate contracts and all those contracts then ran their course. In 2011 the
Economics and Industry Standing Committee reported into the domestic gas price in Western Australia. It is
a great report; I was deputy chair of the committee and, obviously enough, I strongly endorsed the outcome of
the report. It sets in very great detail the history of the gas price. Initially, the price paid for gas in
Western Australia was very high—I have said this before and I will not go on for extra time—but over time it
ended up being a lower price because of the way the market for gas around the world changed.
We are now paying probably the highest domestic prices in the world here in Western Australia. I will get to this
in a minute, but there may be an argument to be made about the price paid by the Japanese or by North Asia
generally for imported liquefied natural gas. In respect of domestic gas, because these are confidential
agreements we cannot have complete transparency, but the reports in the media are somewhere between $7 and
$9 per gigajoule for gas, which makes it the highest domestic price in the world.
There are interesting reports in the Asian media about what is happening with the gas price at the moment, and
I will just read briefly from an online news report that appeared in an online LNG network, LNG Hub, dated
19 February. It explains the pricing formula and states —
For Asian buyers, a reduction of $7 to $8/MMBtu in the price paid for LNG under long-term contract
will provide welcome relief from the high prices they have been paying—the so-called
“Asian premium”.
The article continues, talking about the fact that spot prices in Asia have fallen because oil prices have fallen —
However, this is not because of the oil price fall since spotLNG prices have decoupled from oil prices
and are being setby supply and demand. Demand growth in Asia has slowed -in 2014 imports increased
by 1.7% compared with 6.3% in2013. At the same time, Pacific basin supply has increased, boosted
since May 2014 by output from PNG LNG, which delivered 51 cargoes to buyers during the year.
586
The article continues in reference to spot prices —
… peaking at close to $20/MMBtu in February 2013 and 2014. However, by the end of 2014 spot
prices had fallen to $10/MMBtu, nearly$9MMBtu lower than a year earlier. They have continued to
weaken in 2015 and in the first three weeks of February they were under $7/MMBtu, the lowest level
for nearly 5 years. They were also below European prices as measured by the UK’s National Balancing
Point (NOP) price, yielding a higher netbeck for producers in the Atlantic Basin and the Middle East
than delivering cargoes to Asia The impact can already be seen by the increase of 17% in Europe’s
LNG imports in the fourth quarter of 2014 and the reduction in the reloading of LNG at European
receiving terminals.
What does that have to do with the North West Shelf joint venture? We can see that there is a significantly
declining price. If there is gas-on-gas competition, that is a good thing for users of gas. However, it is a bad thing
for exporters of gas, and Australia is an exporter of gas, but in terms of our domestic market there should now be
some easing of domestic prices. If there is no easing of domestic prices, it must be because there is a non-market
problem, or a problem with our market that is not based on the laws of supply and demand. That is why I am
raising this issue.
I will read another brief comment from the same report, in respect of the US market —
In the last few days of December 2014, Henry Hub prices fell to under $3MMBtu and they have
remained belowthat level in the first seven weeks of 2015. US natural gas production in December 2014
was at a record level of 72.5Bcf/d, 12.4% higher thanin December 2013. The market perception is that
US natural gas prices will remain low rising gradually over the next decade to between $4 and
$4.6/MMBtu in 2024. However, there is an alternative scenario in which US natural gas prices will be
stronger in the longer-term because the balance between supply and demand will tighten.
The article goes on to explain why that might occur, which is related to what is called associated gas coming out
of shale oil fields.
One way or another, it appears that that the days of $9 domestic gas in Western Australia should be numbered,
and that is good for us.
I have said before that if there were a fungible price of gas, we probably would not need a domestic gas
reservation. There is not a fungible price and that is why we need a domestic reservation policy.
The view around the industry and in the briefings from the Department of State Development—I think this is
probably right—is that the market will remain in balance. The domestic obligation in this agreement that we are
discussing is for effectively just under 100 terajoules a day over a period compared with the 720 terajoules a day
that was being produced by the North West Shelf at the time of the 2011 report. There has been a reduction of
620 terajoules a day from the North West Shelf. That is being made up by other projects such as Devil Creek,
Macedon and Gorgon in the future and Wheatstone after that. The market will remain roughly in balance, but if
it is roughly in balance at $9 a gigajoule—one million British thermal units and a gigajoule are not directly
interchangeable, but they almost are; I think MMBtu is about one per cent smaller than a gigajoule—when the
rest of the world, including Japan, is paying significantly less than that, there is clearly a problem.
Although the Labor Party supports this agreement, if we were to critique it, we would make two comments.
Firstly, we still need to examine how we can get more production out of the North West Shelf facilities. There is
no doubt that the deal done by the government with the joint venture partners is ensuring that the appropriate
amount of gas is taken out of the fields that the North West Shelf joint venture partners are underpinning with
the continued use of these facilities. However, there is still a need in Western Australia to have these facilities
used. The sellers of gas say that the market is in balance. All markets are always in balance. If the supply of gas
in Western Australia is increased, the price will fall. That is simple supply-and-demand economics. There is still
a need for Western Australians to try to get additional gas into these facilities in the North West Shelf so that
additional gas is still being sold domestically.
The next point is the question of joint marketing of gas domestically. We have this interesting situation in that
the North West Shelf joint venture partners have chosen to market the gas separately internationally but they
continue to be allowed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to market gas as a single
entity domestically in Western Australia. That was canvassed in the 2011 inquiry. We made a specific
recommendation that the government oppose any application by the joint venture to seek a renewal of the
authority from the ACCC, and I note that that date has not yet arrived, so that is for the future. However, if we
were to critique this agreement, we would say that this might have been an opportunity to get some commitments
to doing that. That was one of the recommendations arising from that report in 2011 that the government did not
accept. WA Labor’s view is that ending the joint marketing of domestic gas sales is very important. The ACCC
has lined up the approval for Gorgon and the North West Shelf so that they effectively have the same date for
their approvals—that is, within a few months. WA Labor and the 2011 inquiry, which was chaired by the now
587
Minister for Energy, recommended that the state government, although it is not a state government decision, seek
to end the joint marketing arrangements.
I also want to quote from the ABC’s website from 21 January this year. It states —
Chevron has announced it has signed a gas supply deal with a South Korean industrial conglomerate.
The five-year agreement, which commences in 2017, will see the US oil and gas giant supply
4.15 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas … from its Gorgon project, on Barrow Island off
Western Australia’s Pilbara coast.
In a statement, a spokesperson from Chevron said that from 2017 to 2021 more than 75 per cent of its
LNG from Gorgon will be committed to customers in Asia.
Why did I read something about Gorgon when we are discussing North West Shelf? I make the point that
currently 25 per cent of the capacity of LNG exports to Gorgon is not contracted. Currently, nobody is buying
that gas. It will be interesting to see —
Mr C.J. Barnett: I don’t think that’s quite true. I think in the case of Chevron they are deliberately holding back
gas for a future market.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: One way or another, whether it is doing it deliberately or because it cannot find
customers —
Mr C.J. Barnett: They are not sweating over there. It is quite a deliberate strategy to hold gas back.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: At the moment most of the large-scale LNG projects around the world—not the
American ones—are fully committed before gas flows; that is the history. There might be 10 per cent or
something left over, but 25 per cent is uncontracted at this late stage. All the literature I read from the
Asian business media says that we are now moving into a potential oversupply, partly because of the
three projects on the east coast of Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Which haven’t got enough gas.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: They may in fact, as the Premier says, not have enough gas. That is going to be an
interesting problem.
