c38 s1 20100909 all - parliament of western australia · your petitioners therefore respectfully...

Legislative Council

Thursday, 9 September 2010

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 10.00 am, and read prayers.

STRATEGIC GRAIN NETWORK REVIEW — TIER 3 LINES

Petition

Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm presented a petition, by delivery to the Clerk, from 239 persons requesting that the Legislative Council investigate ways to ensure a competitive rail system.

[See paper 2405.]

PINJAR SOUTH — INDUSTRIAL LAND STRATEGY 2009

Petition

HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [10.02 am]: I present a petition containing 4 518 signatures couched in the following terms —

To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled.

We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are opposed to the inclusion of Pinjar South as a ‘priority industrial site’ in the Industrial Land Strategy 2009 Perth and Peel.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council review the proposed Industrial Land Strategy 2009 Perth and Peel, particularly the proposed impacts on residential land, indigenous areas, underground water sources and conservation areas identified in the Pinjar South area.

And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[See paper 2406.]

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION

Tenth Report — “How the Corruption and Crime Commission Can Best Work Together with the Western Australian Police Force to Combat Organised Crime” — Tabling

Hon Nick Goiran presented the tenth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission titled “How the Corruption and Crime Commission Can Best Work Together with the Western Australian Police Force to Combat Organised Crime”, and on his motion it was resolved —

That the report do lie upon the table and be printed.

[See paper 2407.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LEGISLATION AND STATUTES REVIEW

Fifty-fourth Report — “Annual Report 2009” — Tabling

Hon Helen Bullock, on behalf of Hon Adele Farina, presented the fifty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review titled “Annual Report 2009”, and on her motion it was resolved —

That the report do lie upon the table and be printed.

[See paper 2408.]

SHIRE OF DOWERIN WASTE LOCAL LAW 2010 — DISALLOWANCE

Notice of Motion

Notice of motion given by Hon Robin Chapple.

WEST COAST DEMERSAL FINFISH MANAGEMENT

Withdrawal of Notice

HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [10.05 am] — by leave, without notice: I move —

That motion 10, Protection Measures for West Coast Demersal Finfish, be withdrawn from the notice paper.

[COUNCIL - Thursday, 9 September 2010] 6209

By way of explanation, all the matters have been dealt with by the government and have been implemented; therefore, the motion is no longer valid.

Question put and passed.

PINJAR SOUTH — INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

Motion

HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [10.06 am] — without notice: I move —

That this house calls on the Barnett government to immediately cease progressing the planning of a new industrial estate on the Gnangara mound at Pinjar south.

In November 2009 the state government released the “Industrial Land Strategy 2009: Perth and Peel”. In that strategy the government proposed six priority sites for industrial development, one of which was located at Pinjar south in the North Metropolitan Region. As members would have noticed, a little earlier this morning I tabled a petition from many of the local residents of the community of east Wanneroo opposing that development. It had some 4 500 signatures; a substantial petition by any measure, particularly compared with many of the petitions that we receive in this place.

I put on the record today that I am fundamentally opposed to the proposal for an industrial area on the land at Pinjar south because it sits upon the Gnangara mound. There are other reasons that I oppose the proposed Pinjar south industrial area. The issue raises the questions: Is the industrial area needed; and, if so, is it in the right location? Are there alternatives to meet the employment targets for Perth’s north-west corridor? Finally, is this about maximising government profit at the expense of local residents?

I turn to the first issue—namely, the fundamental issue of the protection of Gnangara mound. In 1994 a select committee of the other place, the Select Committee on Metropolitan Development and Groundwater Supplies, was formed and reported to the Parliament.

Hon Max Trenorden: It wouldn’t be any good if it was from the other house!

Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Max Trenorden, I must say that that committee’s report is a document that has stood the test of time—like the motions of Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich! For the past 20 years that report has provided the framework for resolving the conflicts between urban development and the need to protect the Gnangara mound. I pay credit to the members of that committee, all of whom I think became ministers after serving on that select committee, because they really did address the issue. I do not think that too many other committee reports have been used by both sides of politics as their basis for policy development over such a long period.

That select committee made a number of recommendations. It noted how lucky Western Australia was to have a resource such as the Gnangara mound and that the water on it had not been polluted at that stage. It also pointed out the need to protect that water source. The committee visited California to see what happens when groundwater supplies are polluted and it recommended a number of things that the community needed to do to resolve these issues. The committee recommended determining the boundaries of the Gnangara mound based on science, protecting that resource and, if necessary, putting into public ownership key parts of that mound so that it could be protected in perpetuity. The committee also warned that we ensure that we did not allow creep.

Recommendation 1 of that report states —

The Committee recommends that the Government move, without delay, to strengthen the legislative mechanisms which control the protection of groundwater resources.

Both major parties have done that over the past 20 years. Before I became a member of Parliament and while I was campaigning, the then Liberal government sought to resume land around Lake Pinjar to incorporate it into the area of priority 1 land as government-owned land on the Gnangara mound. Recommendation 1.3 states —

EPA’s Gnangara Mound Crown Land EPP should be amended to strengthen groundwater protection mechanisms and be compatible with DPUD’s Water Resources Policy D.C. No. 6.3

Recommendation 1.5 states —

The boundaries of the Priority zones should be fixed and immutable …

That means that they should never be changed or mutated in any way. That recommendation was subject to the outcome of recommendation 4 —

… to review the priority area boundaries to ensure that they are based on rigorous scientific evidence …

That has occurred in the past. Both major parties worked to establish those boundaries. Recommendation 4.5 states —

6210 [COUNCIL - Thursday, 9 September 2010]

If additional land is required for catchment protection, this land should be acquired through a purchase or land swap procedure.

Again, both major parties have done that to secure the Gnangara mound and ensure that the land is in public ownership. Recommendation 4.3 states —

There should not be a reduction in the area of groundwater catchments unless the study can demonstrate that the quality and quantity of water available for drinking water supply can be maintained.

Recommendation 3.2 states —

All Government agencies should agree, when considering developments in Priority 1 areas, that protection of the groundwater resource will be given primacy over all other issues.

Recommendation 3.3 states in part —

… that strategies should be put in place by the Water Authority to ensure that a land acquisition of privately owned land program is implemented.

All those things have occurred. The introduction to recommendation 3 is absolutely critical. It states —

The Select Committee endorses the principles of Priority 1 Protection, and supports the restriction of land use in the Priority 1 area to bushland, silviculture, scientific research and passive recreation and other similar activities that present an absolute minimal risk to water quality and quantity.

Other recommendations include ensuring that we do not get incremental loss and that we provide absolute protection to the mound. Recommendation 14, which is absolutely crucial to this debate, states —

The Select Commit recommends that the Department of Planning and Urban Development adopt a policy, when dealing with development proposals outside the framework of Metroplan, —

Metroplan was the forerunner to the current planning of Perth proposals —

of ensuring the protection of groundwater supplies is not compromised by incremental decision making.

The decision that is being made and the proposal that is before us today is incremental decision making. This is about creep. No matter how it is defined, we have established the boundaries for the Gnangara mound over the past 20 years and have locked them away through legislative mechanisms. We have also introduced in the metropolitan region scheme a water protection area over the mound. We now need to ensure that there is not creep. This proposal should be opposed for that reason and that reason alone. Make no mistake, the Gnangara mound is an important part of Perth’s water supply. Currently it is the largest source of water for the Perth metropolitan area. Even after the second desalination plant is constructed, the mound will provide approximately one-third of Perth’s water needs. That is why it is absolutely crucial to ensure that the mound is protected. That reason alone should see the government abandon its proposal to look at establishing an industrial area on the Gnangara mound at south Pinjar. I could finish my argument at that point and say there is no need to debate it any further, because that is fundamental. We should be continuing to provide bipartisan support for the recommendations from that 1994 select committee, which, I might add, had as one of its members the current Minister for Planning. These recommendations should be well known to that minister.

Even if there were not the fundamental need to protect Gnangara mound, is this the right location for an industrial area? What are the environmental values of this area? Conservation wetlands within it and surrounding it need to be protected. It is an area with a high potential risk of being affected by acid sulfate soils. When acid sulfate soils are triggered, the plume can spread in all directions from the initial source. One has only to look at what has happened in Mirrabooka to understand that. Such a plume has the potential to impact on not only the industrial area, but also the land surrounding the north-east corridor of Wanneroo.

There are Aboriginal heritage issues to deal with. I was very fortunate to be taken by some of the local members of the Aboriginal community to visit a healing site. I consider it a great honour to have been given the privilege to visit that site. I was amazed and blown away. The healing site is not on the site of the industrial area, but it is very nearby. I have no doubt that the industrial area will have an impact on that healing site, which is of significant importance to the Nyoongah community. That is another reason why we should be opposing this proposal.

Is this industrial area needed? I did a lot of work on employment in the previous government and I understand the need for more employment along the northern corridor. We must ensure that there is sufficient land upon which that employment can be based. However, I am not convinced that an industrial area at south Pinjar is needed. There are many ways to achieve the requirements for industrial land in the northern suburbs. For that


matter, one even has to argue whether the volume of industrial land that is proposed under the “Industrial Land Strategy 2009 Perth and Peel” is needed in the northern suburbs of Perth. It interesting to trace the history of the development of Perth and the 1955 Stephenson report. More industrial land was reserved in the southern suburbs because that was to be a manufacturing area. That is why the Kwinana heavy industrial area is there and why we have industrial areas at Forrestfield and a range of other places, which are all interconnected by road and rail systems. The northern suburbs do not have that. Land at Wangara, Malaga and Osborne Park was set aside to provide for the service industry for the residential population. The intention was that the majority of the population in the northern suburbs would live in the northern suburbs and work in the CBD. We need to ensure that there is enough commercial land and land that can be used for employment in Alkimos and Joondalup, where we are seeing the potential loss of future employment land to residential subdivision, which will never be unwound. We have seen a constant contraction of the amount of land the state government has provided at places such as Alkimos for the purposes of employment.

Other areas within the City of Wanneroo could be converted for commercial and central business district–type purposes. We need to make sure that land zoned for industrial development in the northern corridor is used to maximise employment opportunities. Applications to site things such as Bunnings stores on industrial land are being approved by this government, as well other proposals that are very low in employment prospects and could be located elsewhere in the state or under other zonings in the northern corridor. The government needs to get its head around the hard work, not take the easy option of just drawing a bit of extra purple on a bit of land that is not suitable for the proposed uses.

There are question marks around some of the labour projections contained in the industrial land strategy and issues about the participation rates in 2031 and the types of employment that there will be. The sort of employment proposed is interesting, because one of the early issues in this debate was the inclusion of special industry within the designation; the government is now saying that that will not be the case, and that its intention was to use it only for strategic export knowledge–based industry. Strategic export knowledge–based industry could be put into a greenfield site, of which there are many in the northern corridor, and I do not know that that sort of industry would need a buffer zone. It certainly should not be put out onto the mound, because there are other options available. I have long argued that a greenfield site needs to be found in the northern corridor for a marina development similar to the Fremantle boat harbour, where the support industry could be located behind it. None of the marinas on the northern corridor have any zoned land around them, and it cannot be retrofitted into an existing urban area, but there are still greenfield sites in that area. The Perth inner core does not meet industrial land requirements, but we manage. We need to make sure that land zoned for industrial purposes is not used for other purposes to maximise profits, and I am not talking about the profits of the private individual; this is about the government trying to maximise its profit.

One of the big problems for the existing Neerabup industrial area is that there are a number of constraints on that land related to environmental values. If we got on with the job today, we could—I think it is highly possible—revegetate some of the land on the mound and put those environmental values onto that land, which is degraded at the moment, and it could, potentially, be used as an offset once we have established that we can provide the same environmental values that are being protected in the existing industrial area. We could work with Cockburn Cement, which has a large landholding in that area, to try to bring forward its mining of limestone on that land so that it frees it up for industrial purposes, because that is one of the biggest constraints; if that was resolved, we would have enough industrial land in the northern corridor.

I am very proud that when I worked for Ian Taylor, we got rid of the proposed Wilbinga and Breton Bay industrial areas to the north of Perth. At the time, that was opposed by many people in the community, but it is now accepted that it was the right decision. Why did we do that? Because we thought that it would better to move that sort of industrial development out of the Perth area, to try to decentralise Perth and encourage the growth of some of the regional centres. That is why we have places such as the Kemerton industrial estate and industrial areas such as Oakajee at Geraldton; that is why we have industrial areas at Kalgoorlie and many of the other regional centres across Western Australia. We should drive a lot of the industrial development into existing industry-zoned areas that actually want it. Bunbury has been trying to make Kemerton work for many years, and the opportunity is there to drive industrial development there to reduce some of the growth pressures on Perth, and to remove some of the demand for industrial land in the Perth metropolitan area. Those are the sort of strategies that the government should be employing now, rather than trying to creep onto the mound and take that land, which should be protected for perpetuity, for industrial purposes. Those are the strategies that should be used.

There is no doubt in my mind that part of the drive behind this is profits and profits for government. Profits for government should not be at the expense of local residents, and the land values of local residents. I served for five years on an inquiry by a committee of this place that is well known to members of this chamber; it was about the erosion of private property and the impacts of government making decisions that blight surrounding land. I think there were a couple of areas where members of the committee disagreed, but there was almost


universal agreement. I urge members to read that report and then think about what the government is doing at Pinjar south, and they will see that the government is doing exactly what that committee said not to do.

I return to the issues of Lake Pinjar. I am sure many members on the other side of the chamber know Colin Brand, who had a property on the land around Lake Pinjar and was fighting the development. One of the things he said to me was that he was concerned that this was about the government banking land on the mound so that it could sell off other bits of land for profit, and the government would make the profit rather than the local people who already owned the land. We now see that the government has resumed the land at Lake Pinjar, and now it is proposed that part of the mound will be excised and sold off by the government for profit—exactly what Colin Brand predicted 10 or 15 years ago. We are constantly seeing the removal of possible employment land across the northern corridor by groups such as LandCorp because residential land will maximise its profits at the expense of employment land, but that will not actually provide a good, long-term, sustainable outcome. We need a government that will focus on that, because there is no doubt that there has been complete hypocrisy.

In conclusion, a number of the studies were commenced under the Labor Party, but we never proposed an industrial area on the Gnangara mound. I want to assure the community of the east Wanneroo area—many of whom are in the public gallery today, and I thank them for coming to this place—that the Labor Party will stand alongside them and fight this proposal. I will continue to fight this proposal for as long as it stays on the books. I hope it will come off the books sooner rather than later, but if it does not, I will fight this issue up to the next election and beyond, if necessary, because it is bad for Western Australia and the east Wanneroo area.

[Interruption from the gallery.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! We always welcome interest from the public gallery, but you cannot actually participate in the debate from the public gallery; you are limited to observing the debate, but welcome anyhow.

HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.27 am]: I speak against the motion on behalf of the government, on the basis that it is misconceived, and, in the way it is framed, premature.

I appreciate and share Hon Ken Travers’ concern about the Gnangara mound and the amenity of the area in the North Metropolitan Region as a fellow member representing that region in this place. I also have a concern about the improvement of employment opportunities in the North Metropolitan Region, and the recognition that that will encourage greater facility for local residents to obtain employment in a variety of areas, and also relieve the pressure on freeway travel, amongst other things.

We are dealing with, in Hon Ken Travers’ usual passionate way, a number of assumptions not based on fact. He mentioned that the motivation behind the industrial land strategy is that of profit for government and the like, but that is not quite the case—it is not the case at all. If one bothered to read the Minister for Planning’s foreword in the industrial land strategy 2009 paper—the public document that was circulated and has been the subject of public comment—one would see that the purpose of the strategy is to identify areas of potential industrial development, not for heavy industry but for light and general industry uses, that are underutilised in Perth at the moment to overcome the problems that were experienced in the last decade during the course of the boom, when there was a dearth of any industrial area available to exploit the potential of that boom. It is the first strategy of its kind to be done and something that was neglected by the last government.

Hon Ken Travers: It was started by the last government.

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: The state government is conducting a review of appropriate land use locations across the Perth and the Peel areas for medium and long-term use. We are talking of a strategy for about the next 20 years. It is comprehensive work and a necessary job, and it had not been undertaken by the previous government.

The strategy was released for public comment—I stress for public comment. It is not a final strategy; it is not planning anything in particular. It is simply putting forward areas that can be used and that have the potential to be used for light and general industrial purposes in the Perth and the Peel regions. It is there for public comment and has been there for public comment. The original date for the receipt of submissions was set for 12 March this year. An extension was granted to 31 March following five public information sessions being conducted throughout the Perth and the Peel regions from late February to early March. One of something like 30 potential sites was that at south Pinjar, along with many other locations in this draft strategy. The site is located on the corner of the old Yanchep road and Neaves Road. The strategy has highlighted that site, which is government-owned land—it is owned by the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Planning—as a potential priority site.

A total of 473 valid submissions have been received by the Department of Planning regarding the industrial land strategy. The majority of those submissions relate to the site in south Pinjar—something like 278 submissions. The objections relating to it focus on several points: the location of the site as a priority 1 public drinking water


supply area that is part of the Gnangara water mound; the traffic impact from potential 24-hour operations on the site; the perception that the government is making a profit from an environmentally sensitive area, which appears to have been Hon Ken Travers’ assumption, that that is the sole reason for the investigation of the site; health impacts from potential toxic activities occurring on the site; and the devaluing of nearby residential areas and the impact on the general amenity in the area. The community objection has been driven primarily by a group known as the Clearwater Revival East Wanneroo action group, or CREW, which is the acronym it uses. A primary concern about, and objection to, the nomination of the site for future industrial use by that group was the mention of special industry as a potential preferred use. I can say that that has now been removed from the draft industrial land strategy that is currently being prepared.

In discussions with the Department of Water and by cross-referencing the Pinjar site against the Gnangara sustainability strategy, it was considered that the most appropriate course of action on the part of the government was to further investigate the feasibility of developing that land for employment-generating uses. The majority of the site is directly affected by an area defined as a priority 1 public drinking water supply area. By way of explanation, a priority 1 area bears the most stringent of Department of Water drinking water categories. It recommends only very low contamination risk activities on overlying land. There are two other categories, that of priority 2 and priority 3, which allow for increasingly relaxed limitations on land use. Priority 3 does support urban and industrial land uses.

The government agrees that the Gnangara water mound must be preserved and protected. The mound is the primary low-cost water supply source for Perth. However, it is also important to note that in the Gnangara sustainability strategy, the south Pinjar area is clearly identified for potential future employment-generating land use. I stress “potential” because no final decision has been made. No planning is going ahead, as the motion seems to contemplate. The Gnangara sustainability strategy recommends that the risks and benefits of potential urban and employment-generating land uses be considered by investigating the feasibility of changing some of the priority 1 areas to a priority 3 area or amending the boundary of the Gnangara water mound.

The Department of Water and the Department of Planning are undertaking studies, investigations and assessments to determine the feasibility of locating employment uses in that area of south Pinjar and whether the boundaries of the mound should be redefined and some parts of the mound re-categorised from priority 1 to priority 3. It is all very well to talk about a study that was done in 1994, but science moves on and things change. The Department of Water and the Department of Planning are looking into the issue of whether some of that area strictly needs to be a priority 1 area. The outcomes of that study are not going to be known until late next year or early the following year. As part of the preparation of the final industrial land strategy, an implementation plan has also been prepared that details the planning and environmental studies and the associated costs that would need to be undertaken to ascertain the feasibility of developing any priority sites for industrial development—that is, priority sites generally as well as the south Pinjar one—in the medium to long term. The Department of Planning is working closely with the Department of Water on this issue, and no final decision has been made.

The purpose of the industrial land strategy document that has been the subject of comment is really one of being able to identify priority sites, to determine the feasibility of using them and to balance environmental and other amenity issues against the need to plan the future for adequate industrial land in the Perth and Peel areas. It is true that the south Pinjar site is currently subject to a priority 1 water use designation, but there is a question about the true extent of the Gnangara mound and whether it all needs to be classified as priority 1. The environmental sensitivity of the location, as with all potential locations that are identified in the industrial land strategy, will be subject to extremely rigorous environmental assessments. The industrial land use strategy is still under development, and it is irresponsible, in the government’s view, to inflame fears about specific locations until a final strategy is determined. I should stress that this document has been open to public comment. I have already identified that there has been considerable public interest in it and comment on it. It would be idle to suggest that it is being ignored by the government and those responsible for the formulation of the final strategy.

Finally, the government will make a decision on the site based on its merits and taking into consideration all the relevant factors, whether they be environmental, economic or community. Therefore, the motion should be rejected.

HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [10.38 am]: I am very pleased to support the motion moved by Hon Ken Travers and to add my comments to the call that the Barnett government should immediately cease progress in the planning of the new industrial estate on the Gnangara mound at south Pinjar. What an extraordinary response from the government we have just heard from Hon Michael Mischin. He started off by saying that in his view the motion moved by Hon Ken Travers is misconceived and premature. I will tell the honourable member something: some people in the public gallery have made their presence felt today. They are an excellent community group. They are one of the most passionate groups of people and committed groups of activists that I have come across in all these years of working with environmental activists. The people in the gallery today are some of the members of the Clearwater Revival East Wanneroo —


Hon Giz Watson: What a good name!

Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is a wonderful name, is it not? Hon Giz Watson is of a generation that will remember Clearwater Revival! One of its leaders is Councillor Glynis Monks, who has done a very fine job, along with the group’s other leadership, of bringing people to Parliament today to hear this debate. If Hon Michael Mischin truly believes the words that he has just put on the record in this place that this motion is misconceived and premature, I invite him to meet this group of people with me and Hon Ken Travers after this debate is finished.

Hon Michael Mischin: That does not have anything to do with whether the motion is misconceived.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I will come to the rest of what the member said in a minute. If he believes that the motion of Hon Ken Travers is misconceived and premature, he should talk to the people who have done a mountain of research on this issue and hear what they have to say about the terms in which this motion has been put.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Hansard is very good at interpreting all sorts of things and creating fantastic speeches, but Hansard cannot interpret two or three people at the same time.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Hon Michael Mischin went on to say that we should all read the industrial land strategy. All members of the government should know that there is a group of people sitting on this side of the house and there is a group of people sitting in the public gallery at the moment who know every word of that ILS and can quote it section by section and tell members exactly where its premises are misconceived. The member should not stand in this place and make comments about issues of this kind when there is such enormous community concern. People are willing to do all this work; all these people are volunteers. They do not have armies of public servants writing these reports, but they have taken the time to come to Parliament today to listen to us raise the matter in this chamber.

Hon Michael Mischin went on to say—I think this was possibly the most insulting part of his 15-minute contribution to the debate—“I don’t know what they’re worrying about.”

Hon Michael Mischin: I didn’t say that.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: He said, “It’s only a list. What are they getting so excited about?”

Point of Order

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I do not have a problem with rhetoric. What I do have a problem with is being misquoted. I did not say that.

The PRESIDENT: Hon Michael Mischin, there are a couple of courses of action that you can follow. You can make that point at an appropriate time during the debate or you can seek a retraction.

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I think I have made my point, Mr President.

Motion Resumed

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I think Hon Michael Mischin actually used the word “overreaction”. He said that it was an overreaction from the members of Clearwater Revival East Wanneroo. I do not really know what is going on there. I have never heard such an extraordinary put-down of a concern that is so deeply seated in the community. I have never heard such a cavalier dismissal of a wave of community sentiment of this magnitude. Along with many other things that the member is doing at the moment, this will come back to bite him in a place where it hurts. I repeat my offer to Hon Michael Mischin, and please bring some colleagues: he should meet some of these people after this debate and let them explain to him how wrong he has got it.

Hon Ken Travers began this debate by presenting a petition to the house. More than 4 500 people signed the petition essentially supporting the motion that Hon Ken Travers has moved today. More than 4 500 people, Hon Michael Mischin, are acting in a way that is premature and misconceived, and are essentially somehow irresponsibly raising fears. What an absolute nonsense! What a travesty of process this is!

I want to make a couple of substantive points. As the shadow minister for both environment and planning, I have taken a particular interest in this issue. It just shows how important it is to bring those two crucial portfolios together. I am beginning to think that I have an ally on the other side of this house, not from the most likely place and certainly not in the Minister for Environment, who seems to take an extraordinarily contrary position on all the arguments I raise. I noted last week that an ex-colleague of mine—in fact, he is still a colleague of mine, because he works at the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy at Murdoch University, where I still maintain some academic connections—Peter McMahon, published a paper. He wrote the paper in 2009 and that is when I first read it. It is an excellent paper called “A WA2020 Project Special Report”. Dr McMahon has put together a very comprehensive historical survey about the economic and social development of Western Australia. I commend it to every member of this house, and I am happy to provide copies. I am sure that Dr McMahon would be very happy to meet with anyone who is interested in discussing his ideas further. All credit


to Dr McMahon because it is very hard to get some media coverage of these complex ideas, but he succeeded last week. These are the sorts of headlines that his report produced: “WA is worst on pollution” from The Sunday Times and “State is ‘unsustainable’” from The West Australian. The initial introductory paragraph in the article in The West Australian is very telling. It states —

WA is one of the least sustainable societies in the world, according to a new report from Murdoch University.

I do not have time to go into any of the substance of Dr McMahon’s report, but I will read into Hansard his final conclusion, which I think is very telling. It expresses a sentiment that we need to have front and centre of our minds when we debate a motion such as this. My question to the house is: have we learnt nothing from the past? Have we learnt nothing from our environmental, economic and social catastrophes such as Wittenoom and the debacle in Capel a couple of decades ago, with which I am sure other members for the South West Region will be familiar, as will you, Mr President? Essentially, all the landfill in Capel had to be cleared because it was shown to be radioactive because tailings from the mines were being used. When are we going to learn? When are we going to start adopting the precautionary principle on protecting areas? Hon Ken Travers has given a very eloquent summary of the myriad issues that come into play on an issue such as the Gnangara mound and the Pinjar south proposed development. It is not just about environmental issues; it is about issues of heritage, water use and the value that we place on water. I want to tell members how Dr McMahon’s report concludes. It states —

The history of European settlement in WA has left some serious problems, some of which are about to go critical. A tendency towards ‘boom and bust’ exploitation of natural resources as a core driver of the state’s economy has left some Western Australians and foreign investors very rich, but otherwise a highly questionable socio-economic legacy. It has resulted in both environmental problems that are reaching a point of criticality and social imbalances that should not be tolerated in a modern society.

I found myself with an ally in the shape, surprisingly enough, of Hon Peter Collier, who went to the trouble of providing a response to Dr McMahon’s report. I can only say that I agree with Hon Peter Collier entirely. I hope that this is a sentiment that he will express around the cabinet table and in his party forums. Western Australians have been living in a fool’s paradise for too long. That is the key. When it comes to an issue such as the Gnangara mound and Pinjar south, we need to put that sentiment into practice.

HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [10.49 am]: The Greens (WA) will be supporting this motion, and I thank Hon Ken Travers for bringing it on for debate. It is very important and timely that we discuss this matter in the house. I recognise that this issue has many facets. Hon Ken Travers did a good job in covering the breadth of concerns that arise from this proposal. I will focus particularly on the issue of water and water use. My colleague Hon Giz Watson will hopefully also get an opportunity to speak. It will be no surprise to members of this place that the Greens and I are very concerned about what is happening with the Gnangara mound. This coming summer is already shaping up to be very grim for the mound, with the distinct possibility of a record extraction of water from the mound. I note that we are still waiting for the Gnangara sustainability strategy to be released. The Minister for Water has been sitting on this strategy for far too long. I am very concerned to make sure that it is brought on as soon as possible, as these issues exist pretty much in a vacuum until that occurs. The Gnangara mound has experienced years of neglect. It has reached a critical point. Some firm action needs to be taken. The Gnangara mound is absolutely vital as a source of Perth’s drinking water and also as a water source for the many wetlands throughout Yanchep, Pinjar and Wanneroo. The minister has acknowledged, and as the Gnangara groundwater areas allocation plan states, that the water is now almost fully allocated.

The protection of drinking water source areas delivers substantive economic returns by protecting natural vegetation, fire management regimes, the quality of water entering the lakes and wetlands of the Swan coastal plain, current and future drinking water protection measures, possible managed aquifer recharge schemes, and the many self-supply bores through the Gnangara mound area for stock and livestock, horticulture, viticulture and market gardens. These areas also provide a water source for groundwater-dependent vegetation and ecosystems, including our Bush Forever areas. Since 1979 our groundwater volume storage has reduced by 700 gigalitres. This reduction is already contributing to the acidification of wetlands and the risk of capital economic loss through groundwater bores being regarded as stranded assets. Our underground drinking water resources are protected from unsuitable land uses by state planning policy 2.2, “Gnangara Groundwater Protection”, and the Gnangara underground water pollution control area is proclaimed under the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, and Drainage Act 1909. Water supplies are also governed by state planning policy 2.7, “Public Drinking Water Source”, and state planning policy 2.9, “Water Resources”. Water source protection areas are classified as either P1, P2 or P3, with an emphasis on land-use planning to protect water resources from contamination from biochemical processes, industrial pollution, groundwater draw-down or human activity through intense development. The Department of Planning regards the protection of groundwater as a primary consideration for the future of the east Wanneroo area. The Gnangara sustainability strategy report, “Summary of Land Use Planning Investigations”, regards this state planning policy as a —


… constraint to development over the P1 and P2 areas but investigations indicate that sensitive and compatible land use changes could occur whilst maintaining groundwater quality.

It is important that we talk about what are compatible land-use changes. The GSS report states that civil engineering solutions could direct all stormwater away from P1 and P2 areas. Importantly, it says that we need to look at water-sensitive urban design measures and planning restrictions on land use and development. It states that state planning policy 2.2 will need to be reviewed, including for changes to the boundaries of the P1 and P2 areas. But if we go down the path of changing the P1 and P2 boundaries, contamination of groundwater is much more likely to occur. The P1 category is designed to avoid degradation of the water source by preventing the development of potentially harmful activities. In this instance, risk avoidance is the guiding principle. The P2 category seeks to ensure that there is no increased risk of pollution to the water source, with the principle being risk minimisation. The principle behind the P3 category is to manage the risk of contamination to the water source. P3 areas are declared over land where water supply sources need to coexist with other land uses, such as residential, commercial and light industrial developments. A clear management strategy should separate our drinking water sources from potentially harmful contamination practices.

This government is showing an alarming lack of interest in tackling pollution problems at their source. Instead, it seems to be relying on very expensive engineering solutions to fix the problems later on down the track. A classic example of this is the Anvil Way stormwater sump. A huge amount of infrastructure is being put in to try to address pollution issues. Far too little is being done to address the sources of pollution in the first place. We know that taking large areas away from P1 and P2 protection will reduce the amount of water available to the integrated water supply scheme. Nearby Water Corporation bore schemes contribute to the IWSS. Changing the P1 and P2 boundaries will also result in the need for very expensive water treatment to protect the population from potential contamination. It will also reduce the flexibility available to the Water Corporation to adapt its water abstraction strategy. Having many areas from which the Water Corporation can extract water allows the impact of water abstractions to be timed. Importantly, it means that abstractions can occur around the entire area of the groundwater mound, which has the effect of limiting the impact on wetlands and banksia bushland. P1 and P2 protection is particularly important for the soils present on the Gnangara mound. These soils are very transmissive—they allow water to percolate through the soil strata, which importantly enables the recharging of our very precious aquifers. P1 and P2 protection saves the Water Corporation money, because it does not need to conduct as much treatment on water from these areas as it does for water from P3 areas. This is due to the need to comply with Australian drinking water guidelines for water quality. Thank goodness we have them! Semi-rural activities are allowed in P1 and P2 areas, but intensive industry and urban development are not. The risks are managed without the need for complex and expensive civil engineering structures. Land use is constrained to easily manageable and low-impact uses for local food production and to help maintain our ever-declining remnant vegetation and habitat for native and endemic species.