The point is that there is still an overhang of uncontracted LNG. As I understand from the briefing given to me
by the North West Shelf joint venturers on the renewal of this agreement, their volumes are contracted, and I am
not getting away from that. Under the terms of their future contracts, all their gas is contracted. But, of course,
their facilities, including the export facilities, will not be fully utilised, so there could potentially be a very large
overhang of both domestic and export gas. I would encourage those players to look around for additional
domestic customers. We are a common law jurisdiction, we can rely on the customers, and we can do deals. If
the price of gas is falling, it is going to fall anyway; if it is an oil-linked price, it has fallen because the oil price
has fallen. If they are selling their cargoes on the Singapore hub, those prices are falling because of an imbalance
in supply. We might as well be looking for domestic customers. The great thing is that for the industries that
need gas at a Henry Hub price—if they are getting towards that—there might be some reasons that those
businesses can expand here in Western Australia instead. The reality is that while we have had $9 gas, there has
been absolutely no possibility of any additional demand for gas in Western Australia. It is just not going to
happen because the capital will be invested somewhere else in the world where the gas price is lower. It is just
a reality.
Mr C.J. Barnett: What you are saying sounds logical, but right now we have FMG building a pipeline to supply
gas to displace diesel, and the Tropicana mine is doing exactly the same.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: But, with respect, Premier, that is about using gas as a fuel in a power station.
Mr C.J. Barnett: It is value-adding.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am referring to the sort of thing the Premier has talked about in the past, which is
using gas in other industries. We do not want to lose Alcoa or Worsley from Western Australia, and we do not
want to miss out on any opportunities for any project that requires gas, such as a fertiliser plant.
Mr C.J. Barnett: We have the Yara fertiliser plant, which has been expanding. We are also getting the dynamite
plant being built on Hearson Cove. We are actually getting some high value-adding.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Premier, that is a very, very important issue. Those gas prices were contracted before
the increase in the LNG export prices, and that is why those projects are being expanded. It is well known in the
industry that they were signed at a price below what could be obtained for the same gas. In fact, there is an
argument—I only read it in the business media; I cannot verify whether it is true—that the reason Apache bought
into that project was so that the proponents would not resell the gas that Apache had sold to the fertiliser plant on
to other consumers, and that it was better for Apache. It is the only place in the world that Apache has bought
588
a processing facility. There is an argument in the business media that said Apache did that so that its customer
would not resell the gas but, rather, would build the technical ammonium nitrate plant. It is good for Australia
that Apache built the TAN plant because, obviously, more value is added, particularly with the massive iron ore
industry on its doorstep. It is a great project, but there are four empty sites on the Burrup Peninsula. I am not
aware that a single proponent is talking about those sites, and I imagine that one of the reasons for that is that
they are paying $9 a gigajoule. If they were paying a smaller amount, a proponent might be able to get the maths
to work. That is what I am saying. Now all the sellers will ring me up telling me why I am wrong, which is fine,
but it is still an important issue for Australia.
Again, it is good that the agreement provides for a mechanism to allow third-party use of the facilities. That is
important. I asked the joint venture partners whether it was possible to separate the use of the domestic trains
from the overall facility. Their advice was that it is an integrated facility and that they all have to use it together.
Why is that important? Obviously, the specs of the gas going into the facility have to match, and it is just not
possible to use gas that is wildly different in its chemical composition—for example, the amount of CO2
et cetera—from gas in its own fields, which is a pity because it would be good to be able to use those domestic
trains separately. I am no engineer. The joint venturer told me that it is not possible. I accept that entirely, but
one way or other it is good that the agreement provides a mechanism to allow third party gas to be processed in
the facilities. I make the point that it is not that it is an agreement for third parties to use the facilities; the
agreement is the process to allow it to occur, which is very important. If a third party wanted to use the facility,
there would have to be two separate sets of negotiations. Firstly, that third party would have to negotiate
commercial terms with the joint venturer, and then the joint venturer and the third party would have to negotiate
with the government about the terms of their use of the facility. That is good. Let us hope that we can do
whatever we can to kick this long.
I have an article here, but I will not bother reading it into Hansard. It states that LNG facilities in the
United States are, generally speaking, not being done as investments of the gas producers, but are being done in
what is called midstream, which means that an infrastructure investor builds the facility and the gas purchasers
either buy the gas at a hub price or they buy it from an aggregator. One way or other they are not done in the way
that we do them here. It is interesting, too, that in Canada—a couple of other members have mentioned the LNG
projects in British Columbia—the provincial government of British Columbia last year put the final piece of the
puzzle together in the export of LNG from British Columbia, which was to set a differential tax rate.
British Columbia does not have a domestic reservation policy—it has a massive oversupply of gas, which is why
the United States is using Canadian gas—but if the gas is sold into the Canadian market, a much lower rate of
tax is paid than the tax on LNG exports, so it is effectively the same as a domestic reservation policy. The
argument from industry against a domestic reservation policy is that it is a tax on exports. That is exactly what
British Columbia has done; it has done it explicitly as a tax on an export. Obviously, a lower tax is paid if the gas
is being used in British Columbia.
These are all important issues. I note that just before Christmas, Hess Corporation and the joint venture signed—
I am not sure how to describe it—a heads of agreement that they would start discussions about Hess resources
being processed through the North West Shelf joint venture. It would be good to have third party gas and to have
the infrastructure owners seeing their facilities as infrastructure rather than as an integrated upstream and
midstream project. We do not know what will happen with those negotiations; indeed, there have been a lot of
false starts on third party gas in different projects around the country, but if it comes off, it will be good. Of
course, I make the point—the Premier disagrees with me on this—that the North West Shelf joint venture
facilities are also a possibility for the processing of Browse gas. The gas does not have to be piped from Browse
to the Burrup; indeed, the gas has to be piped only from Browse to the North West Shelf subsea facilities, which
are significantly north of the Burrup. I am no engineer and I am sure that there are many technical issues that
might be involved in putting Browse gas through the North West Shelf facility, but I make the point that
engineers can solve problems and I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of petroleum engineers to solve those
problems.
Mr C.J. Barnett: There is no technical problem with that.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: No. I do not believe there is, but people tell me different things, Premier.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The problem is that they are different joint ventures and they will never agree.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is right. I am getting to the point, which I have made a couple of times, that it
would be good to move the facilities to an infrastructure player rather than having an integrated gas player. That
has happened around the world; indeed, that is what happens in Qatar, which is our biggest competitor. The gas
producers do not own the LNG facilities; rather, the gas is tolled through the government-owned LNG facility.
As I made the point before, we do not have direct government involvement in these projects. I am not necessarily
saying that that is good idea; I am making the point that that is the way our competitors do it. I would be
interested to read what is happening with the Indonesian projects of between 25 and 30 years’ operation that are
589
short on gas; indeed, knowing what to do with older facilities is a real problem not only here. We are lucky
because unlike the Arun facility in North Sumatra, which did not find other large fields nearby, we have large
fields nearby. If we can get the companies to see the infrastructure component as separate from the field
development, that would probably be in our interest. As I have said in the chamber before, I was interested to
read late last year an article in The Australian Financial Review—I tried to google it before speaking because
I cannot remember whether it was PricewaterhouseCoopers or another consulting firm—that made a point about
the future of the Australian LNG industry and how it has to include an increase in cooperation between the
resource owners. I think that is right.
I will finish by seeking clarification about the idling of a plant. I was pleased to have the benefit of the
department’s briefing on it, but I want put on the record the circumstances in which the DomGas Alliance
facilities can be idled and the process for third party arrangements.
I want to now take up the Premier’s invitation about the Queensland projects being short on gas. There is an
argument that the projects on the east coast that rely on coal seam gas do not have enough gas to last for the
length of their contracts. We read this in the media but there is no way we can know.
Royal Dutch Shell’s Arrow Energy is the fourth proponent in Queensland that did not get its project away. We
read in the media that the other projects are all looking to buy Arrow Energy’s gas. It will be interesting to see
how that goes. Of course, the other problem is that gas will probably be sourced from existing fields. Indeed,
Santos is taking gas out of the Cooper Basin into its facility. That is clearly taking gas that would otherwise have
been sold on the east coast of Australia and selling it overseas. It is interesting that after the Queensland election,
when it was not clear who would form a minority government in Queensland, the Liberal–National Party wrote
a letter to Katter’s Australian Party members of Parliament, offering them a domestic gas reservation policy.