The planning for an industrial area at south Pinjar is strongly mentioned in the Connell Wagner report for the Gnangara sustainability strategy. The Neerabup industrial area, which lies to the north west of the subject area, is as yet undeveloped. The Gnangara industrial area is rapidly spreading to join the Wangara industrial area. It already acts as a major employment generator. The groundwater from this area moves into Lake Joondalup and is a major contributor to water quality concerns for the lake and the western portion of the mound. The Pinjar industrial area is much further north and east and will impact on groundwater quality and quantity should it go ahead. As I have already indicated, it will also be far more expensive in a range of other areas.

HON ED DERMER (North Metropolitan) [10.59 am]: I am very pleased to rise in support of the motion moved by my colleague representing the North Metropolitan Region, Hon Ken Travers. It has been my privilege to serve with Hon Ken Travers for in excess of the past 13 years in this North Metropolitan Region that we represent. I am not at all surprised to see this quality motion come forward from Hon Ken Travers, as he has a very clear understanding of the needs, aspirations and concerns of our constituents. His understanding is firmly grounded in experience. I note his previous role as the chairman of the North West Corridor Coordinating Committee, which operated in the term of the Carpenter government and which was designed to anticipate the needs of the people of the northern suburbs and, in a comprehensive manner, consider all their needs. The committee engaged the involvement of appropriate industry and local government authorities in the area with a view to accommodating all the needs of the people of the northern suburbs. A matter continuously foremost in my mind and in the mind of Hon Ken Travers was the need for local employment opportunities in the northern suburbs. Obviously, the growth of such opportunities would have the advantage of reducing the pressure on the public transport system and on the road system, and would develop an even greater sense of community in those northern suburban regions where there is a very strong tradition of community feeling. I am talking particularly about long-established places such as Wanneroo and other areas that are considered pioneering districts of our state. We believe that such a community spirit, strong as it is, could be further enhanced. Providing local employment opportunities would be a very important part of building the community spirit within those suburbs and would build further on the already substantive strength of that community spirit.


Hon Ken Travers’ role in chairing the North West Corridor Coordinating Committee was a role that added to his experience and understanding. The initiative that he has taken in moving this motion today is in keeping with the experience and understanding that he has acquired by way of the service he has delivered to his constituents now for more than 13 years.

It was interesting to hear Hon Michael Mischin endeavour to explain the government’s position on this site. It seems to me that there is some evidence in what Hon Michael Mischin has said that gives me hope, as reading between the lines I can foresee the government backing away. I believe Hon Ken Travers’s initiative and the very strong community feeling evidenced by approximately 4 500 signatories to a petition prove an example of a foolish proposal of which the government will probably realise the political consequences if it persists. Hon Michael Mischin went to some pains to make clear to us that the government has not made a final decision.

Hon Michael Mischin: So your motion is premature!

Hon ED DERMER: Not at all. I will explain to Hon Michael Mischin why the motion is far from premature. Hon Michael Mischin talked about the development of the industrial land strategy. He made it very clear that the government has not yet made a final decision. He did not make clear in his speech—I would be happy to accept an interjection from him—when he expects the government to make that final decision. Does Hon Michael Mischin intend to make that clear now, by way of interjection?

Hon Michael Mischin: No. I can’t tell you.

Hon ED DERMER: I think that would be very helpful advice to me.

Hon Michael Mischin: I don’t know the answer to that but I will find out for you.

Hon ED DERMER: I appreciate Hon Michael Mischin telling me that he does not know the answer to it. I think the government needs to work out its answer to that. I think the best advice for the government to take up would be to take up the call in Hon Ken Travers’s motion and immediately cease any further suggestion of using this site for an industrial zone.

Hon Michael Mischin: I did say that the departments of Planning and Water are working closely to undertake the necessary studies into whether a reclassification of the Gnangara water mound or parts thereof and the question of the boundaries ought to go from priority 1 to priority 3, and that no result is expected on that until late next year or early the following year.

Hon ED DERMER: I listened very carefully to the words of Hon Michael Mischin and I appreciate the odd reminder that he has given me by way of interjection. I will now explain to the house why the course of action suggested in Hon Ken Travers’s motion—that is, an immediate cessation in progressing the planning of a new industrial estate on the Gnangara mound at Pinjar south—is a far more appropriate course than the one that Hon Michael Mischin has explained is the government’s course.

I am not at liberty to talk about the inner workings of the Standing Committee on Public Administration that I have had the pleasure to serve on for some time. However, by way of a matter referred to the committee by the house, we have explored the issue of water protection in some detail. I was particularly interested this morning to hear the comments of Hon Alison Xamon and to hear of her expertise. We have long benefited from the particular expertise of Hon Sally Talbot in environmental and planning matters. When the report of the Standing Committee on Public Administration comes to the house, there will be further consideration of and further opportunities for us to deliberate on these very important matters. It is important to base these decisions on scientific evidence. Science is continually progressing. My own scientific training leads me to the understanding that science is never a completed task. In fact, I look with suspicion upon anyone who talks about scientific fact, because I believe that science is a matter of theory, with accumulating evidence to increase or diminish probability, but never a matter of absolute fact, and I accept that matters need to be changed.

I also give due credit to the Legislative Assembly for its good work in 1994 in providing a foundation. I say to Hon Kate Doust that it is unusual for me to encourage the junior chamber, but I will on this occasion give credit where it is deserved. However, when it comes to the water that we drink and when it comes to an understanding that science is a matter of probability rather than certainty, the precautionary principle becomes a very important consideration in any decision that is made.

The reason that I think it is far more appropriate to support the motion of Hon Ken Travers calling for the immediate cessation of progressing towards using this part of the Gnangara mound for an industrial estate, rather than the drawn-out process described by Hon Michael Mischin, is that the possibility of that location being used for an industrial estate is a cause of massive anxiety to many of my constituents—in the order of at least 4 500 of my constituents. They are the adult constituents who signed the petition, but they obviously represent a larger number of people, including children in families in that area.

There is a fundamental requirement for a reliable water source. Hon Michael Mischin is saying that the government is taking its own sweet time to consider its industrial land strategy, and it will get around to letting


people know at some point in the future when it suits the government whether this proposal for an industrial estate at Pinjar south will go ahead. That will add to the anxiety of my constituents. I am not impressed.

Hon Michael Mischin: Would you prefer a decision without investigation?

Hon ED DERMER: I am far more impressed with the proposal that Hon Ken Travers has put forward for an immediate cessation in progressing the planning of an industrial estate. That will remove the anxiety that my constituents are suffering at this time in this matter. I say to Hon Michael Mischin that the reason I am a great believer in proper planning is that part of proper planning in this matter would be a scheme of assessment. Could Hon Michael Mischin advise us today when the government is likely to make a final decision on this matter?

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [11.09 am]: I want to say a couple of things but first of all I will complete some comments that Hon Alison Xamon was making and unfortunately ran out of time.

By way of completion, the other issue is that there are plans for a major six-lane highway through the western portion of Gnangara mound to link industrial areas with major road routes by 2031. Additionally, there are plans to link this small industrial area with other four-lane roads through the P1 and P2 water protection areas. We need to be mindful of the longer term strategic possibilities if this proposal was progressed. Threats to the health of the environment in East Wanneroo, Pinjar and the Gnangara mound are constant, increasing and becoming more complex.

I also want to add general comments to this motion, which is a good motion and I thank Hon Ken Travers for bringing it to the chamber. I have met with a group of people who have been very diligent and effective in gathering their facts and figures about the threats to not only the Gnangara groundwater in particular, but also the other environmental and lifestyle attributes that they value living in that area. As Hon Ken Travers mentioned, the area also has a site of significance to the Nyoongah people.

In the debate this morning the government said that this is just an option, it is part of the planning process, and that we need to consider all the variables and then make a decision. If so, why are people objecting to the fact it has been put up as a proposition? Time and again we have seen governments of the day put up propositions for land use developments that are inappropriate really at their very outset and should not be included in certain areas. We are seeing that happening with the coalmining proposition in Margaret River on a priority 1 water area where —

Hon Michael Mischin: The government isn’t coalmining in Margaret River.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I am asking about at which stage does the government take into consideration the environmental and community values and say that it will not even look at doing a particular activity in a particular area. That is the comparison I make because we have the Premier basically saying, “I don’t support this and I won’t be putting my weight behind mining in Margaret River.” Good on him for saying that. We happen to agree with him on that. We do not agree with him on a lot of things but on that we do! Therefore, why is the Margaret River situation any different from the people of Wanneroo saying that they understand the environmental values of their area and they have evidence that the priority is protection of the groundwater and the ecosystems that are also dependent on it?

We should not even begin to go down the path of looking at putting industrial zoning over any part of the Gnangara mound. Quite frankly, when I first heard this inclusion was under consideration I thought, “That’s crazy!” Surely, if we have learnt one thing it is that with our reduced rainfall, we will likely be reliant almost entirely on groundwater. This groundwater resource is an extraordinarily important resource for people to be able to even live on this bit of the coast. We need to consider what is happening to water resources in Adelaide and Melbourne because they are reliant on dams and reservoirs and do not have the kind of buffering effect that we get from a very large groundwater body. However, we have been basically mining that groundwater resource for a considerable amount of time and we do not even know the actual recharge rate of that mound. We also do not know with any surety the interconnection between the superficial aquifers and the deeper aquifers, so it is almost impossible to overstate how valuable the Gnangara and Jandakot mounds are in being able to live on the Swan coastal plain. Therefore, we must put consideration of what we do over the groundwater mound into the very highest category. In our view that is about rehabilitating a lot of those areas, improving the natural vegetation and ensuring that the quality of the groundwater is as best as we can have it now, considering that it has already been impacted on and that the water levels continue to drop.

We know that the groundwater mound is in trouble; therefore, the last thing we want is for any incompatible land use to even be proposed for that area. I think Hon Ken Travers compared our situation with places like California. California has completely destroyed its groundwater asset through not only poor land use practice but also a deep well injection of a whole lot of waste into its groundwater. I remember being briefed on this, probably about 15 years ago, by someone who had been very active in California on the issues of groundwater. It makes for some good comparisons because climatically we are quite similar and are subject to drought and other factors. Basically, she said that once we pollute our groundwater, it is almost impossible to remove that


pollution. We have issues with plumes of pollution in various groundwater bodies. I know that the Department of Environment and Conservation acknowledges that we can do some things to manage it and attempt remediation but it is incredibly difficult once the ground is contaminated. Even though this proposal is at a conceptual stage, we do not know what industries would be proposed for that industrial land. Couple that with some of the other changes we are seeing with this government. If this proposal was subject to an environmental assessment and it was assessed at a strategic level, any industry that was placed on that site afterwards, assuming it got approval, would not be subject to assessment because it would be a derived proposal. Therefore, we must consider all these factors at once and that is why, in our view, we need to have a planning approach that simply sets aside these priority 1 groundwater areas and will not consider any zoning that would impact on the viability of that water source and the systems that are reliant on it. Again, bear in mind that the Swan coastal plain has lost at least 80 per cent of the wetland systems that existed before European settlement. Therefore, the wetland systems that do remain are incredibly valuable to the ecosystems and communities that they support, and the community values them more and more. These wetlands will be under continued stress from a drying climate and reduced rainfall. Let us not forget that we are having the second driest winter ever recorded in Western Australia —

Hon Sally Talbot: Liberal Party highways.

Hon GIZ WATSON: And highways, yes.

Therefore, we passionately support the motion put up by Hon Ken Travers. We implore the government to listen to the level of community concern and realise that it is based on a considerable amount of good evidence; it is not simply in the category of a nimby concern. Not that there is anything wrong necessarily with people objecting to a proposed industrial development in their backyard either, but I recognise that we must have industrial precincts somewhere. However, this is not the place, and that is the whole point that the community has made to me very clearly. The government needs to take this proposal off the books now because it is causing an extraordinary amount of stress and strain, even though arguably it is only a process we are going through. Why would any government contemplate an industrial precinct on top of a priority 1 groundwater resource?

HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [11.20 am] — in reply: I waited to see whether any other member wished to speak before I spoke in reply because I did not want anyone to miss out on the opportunity of doing so.

It is great to see that the member for Wanneroo has come into the chamber to listen to at least part of this debate. As the local member, I hope he takes on board the issues that have been raised and that he will advocate dropping this proposal immediately. I was a little surprised that we did not hear a response from either the minister representing the Minister for Planning or at least from the Minister for Environment. It was left to one of my colleagues from the North Metropolitan Region to respond on behalf of the government. I do not know whether he volunteered for the job or was drafted into it. I understand that because of the constraints of government he might not have been able to publicly join with us today, but I was a little disappointed that, as a fellow member for the North Metropolitan Region, he led the charge against the interests of our own constituents.

The parliamentary secretary suggested that the previous Labor government did not seek to address these issues. We were concerned about the issues in east Wanneroo and about employment lands. The “Industrial Land Strategy 2009 Perth and Peel” was commenced under the Labor government. I can assure members that if I had been told that one of the proposals to come out of that plan was to recommend land on the Gnangara mound be used for industrial purposes, I would have said “Forget it” and I would have made that clear to cabinet. The Gnangara sustainability strategy was commenced under the former Labor government because we realised the complexity of the issues. The Gnangara sustainability strategy seems to be one of the drivers for the government’s proposition that the land can now be excised from priority 1 land and be made available for industrial development. However, as Hon Alison Xamon said, its report has not been released. If it is the driver and the basis of the science, I would have thought that the government would have released that before putting out the industrial land strategy, which is an attempt to grab this land off the mound.

The parliamentary secretary suggested that my motion was premature. It is not premature. If anything, it is a bit late in coming. I should have got my act together sooner and represented the views of my constituents. It is not premature. The argument that this is only an investigation into the proposal is nonsense. Once the investigation is started, it will lead to other things. We should not be touching the mound. The boundaries of the mound have been set and we should follow the recommendations of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Development and Groundwater Supplies that the boundaries remain. We should not allow creep or incremental development onto the mound, because today it is a proposal for an industrial estate at south Pinjar and tomorrow, once the door has been opened, it will occur in other areas. The parliamentary secretary’s argument that the water from the mound may no longer be required is nonsense. The bores that are subject to this land could be turned off, but, as Hon Alison Xamon pointed out, we are talking about the recharge area for the Gnangara mound, which flows across


the northern suburbs and into priority 2 and 3 areas. That is why this area is a priority 1 area. It is not just about where the bores are located.

Hon Michael Mischin: Have you told the Department of Water that you have a greater insight into how the mound works than it does?

Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, but I have a greater insight into politics than the Department of Water. I know how these departments work and I understand that once the door is opened and we have a debate about reacquiring the mound, we will continue to see creep. That is what the select committee warned us about and that is what is happening because that is what this government is doing. The Gnangara mound is not one of 30 priority 1 sites, as the parliamentary secretary would have us believe, it is one of six priority sites. The basic line I was trying to get across to the government was that it should not put its effort into doing this type of research because it is fundamentally the wrong position. The government should use its time and effort to look at the other sites and at other ways of providing employment land in the northern corridor. I outlined a range of areas for the government to do that. However, that advice seemed to go into one ear and out the other. There are other jobs the government could be doing rather than worrying about putting time and money into research into whether or not to allow creep onto the mound to occur. Instead of offering a simplistic land grab solution, the government should look at how it can free up more land within the existing industrial areas and maximise the land use and provide other employment lands that are not industrial lands or are not on the water mound. They are the things the government should be doing and getting on with. This motion is not premature because the government is wasting its time and resources by doing what it is doing. It cannot take areas out of the mound without having an impact.

In conclusion, the parliamentary secretary suggested that the major objection of Clearwater Revival East Wanneroo was the inclusion of special industry and that that has now been removed. I join with my colleague Hon Sally Talbot in inviting the parliamentary secretary to meet with members of CREW after this debate. I am sure they will point out to the parliamentary secretary that their concerns are far broader. They are about sustainability, Aboriginal issues and the protection of the water mound. CREW has a whole list of concerns. In fact, I feel guilty, after the research CREW has done on this matter, that I did not do the group justice in the time I had available to put before the house all the issues and research CREW has done. However, I assure the parliamentary secretary that it is about more than just special industry.

Hon Michael Mischin: I didn’t say that.

Hon KEN TRAVERS: The member did.

Hon Michael Mischin: I said that it was “a” major concern; I did not say that it was “the” major concern.

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I believe that the members of CREW who were in the public gallery today were very restrained. I would not have been able to restrain myself; I would have interjected when I heard that. I am not trying to encourage them now, either.

Hon Michael Mischin: You are speaking to the wrong person. You should be speaking up there, Hon Ken Travers. That is who you are talking to. You’re speaking to the public gallery.

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am putting forward a very important issue for my constituents. The parliamentary secretary has been sent out as the bunny to do the work of the minister representing the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Environment. This is a bad proposal and it is bad for WA.

Motion lapsed, pursuant to temporary orders.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TRAINING FUND AND LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Third Reading

HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Training and Workforce Development) [11.27 am]: I move —

That the bill be now read a third time.

HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [11.28 pm]: I thank the Minister for Training and Workforce Development for accepting our amendments to the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund and Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2010, because that has made for a clearer and improved bill. Would it not be good if more bills were introduced into this house because we could then amend them on the floor of the chamber much more readily than the bills we receive after they have been through the Assembly where there does not seem to be a will to put forward sensible amendments to ensure that we have improved legislation.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Assembly.


APPROVALS AND RELATED REFORMS (NO. 1) (ENVIRONMENT) BILL 2009

Committee

Resumed from 8 September. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon Max Trenorden) in the chair; Hon Donna Faragher (Minister for Environment) in charge of the bill.

New clause 18 —

Progress was reported on the following new clause moved by Hon Giz Watson —

Page 10, after line 25 — To insert —

18. Section 122 deleted

Delete section 122.

Hon GIZ WATSON: When we adjourned debate last night we were dealing with the amendment standing in my name to insert new clause 18. I would like to postpone consideration of it because another amendment that another member would like to move has arisen overnight and should be dealt with prior to this new clause.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I support the proposition to defer consideration of this clause. When we debated new clause 18 last night, I prefaced my remarks by saying that we were considering this amendment with extreme reluctance, the reason being that the deletion of section 122 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 is not something that we would have contemplated under normal circumstances. There is no question that section 122, which allows for the creation of administrative procedures for the Environmental Protection Authority’s activities, has served us well in the past. I have done some work with Hon Giz Watson to see whether there are some alternative ways of satisfying our concerns, and an amendment in my name will be circulated within seconds.

Further consideration of the new clause postponed, on motion by Hon Giz Watson.

[Continued on page 6240.]

New clause 18 —

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I move —


18. Section 122 amended

After section 122(2) insert:

(3) Administrative procedures drawn up by the Authority will be subject to the same disallowance provisions as regulations made under section 123 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

The amendment seeks to amend section 122, and I cannot imagine that the government will have any difficulty with what we are proposing. I thank Hon Giz Watson for her consideration of this matter. As I have just said, section 122 has served us well in the past. It is a sensible, albeit unique, section. Given the way that the EPA operates and has been operating now for close to two decades, it is sensible to have a way in which administrative procedures—the actual nitty-gritty of the way the EPA conducts activities—can be given a degree of flexibility so that they can be open to change, amendment and innovation in a way that is expedited as efficiently as possible. There is no doubt that in the past the administrative procedures have served to that effect.

My amendment suggests a new subsection at the end of section 122 that makes the administrative procedures disallowable in exactly the same way that regulations are disallowable. That addresses by far the majority of the objections that we on this side of the chamber have about what the government is doing. As I have said from the outset of this debate, we on this side of the chamber—in the Labor Party at least—do not object to this revision of the administrative procedures that the government is putting in place. We do not object to the new website provisions—that is, new electronic ways of informing appellants and proponents about where they are up to. We think it is in accordance with the letter and the spirit of both the act and the way that the administrative procedures and the regulations have been treated over the past 20 years or so. Indeed, contemplation of electronic forms of communication is something that fits with the history of the development of these administrative procedures over the years. There is no reference that I can recall—other members might prove me wrong here—in the original regulations to websites or emails and that sort of electronic communication. There is no doubt that technology is changing very quickly, and there is an argument, which I think should at least be contemplated, that it is more efficient to make those changes without constantly coming back to the Parliament with changes to regulations that are disallowable. At the same time, we have to maintain parliamentary scrutiny, and we have to keep some control. Members of this chamber have to be able to look their constituents in the eye and say that they have not abrogated their responsibilities to subject these kinds of measures to proper scrutiny.


By making the administrative procedures covered in section 122 disallowable, as the regulations that are prescribed under section 123 are, I think we cover both those possibilities. Therefore, the administrative procedures can still be updated, tweaked, polished and refined, but they will not fly under the radar of parliamentary scrutiny. Our concern will be obvious to all honourable members. If we take the temporal sequence of events as they have unfolded that bring us to this point today, we know that the Minister for Environment has expressed some degree of anxiety about the need to maintain the appearance of transparency, openness and accountability, and that is why the administrative procedures have been changed —

Hon Donna Faragher: There is no anxiety on my part. You are a brilliant mind-reader!

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am glad that the minister is not suffering from anxiety. My argument from the beginning, as the minister well knows, is that if the administrative procedures could be put into place without the need to make the legislative changes that the minister has come here with, they would have precisely the effect that she says she is seeking without eliciting any of the problems that she will inevitably bring on her head by abolishing appeal points. The opposition’s anxiety, which is very real and has led to considerable debate on this side of the chamber, is that the government is tending more and more to treat administrative procedures as if they were just window-dressing.

The minister can hear the way I have couched this point. The minister went back to her public servants and said, “Guys, we’ve got a problem; we’ve got to maintain the appearance of transparency.” It is not just about the appearance; it is about the concrete, everyday reality of people being able to be part of processes that are proper, rigorous, open, accountable and transparent. Our fear is that once all this has died—members know what it is like—our life in politics is such that in three months we will wonder what we spent so much time in this chamber talking about. That is how quickly things move on, and, at that stage, the minister will say, “Hey, don’t worry about this”, and maybe new bureaucratic tsars will be ruling the roost and the administrative procedures will just disappear off the radar, never to be seen again, and we will be left with a far, far inferior system than the one this government inherited in 2008. I am assuming that members now have a copy of the amendment.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Max Trenorden): The staff have been working on your amendment.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: My proposition is that a new subsection (3) be added to section 122, which will read —

(3) Administrative procedures drawn up by the Authority will be subject to the same disallowance provisions as regulations made under section 123 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

I do, most sincerely, commend this amendment to the chamber.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The government will not be supporting this amendment. I refer to the comments made by Hon Sally Talbot when she first put forward this amendment. She said that the administrative procedures have served us well; she is quite correct, and there is no reason to suggest that they will not in the future. I will not refer to it at this point in time, but I see another amendment has been put forward, which I presume we will be dealing with, that implies that the Environmental Protection Authority’s role in ensuring public comment and the like is not open, transparent and accountable. The member is implying that the EPA is not open, transparent and accountable, and the EPA might well have a view on that.

The administrative procedures have never been made regulations since the commencement of this act. They have served us well, and there is no reason to suggest they will not continue to serve us well. Whatever the legislation states, whatever the provisions included in the act that relate to environmental impact assessment, the EPA’s administrative procedures do not affect those provisions and the legislation must be followed. The reality is that the act must be followed. Before we rose last night, I mentioned that the procedures outline the principles, I suppose, and administrative practices for environmental impact assessment. To remove the EPA’s power to draw up administrative procedures would, I would argue, reduce the independence of the EPA. I am not sure whether Hon Sally Talbot would support such a move.

Hon Adele Farina: That is an outrageous statement to make.

Hon Sally Talbot: How does that work?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The EPA has the ability to effectively respond to improved knowledge and experience in environmental impact assessment—all those sorts of things. The reality is that these have served us well, and there is no suggestion that they will not in the future, and the government will not be supporting the amendment.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I support the amendment moved by Hon Sally Talbot, and I will put a bit of a different angle on what we are trying to do. This amendment will not prevent the Environmental Protection Authority from using administrative procedures; it will simply mean that those procedures will have to be scrutinised by the Parliament. The reason we are taking this step—even though the EPA, to date, has used its administrative powers appropriately—is that there is significant concern, which I share, that the changes that have been made


place a greater reliance on administrative procedures that can be changed without scrutiny. An example of one such procedure is the ability of community members and the conservation sector to be informed about proposals in a timely way by accessing the website; that procedure would have no protection and it could be changed at any time either by the EPA or at the direction of the minister of the day. That link for engaging the community in environmental assessment processes—not approvals, I reiterate—is heavily dependent on an administrative procedure that this act will allow the EPA to modify without any recourse to parliamentary scrutiny. The Greens (WA) happen to think that the role of the Environmental Protection Authority in what we are now contemplating, which is a modified act, should have that additional safety built in, even though, historically, it has been used appropriately. This government’s seeking to amend the Environmental Protection Act in the way that it has has meant that we are now looking for other safeguards. It is a standard process that the Parliament should have a role in these sorts of issues, and it is necessary to now put this in place. This amendment, and the amendment I debated last night, seeks to achieve that outcome, and I do not even understand why the minister finds it problematic to increase accountability and transparency by having these administrative procedures subject to the same disallowance provisions as regulations. To suggest that any members are somehow casting aspersions on the EPA is just wrong, and I make it very clear that that is not what we are saying.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I was expecting the minister to respond to the comments of Hon Giz Watson, but I see that, today, she is continuing the practice of past days, whereby she feels that she can just rely on the numbers in the chamber to push this bill through without actually addressing these issues raised by members.

The minister made a statement that the amendment proposed by Hon Sally Talbot would impact on the independence of the EPA. I would like the minister to explain how she sees this amendment impacting on the independence of the EPA.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: If the member actually reads the administrative procedures, she will see that they include internal procedures and principles that are not readily appropriate for regulations. It would reduce the effectiveness of the EPA, as I mentioned, to respond to such things as improved knowledge, experience and all those sorts of things that are obviously gathered over years of experience of environmental impact assessment. I take on board the concerns raised by Hon Giz Watson; the government does not share those concerns.

Hon Sally Talbot: How are you going to address them?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: This bill deals with the removal of duplicative and unnecessary appeal points. We have debated this at great length. I appreciate there is a different point of view on this side of the chamber from that on the other side of the chamber. I recognise that, but it remains the government’s position that we are dealing with duplicative and unnecessary appeal points. I just reiterate once again that Hon Sally Talbot herself has said that these administrative procedures have served us well. I would say that there is no reason to suggest that they will not serve us well in the future.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I think the minister fails to understand the regulation-making power process that exists in this state, in that the Environmental Protection Authority can make a regulation and it will have effect from the date it is made, and then there is a disallowance process carried out by the Parliament. Therefore, it is not going to hold up the process for any extraordinary period of time because the regulation has effect from the date of the regulation or any date that the regulation so identifies in the regulation. The minister fails to understand, from the statements that she has made, that this Parliament has a responsibility to the people of Western Australia to ensure that the regulations and laws that we make in this state are for the good order of the community. It is not unreasonable when we are tilting quite significantly the balance that currently exists in the Environmental Protection Act between enabling proponents to advance proposals for environmental assessment and the community having some input into the assessment process and being able to have their concerns heard. We are tilting the balance in that we are removing a number of those appeal rights. The only thing that the government is doing to placate community concern about the removal of those appeal rights is to offer an administrative procedure. We are removing appeal rights and rights to input into the process that have the backing of the legislation, and replacing them with an administrative comment opportunity that has absolutely no legislative backing from the act and that can be changed at any time by the EPA, with or without the consideration and consent of the minister, the government or the Parliament. I think that is completely and totally unsatisfactory. There is community concern. The minister should heed that community concern and listen to it, and try to provide some avenues to address that community concern. Governments that not do that end up on the opposition benches.

This is not an unreasonable request. We are not preventing the EPA, through this amendment, from making administrative procedures. We are simply saying that given that we are removing rights that the community has now, which have legislative direction and backing, in favour of an administrator opportunity to comment, we should be providing the community with some certainty that in two days, two weeks, two years or whenever after we pass this legislation, those administrative procedures will not be changed to remove the right to


comment in that first seven-day period when a proposal is referred. Therefore, the accommodation that the government has made for community concerns by providing an opportunity for community comment up-front will also be lost without any scrutiny by this Parliament. That is unacceptable. The community does not accept this. I do not think it is unreasonable for the minister to consider and agree to the amendment that is before us. It does not impact on the independence of the EPA at all and it does not hold up the process of making those administrative amendments, because the regulations have effect from the date they are enacted or the date the regulations specify. The arguments that the minister has advanced for her opposition to this amendment have no substance whatsoever. As I said, what we are seeing yet again here is an arrogant government using its numbers in this chamber to force through amendments and changes to legislation and the rights of the people of Western Australia with absolutely no regard to the impact that is having on the rights of the people of Western Australia.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I was wondering whether the minister was going to respond.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have actually responded. I appreciate that Hon Adele Farina has a view, but she has not advanced it any further than the information I have already responded to in response to the comments also made by Hon Giz Watson.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I was just wondering, out of courtesy, whether the minister wanted to answer that. I have one additional question on this, because it seems to me that what the minister is saying is to trust the government because this has worked in the past and, therefore, there is no reason to suspect that anything will be different. However, from where I sit there are a lot of balls in the air in the overall picture of how environmental assessment will look in Western Australia when we have dealt with this bill and other legislation that is in the pipeline. In light of that and in light of informing us about a decision on amendments to this bill, I will ask the minister, because yesterday she gave notice of the introduction of a bill to amend the Environmental Protection Act, if she will inform the chamber of what that bill is intended to do.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am aware that there was a bit of concern when I gave notice yesterday, but I can assure the member that it relates to illegal dumping, which I hope we will have strongly supported by the Greens (WA).

Hon Giz Watson: Thank you.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Max Trenorden): Members, there is a bit of enthusiasm here, but you do need to get the call.

Hon GIZ WATSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair. I am very pleased to have my concerns reduced about what is in the pipeline with that amendment. I look forward to looking at it very closely. Indeed, if it is about illegal dumping and better managing that, we will be very pleased to support it. However, I make the point that the reason we are seeking this, by way of this amendment that Hon Sally Talbot has raised, which is in the same spirit as the amendment I moved last night, is that we are not dealing with the same situation and we are seeking to put in place a safety valve, as it were, which in our view is necessary. In effect, that is what these amendments seek to do. I can only say that we think that has got merit and it is important, given the other changes to the act that this bill will cause.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will just add that any changes to administrative procedures have always been subject to public comment. Any changes have gone out in draft for comment. It is not as if change is made on a whim. The most recent changes have already been out for public comment. There is no suggestion that those sorts of things will change. In response to the notion that somehow or other I as minister direct the EPA and its board, I just refer to section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act, “Independence of Authority and Chairman”, which reads —

Subject to this Act, neither —

(a) the Authority; nor

(b) the Chairman,

shall be subject to the direction of the Minister.

Therefore, some suggestion that the minister will be directing the chairman or the authority is just wrong. I refer members to section 8 of the act.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister is really going off the rails now. There are all these devices in arguments to obscure the issue, and the minister has obviously been studying some of those devices. The statement by the minister that were this amendment to be —

Hon Donna Faragher: You’re the most condescending person. Seriously, you just go on and on. It’s just unbelievable.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am really sorry that the minister feels that way. This seems to be a constant mantra from her. I am sorry if it upsets her.