I have said for some time that it is not a Labor Party–Liberal Party issue because at the moment, whether it is Ian
Macfarlane or Gary Gray, they oppose a domestic gas reservation policy. We can see that now these issues that
we have been confronting —
Mr C.J. Barnett: I might have missed something, but Ian Macfarlane has never supported it.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, I know; that is what I just said.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Okay.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Here the Premier and I sit in violent agreement that domestic gas reservation is
important to Western Australia and there Mr Macfarlane and Mr Gray sit in violent opposition to domestic gas
reservation. I was making the point that there seems to me to be a crack in that facade, because the
Queensland Liberal–National Party offered a domestic gas reservation policy as part of its offer to
Katter’s Australian Party, which is a strong supporter of domestic gas. Maybe that is why I should question what
I think. That is the first crack.
In terms of exploiting gas resources on the east coast, we have an effective moratorium by the former
Victorian Liberal government on coal seam gas exploitation onshore in Victoria, and an effective moratorium in
New South Wales by the current Liberal government on exploitation in that state. There has been a lot of
criticism about the New South Wales position because, of course, it let country for exploration and now it is
effectively stopping the exploitation, whereas Victoria has not allocated the land for search, so it stopped earlier.
But one way or another there is still strong criticism in the business press about the exploitation of gas resources
on the east coast, and there is an argument that they would solve all their problems for high-priced east coast gas
if New South Wales was allowed to exploit the gas. I am not a New South Wales person; I will not put my view
about whether they should or should not, but let us assume that exploitation of the coal seam gas in New South
Wales was allowed. What is to stop that gas from flowing into the LNG facilities in Queensland and off to Japan
and Korea? That would mean that the high-price problem would not be solved. In my view, there will be a
national domestic gas reservation policy because it makes sense to have one. I imagine the federal Australian
Labor Party will have to confront that at our national conference in July. I am not a delegate this year, but
I understand that some proposals to have a review into a domestic gas reservation policy might be made at the
conference.
Some form of national review is a good idea. The 2011 inquiry here in WA, chaired by the now Treasurer, the
member for Riverton, was a great piece of work. Even people who do not agree with the recommendations of
that report still acknowledge that it was a good piece of work.
Every LNG project in Western Australia has a domestic gas reservation arrangement. A domestic gas reservation
arrangement does not kill liquefied natural gas projects; otherwise we would not have any LNG projects. I urge
members to read the evidence of the representative from Chevron, representing the Gorgon joint venturers at that
inquiry, when he was asked about the decision of the Gorgon joint venturers to build the domestic gas plant.
When asked by the chairman about the economics of it, he said that it was not an economic decision; it was
a requirement of the agreement to build the LNG facility. It is pretty simple. I imagine the Browse joint venture
590
partners play hardball—the Premier knows much better than I do because he is at the table, not me—and I bet at
the end of the day they will do a domestic deal for the supply of domestic gas. That is what happens in
Western Australia, particularly now that we have all that extra gas after the famous “golden rocks”.
The Grattan Institute and others have put around that the domestic obligation on an LNG project might kill off
the LNG project; actually, it has not. All LNG projects in Western Australia have been successful and they all
have domestic supply. Northern Territory has one operating, one potential and one under construction, with no
domestic obligation. Queensland has three projects, with no domestic obligation. Because coal seam gas is
exploited differently from the reservoirs that we are more familiar with here in WA, Queensland has allocated
land for domestic use so that gas has to be used domestically. Of course, nobody is exploiting the gas. There is
always the potential that that gas will end up being exported as well.
My colleague the member for Cockburn has just given me a newsletter from my good friends at the
Australian Workers’ Union. It shows some of the facts about the eastern states’ gas market. The one good thing
about Australia is the petroleum resource rent tax. It is probably not as good as the Norwegian gas arrangements
in which 78 per cent of the value of the gas is kept. All that money is put into a wealth fund but it all has to be
held in foreign currencies. They are not allowed to hold any assets in krone. That stabilises the currency at
a lower level.
In 2012–13 the industry complained about the fact that Australia was without doubt the highest cost jurisdiction
for LNG. There is no doubt about that. I have heard a couple of executives from different companies admit the
fact that they had made it that way by constantly poaching staff from one business to another by continually
increasing salaries. At that time, the Australian dollar was about $1.10 to the US dollar; now it is 80c. Australia
is already 30 per cent cheaper than at the 2012–13 height of that cost impact. It is very hard to get an LNG
project away when there is no security of what the price profile will look like going forward. Again, that is
a good reason for companies to look at how they can use the North West Shelf facilities. Obviously, the sunk
capital in the North West Shelf is probably the cheapest option for companies developing a project because they
do not have to redo the large capital there.
We are supporting the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014. We made
a couple of comments about our view that it is important to try to secure those 720 terajoules a day. It is not just
about the balance in the market. We accept that the market is balanced and we accept that the North West Shelf
joint venture will continue to supply gas to the market until these other projects come online and then it will
reduce. We accept that the agreement applies the 15 per cent in a balanced way on the export volumes under this
agreement. We think it is good that the third party use arrangements are in the agreement but we are certainly
looking for actual third party gas to go through the facilities. We note that we still have the highest domestic gas
prices in the world. If the media comments that I read into Hansard earlier are correct, it is now probably higher
than the commodity price in Japan. We also think that there should be an obligation for the joint venture to end
its joint marketing as soon as possible. I will briefly ask some questions in consideration in detail but, otherwise,
I will end my remarks there.
MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Minister for State Development) [8.47 pm] — in reply: I thank the
opposition for its support for the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014.
As the member for Victoria Park remarked, whenever we have a state agreement bill before the house, we have
a wide-ranging debate about resource projects and resource developments and government policy with respect to
it. I will not go into that but I will make a couple of observations. From my point of view, it has been the case for
probably the last 25 to 30 years that the biggest game in town is natural gas and the development of that
resource. Western Australia has massive natural gas resources—at least 150 trillion cubic feet offshore and
probably twice that onshore in the form of shale gas. To put that in perspective, three trillion cubic feet of gas is
enough to produce two million tonnes of liquefied natural gas for 20 years. It is a massive amount of energy.
We have used only a very small proportion of that. Indeed, Australia as a whole uses only one TCF of gas a year.
We have several hundred TCF. Gas will be a big player in our economy for a long time.
Gas is also going through a period of extraordinary change. There are all sorts of projections about what might
happen in the market, but the one thing that is certain is that with growing world economies and increasing
urbanisation, the long-term trend will be an increased demand for natural gas. Emerging economies in particular
will want to have a cleaner atmosphere and therefore government policy choices will be in favour of using more
natural gas to displace coal in power generation. The other factor is that with the tragic Fukushima nuclear
disaster in Japan, the appetite for nuclear power has certainly diminished in Japan and in a number of other
countries. Despite imbalances and periods of oversupply, which we may well be in, and then periods of
undersupply, I have no doubt that the long-term prospects for natural gas are very, very strong. While members
opposite quoted spot prices and so on, the reality still is that because of the very high capital expenditure in these
projects, most gas is still sold on long-term contracts at attractive prices. Buying governments around the world
will not risk potentially running out of energy. It is true that they will pay and help support trading companies—
power companies—to invest in those long-term contracts. At the same time, we are getting changes in
591
technology. We have debates in this place about the development of floating liquefied natural gas, which will be
a very dominant force in the Western Australian market. There is also the emergence of shale gas, particularly in
the United States. Shale gas has transformed the United States’ economy and attracted manufacturing investment
back into the US after decades of losing investment. There is a view, particularly in Japan, perhaps in China and
maybe in Korea, that there will vast amounts of export LNG from US shale gas. I doubt that that will be the case.
It will certainly happen, but it might in the order of 70 million tonnes; it is not going to change the total market.
I think the reasons for that are threefold. The first is that the economics are difficult because getting gas over the
Rockies is not easy. A producer that exports from the Gulf Coast of the USA on the Atlantic side has a very long
trip around the bottom of South America to get to the Asian market. So there are some economic factors. The
second factor is that for the first time in a long, long time the US has energy self-sufficiency, and I do not think
that any future American President will compromise that. The third factor is that although there is a huge
potential resource, the flow-rates out of some of those fields have been disappointing recently. They started off
with a bang—that is a poor choice of words! They started off with very strong flows, but those flows have not
been sustained. I suspect we will not see —
Mr W.J. Johnston: They call it the hockey stick, because it is very high and then it goes down.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, and a lot of the companies are now finding they have slower flow-rates. It is a very
complicated industry. In Western Australia, although energy from coal is cheaper, natural gas is very much our
future in the long-term. Our energy distribution system will consist of developing pipeline infrastructure around
the state with power stations dotted along it. The state has done pretty well over the past 15 years or so doing that
and it is good to see that pipelines have now been built to the Fortescue Metals Group mines and the
Tropicana Gold Mine project. That network of pipelines is growing. The government is still struggling to get the
Albany pipeline underway but that is important. The Albany pipeline lacks a major customer at the end, but we
are still progressing that project and hopefully we will get there because it will be a major addition to the link.
This bill comes in the midst of all these changes and events in the gas market. Again, and members have
summarised this, it is a variation to the North West Shelf agreement, which dates from 1979. This variation took
quite some time to negotiate; negotiations started with North West Shelf in February 2014. I want to compliment
the Department of State Development for the result it has achieved—it has done exceptionally well. As members
have said, this bill allows for an expansion of LNG exports to the tune of 88 million tonnes, it allows the
producer to bring on new gas fields, such as Persephone and Greater Western Flank, which has 2.5 trillion cubic
feet of gas. With that extra gas coming on for export and triggering the 15 per cent domestic gas reservation, it
obviously generates more gas for the domestic market—that is, 100 terajoules a day, or about 10 per cent of
current supply. It is a significant addition to the domestic gas supply along with the forthcoming gas from
Gorgon, Wheatstone and perhaps Browse, however that may be structured.
There is also an obligation on the companies to maintain the reliability and capacity of the domestic gas plant.
As members said, it allows third-party gas to be tolled through the North West Shelf project. That will be good
to bring on some of the smaller fields that by themselves could not support an LNG project or even an LNG
train. I think there is a lot of good stuff in this legislation. The North West Shelf as it stands now supplies
520 terajoules, which is just over 50 per cent of the gas into the domestic market—another 100 terajoules is
a good result. I thank members for their support for the legislation. Our timetable is that we are hoping to get this
bill through both houses by June 2015. That will fit with the understanding with North West Shelf.
I am just reacting to a couple of the comments made by members. There was a discussion of history. That is fine.
I accept that gas supply is still tight, but I am optimistic that the new fields like Macedon and Devil Creek that
have come into the market in the last few years are adding to domestic supply. I think that although the big gas
fields will only ever be developed for LNG export, the 15 per cent reservation policy, which is a sound policy,
plus the encouragement of the development of smaller fields for specific customers, will also bring on domestic
gas. It always seems to be difficult, but I think we are doing it.
I note that the joint marketing arrangement for the North West Shelf will expire this year, and we will see
whether that is reinstated or not. That is an opportunity, I guess, and perhaps it is time that we ceased with the
joint marketing.
Gas prices are high. That is somewhat of an anomaly in the market. I think the future will see more attractive and
lower domestic gas prices in Western Australia. Some comments were made about the coal seam gas projects on
the east coast. It is paradoxical that we will see a massive increase in gas production from coal seam gas on the
east coast, in New South Wales and Queensland, yet domestic customers will see a big gas price rise. That is
a disastrous outcome for the economies of the east coast. I think it is politically impossible to explain to the
public why increased supply should bring increased prices. I saw a comment in one of the papers today—
I thought it was a ridiculous comment—that Australian customers will have to compete with Chinese customers
for the gas in Australia. As I, and I am sure others, have repeatedly reminded the companies, they do not own the
gas. They have a right to develop and market the gas, but they do not own it. In fact, they do not own those
592
molecules of gas, I think, until they come out of the LNG plant and go into the ship. The companies are inclined
to forget that. But I think the Western Australian government, through successive governments, has been strong
on this. There have been plenty of big stoushes about the North West Shelf and other projects, but those projects
are there, and the expansion through this decade from around 20 million tonnes to 50 to 60 million tonnes will be
the historic period of expansion of LNG in Western Australia. I am sure there will be further projects, but they
will never match this period of expansion. That will take Western Australia to probably second in the world to
Qatar for LNG exports. If we add the coal seam gas projects on the east coast, which in total are only about
30 million tonnes, Australia will be the number one producer of LNG exports.
There are also other dimensions, such as pipeline gas around the world. Again, China now sees comfort in
pipeline gas coming into Western China from Russia through Siberia. That is good, but the east coast of China
will probably still be on LNG. Europe, which is dependent on pipeline gas from the other end of Russia, is
suddenly getting very nervous due to occasional incidents in which the pipeline is turned off and the like, so
I think we will probably even see Europe become a bigger buyer of LNG into the future.
Finally, mention was made of the Browse Basin project and the golden rocks. It is fortuitous that
Western Australia now owns probably close to 60 per cent of the total Browse field and most of the Torosa field.
The media keep writing that we should forget about Browse; it will never happen. I am having a meeting with
the joint venture tomorrow morning to discuss the two key points, which are domestic gas and the location of the
supply base. So, Browse is moving forward, albeit, like most projects, it is taking a lot of time. I would not
discount Browse, and I think that will also be a future supply of domestic gas.
There is also the Canning Basin and onshore shale gas. Although that is technically difficult, there is a vast
amount of gas. The advancement of technology in the United States for extracting coal seam and shale gas is
taking place very quickly. I think that as the project is assessed, the technology will also advance, and I would
guess that in five years’ time that will probably move into some sort of production, even if it is a limited
production, for the domestic market.
It is a fascinating industry. It is full of a mix of big business, world events, domestic controversy, arguments
between joint venturers, and arguments between governments among themselves, the commonwealth and the
state, and then with the proponents. There have been screaming matches at airports. The development our natural
gas industry has been a colourful exercise, but it will be at the centre of our economic development for the next
50 years. It is an enormous opportunity that we are seeing played out at the moment.
I thank members for supporting this bill. I think this legislation has some fantastic features. The tolling of third
party gas particularly is a good step forward, and the fact that if that third party gas is tolled through the
North West Shelf, it will also be subject to the 15 per cent domestic gas reservation. The gas reservation dates
back to the North West Shelf through not only the take-or-pay contract, but also a volume of gas that was
reserved to the domestic market. In the negotiations during the Carpenter government in the Pluto project, it was
refined and approved to the principal of 15 per cent. I support that and it has bipartisan support. Although
commentators may argue against it, I think it is a very proper safeguard for the security of gas into the domestic
market, and a very fair and reasonable thing to be done by the owners of the natural gas, whether it be an
Australian-based resource or a state-based resource. I therefore thank members and we will now proceed.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Consideration in Detail
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Would the member for Cannington like to ask a question?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I have a procedural question. Correct me if I am wrong, but my memory is that we can
go back and forth when we deal with the schedule. Although we have to follow the usual pattern for the bill
itself, we can go back and forth for the schedule. Is that the arrangement?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Yes. We can deal with any part, I understand, in the one question.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Excellent.
Clauses 1 to 5 put and passed.
Clause 6: Schedule 5 inserted —
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: This clause is now the guts of the amendments to the agreement. I want to go first to
clause 2 of the schedule, which reads “The Principal Agreement is hereby varied as follows”. Then clause 2(4)
of the schedule at page 9 inserts subclause (1B) to clause 46.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Page 9, member?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, at the bottom of the page, and it goes over the page.