Hon Donna Faragher: It doesn’t upset me.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Good; I am pleased. If she wants to make a time to have a chat about ways that I can make her feel more comfortable in this place, please ring my electorate office and make a time to come and have a chat to me.

Hon Donna Faragher: I just think it’s unfortunate that you have to use a condescending tone when you speak to other members of Parliament. I just think that’s most unfortunate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Max Trenorden): Members, this chatter is not progressing the debate. Hon Sally Talbot has the call.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Before I turn to the point that I want to make about the government’s response to the report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, I want to say that any explicit statement from the government that an amendment of this kind will in some sense diminish the independence of the Environmental Protection Authority is, frankly, nonsense. The minister must know that. She is looking intensely uncomfortable about having made that statement. I invite her to perhaps adjourn this debate to a later stage of this day’s sitting so that she can ask the EPA whether it thinks that making the administrative procedures disallowable would somehow compromise its independence.

Hon Adele Farina: That’s an excellent idea.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is a good idea. I thank the member.

Hon Adele Farina: After all, the minister doesn’t direct the EPA, so she should actually ask it the question.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Absolutely. By her own argument, it makes sense to do that. I strongly suspect, however, that the minister will not take my advice. In that case, I look forward with enormous anticipation to a meeting of another standing committee, because I believe that the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, chaired by Hon Giz Watson, will shortly be talking to the EPA. It will be something that we can follow up with considerable interest then. I put it to members that, frankly, that is a piece of arrant nonsense, and nobody knows that better than the minister from whose mouth it proceeded.

Let me just say how we got here. My initial point on the whole question of section 122 —

Hon Simon O’Brien interjected.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am sorry; I did not catch that, Hon Simon O’Brien.

Hon Simon O’Brien: I wasn’t talking to you.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: My initial point about the consideration of section 122 and the administrative procedures was that the standing committee’s recommendation 9 was that, in the interests of good and open government, the Minister for Environment provide members of this house with an explanation about why it was appropriate to prescribe matters such as the period for public comment, information being made available to the public and other aspects of environmental impact assessments by way of administrative procedure rather than by regulation. I put it to members that the minister has not responded. It was a simple request for an explanation. The so-called explanation we got on recommendation 9 read in this way —

… the administrative procedures are based on the powers in section 122 of the Environmental Protection Act, and are an expression of the principles of the environmental impact assessment process and the procedures to guide the administration of that assessment. The administrative procedures set out procedures that increase public involvement, availability of information and reporting over and above that required by the act.

…

… The transparency of the environmental impact assessment process ensures that any inconsistency with the administrative procedures would be apparent to both the proponents and the community …

The minister also said that the EPA has not made its administrative procedures as regulations since the commencement of the EP act. We know that, minister. The most junior parliamentary intern could have written those four sentences.

Hon Donna Faragher: Again; you can’t help yourself.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is just an observation, minister. Did it take the minister very long to write that? Did she sweat over those four sentences? Yes or no?

Hon Donna Faragher: Just keep talking.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: It was quite easy, was it? The minister will have her chance to respond to my comments.


The comments were so glib that they missed the very readily apparent substance of committee recommendation 9, which was to provide us with an explanation. Then we could have considered that explanation and perhaps moved on. Over and again in this debate we have put a proposition to the minister and the minister has just said that that is our opinion and she does not agree. That is not what an argument is about. An argument is about explaining one’s position. In the total absence of an ability to explain her position, what conclusions are we supposed to come to? One conclusion is that she does not have a position and does not understand what might be the implications of the amendments that she has proposed, and therefore she has just adopted a strategy of saying, “That’s your position and I don’t agree with it.” The minister’s response to the amendment now under consideration is unbelievably facile. She has said that she agrees with me that the administrative procedures have served us well in the past—so far, so good. Then she said that she had no reason to think that that confidence might be eroded in the future. We have spent hours in this place explaining to the minister why the measures that she has proposed are eroding public confidence in the processes that have served us well. What is the problem? Perhaps she needs to get some more briefings on what people are saying about what she has proposed. It is frankly offensive to suggest that amendments of this kind will in any sense erode the independence of the EPA. I would never speak for other members, but I hear people on this side of the house saying that the reason this amendment is being supported by my colleagues in the Labor Party and in the Greens (WA) is that it will lead to better governance, it will lead to better practices on the part of the EPA, and it will lead to greater public confidence in the environmental assessment process in this state. That is why I have moved the amendment. If the minister cannot understand that, what hope is there for the environment over the next few years while she is driving the cart?

Hon ADELE FARINA: The minister said that the EPA consults on administrative procedures, which is advice that we welcome. I am curious to know whom does the EPA consult with and how are members of the public and, in fact, members in this place to know that the EPA is seeking comment on proposed administrative procedures.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: They are both on the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority’s website. In addition, the chairman of the EPA has a stakeholder working group, which consists of a number of groups that he regularly consults on a range of issues. I am happy to provide a list to the member. I do not have that information in front of me, but it consists of both conservation and industry groups. This would be one of the matters that the working group is specifically consulted on.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I will take the minister up on her offer to provide me with a list of the members of the working group.

It is all well and good that this information is provided on a website. When we ask how will we know about this stuff, we are frequently told that it is on the website. The reality is that the capacity to monitor every website in existence and keep on top of this information is beyond the realm of anyone, much less people with the workload that we have as members of Parliament. I find it surprising that the EPA does not also write to members of Parliament to advise them directly about these sorts of matters or send out a distribution email at least to members of Parliament to advise them that it is in the process of reviewing administrative procedures and to ask members of Parliament for comment, particularly given the level of feedback we receive from community members, which could feed into the process in a very useful way. Will the minister give an undertaking that, from now on, the Environmental Protection Authority will directly notify members of Parliament about any proposed new administrative procedures, any amendments to administrative procedures or the cancellation of any administrative procedures?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: As the member would be aware, I cannot direct the EPA to do that so I cannot give that undertaking. The undertaking I can give to the member is that I will put her proposal to the chairman of the EPA and to the Office of the EPA. I am very happy to do that.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I thank the minister for her response. I remind the minister that while she does not have the capacity to direct the EPA, she does have the capacity to direct the Office of the EPA. These administrative procedures will relate largely to administrative procedures of the Office of the EPA in any event.

Hon Donna Faragher: I have given the undertaking.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I accept that; I have said that I am grateful for that. The other thing I would like to know is the sort of feedback the community will receive through this process of consultation about the issues that were raised and how they were weighted by the EPA in deciding to either reject changes to or amend the administrative procedures. If an amendment is made to the administrative procedures, how will the community be advised of that?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The EPA would obviously have to take into account any comments made during the public comment period, regardless of whether those comments were made through the stakeholder working group or by a member of the public in an individual submission. I am not a member of the EPA board so I


cannot tell the member about the inner workings of a meeting of the EPA board when such matters are considered, but the EPA must obviously give regard to matters raised by the public, the Conservation Council of Western Australia or any other organisation that takes an interest in these matters.

Hon ADELE FARINA: That response is inadequate. I am not asking the minister to direct the EPA in its consideration of these matters. The community has a right to know how their comments are weighted and about the process the EPA goes through. The minister has told us throughout the consideration of this bill that the EPA is open, transparent and accountable, yet she just said that she does not know how the EPA goes about its deliberations. Under the appeals process, the community has the opportunity to understand the level of regard and consideration given to any issues it has raised and how those matters are weighted by the EPA in making its decision because the EPA is required, through the minister, to issue a report. Moving from an appeals process to an administrative process means that not only will there no longer be any legislative backing to ensure that that process is not eroded in the future, but also people will have absolutely no understanding of the process the EPA goes through in assessing any concerns or feedback it receives and no capacity to understand the weighting or consideration given to those issues because the EPA will not be required to issue a report or to explain its decisions. This is particularly important in regard to any comments raised in opposition to proposed administrative procedures. Again, the public’s rights are being greatly diminished through the processes and amendments proposed in this piece of legislation. Frankly, I do not feel it is adequate for a minister to come into this place and say that she simply does not know how the EPA goes about making its decisions and yet expects us, as a Parliament, to support amendments that will diminish the rights of the community. What reassurance does the community have that the EPA will give due regard to the issues it raises and give due weight to their concerns?

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have a quick question to follow up on a comment made by the minister about the opportunity of the public to comment on revised administrative procedures. How will that work if a facility or resource is being withdrawn?

Hon Donna Faragher: Sorry?

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I think the minister said earlier that the new administrative procedures will involve email notification when proposals are received. If a decision were made to cease that practice, how would that change be communicated to members of the public? How would public comment be sought?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: There is no suggestion that that will happen, but if it were to happen, it would involve a removal from the administrative procedures and any such change would require a public comment period.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Would all the administrative procedures be republished every time there is a change?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Yes. As I understand it, the EPA procedures have been changed only three or four times in the entire time they have been available. There is a suggestion that the changing of administrative procedures and all these sorts of things will remove the right for comment and the like. I have indicated that any proposed change will be open for public comment. The EPA must give due regard to these matters. Comments will be considered. The EPA has an extensive stakeholder working group, which I have already mentioned I am happy to provide details of. This process has been in place since the EPA was established. We are not proposing any change to that.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I expect the minister to support the vote on this amendment, because she has just given us a conclusive demonstration that this amendment is eminently sensible because this sort of change does not actually happen all that often. What on earth is the problem? What on earth could be the harm caused or the disadvantage in having this subject to the same disallowance provisions as the regulations?

Hon ADELE FARINA: If the minister will not respond to that, perhaps she will respond to my question. I would be grateful if the minister would inform the chamber how the Environmental Protection Authority goes about the process of distinguishing between what should go into regulation and what should go into an administrative procedure and, therefore, dealt with under section 122 of the act?

[Quorum formed.]

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I refer the member to section 123(2), which states —

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), regulations may be made under that subsection in respect of the matters set out in Schedule 2.

I then refer the member to schedule 2.

Hon Adele Farina: I cannot hear the minister, I’m sorry. Would she mind starting again?


Hon DONNA FARAGHER: In section 123, under the heading “Regulations”, subsection (2) refers to the fact that regulations may be made under that subsection in respect of the matters set out in schedule 2. Then we go to clause 34 of schedule 2, which states —

Prescribing administrative procedures for the purposes referred to in section 122(1)(a).

There is therefore a capacity —

Hon Adele Farina: I am sorry, what number was that?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It is clause 34 of schedule 2.

Hon ADELE FARINA: That is great. It refers us back to section 122, which is the administrative procedures–making power. That is odd. We have the regulation-making power telling us —

Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), regulations may be made under that subsection in respect of the matters set out in Schedule 2.

Then the minister referred us to clause 34 of schedule 2, which refers us back to the administrative procedures–making power. I am therefore no wiser on how the EPA determines what should be a regulation and what should be an administrative procedure. In fact, I am even more confused because the regulation-making power takes us back to making it an administrative procedure. Is the minister saying that the EPA does not use its regulation-making power; it just favours its administrative procedure–making power? I again ask the minister to explain to the chamber how the EPA determines what should be a regulation as opposed to an administrative procedure.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I just make the point that I have provided the information to the member to alert her to how a regulation may be made; it is not a requirement.

Hon Adele Farina: I know how they may be made. That was not my question.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am actually trying to answer the member’s question. As I have said on numerous occasions, the EPA uses these administrative procedures in such a way that they do not affect the provisions in the legislation that must be followed, but they are a statement of principles and the way that the EPA, in effect, conducts its business. I also refer the chamber to the government’s response to recommendation 10, which states that the EPA does not support the making of its administrative procedures as regulations; therefore, the EPA does not support that. As I have said, they are an expression of both the principles and procedures that are followed by the EPA. There is, therefore, a capacity within the act, and I have outlined that, but it does not impact on the legislation and how it must be followed. It outlines the guidelines, the procedures and the principles that the EPA follows.

Mr Chairman, I think I have responded as much as I can on this matter.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I have at no time questioned whether the EPA has the authority to make administrative procedures; I acknowledge that the authority is provided in the act under section 122. I have not questioned the power of the EPA to make regulations; I acknowledge that that power exists in the act under section 123. My question is: given that the EPA is faced with these two mechanisms that it can use, how does it determine which one it opts for in any specific matter? Does the EPA have guidelines or administrative procedures for what should go into regulations and what should be incorporated into administrative procedures?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: If the EPA felt that it needed to prescribe something, it would use the regulations. The EPA does not believe that it needs to prescribe the administrative procedures, for the reasons that I have already outlined.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I have an additional question that has bearing on this amendment. I understand that the “Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2010” document, which the minister kindly provided to us, is the final draft of what we are looking at to complement —

Hon Donna Faragher: From what I can see, the document that the member is holding looks right to me.

Hon GIZ WATSON: In light of this debate about the additional check and balance that this side of the house seeks to put in place, it seems to me that that document does not go into the specific details of things such as ensuring that people are informed early enough via the website or by an email that tells them something new has gone up on the website. Does this document actually go into that level of detail? If so, I am interested to know where in the document it does, because it seems to me that it does not really guarantee a mechanism for informing the public of upcoming proposals on which they can comment. Perhaps the minister could indicate, if it does, where that is.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I refer Hon Giz Watson to section 8. It might not be —

Hon Adele Farina: Is it possible to get a copy of that document?

Hon Giz Watson: Is the title “Levels of Assessment”?


Hon DONNA FARAGHER: No; “Decision on Referred Proposal” would be the section.

Hon Sally Talbot interjected.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It is in the administrative procedures. Can I see which document the member has? Members may recall that I mentioned during debate that some minor changes were being made, so I want to see what version the member has.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I wonder whether the minister could give us copies of —

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The version I have before me is a working draft of the next version, so I would prefer to utilise the other one because I understand there is some minor tweaking and I want to ensure that I give members the most appropriate version at this point in time. I am happy to also provide members with the final document, but this is a working draft.

Hon Adele Farina: But aren’t they both working drafts?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: This one is the most recent. I understand that it is a working draft of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority and it has not gone through the EPA board process. This document has, so that is the one that I want to refer to.

Hon ADELE FARINA: Is the minister asserting that the draft of version 9 that she has is a confidential document and she is not releasing it on the basis of confidentiality?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: As I understand, this is a working draft of the officers. The copy that I have before me has written comments from officers on it, so my preference would be to use version 8 of the document. However, if members would like, I am happy to see whether I can get a clean copy for them. Obviously, I do not have a clean copy here because this is a working draft. I hope that members appreciate that this document is a working draft with actual written comments from officers on it. However, I am happy to get members a clean copy but I do not have it with me.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is beginning to appear as though we are looking at three different documents. This debate is about an amendment that would make the administrative procedures disallowable in the same way as regulations. All of a sudden we have hit this massive stumbling block and we cannot agree on which version of the administrative procedures we are supposed to be debating. The question Hon Giz Watson asked seemed to be eminently sensible. We want a perfectly straightforward answer about whether the administrative procedures drill down to that degree of detail. We just put our heads together and agreed that none of us on this side of the house can find out where that happens. We are trying to tease that out but it is now beginning to appear that we have three documents.

Hon Donna Faragher: No. I’m happy to respond to you because I think —

Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister will have her chance to respond but let me make my point. We have a document that was in Hon Giz Watson’s possession, which I think we can call version 8 of the administrative procedures. We have a version of the administrative procedures that the minister quoted from, which we were then told was version 9 with written comments or written changes because the minister then said that it was a draft document. Now the minister is offering to provide us with a clean copy of version 9. By all accounts, that seems to me to be three different documents. I ask the minister again to confirm whether one, two or three of those documents is a confidential document; and, if so, which one is it? Which document was the minister quoting from?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I think that Hon Sally Talbot needs to calm down a bit. The draft that Hon Giz Watson had was version 8. I understood that that was the latest draft. I have just been informed that there is a new draft—version 9. In debate on these matters previously, I have indicated that we have been through a public comment period and, in fact, some minor matters were still being finalised. I have already said that. All I am saying is that I have been informed that there is a version 9 and there are some markings and writing of an officer on that document. Instead of giving members a copy of the document that has markings from an officer, I will simply give members the same version of the document but it will be a clean copy. There is no difference other than my copy has internal writings of an officer. I just ask that we use a copy of version 9 of the document that is exactly the same, but is simply a clean copy. I am happy to provide that.