593
The ACTING SPEAKER: I will just check that we are all up with that. I think we are good. Go ahead, member.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Okay; excellent. My understanding is that this is the clause that allows the third-party
gas to be used in the facility. Am I on the right track?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Is it on pages 9 and 10, member?
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes. Clause 2(4) of the schedule reads “in clause 46 by deleting subclause (1A) and
substituting the following new subclauses”.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I think it is page 7 you want.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am sorry, yes.
Mr C.J. Barnett: On page 7, clause 2(3)(d) inserts new subclause (2) at the bottom of the page.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Could the minister confirm how this operates? My understanding is that this is
a provision that allows the negotiation, rather than a specific commitment—if the minister sees what I mean.
Could I have that confirmed?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It allows a negotiation. If they wish to bring third party gas into the North West Shelf, that
will trigger a negotiation between North West Shelf and the Department of State Development and, potentially,
the supplier of the third party gas, to ensure that it is all kosher. Obviously, there will be technical issues with the
composition of the gas, but the key issue is that the figure of 15 per cent of the market is properly administered
and measured and tolled through the plant.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Given that is the case, there is an expectation that there will be the same 15 per cent
obligation on the third party operator as there is on the North West Shelf joint venture, and that is clearly the
policy position of the state government.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is correct. It is quite clear and that has been the important breakthrough in this
negotiation. Third party gas will be tolled through, which is good and certainly allows smaller fields to be
commercialised, but equally the principle is that if it is tolled through that facility, the 15 per cent domgas
obligation will apply. It means that smaller fields can find their way to market by being a domestic gas plant
project in their own right, such as Devil Creek or Macedon, which is good and probably even better, but there
will also be opportunities to share both an export and domgas supplier. It is a good step forward.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Let me find my way. I think the provision is proposed subclause (16).
Mr C.J. Barnett: If you tell us what you are looking for, we might be able to find it.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It is the provision about the circumstances in which the domestic facility can be idle.
When I had the briefing from the agency they explained —
Mr C.J. Barnett: I am sorry to interrupt, but it is page 18, subclause (16) down the bottom.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I actually got it right; I am pleased. My understanding is that to keep the facility “hot”—
I think the word is—requires a certain amount of gas to be used in the facility. That, of course, is not sensible if
we are not marketing additional gas. I understand this provision allows the joint venture partners to idle one or
both of the domestic facilities in certain circumstances. I know this is a very technical issue, but I think it is
important to get on the record examples of the circumstances in which either one or both of the domestic trains
would be allowed to be idle—in other words, not to continue to produce gas.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is a bit confusing. I understand that they need to idle the gas to maintain the plant. That
is probably not a great cost, but if they wish to close down the plant, they would not have any contracts, so they
would have nowhere to sell the gas, but they would still have to give six months’ notice to get agreement.
I cannot see that happening. There is an issue about the age of domestic gas plants on the North West Shelf.
Corrosion takes place, so the metal is thinning all the time. We hope that there is enough going through that they
will maintain and keep those gas plants in a reliable state. The age of the plants poses a risk to the state.
Mr W.J. Johnston: Could the Premier tell us what he thinks might be a circumstance that would lead to an
agreement to idle the plant?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It would be that they do not have a contract for gas to go through that plant. I cannot see
that happening. Although it might be a relatively small supplier compared with export liquefied natural gas, it is
still a very big domestic gas supplier and I think one that will grow.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: I raised with the members from the Department of State Development an issue that I ask the
Premier’s opinion on as well. When there are negotiations between the parties to toll third-party gas—apparently
594
there are some negotiations underway at the moment—and those negotiations are not successful, which was not
even the intention of this bill, so it is not surprising, there is no mechanism in place to either assist the parties or
force the parties to reach agreement to keep that plant operating. Has the Premier thought about that? Looking at
other markets, whether electricity or railways—we have been debating access by third parties to railways here
recently—there are mechanisms whereby the parties are expected to go and get the matter resolved or even
arbitrated, in the case of railways, by the Economic Regulation Authority. However, there is nothing in the gas
market that may force the parties to reach agreement and keep that plant operating. What is the Premier’s view
on that?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think that ends up a commercial matter. There is nothing in this amendment to the
North West Shelf agreement that can force third parties. I think that is the role of governments and ministers, and
Hess is probably an interesting example. It had discussions with Chevron about tolling through Wheatstone,
which I thought would probably have happened but did not eventuate for whatever reason. I understand they are
now talking to the North West Shelf. It would be thought that Hess would want to commercialise its very
significant deposits or discoveries. Government encourages that and I think North West Shelf now has the need
to prove up more gas fairly quickly.
Mr F.M. Logan: The reason I raise it, Premier, is that North Sea Gas was faced with very similar circumstances,
particularly with the declining large volumes of gas and the access by smaller third parties to the infrastructure
that was still owned by the multinational corporations. Ultimately, that was opened up and forced on them by the
government of the day, which was a Conservative government by the way.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I doubt that would happen here, but I think with the reality in the Carnarvon Basin,
North West Shelf, Pluto, Gorgon and Wheatstone I cannot see another greenfields plant being developed, so it
would be adding additional trains. Obviously the economics of Pluto would be greatly improved if we could
have a second train. That is attractive to everyone. Gorgon plans a third train, I think. Wheatstone has capacity
for co-location and the like. I think that in itself will engender more tolling of gas, bringing in marginal fields
and the like. In the Browse Basin I am still optimistic that we will see an onshore gas plant, because I think we
have barely scratched the surface or the bottom of the sea at Browse. There is a huge amount of gas and oil to be
found in the Browse area. I think it can pretty well be said that after this round of investment in terms of hard
infrastructure the Carnarvon Basin is basically established and it will be additions, tolling and swapping of gas
that will see it go further.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: I have a separate question to the Premier. Given the fact that the Premier raised the issue of
Pluto, under Pluto there is an obligation to deliver domestic gas as well and I believe there is a time frame on the
obligations by Woodside to deliver domestic gas. Can the Premier give his view to the Parliament on how
Woodside will be assisted to meet its obligations?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think the obligation kicks in around 2017.
Mr F.M. Logan: It’s not long away.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, and we would expect Pluto to do that. It is not that far away. It is not hard for Pluto to
connect into the infrastructure, so I would expect that to happen. Pluto got a good deal and it has been very
profitable for Woodside in particular. Woodside is in a bit of a conflict situation here as the operator of the
North West Shelf and basically the owner of Pluto. I would think there is probably a greater return in Woodside
getting gas into Pluto than there is getting gas into North West Shelf. However, it would be thought with the
discoveries that gas should be able to be got into both of them.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: There is an obligation on the joint venture to market domestic gas and there is
a procedure for the Premier or the minister—it is the Premier at this stage, but the agreement will last a long
time—to review the bona fides of the joint venture. On my copy of the bill I understand that is covered at pages
16, 17 and 18. I am interested to understand how this procedure works. What would be a trigger for the minister
to appoint an independent agreed person to do the review of the marketing arrangements? Is it contemplated how
that person would be provided with information? What information that that person has access to would be
provided to the minister, for the minister to then make the decisions that the minister is obliged to make?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: There are provisions for that to happen if it is thought that the companies are not genuine
in supplying or marketing domestic gas. However, I think despite all the battles and changes of position, the
reality over the last 30 years has been that these companies have been responsible and have honoured their
obligations. I think that tends to sort itself out, and the fact is that these negotiations have been going since
February 2014. It takes a long time, but North West Shelf as a joint venture has come to the party on domestic
gas. As I said, I have a meeting tomorrow with the Browse joint venture, so we are very much back to the
beginning of that, but we have reached the point now where there is basically an acknowledgement that there
595
will be a domestic gas obligation from Browse. Browse is floating LNG, so that raises some other issues, but that
negotiation is at the early stages of progressing. But my experience—I think the member would say the same—is
that at the end of the day, the companies do the right thing. It is a matter of price, probably, more than anything
else.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: On a new topic, I understand that there are existing contracts with the joint venture that
are counted towards the domestic gas obligation under this agreement. I also understand that those contracts are
not known by the Department of State Development because, obviously, they are commercial arrangements
between commercial parties. I am just wondering whether the minister can tell us the volume of gas under those
existing contracts that is effectively grandfathered into the domestic obligation.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have just been advised that there are two contracts and collectively they amount to
43 petajoules.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is about —
Mr C.J. Barnett: Of the 15 per cent reservation, it accounts for about one per cent.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So it is a pretty minor amount. We are also expecting that the companies will be
providing more gas than 100 terajoules a day for a while.
Mr C.J. Barnett: That is 100 extra.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Well, it is 100; it is not 100 extra. It is extra in respect of the previous arrangements.
There is going to be a period before Gorgon and Wheatstone come on in which we are going to expect the
North West Shelf to provide more than 100 terajoules a day; that might go for a few years.
Mr C.J. Barnett: But it’s 100 terajoules of gas tied to the expansion of LNG exports.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, I appreciate that, and the existing contract is only a very, very small component of
the total obligation, but there will be a phase where it will still be providing more gas into the market, otherwise
we would be in deep trouble, but that is taken off its entire obligation. I am just wondering whether the
department has calculated how much it is above the 100 terajoules. If we take the obligation, it is effectively
98 or 99 terajoules a day for the period of the obligation, but it will actually be providing about 500 terajoules for
at least 18 months, and then it will be providing some more for some period of time; it would be about three or
four years before Wheatstone would be online, so it will have to provide a significant amount of gas. I am just
wondering whether the department has worked out how much of the obligation is going to be frontloaded, if you
like, into the next four years or so until Wheatstone’s domestic facility is available.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I think the gas supply is there, but the early 2020s could be tight. It is dependent on other
projects, and hopefully some more smaller domgas projects will come on. It is potentially a tight period.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: But the minister is not aware of what percentage of the obligation in this agreement that
we are talking about will effectively frontload it because other projects are not yet online. If this obligation will
go for a period until the export contracts have expired, at effectively 100 terajoules—let us call it 100 because it
is a nice easy number—there will be 500 terajoules for the first year and there might be 400 terajoules for the
second year, because it will be a while before Gorgon and Wheatstone come on. There will be a couple of years
upfront when they will be doing four or five times more than the agreement obliges, but it is still part of the total
volume. I am just trying to work out whether the department has considered how much of the obligation will be
exhausted in, say, the first five years.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I am told that the existing contracts go through to 2020, so that supply is separate from this
and that will continue. But the early 2020s could be a tight period.
Clause put and passed.
Title put and passed.
Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Third Reading
MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Minister for State Development) [9.22 pm]: I move —
That the bill be now read a third time.
MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [9.22 pm]: The Labor Party is pleased to have cooperated with the
passage of the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014. There were some
interesting speeches from members on our side of the chamber. Sadly, I missed most of them, but I am sure that
they were high-quality speeches. Certainly, the two speeches that I heard, from the member for Armadale and
596
the member for Gosnells, were very high quality. I am very sad that I missed the speeches of the member for
Victoria Park and the member for Cockburn. I know that the member for Willagee wanted to speak, but he was
paired tonight so he missed out on having his say.
I draw the chamber’s attention to one of the issues that I discussed with the Minister for State Development in
the consideration in detail stage, and that is how long this obligation will go for. We are frontloading the domgas
obligation because the joint venture parties are making sure that there is no supply gap, and I thank them for that.
In 2011 they were producing 720 terajoules a day, but, with the passage of this bill, their obligation will be
effectively 100 terajoules a day. If they instantaneously withdrew 620 terajoules day, we would be in deep
trouble in Western Australia. They are not doing that and that is fine. I think they are down to 500 or
550 terajoules a day because Devil Creek has come online and other projects will soon come online. We all
understand that the two big lumps that are coming on are the Gorgon domestic and Wheatstone domestic trains.
We all understand that it will take a while for the two tranches of the domestic obligations from Gorgon to come
online. There are the domestic obligations at Wheatstone, but it will take a while for all of that to come online. In
the meantime, the North West Shelf joint venture will continue to make up the gap between the other providers,
plus their obligation and the total demand. But that extra gas that it is providing into the system is still part of the
domestic obligation that we are agreeing with the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement
Amendment Bill 2014. That is not a bad thing. I am not saying that is wrong; I am just making the point that that
means that the domestic obligations will expire earlier because of what they are doing with the existing supply.
I also asked about the circumstances in which the plant might be allowed to be idle. I take at face value the
Premier’s comments that that is not likely. It is interesting, too, that the companies have, on a number of
occasions, patted themselves on the back—I am happy for them to do it—about the fact that, effectively, the
LNG facilities have been completely rebuilt through maintenance over time. That is excellent; it is very good
news. Then they say their domestic plants are ageing. My question is: if they are able to maintain their LNG
export facilities to the standards they want, I think they need to maintain the domestic facilities to the same type
of standard. As we all understand, existing infrastructure is the cheapest to use because the capital has already
been sunk, so we want to make sure that the domgas facilities are used as much as possible.
Mr C.J. Barnett: If I can interject, I think after the Varanus Island explosion the companies will be at great
lengths to make sure that all their facilities are safe and reliable.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Absolutely. Good interjection, Premier, I think that is excellent. Everybody in
Western Australia thinks it was a pipeline explosion, but in fact it was a feed line as part of the domgas facility at
Varanus Island that exploded. That is why I was interested to ask —
Mr F.M. Logan: On the beach.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: On the beach, yes. There was never a royal commission; a royal commission was
promised in 2008, but it was never held. Anyway, we will not go down that track.
Maximising the use of these existing facilities is very important. I again go back to the 2011 inquiry. We pointed
out that there is actually quite a good deal of capacity for gas plants in the midwest, but of course there is no gas.
Here we are in the north west, where there is plenty of gas, much of it untapped, so let us make sure the facility
gets maximum use. That then goes to the question of third party gas. We have had a number of discussions
tonight and on previous occasions about that; it is really where we need to get to. The Premier, in his reply to the
second reading debate, commented about pipeline gas going into China. That Russian deal will be interesting.
There is some discussion in the media about whether the gas will actually get supplied because nobody knows
how much Russian gas there really is. Madam Acting Speaker (Lisa Baker) would be interested to know that one
of the big sources of greenhouse gas emissions is leaking pipelines in Russia. I went to a conference last year in
London about environmental issues regarding shale gas exploitation, and a number of the presenters made the
point that actually there are probably much more risks in leaking pipelines in Russia than there is in potential
shale gas. But also, of course, China has potentially massive reserves of shale gas. I read in the media that it is
having problems recovering its shale gas —
Mr C.J. Barnett: They don’t seem to be giving great emphasis to the shale gas at this stage. It is interesting;
they seem to be more interested in LNG and pipeline.
Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes. Again, I was reading recently about the deal with some of the stands they have to
get gas out of central Asia, and out of Burma, too. It is good that they are buying gas from their neighbours
because they attract political influence by being big customers, just as they do by buying iron ore from us. As the
Premier says, that is absolutely correct. In my view this is a fascinating area of public policy. It is very complex
and there are lots of moving parts. There are no simple solutions. Every time someone from the industry says,
“Yes, but,” to me—I accept that there are plenty of “yes, buts”—I make the point that I am a state member of
Parliament and that I am interested in outcomes for Western Australians. Next week I will be going to
597
Queensland to attend the Australian Workers Union National Conference to in fact talk about domestic energy
security. As the Premier rightly pointed out, domestic energy security has been for the United States, ever since
the oil shock of the 1970s, its number one priority. We in Australia are very lucky because we have an
unbelievable energy resource. We have so much energy resource that we can share with our neighbours such as
Japan, China, Taiwan and Korea, but it needs to be done so that it does not disadvantage our domestic
requirements.