Hon ADELE FARINA: As I understand standing order 47, the minister is required to table the document unless she claims that the document is confidential. From the statements the minister has made to date, she has not indicated that there is anything confidential about the document; therefore, I ask the Chairman to instruct the minister to table the document.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The document has an officer’s writing on it. I am happy to provide it. I was trying to be of assistance by giving the house a clean copy of version 9. There is a lot of carry on, frankly, over a


document that I have just said has an officer’s writing on it. I was simply making sure that the opposition had a clean copy. I table the document.

[See paper 2409.]

Hon ADELE FARINA: I ask that the minister report progress to give us an opportunity to review these documents, which are yet to be tabled, because it is impossible for us to continue the debate and the consideration of the report when we have just been handed the documents. If the minister is disinclined to do that, I am happy to filibuster while my colleagues get an opportunity to review the document. However, I would have thought that it would be far more efficient if we got on with other some other government business while we are given an opportunity to review the documents.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I will not be reporting progress. In the interim, I am happy to provide Hon Adele Farina with the names of the members of the stakeholder reference group, because she was interested to know who they are.

Hon Adele Farina: I would like it in writing so that I have it for future reference, but I am happy to hear them now.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Good. I am trying to be of assistance. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association—APPEA —

Hon Adele Farina: Who is representing APPEA?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am referring to the stakeholder groups. The other stakeholders include the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia Inc, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc, the World Wildlife Fund Australia, the Environmental Consultants Association (WA), the university sector, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Western Australian Local Government Association, the Department of State Development, the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Department of Planning, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Office of the Appeals Convenor.

Distinguished Visitor — Mrs Denise Phua

The CHAIRMAN (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm): Order! I seek members’ indulgence for a minute or two. I welcome to the President’s gallery Mrs Denise Phua, who is a member of the Singapore Parliament. Denise is leading a delegation on autism. It is wonderful to have her in the President’s gallery. I welcome her.

Committee Resumed

Hon GIZ WATSON: I realise that events have moved on, but I think the minister was about to elaborate—for whichever draft we are talking about; I hope they are substantially the same—on the details of the administrative procedures that provide public access to the processes of the Environmental Protection Authority.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The procedures are on pages 6 and 7 of the final draft.

Hon Adele Farina: Which version are we looking at?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It is version 9.

Hon Adele Farina: I do not have it.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It is being distributed. I will read it out to Hon Giz Watson. On page 7 it states —

Once the EPA has enough information about a proposal referred, the EPA will publish the referral information on the EPA website. The EPA will provide a 7-day public comment period on each referred proposal before it proceeds to make a decision on whether or not to assess the proposal, and if so the level of assessment. Comments on the referral information must be made using the Referral Comment Form available on the EPA website.

The referral information should not contain information that is confidential, as the referral information will be published.

Proponents and DMAs are to provide an electronic copy of the referral information submitted to the EPA, at the time the proposal is referred, to enable the information to be readily uploaded onto the EPA website.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I ask the minister again whether she will report progress. I give her an undertaking, to the extent that it is within my capacity to do so, that it would need to be only for the 15 minutes before the lunch break. The document that the minister has now provided to us is 31 pages and the version that we have been working with is only 27.5 pages.


Hon Adele Farina: It is 32 pages.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Is it?

Hon Adele Farina: My version is.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I seem to be missing a page; I do not have page 32. It is some three or four pages longer than the document that we have been working with. Even the preamble has grown by a paragraph. It is really problematic if the minister insists on proceeding with this debate when many members in this chamber need to read the revised documents. I can read pretty fast but I cannot compare and contrast two 30-odd page documents while focusing on and contributing to the debate. I ask the minister again, for the sake of 14 minutes, to please give us the lunch break to look at the revisions that have been made without our scrutiny.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I inform the house that, as I understand it, the additional parts relate to the beginning of the document regarding the principles of the environmental impact assessment for the EPA and the principles of the EIA for the public. The beginning of the document has been added to, which has added to the volume.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I take it that means no, so we will press on. The minister will have to go into a bit more detail than that, I am sorry. The “purpose and scope” in version 9 has grown by about half a page. Can the minister tell us how the first paragraph has changed between the two drafts, please?

Hon ADELE FARINA: Excuse me, Mr Chairman; just while we are waiting for the minister to respond, we have been provided with version 9, which gives us 31 pages of the 32 pages that comprise the document. None of us, to the best of my knowledge, have page 32 of 32.

Hon Sally Talbot: It stops mid-sentence.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I would appreciate it if we could get a copy of page 32 of 32.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I now see that the document I have, which is the one the members wanted, has 31 pages of 32. I previously indicated to the chamber that I was happy to get a clean, full copy for members; but, no, they did not want that. Members did not want that, so they have now got this copy, which—it has now become apparent to me—has one page missing. The member asked for the copy I had, which, as I said, is a working draft, and I provided it to the member. I reiterate that I was happy—go back and check Hansard—to give the member a copy of version 9.

Hon Adele Farina: But that doesn’t assume that we would get all 32 pages.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am just making the point that I tried to be helpful but the member wanted to be difficult.

Hon Adele Farina: No; we didn’t want to be difficult; we want to be able to review the information. The Parliament is considering the bill now, and we are entitled to have the information.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have given the member the information that I had.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I acknowledge that the minister has provided us with the document that she has in her possession; however, the document is missing a page, and I think this Parliament is entitled to have the full document so that we are fully informed while we consider this bill. Not only is this government using its numbers in this chamber to push through this bill regardless of the community’s concerns and those being expressed, but the government is now expecting us to do it without the full information. I think that is completely unreasonable, and the tack the minister is taking is only going to further delay the progress of this bill in this chamber. None of us on this side of the chamber expected the consideration of this bill to take as long as it has.

Hon Donna Faragher: Yes, you did.

Hon ADELE FARINA: And it will take a lot longer if the minister continues to be difficult.

Hon Kate Doust: You’re just being petulant.

Hon Liz Behjat: She has been more than accommodating.

Hon ADELE FARINA: No, she has not.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am not being difficult; I have said that I will give the member a full copy of version 9. It has only just been brought to my attention that a page is missing. I was not aware of that because it was a working draft. I am happy to get a copy of the full draft, but I, obviously, do not have that; I was just provided with a working document. But the notion of being petulant is quite wrong.

Hon Adele Farina: I didn’t say that.

Hon Kate Doust: I said that.


Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Sorry; Hon Kate Doust suggested that I was being petulant. I indicated that I was very happy to get a clean copy —

Hon Kate Doust: It was your tone, minister.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: — but that was not agreeable to Hon Adele Farina at the time.

Hon Adele Farina: It is now.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It is now? I hope that is recorded in Hansard.

Hon ADELE FARINA: We will just continue to debate this until we have the full copy—that is not a problem.

The front page of the final draft refers to the transition provision, and it states —

The Environmental Protection Authority gives notice that proposals being assessed prior to gazettal of the Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2010 will continue to be assessed under the processes described in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Division 1) Administrative Procedures 2002.

Will the minister please table a copy of the environmental impact assessment part IV, division 1 administrative procedures 2002?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The 2002 version would have been gazetted; I am happy to get a copy of that for the member though.

Hon Adele Farina: Some time soon, so that we can consider it during this debate.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Yes; we will ensure that that is provided to the member.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Can I just check whether the minister has come into this place for this debate without a complete copy of the administrative procedures?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have been provided with a working draft during the debate, from which, it appears, there is one page missing.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Does the minister have a copy of the latest final version of the administrative procedures?

Hon Donna Faragher: That is version 9.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: But version 9 is not complete.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: On a number of occasions during this debate I have indicated that the draft administrative procedures have been out for public comment, and some minor amendments are still being made to the draft. The final procedures have not been finalised, and, therefore, gazetted.

Hon Sally Talbot: So are we in a state of limbo?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have already responded to questions from Hon Sally Talbot or Hon Adele Farina—I cannot quite remember who—in the past couple of days about this matter. I have indicated that there are some minor editorial matters to be dealt with, as I understand it, before they are finalised.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: In order that we can make the best use of lunchtime, can I ask the minister about missing page 32? In draft version 8, the final section, which is on page 27, is the last part of schedule 2. It is section 5 of schedule 2 on page 27 of version 8, which reads —

5. Proponent’s response to submissions on the ESD and PER document

and it has seven paragraphs. Can the minister confirm that in the draft she has just given us, which is version 9, section 5, schedule 2 starts on page 31? We have paragraph 1, which begins —

The EPA will provide a copy of the submissions —

and we have the first two lines of the second paragraph, which read —

The proponent will be required to prepare a written response …

Can we assume that the rest of section 5 is identical in version 9 to section 5 in version 8?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have indicated to the chamber that I will provide a copy of the full version 9, and that will be circulated as soon as possible.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Would it help if I provided my copy of version 8 to the minister so that she can check?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I have said that if the member wants version 9, I will provide the chamber with a full copy of version 9; that will be provided as soon as it is received.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Will that be by the time the debate resumes after lunch?


Hon Donna Faragher: Yes.

Hon ADELE FARINA: The transition provision in this incomplete final draft version 9 reads —

The Environmental Protection Authority gives notice that proposals being assessed prior to gazettal of the Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2010 will continue to be assessed under the processes described in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Division 1) Administrative Procedures 2002.

All proposals referred to the Environmental Protection Authority after gazettal of the Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2010 will be assessed under the procedures described in the Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2010.

Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I table version 9 of the draft “Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2010”. I understand that a copy has also been placed on the member’s desk.

[See paper 2410.]

Hon ADELE FARINA: Before the break I was referring to the transition paragraphs in the final draft of the “Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2010” version 9 document. I will not read them again. I find it interesting and somewhat concerning that the transition provisions do not make any reference to the enactment of a bill that is currently before the chamber or that the application of the 2010 administrative procedures do not appear to be linked to the enactment of all the provisions of the bill currently before the chamber. It concerns me that we may find ourselves in a situation in which the bill is enacted but the administrative procedures 2010 have not been gazetted, and, in such a situation, for any proposal then before the EPA at the initial stages the community would find that the right to appeal on the level of assessment has been deleted. That is, the administrative procedures 2010, which provide the seven-day community comment opportunity, have not been gazetted and are therefore not available to the community. I would like the minister to give an undertaking to the Parliament that this situation will not arise and that at all times the community will have either an appeal right on the level of assessment or the seven-day opportunity to comment, which are provided under the administrative procedures.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I recall when we debated clause 2 on Tuesday night and we were dealing with matters surrounding transitional provisions that Hon Adele Farina asked when those parts would come into operation. I confirmed that those elements that were required for matters relating to environmental impact assessment procedures and issues around the computer system and the like would not come into force until those matters were finalised. I have given that commitment.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I understood the request I made then related to the minister’s undertaking that administrative procedures would not be enacted for those provisions in the bill until such time as the computer systems were up and running. This question is a bit wider than that. It is about not having a situation arise in which we have deleted the appeal provision but the administrative procedures have not been gazetted and therefore the seven-day right to comment is not in place and the appeal right is lost. I take it from the minister’s response that she has given an undertaking that that situation will not arise. I am comfortable with that.

I have been comparing the preamble in version 9 with that in version 8. Version 9 reads —

The Environmental Protection Authority undertakes the environmental impact assessment of some proposals referred to under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Environmental impact assessment is a systematic and orderly evaluation of a proposal and its impact on the environment.

I am interested in the fact that the word “significant” has been deleted in version 9 but was included in version 8. Given that the act refers to “significant” environmental impacts, I ask the minister whether there has been some shift in the government’s position. Could the minister explain why that word is being deleted, as I would have thought it was relevant to keep it consistent with the legislation?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Jon Ford): There were a number of conversations going on in front of Hon Adele Farina that would have made it very difficult for the minister to hear—I had trouble hearing—and there were other conversations taking place. I ask members if they can keep the noise down, so we can understand the debate, especially when quite a lengthy discourse is occurring as it would make matters a lot easier.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: There are no changes to the effect that have been suggested by Hon Adele Farina. The member asked whether there has been any substantive shift by the government. No, there is not. I appreciate that I have tabled the administrative procedures document, and I was happy to table it; however, the administrative procedures are not the bill. I appreciate that we have an amendment before the chamber, but we are dealing with the bill, not going through the administrative procedures line by line.

Hon ADELE FARINA: Would the Deputy Chairman like to hear submissions on the issue?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have not seen any evidence that the member is going to go through the administrative procedures line by line.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I have not had a chance to go through both versions of the administrative procedures in detail. To the extent that I have, there are some omissions in version 9 that I think are significant given the undertakings of the minister that relate to the bill currently before us. Parliament needs an opportunity to explore these, particularly given that the amendment before the chamber seeks to require the administrative procedures to go through the same process as regulations, which would then enable this chamber to review changes to the administrative procedures or the enactment of new administrative procedures. The minister has indicated the government will not support that. In view of the refusal by the minister to give this Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise the administrative procedures, and given the evidence we now have that there have been significant changes between versions 8 and 9, and there does not appear to be any ability for community comment on those changes, it is reasonable that the Parliament be able to explore them at this opportunity. It highlights the reason Hon Sally Talbot has moved her amendment and it is why this Parliament should be able to scrutinise the administrative procedures. They will have a significant impact in the way environmental impact assessments are undertaken in the future.

I will go onto my next question. Again in the preamble, a sentence has been omitted in version 9 that was in version 8; namely —

Successful environmental impact assessment is supported by co-operation, effective communication and strong working relationships between all stakeholders.

I want to know why these words have been deleted in version 9 and whether the deletion of these words represents some shift in the way the government intends to deal with the environmental impact assessment process.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: A couple of issues have been raised. One basic argument was the contention that we should be allowed to go through every single administrative procedure. The other contention is that we do not do that because it does not form part of the bill. It does, however, relate to the consideration of the procedures in so much as it relates to supporting the arguments either for or against the proposed new clause. I would be hard pressed to accept as a reasonable argument that the committee needs to consider every single procedure. If the committee wants time to examine all those procedures, the suggestion I make is to defer consideration of the new clause. I do not think it would be in the committee’s interest to go through the procedures line and verse, except maybe a few, to support an argument for or against the clause. That is a view I have put. I am not saying the chamber should not examine the procedures, but I am suggesting that we do not go through it clause by clause. If members want time to examine the procedures in support of this, I suggest that we defer consideration of the clause. The chamber is in control of its own direction. I will give the minister the call.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I reiterate that these are not finalised procedures. However, the member has referred to the removal of one paragraph in the preamble. As I indicated before lunch, the new draft 9 includes new sections at the beginning that identify the principles of EIA for the EPA, which was not in draft 8, and the principles for environmental impact assessment for the proponent. They refer to matters that seek to promote public comment appropriate to specific proposals. In fact, it has been broadened within the principles outlined on pages 3, 4 and 5. It is stated on page 5, under number 6 “Principles of EIA for the Public”, at paragraph 2 —

Engage as early as possible in the process.