The opposition is happy to support the bill. Opposition members have made their comments and put on the
record the couple of points that they think are important. I am pleased that I have been able to put on the record
those few issues about third party obligations, how domestic obligations work and what are the circumstances
under which a minister would refer matters to third party assessment procedures. We will watch with interest as
the joint venture parties move forward, and we wish them success in their project.
I will finish by noting that Woodside is, of course, an important employer in the Pilbara. Given the ambition of
the people of Karratha to have a city of 50 000, they must realise that to have a city of 50 000 people, there needs
to be 30 000 jobs. Making sure that these gas facilities continue into the future is an essential component of
a large city in the Pilbara. As a very young child I lived in a place called Captains Flat, which nobody has
probably heard of. It seems that someone here has heard of it! Captains Flat is a tiny town in which the silverlead-zinc mine closed in 1963. That is when my family moved there because they were able to get a really cheap
house, but of course there were no jobs. When we look at what is happening currently in Port Hedland, the only
way that the Pilbara towns can survive in the long term is to have long-term jobs, and that will require projects
like the North West Shelf to be successful over a long period of time. The Labor Party looks forward to working
with the joint venture in the future on this project.
MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn) [9.34 pm]: In rounding out the debate on the third reading of the North West
Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill 2014, I thank the Premier for responding to the
issues that I and the member for Cannington raised during our second reading contributions. However I am not
sure whether the Premier commented on the issue that I raised about the joint marketing of gas by the
North West Shelf operator.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I did say during consideration in detail that that arrangement runs out this year, 2015, and,
without saying anything definitive, I think it is probably time that we now go to individual marketing. That is
something to be looked at this year.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: I am glad the Premier has responded that way. I certainly urge him and the government to
try to bring that to a successful conclusion, because that in itself will allow downstream players, particularly
members of the DomGas Alliance—of course, the state government is a large purchaser—to pressure the
individual members of the joint venture marketing body to possibly provide gas at a cheaper rate than is
currently marketed by the six of them as a monopoly body. I am glad to hear the Premier say that. I certainly
wish the government success in bringing that about.
Once again, I raise the issue of the domestic supply of gas and the outcome of this agreement. Although it
provides a further 100 terajoules a day of supply, some of the information provided by some of the players in the
gas market to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee for its inquiry into floating liquefied natural gas
is that the upper potential supply forecast for North West Shelf re-contracts are predicted to be just over
500 petajoules a year of supply by 2020, dropping off to slightly under 500 petajoules. Whereas, the lower
potential supply forecast will see the supply of domestic gas reach approximately 450 petajoules of gas a year,
dropping back to about 380 petajoules, which is the base demand already. It appears that might well be the case
unless significantly more gas is put into the domestic market from players such as Wheatstone, Gorgon and
Apache over and above what they currently do. That will mean that the lower potential supply forecast from recontracting to the North West Shelf will leave us exactly where we are at the moment with our supply meeting
base demand. That will be a problem for any government in Western Australia because, as I indicated to the
house in my contribution to the second reading debate, it will constrain the state government from marketing
Western Australia as an economy open for business for energy-consuming industries. It will restrict that
capacity.
We are a relatively large energy-consuming economy, but it is constrained by the actual supply of domestic gas.
If we can somehow encourage, incentivise or even compel the players from the North West Shelf—there will be
a significant number of suppliers by 2020—to put more energy into the domestic market, that will provide the
opportunities for governments of the day to expand Western Australia’s processing industry or whatever type of
energy-consuming industry we are talking about. It does not necessarily have to be mineral processing; it could
be any other type of large energy-consuming industry. We cannot try to get those industries to establish in
Western Australia if we do not have the energy; it is as simple as that. Given the volumes of energy we are
598
talking about, as the Premier outlined clearly when he opened up in his response to the second reading debate
about the 150 trillion plus cubic feet of gas on the North West Shelf, why should the state of Western Australia
be left in that situation? Certainly, no other government around the world is left in that position. The member for
Cannington referred to Norway, but there is a list of other countries around the world where particularly national
governments, as well as state governments, are extremely firm with companies.
Mr W.J. Johnston: A production-sharing agreement.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: Exactly, a production-sharing agreement, which is the base of most of the Middle East gas.
It is sold to the same consumers that we sell our gas to. The tiny states of the Middle East keep control of that
gas until it is unloaded in Korea and China. The money is then transferred into their accounts. Western Australia
is not in that situation. It is unfortunate for Western Australian citizens because we would benefit greatly if we
were able to market our gas in a very similar way. If we could, we would be as rich as some of the citizens of the
Middle East. We are not even contemplating that type of nirvana that the Middle Eastern states have. Larger
volumes of gas are made available to the domestic economy even if demand is not there. It just provides the
opportunity for the state government to go out there and attract energy-consuming industries to
Western Australia.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The member is right; most are still largely government dominated —
Mr F.M. LOGAN: The majority of the gas market is.
Mr C.J. Barnett: — in terms of production sharing and government-owned petroleum companies. It was not
that long ago that the North West Shelf could rightly boast that it was the only private sector LNG project in the
world. Probably 15 years ago it was the only one. But the socialists are over on your side; not on this side.
Mr W.J. Johnston: One of the most interesting things is that Chevron’s Gorgon and Wheatstone projects were
the first two LNG projects. It is not as though they are experienced in this.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: That is right. It is not as though a significant number of private sector players are out there.
The Premier has said that the Woodside joint venture was the first one in the world, but really there is only
a handful of others.
Mr C.J. Barnett: A select club.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: Yes. Only a handful of private sector companies around the world are in that market because
the rest of them are all government owned one way or another.
Mr W.J. Johnston: I read the history of Bontang in Kalimantan, Indonesia. It is very interesting, the way it all
developed—all controlled by the government. That is a Chevron player as well.
Mr F.M. LOGAN: Although we can have this debate in the Parliament of Western Australia and even discuss
the concepts that I have raised, if these issues were raised in the federal Parliament, both sides of Parliament
would hound us out of the house, unfortunately, because they have a completely different view over not just the
exploration, but also the production and marketing of gas around the whole of Australia. The federal government
does not at all take into account states’ interests. Disneyland, in the middle of New South Wales—known as
Canberra—is a fictitious creation of a nation state operated out of a very large paddock. It basically controls the
exploration, production and marketing of one of the most critical energy sources in the whole of the continent of
Australia. It supposedly acts for the interests of all citizens, which it claims it does in all of its decisions on oil
and gas. The extension of that is that it certainly does not act in the interests of the states. It claims that it acts in
the interests of all citizens, but when it comes to state governments, we are left out. It does not act in our
interests. The problem lies with the marketing of domestic gas, the availability of domestic gas and the rapacious
demand for tax and resource income from the federal governments of Australia.
There will be a continuing fight between states such as New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and
Western Australia and the federal government for decades into the future. It is not unusual in any federation for
there to be continuous tension between states and federal governments. There is tension in Germany, Malaysia,
India and Canada. It happens all the time in federations but in Australia, for some reason, when it comes to the
critical energy resource of gas, governments on both sides of the spectrum in Canberra continue to act against the
interests of the states, and it is something that has to be resolved. The member for Cannington referred to the
resolution coming up in the ALP national conference later this year. I hope that that resolution is carried because
it may break the impasse between Canberra and Western Australia over the continuance of the domestic gas
reservation policy and the interests of Western Australia. I commend the bill to the house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council.
BILLS
Returned
1.
Succession to the Crown Bill 2014.
2.
Swan and Canning Rivers Management Amendment Bill 2014.
3.
Perth Theatre Trust Amendment Bill 2014.
Bills returned from the Council without amendment.