It has actually been expanded to quite clearly give the principles for the proponent, for the EPA and for the public.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have never had an interest in drawing this debate out. However, I do have an interest in getting certain things on the record. A member of the minister’s own party this morning, a member of the commonwealth Parliament, was quoted as saying that it is not up to oppositions to govern the country; it is up to oppositions to hold governments accountable. I take that part of my job very seriously. That is what I am trying to do here. I understand the import of the Chair’s ruling; we will not work through this line by line. In a slightly different context, on two or three occasions this morning we asked the minister to report progress to the house to give us a chance to do the work that I think the Deputy Chairman was just referring to so that we know exactly what we are dealing with. Frankly, I think it was an extraordinary circumstance to find that we were not able to get copies of the most up-to-date draft administrative procedures. The minister did not even carry a complete copy. With all that in mind, I refer the chamber to my amendment which simply asks the minister to accept a new subsection (3) in section 122 to make these administrative procedures a disallowable instrument. Can the minister show me anywhere in this draft 9 where there is a clause that would not be appropriately subject to the provisions of a disallowable instrument?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: As I have indicated, these set out objectives, principles and procedures for the Environmental Protection Authority. I appreciate that the opposition would like the government to support the


amendment, but the government has indicated that it will not be supporting Hon Sally Talbot’s amendment. I bring the member to what she said at the very beginning when she moved the amendment; that is, the procedures have served us well since 1986 and there is no reason to suggest that they will not serve us well in the future. It is not the government’s intention to make them regulations and disallowable.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: The minister is being completely disingenuous here. She knows that circumstances have changed. She knows that since 1986, when the act was proclaimed, there has never been a government that walked into this place and removed appeal points to such an extent that this government has proposed. There has never been a government that delivered a second reading speech that bore no resemblance to the intent of the bill. There has never been a government that walked into this place and listened to what now amounts to many hours of argument and was unable to put up a single counterproposition of any integrity whatsoever. Minister, that is what has changed. The minister should not take my word for it. She should ask the members of the Environmental Stakeholder Advisory Group. Most of those sitting around the ESAG table were appalled when she walked in with the Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Bill 2009. They hate this bill. They have been talking to me and Hon Giz Watson. They have tried to talk to the minister, but she renders herself deaf to their pleas. We have never faced a circumstance such as this, which is why I have made the point clearly. I am sure the minister has not failed to understand it. Up until now section 122 of the Environmental Protection Act and the procedures for formulating the administrative guidelines, principles and objectives have, as the minister said, worked well. We are living in a changed world. After the election the government changed and Hon Donna Faragher became the Minister for Environment. All of a sudden the Western Australian government is not driving an environment agenda. All of a sudden the forces —

Hon Donna Faragher: It has more of an agenda than what happened under your government when you were the parliamentary secretary. It did nothing for eight years.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Is the minister seeking the call?

Hon Donna Faragher: No, I am making a statement of fact. The Labor government did nothing in eight years.

Hon Adele Farina interjected.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Jon Ford): Order, members! We have rules of debate in this chamber. The member on his or her feet has the call. I need to be able to name the member who has the call so that Hansard knows to whom to point the camera and attribute the words. Let us stick to the rules. I give the call to Hon Sally Talbot.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I will resist the temptation to take up another few hours of debate by going over everything that the Labor Party did from 2001 to 2008 to accrue significant benefits for the environment. Of course, there is always more to do. Hon Donna Faragher would know that better than anyone else in Parliament. When she walked into the office and took over as Minister for Environment a heap of stuff on her desk was awaiting the final sign-off. Has she done anything about marine parks? No, not one single thing, apart from fast-tracking Camden Sound in response to the Premier asking her to come up with something green to get him off the hook in the Kimberley. I hope members do not feel that I am straying too far off the point.

Point of Order

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Hon Sally Talbot is straying quite significantly from the bill at hand. She is talking about marine parks and a range of other matters. We are dealing with the Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Bill 2009.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, although I take the minister’s point. Although discussion can be broad, eventually we have to get back to the main point.

Committee Resumed

Hon SALLY TALBOT: That is precisely the direction in which I am heading. I give the house an undertaking that I will resist the minister’s invitation to extend the debate in directions that move away from the subject matter at hand, because the subject matter at hand is very serious.

Things in this state have changed. Under normal circumstances the government would be proud to proclaim that change. However, we are in the extraordinary circumstance in which our government does not have a plan or an agenda. It is proceeding by a series of thought bubbles and directives from the Premier, who is the only person showing any authority. The environment agenda of this state is now being driven very firmly by pro-development forces. No-one on this side of the house, in the Labor Party at least, is anti-development. In our eight years of government, we oversaw one of the biggest industrial and developmental booms that this state has ever seen. Nobody can say that we were anti-development. We always strove to the best of our ability to rate environmental concerns as highly as we did the need to develop the state, create jobs and expand opportunities. All of a sudden everything has changed. With the change of government has come a lack of focus on developing the state. With the change of government has come a change in rhetoric.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, member! Earlier I talked about allowing a broad conversation. However, we are dealing with proposed new clause 18, specifically that the words to be inserted be inserted. Whilst I appreciate what the member is saying, it is sounding a bit like a second reading speech than debate on a clause or amendment in committee. I advise the member to bring her remarks closer to the point at hand.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am pointing out to the chamber what has changed. Last night I began debate on new clause 18 by indicating that the Labor Party has very serious concerns about deleting section 122. We believe that that section has served us well up to this point. The key words are “up to this point”. We are now in a changed world. We are now dealing with a government that is seeking to make substantial changes to appeals procedures. This government has tried to sell us the wholesale withdrawal of points of appeal. When we asked for the reasons for that and when we asked for the rhetoric in the second reading speech to be explained—that rhetoric being about duplicative and delaying mechanisms that take a long time to resolve—and when we asked for concrete evidence that that is the case and that the removal of appeal rights will speed up the process and make it more efficient, that evidence has not been forthcoming in all these hours of debate, which is why I have moved the amendment standing in my name. My amendment simply asks—nothing more—that the administrative procedures are subject to the same disallowance provisions as the regulations relating to the Environmental Protection Act. The minister has not been able to provide one substantial reason why there is a problem with that. I am still waiting to hear from her, but I am happy to move on with the debate.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I support Hon Sally Talbot’s comments. Members on this side of the chamber feel strongly about her amendment because the amendment proposed by the government, and the move to put more of the environmental impact assessment process into administrative procedures rather than having them provided for in the legislation, raise real issues for this Parliament in terms of adequately scrutinising administrative procedures. If they were regulations, we would at least have an opportunity to review them and the changes that are being made. By way of illustration, I refer to a simple comparison between version 8 of the administrative procedures and version 9 of the administrative procedures. I understand that because an amendment was made during the consultation process, there are significant changes in the two versions; changes about which the community will have serious concerns. However, the community will be denied an opportunity to express concerns about version 9 or 10, or whatever comes after, because it has only been able to comment on version 8 or 1 of the draft. It does not get another opportunity to comment on each version that is being made. For example, in the preamble of version 8 the words “transparent” and “public input” appear; those words have been removed from the preamble in version 9. In the objects of the environmental impact assessment process, version 8 talks about ensuring accountability and transparency in the Environmental Protection Authority’s assessment; those are omitted in version 9. Most people would expect those to continue to be objectives of the EIA process. Those words do not appear anywhere in the chapters that deal with the principles that the minister referred us to earlier either. Some very important issues about transparency and accountability have now been removed from the administrative procedures. Do we have an opportunity to comment on those? No. That is why Hon Sally Talbot’s amendment should be supported. I just want to illustrate with one more example: on page 2, there is a reference to mitigation and it states —

Mitigation, in an environmental context, means a sequence of proposed actions designed to help manage adverse environmental impacts, and which includes (in order of preference):

1. avoidance – avoiding the adverse environmental impact altogether;

2. minimisation – limiting the degree or magnitude of the adverse impact;

3. rectification – repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted site as soon as possible;

4. reduction – gradually eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;

In version 8, there is a fifth action that has been omitted in version 9, and that is —

5. offsets – undertaking activities that counterbalance an adverse, residual environmental impact, after all other steps above have been exhausted.

I would think that actions for mitigation being reduced by one whole step is quite a significant change. Does the community get to have any input on that change—whether it is appropriate and whether the community supports it? No, because it is in administrative procedures. Does this Parliament get an opportunity to comment on whether that is appropriate? No, because this Parliament does not get to scrutinise the administrative procedures and this information is not included in regulations as it would normally be under other acts of Parliament.

Hon Donna Faragher: There is now a definition of “offsets”.

Hon ADELE FARINA: Yes there is a definition of “offsets” but it is not listed as an action step for mitigation. There is a very clear difference there —

Hon Donna Faragher: Read the definition.


Hon ADELE FARINA: The minister should read the definition that the EPA provided in the administrative procedures for mitigation. In version 8 there are five actions for mitigation, in version 9 there are four. The community does not get an opportunity to comment on that sort of stuff. That is why we need to support the amendment moved by Hon Sally Talbot to ensure that there is adequate review of administrative procedures and that this government and the EPA, through sleight of hand, do not go moving the environmental assessment process and changing it into something that we in this Parliament have no understanding of in passing these bills. I think what is happening is of great concern to the community. The minister may sit there ignoring this debate as much as she likes in the comfort of knowing that she has the numbers to pass this legislation through the house, but let me assure the minister that if she continues down this path she will be occupying and warming the seats on this side of the house very, very soon.

New clause put and a division taken with the following result —

Ayes (12)

Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Sue Ellery Hon Lynn MacLaren Hon Giz Watson Hon Helen Bullock Hon Adele Farina Hon Linda Savage Hon Alison Xamon Hon Robin Chapple Hon Jon Ford Hon Sally Talbot Hon Ed Dermer (Teller)

Noes (17)

Hon Liz Behjat Hon Phil Edman Hon Alyssa Hayden Hon Max Trenorden Hon Jim Chown Hon Brian Ellis Hon Col Holt Hon Nigel Hallett (Teller) Hon Peter Collier Hon Donna Faragher Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Mia Davies Hon Philip Gardiner Hon Michael Mischin Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Nick Goiran Hon Simon O’Brien

Pairs

Hon Kate Doust Hon Norman Moore Hon Ken Travers Hon Ken Baston Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Helen Morton

New clause thus negatived.

New clause 18 —

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I think Hon Giz Watson said that she would postpone debate on the amendment standing in her name on new clause 18 until we had debated two other alternatives, of which we have done only one. That being the case, I will move the amendment standing in my name, which is an amendment to section 123 to insert a new subsection (5). I will explain my reasons for moving this amendment and, in an anticipatory sense, thank the Greens (WA) for their support for this amendment. I move —


18. Section 123 amended

After section 123(4) insert:

(5) Regulations made under section 123 of the Environmental Protection Act will stipulate —

(a) minimum periods for public consultation;

(b) measures to ensure adequate information is made available to make consultation about environmental impact assessment processes efficient and transparent; and

(c) measures to ensure the EPA’s treatment of public comment on its decision making is open, transparent and accountable.

As Hon Giz Watson noted when she was speaking to the amendment that has been postponed, the committee considered the whole business of the delegation of administrative power to be so serious that it devoted an entire chapter, chapter 6, to the question. Chapter 6 is entitled “Appropriate Review and Delegation of Administrative Power: Principles and Evidence”. Those who are familiar with the report will recognise that the amendment in my name that we are now considering is a very slight reworking of recommendation 10 of the committee’s report. We get to look at recommendation 10 only if the government fails to respond to recommendation 9, because recommendation 9 was the one that asked the minister to provide an account of what the government is proposing in the context of delegating its administrative power to administrative procedures. That, in our view, has not been adequately addressed and we therefore move to recommendation 10.

Throughout this entire debate, all my comments about new section 18 must be seen in the context that the Labor Party believes that the existing sections 122 and 123 have served us well up to this point, and that there is great


benefit to be gained for the whole environmental impact assessment process by having a set of administrative procedures that are a little more flexible and responsive than regulations that are essentially disallowable instruments. That is why this has now become a three-stage argument, and we are now at the middle stage. I thought—it was gratifying to hear colleagues on this side of the house agree with me—that this was the best way to allow the government to proceed with what it is proposing to do and, in a sense, to take the government at face value, give it the benefit of the doubt and do all we can do to say, “Okay, if you think that this bill will result in improvements to the system, then show us it will do that.” Earlier on, I suggested that that could have been done without legislative amendments but with a set of new administrative procedures. If the government had agreed at that stage, we probably would not be here today.

We then go through a series of what are, frankly, for me and other members of the Labor Party, compromises. The amendment standing in my name and the amendment that was just defeated are compromises; most people in the Labor Party would prefer to leave sections 122 and 123 exactly as they are. The problem is that the government seems to be only increasing the momentum with which it is running away from an adequate explanation of how transparency, openness and clarity are going to be preserved in the process of assessment and appeal. That being the case, we are offering a series of compromises. I think that the government has already bypassed the opportunity to accept the compromise that would have required the least amount of concession from it. If I had been in the government’s position, the first offer I would have accepted would have been the offer to give the new administrative procedures a short trial period to see whether the government’s assessment that they would improve the process proved to be the correct assessment. The government rejected that. We just considered an amendment to keep the administrative procedures essentially as they are, but to make them disallowable instruments. I still cannot explain why the government did not accept that compromise. The government was not able to tell me what difference it would make to the operations of the EPA.

Once again, in the same spirit of wanting to work towards a better system, I offer the government the chance to accept a compromise on the part of the Labor Party—we would prefer to not move this amendment—that would see at least the very points that the government has conceded that are central to the integrity of the appeals process enshrined in regulation, rather than simply in administrative procedures, which never get near the Parliament and which we, as elected representatives of the community, are never allowed to pass an opinion on. It is simply unacceptable to have that circumstance brought about in a situation in which important, valued and effective appeal points are being removed. I ask the minister to please consider the measures contained in proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of my amendment, which simply enshrine in legislation three fundamental principles. Can the minister tell me when she would want to amend these principles? Can she tell me when she would be sitting at her desk in Dumas House, saying, “Oh, it’s such a shame we can’t make these fantastic improvements to the system because I’ve got to go through the arduous process of changing a regulation”? When, in terms of paragraph (a), might that ever be the case? It refers to regulating for minimum periods of public consultation. The government should at least stipulate a minimum period for public consultation. As the debate has gone on, recurring concern has been expressed by everybody who is not a member of the government that we are effectively truncating the period in which people will have the opportunity to submit appeals. By regulating for a minimum period of public consultation, we would safeguard against the suspicion that that period is being cut.

The minister should give me a concrete example of an occasion in which she might want to change the regulation relating to paragraph (b) of my amendment, the requirement for regulations to stipulate measures to ensure adequate information is made available and to make consultation about environmental impact assessment processes effective and transparent. I defy the minister to give me a broader set of terms in which to express that set of principles. If she is going to respond to me and say that “adequate” is not a defined term and she is not willing to look at regulations that are couched in such generalities, maybe that is a debate that we could have, but I am deliberately leaving these terms as open as I possibly can. I am interested in enshrining principles. The minister used the term “principles” when talking about the core of the administrative procedures document. I completely lost the coherence of the argument that says because there are a set of principles, they cannot be enshrined in regulation. She might like to come back to that and point out what I have misunderstood.

The whole point of regulations is that they leave room for interpretation. That interpretation can be challenged. Were the government to agree to this amendment and we had a set of regulations that enshrined these principles, there may be an occasion when a disallowance motion comes to the house on the basis that inadequate information has been made available or, to look at the second part of paragraph (b), consultation processes are not effective and transparent. Again, “effective” is a fundamentally subjective term. One person’s idea of whether a process is effective can be quite different from another’s. This is how we work in this place. We lay down structures, boundaries and guidelines and we talk about principles and then we move out of this estate to make sure that those principles are put into effective practice. That is what we do in this place. That is what the community expects us to do. Yet that is precisely what the government is trying to deny all elected members of this place the chance of doing. I ask the minister to look at paragraph (c) of my amendment, which states —


measures to ensure the EPA’s treatment of public comment on its decision making is open, transparent and accountable.