House adjourned at 9.47 pm
__________
599
600
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
HOUSING — SMALL TOWN SERVICES
3233.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing:
For the financial year ending 30 June 2014, what was the total cost to the state government of providing housing
to the following towns: (i) Yalgoo; (ii) Arrino; (iii) Sandstone; (iv) Latham; (v) Coorow; (vi) Paynes Find; (vii)
Maya; (viii) Beverly; (ix) Beacon; (x) Bencubbin; (xi) Tammin; (xii) Wubin; (xiii) Nungarin; (xiv) Gilderton;
(xv) Trayning; (xvi) Marvel Loch; (xvii) Seabird; (xviii) Hines Hill; (xix) Doodlakine; (xx) Eucla ; (xxi)
Cascade; (xxii) Menzies; (xxiii) Manmanning; (xxiv) Pingaring; (xxv) Bonnie Rock; (xxvi) Kununoppin; (xxvii)
Gascoyne Junction; (xxviii) Burringurrah; (xxix) Canna; (xxx) Koolanooka; (xxxi) Coorow; (xxxii) Marchagee;
(xxxiii) Benjaberring; (xxxiv) Korrelocking; (xxxv) Yealering; (xxxvi) Calingiri; (xxxvii) Trayning; (xxxviii)
Yelbeni; (xxxix) Bejoording; (xl) Bungulla; (xli) Yorkrakine; (xlii) Pantapin; (xliii) Aldersyde; (xliv) South
Kumminin; (xlv) Gabbin; (xlvi) Wialki; (xlvii) Muntadgin; (xlviii) Kulja; (xlix) Karlgarin; (l) Jennacubbine; (li)
Wubin; (lii) Popanyinning; (liii) BIlbarin; (liv) Bullaring; (lv) Ardath; (lvi) Babakin; (lvii) Kwolyin; and, (lviii)
Shackleton?
Mr D.T. Redman replied:
The Department of Housing advises that the cost of providing housing includes costs such as construction,
maintenance, administration, rent foregone, water rates and shire rates. Calculating the total cost of providing
housing to the above towns would require considerable research, taking staff away from their normal duties, and
the Department is not prepared to divert the significant resources required to provide the requested information.
The Department can, however, advise that construction costs in 2013–14 for government regional officers
housing were:
(i)–(xix)
Nil
(xx)
$1 254 084.00
(xxi)
$526 331.00
(xxii)–(lviii)
Nil
The Department can also advise that maintenance costs in 2013–14 for public housing, government regional
officers housing and Aboriginal housing properties were:
(i)
$10 767.43
(ii)
Nil
(iii)
$2 378.43
(iv)
$297.30
(v), (xxxi)
$3 675.98
(vi)–(vii)
Nil
(viii)
$28 498.86
(ix)
$2 378.43
(x)
$4 705.72
(xi)
$4 936.76
(xii)
Nil
(xiii)
$3 024.21
(xiv)
Nil
(xv), (xxxvii)
$7 803.67
(xvi)–(xix)
Nil
(xx)
$2 675.74
(xxi)
$936.24
(xxii)
$1 783.82
(xxiii)–(xxvi)
Nil
(xxvii)
$789.15
(xxviii)
$140 459.86
(xxix)–(xxxiv)
Nil
(xxxv)
$297.30
(xxxvi)
$3 509.16
601
(xxxviii)–(xlviii) Nil
(xlix)
$594.61
(l)–(li)
Nil
(lii)
$297.30
(liii)–(lviii)
Nil
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — ASSET AND EFFICIENCY
MEASURES
3260.
Mr D.J. Kelly to the Minister for Water:
I refer to page 18 of the Water Corporation’s Strategic Development Plan 2014/15 to 2018/19, and I ask:
(a)
which asset and efficiency measures have been delayed in order to meet the $5 million saving
measures;
(b)
in each case, what was the original timeline for completion; and
(c)
in each case, what are the new completion dates due to the delay?
Ms M.J. Davies replied:
(a)–(c) The figures outlined on page 18 of the Strategic Development Plan are indicative and used for planning
purposes only.
The Water Corporation’s capital investment program is regularly reprioritised due to changing
consumption patterns, population growth and unforeseen circumstances.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — DAM SAFETY PROJECTS
3261.
(a)
which Dam safety projects have been delayed as part of the $10 million saving measures;
(b)
(c)
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — FACILITIES MEASURES
3262.
(a)
which facilities measures have been delayed in order to meet the $48 million saving measures;
(b)
(c)
purposes only.
602
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
MEASURES
3263.
(a)
which irrigation and drainage measures have been delayed in order to meet the $10 million saving
measures;
(b)
(c)
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PROJECTS
3264.
(a)
which information technology projects have been delayed as part of the $25 million saving measures;
(b)
(c)
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — METRO WASTEWATER PLANTS
3265.
(a)
which Metropolitan Wastewater plants have had capacity upgrades delayed as part of the $237 million
savings measure;
(b)
in each case what additional capacity has been delayed and what was the cost of each upgrade; and
(c)
in each case, what was the original timeline for completion and what are the new completion dates due
to the delay?
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — METRO WATER GROWTH
PROJECTS
3266.
(a)
which metropolitan water growth projects in Perth’s Northern corridor have been rescheduled as part of
the $110 million saving measures;
(b)
in each case what capacity has been delayed and what was the cost of each upgrade;
(c)
(d)
603
(a)–(d) The figures outlined on page 18 of the Strategic Development Plan are indicative and used for planning
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — MINOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER MEASURES
3267.
(a)
which minor water and wastewater works measures have been delayed in order to meet the $25 million
saving measures;
(b)
(c)
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — OPERATIONAL INFORMATION
AND CONTROL MEASURES
3268.
(a)
which operational information and control measures have been delayed in order to meet the $2 million
saving measures;
(b)
(c)
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — PRESSURE MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
3270.
(a)
which pressure management measures have been delayed in order to meet the $16 million saving
measures;
(b)
(c)
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PLANTS
3271. Mr D.J. Kelly to the Minister for Water:
(a)
which Regional Wastewater plants have had capacity upgrades delayed as part of the $159 million
savings measure;
604
(b)
in each case what additional capacity has been delayed and what was the cost of each upgrade; and
(c)
in each case, what was the original timeline for completion and what are the new completion dates due
to the delay?
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — MAJOR REGIONAL WATER
GROWTH PROJECTS
3272.
(a)
which regional water growth (major schemes) projects have been rescheduled as part of the $79 million
saving measures;
(b)
(c)
in each case, what was the original timeline for completion;
(d)
in each case, what are the new completion dates due to the delay; and
(e)
which schemes are currently considered to be the highest risk?
(a)–(e) The figures outlined on page 18 of the Strategic Development Plan are indicative and used for planning
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — MINOR REGIONAL WATER
GROWTH PROJECTS
3273.
(a)
which regional water growth (minor schemes) projects have been rescheduled as part of the $35 million
saving measures;
(b)
(c)
in each case, what was the original timeline for completion;
(d)
in reach case, what are the new completion dates due to the delay; and
(e)
which schemes are currently considered to be the highest risk?
(a)–(e) The figures outlined on page 18 of the Strategic Development Plan are indicative and used for planning
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — SEWER RENEWAL PROJECTS
3274.
(a)
which sewer renewal projects have been restricted to a critical asset renewal focus as part of the $8
million savings measure; and
(b)
what is the estimated cost difference in the whole of life cost as a result of this deferral?
(a)–(b) The figures outlined on page 18 of the Strategic Development Plan are indicative and used for planning
purposes only.
605
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — WATER MAINS
3278.
(a)
which water mains have been restricted to a critical asset renewal focus as part of the $77 million
savings measure; and
(b)
purposes only.
WATER CORPORATION — STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN — WATER PRODUCTION AND
STORAGE
3279.
(a)
which water production and storage asset renewal projects have been restricted to a critical asset
renewal focus as part of the $41 million savings measure; and
(b)
purposes only.
__________

24/02/2015 - 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

CurrentAffairsEdu.com November 2014 Current Affairs

June Bulletin - Faith4Life Church

Historic Women World Leaders: Make a Match

(conference photographs) in PDF

Dr. Jim Kaseman

Bahrain-Oman discuss co-operation