When will the minister want to amend that if it was set out in a regulatory form? When will she want to put up a change to a regulation that just talks in those broadest possible parameters? Again, I say to the minister that if she is in any doubt—she has pointed out to the chamber on a couple of occasions, as recently as today, that she is not a member of the board of the EPA or of the authority and she has even said that she does not know how it operates because she does not sit in on its meetings—she should please seek leave to report progress and adjourn the house for 10 minutes. Ten minutes later we will be back here. In the meantime, she would have spoken to people at the EPA to ask them whether this amendment will in any way restrict its processes or inhibit the effectiveness with which it has been operating until this point.

I put this amendment to the chamber in the spirit of compromise. My mother always used to caution against compromise. She always said that if we compromise, nobody is happy. In this particular circumstance, I think that this amendment will give us a set of regulations that we can live with, at least in an interim sense. A month or two down the track we can start collecting empirical evidence of the effect that her changes are having. We can come back to this chamber and debate this topic in some way, shape or form. This is perhaps a way forward. I ask the minister to give it her support.

[Quorum formed.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I remind members who are present—I will remind Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich when she returns—that when the bells are rung, members cannot leave the chamber. It is pointless calling for a quorum if members leave. The minister has the call.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. It is good to have an audience again.

The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by Hon Sally Talbot for the following reason. Section 123(1)(a) of the act, relating to regulations, states —

Prescribing all matters that are required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed, or are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for giving effect to the purposes of this Act;

If this amendment was to pass, the stipulations proposed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would apply to all regulations under section 123, not just the EPA’s administrative procedures. I would argue that that would make no sense in the light of the very diverse purposes for which regulations may be made, whether they relate to standards for ambient air and emission concentration, fees and those sorts of things. I refer the member to clause 22 of schedule 2, which states —

Prescribing types of plates, labels and other markings and the information to be contained thereon or therein.

Clause 21 states —

Requiring any equipment or the packaging thereof to be fitted or marked with a plate, label or other marking and prescribing the manner in which the plate, label or other marking is to be fitted or marked.

They are a couple of examples under which regulations may be made. If this amendment was agreed to by the chamber, it would mean that each of these potential regulations would have to go through minimum periods of public consultation, with adequate information being given. I am not quite sure how requiring any equipment or packaging to be fitted or marked with a plate requires that. I hear what the member is saying but the ramifications of such an amendment would be significant for many of the regulations that may be made under this act.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is a standard part of any bill, or indeed any act, that what is subject to regulation is specified in the act.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: It is schedule 2. I was reading out of schedule 2.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: My amendment says that regulations made under section 123 of the EPA act will stipulate (a), (b) and (c).

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Does the member expect there to be a minimum period of public consultation with respect to requiring any equipment or the packaging thereof to be fitted or marked with a plate, label or other marking?

Hon Adele Farina: Why is that difficult?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Is the member saying there should be public consultation on that?

Hon Adele Farina: Why not?


Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is not incumbent on the minister to try to second-guess what is important to people. This is the nub of the problem. The government is arrogant in thinking that, because it feels a certain way about something, that is the right view. We heard the sneering in the minister’s voice.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I am not. I just read the words in the bill out to the chamber and outlined the problem of accepting an amendment such as that moved by the honourable member. The only sneering that happens is on her side.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Are members opposite having a sneering competition?

Hon Simon O’Brien: This is getting ridiculous. Let’s get on with it.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: My amendment talks about regulating for three specific circumstances relating to the appeals process. It canvasses some regulations on the issue of public consultation and of effectiveness and transparency, openness and accountability. Some regulations may relate to something that the minister considers to be quite trivial. But how can that argument possibly relate to these matters of openness and transparency that are canvassed in this amendment?

Hon ADELE FARINA: I apologise; just before we move away from new clause 18, I want to point out to the minister that, prior to the break, she undertook to provide a copy of the “Environmental Impact Assessments (Part iv Division 1): Administrative Procedures 2002”. She has not done so.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I apologise. We were getting the other one and we did not get that but we will get it to the member.

Hon ADELE FARINA: Thank you. Page 1 of the administrative procedures refers people who read this document to the environmental assessment guidelines. Are they also undergoing a review? If so, can the minister inform the chamber at what stage that is at?

Hon Simon O’Brien: What does that have to do with this clause?

Hon ADELE FARINA: This relates to part of this clause. It deals with how we go about making administrative procedures and regulations.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: There are a series of guidelines for a range of purposes. I understand they are amended from time to time. That is a normal process, but I cannot tell the member which ones are being amended.

New clause put and negatived.

Postponed new clause 18 —

The clause was postponed at an earlier stage of the sitting after it had been partly considered.

Hon GIZ WATSON: We are essentially arguing the same matter, so I do not intend to continue at length.


Hon GIZ WATSON: Yes. When we started debate on this new clause last night I think the minister’s response was that if we deleted section 122, the EPA would not have the power to make administrative procedures. However, subsection (3) of section 123, “Regulations”, reads in part —

(a) adopt, either wholly or in part or with modifications and either specifically or by reference, any rules, standards, regulations, local laws, by-laws, codes, instructions, specifications or administrative procedures prescribed or published by any person or public authority, including the Authority and the CEO, either as in force at the time of prescription or publication or as amended from time to time thereafter;

The minister can correct me if I am wrong but I suggest that means that the regulations can deal with matters of administrative procedure.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Section 123(3)(a) refers to “adopt”. It is the ability to adopt rather than the ability to make.

Hon Adele Farina: What is the difference?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: We can adopt procedures but the power to make them would be removed. I understand that is the reason for the difference.

Hon GIZ WATSON: Neither of us is lawyers, but maybe that helps; I do not know. I suggest that there is an implication that if something is being adopted, it does not prevent one from making it. I considered that by deleting section 122, the EPA would be left without the capacity to deal with administrative procedures. The way I am reading section 123, that can still be done. Section 123(1) reads —

The Governor may make regulations —


(a) prescribing all matters that are required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed, or are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for giving effect to the purposes of this Act.

I would have thought that that, in itself, included any administrative procedures. I wanted to respond to the suggestion that that would leave the EPA without the capacity to create administrative procedures and deal with them by way of regulation, because I think the act will still enable that provision under section 123. Having said that, I ask again for the support of the chamber to delete section 122. That will ensure that the administrative procedures are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That is in effect what we are trying to achieve. We have debated this for some time and I think this amendment will achieve that.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: This now brings, I suppose, last night’s debate to a conclusion. I do appreciate the effort that members on my side of the chamber, including Hon Giz Watson, have put into trying to avoid the moment when we had to look at deleting section 122. I rise to indicate that Labor will be supporting the amendment. However, we do so with enormous reluctance. We believe there is a better way of doing it. Unfortunately, the government has simply used its raw numbers in this chamber to frustrate our attempts to come up with what would genuinely have been a better outcome. There is a better way. As I have now said three or four times today, section 122 has served us well. Had we not had the facility to put in place administrative procedures that, as I said earlier, are able to take account of technological changes and are able to respond swiftly to new information—all the sorts of things that environmental activists know are crucial to achieving good environmental outcomes—this state would be in a poorer place. However, this government is obviously intent on ramming through these changes, which effectively, as Hon Giz Watson has summarised extremely eloquently, will remove from this chamber the possibility of scrutinising these important safeguards and attempts to change or reduce or dismantle these safeguards. Therefore, it is without any pleasure at all that I indicate that the Labor Party will be supporting this amendment.

New clause put and a division taken, the Deputy Chairman (Hon Jon Ford) casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result —

Ayes (12)

Hon Robin Chapple Hon Adele Farina Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Giz Watson Hon Kate Doust Hon Jon Ford Hon Linda Savage Hon Alison Xamon Hon Sue Ellery Hon Lynn MacLaren Hon Sally Talbot Hon Ed Dermer (Teller)

Noes (15)

Hon Liz Behjat Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Nick Goiran Hon Michael Mischin Hon Jim Chown Hon Phil Edman Hon Alyssa Hayden Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Peter Collier Hon Brian Ellis Hon Col Holt Hon Nigel Hallett (Teller) Hon Mia Davies Hon Donna Faragher Hon Robyn McSweeney

Pairs

Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Norman Moore Hon Ken Travers Hon Ken Baston Hon Helen Bullock Hon Helen Morton

New clause thus negatived.

New part 4 —



Part 4 — Review of Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Act 2010

18. Review of Act

(1) The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Legislation is to carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Act 2010 to commence on 1 September 2012 for report within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(2) The Standing Committee is to prepare a report based on the review and, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared, is to cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.

I do not think this amendment is controversial. If the government is right, and the transparency and timeliness of the appeals processes under the EP act will be improved, the government will have nothing to fear from a review. Indeed, honourable members will know that the EP act itself contains a review provision. That review was clearly carried out at the appointed time; I cannot find it now, and it does not matter. So, the insertion of a


review period in an act is not something that can be considered controversial. One of the reasons that I am optimistic that the government will support this amendment is that consideration of this issue again in two years would provide the opportunity for the community to engage with some of the key points and some of the key principles that the government has put forward in presenting this bill to the chamber. Two years seems to me to be an appropriate period in which we could do a number of different things. I cannot see that any of these things would be in any way threatening, or undermining or remotely distasteful or compromising, to the government’s agenda. As honourable members will see, I have suggested that this review be carried out by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Legislation. That is a fantastically effective committee and has been now for many, many Parliaments. It was the committee that I chose to go on when I joined this place, because it is the committee that gets a chance to do two things, one of which is to look at contentious legislation. I know that Hon Adele Farina is very fond of her committee too, because we all have a sense of ownership over our own committees. However, I think that the Standing Committee on Legislation is particularly well placed to do a review of this kind, because it has not only established its credentials as being a very effective way of both considering contentious legislation and bringing it back to this chamber in a form that is almost always improved—I think every member would agree—but also undertaken several significant reviews of legislation in the past, the most recent of which we were debating the other day in this place, which was the review of the State Administrative Tribunal legislation. I am very pleased to have moved this amendment to insert the provision for a review in two years’ time.

As I said, I have couched this amendment in pretty broad terms. What I anticipate happening, without in any way second-guessing the way the committee chooses to proceed at that time, is that the normal practice would be for the committee to advertise for submissions. Therefore, we could test some of the assumptions made in this very substantial report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review.

Hon Adele Farina: They were not assumptions; they were findings.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am sorry. Hon Adele Farina quite rightly corrects my use of the term “assumptions” because all the recommendations and findings in this report are indeed based on evidence. It would be interesting to come back and test that evidence after two years of operating the new system. I think also—I would be prepared to go out and advocate to this effect—that many of the people who are expressing grave concerns about what is going to happen once this legislation is enabled would be given some comfort by the fact that in two years’ time there would be an extensive and comprehensive review. I put it to the government, through the minister, that there is no reason not to accept this amendment. It is not controversial. It is not a trap. It is simply a way that the community and third party stakeholders, whether they are proponents or environmental activists, can be assured that at a certain point in time they will able to have their say once more about the changes being made in this legislation.

Of course, the other very important thing about this amendment and why inevitably I have raised it at the end of debate is because that is where it sits in the structure of the bill, but there is another sense as well in which it was more appropriate to raise it now than at the beginning of debate. I hope I have managed to make it clear, and other members of the Labor Party and certainly the Greens have made it clear, how deep-seated are our objections and fears about the effect of this bill. Accepting this amendment effectively enables the government to keep control of the political agenda, because as we all know this report will be laid before each house of the Parliament where it will eventually come up for debate. Who knows, in two years’ time we might have a new set of standing orders that requires reports to be debated in a more timely fashion than they are now. The report would come up for debate in the normal course of the parliamentary program and the government would be able to keep control of the agenda and what happens to that report. So there is no way that this amendment will force the government into any position that it does not want to adopt, but it will enable the community and interested third parties to have a sense that they are going to be invited to re-engage with the process in a couple of years’ time. At that stage, advice and expert opinion can be called from whomever it is felt appropriate.

The final point I want to make about the legislation committee is that it has been the custom and practice of this place for the government parties to have the majority on that committee. Although, of course, we always have to plan for the possibility of having minority reports, essentially it is not a dangerous way for the government to proceed. As certain as we can possibly be about these things, it is likely that if this amendment is accepted, when this referral comes about in September 2012, the referral will be to a committee on which the government has the numbers. I commend the amendment to the chamber and ask for the support of honourable members.

Hon LIZ BEHJAT: As a member of the committee that provided this original report, I thought I would stand and read a few chapters this afternoon because I have not said anything in the debate! That woke members up! Baby Faragher will be on its way very soon! Let us leave aside the frivolity and be serious for a moment.

I am not sure what the government’s response will be to this amendment, but I would like to ask the mover of the amendment whether it would perhaps be more effective if any review was done, that it be by the committee that originally looked at the bill, given the fact that many hours, days, nights and weekends went into this report.


Also, given Hon Sally Talbot’s comment about the government’s having the majority on the legislation committee, as the member knows, the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review has an even number of members from each side and therefore the member might get a more even-handed review of anything that was to be done. I suggest that perhaps it be the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review that undertakes any review of the act, rather than the legislation committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Is Hon Liz Behjat indicating an amendment to the proposed amendment or is she just making a comment?

Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I can move an amendment to that.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have been inundated with offers here. Hon Kate Doust has put in a pitch for the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs! I made the observation just now that we all have a particular allegiance to our own committees, and I think the legislation committee would do a damn fine job! However, there is a strong argument, which I accept, that the same committee that prepared this extensive report should be able to take up the review in two years’ time. Does that mean that the amendment is now moved by Hon Liz Behjat?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The member has not moved an amendment; she was just passing comment.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: In that case I am happy to change the wording of new part 4.

New part, by leave, withdrawn.



Part 4 — Review of Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Act 2010

18. Review of Act

(1) The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review is to carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Act 2010 to commence on 1 September 2012 for report within 6 months of the commencement of the review.


I thought I would say a couple of words before the minister responds. In this new spirit of the sun shining in, I am happy to welcome another ally from the other side to join Hon Peter Collier. There are now three of us working together on this matter.

Seriously, the proposed amendment is a very sensible and constructive one; that is, to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. It gives me one final opportunity to say that this is actually a very, very good report. It was constructive in this debate at least in formulating the arguments that needed to be addressed in a way that I have seen very few reports play out over the past few years. In that regard, I am very happy to move this amended amendment that now stands in my name.

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: The government will oppose the amendment.

Hon Kate Doust: We thought the minister might support it given that one of her colleagues suggested it!

Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I know it is getting late in the day.

The government believes that this amendment is not necessary. I note the practice of successive governments has been not to provide for a review of amendments to the Environmental Protection Act through a legislative requirement. We do not believe this is a necessary requirement. As I have said consistently throughout this debate, we believe this bill simply removes duplicative and unnecessary appeal points within the act. I do not believe, and the government does not believe, that it is necessary to review the act within two years as suggested.

Hon GIZ WATSON: I stand to say that the Greens (WA) support the proposed amendments. I heard the minister’s response. We do not automatically put review provisions in every piece of legislation that passes through this place. This bill has had sufficient concerns raised around it that a review of it would be a good safeguard. It means also that the Parliament will have another opportunity to actively investigate what effect the changes have had, whether they have been detrimental to environmental outcomes and whether they have reduced public participation. All those things could be assessed by way of a formal review. In light of that, we are happy to support this amendment. My proposed amended amendment was going to be “a standing committee of the house”; but that is fine. If the uniform legislation committee is keen to put its hand up, that is fine. The Greens think it is a good amendment and will support it.


Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I can get as misty-eyed through nostalgia as anyone. I think some members in the chamber are yearning for a past era in the previous Parliament when the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review was a great instrument of this house. It bristled with talent; the chairman was particularly good! Hon Donna Faragher and Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm were on it. I am sure it is still a very good committee.

There are a couple of things that need to be considered before we proceed to vote down this ill-considered amendment. Firstly, this sort of review is not the business of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review as envisaged by the standing orders of our house. Although there is capacity, in effect, to refer anything to any committee if the house, in its absolute discretion, chooses, it is still not appropriate to refer matters to, in effect, an inappropriate committee. Following that theme, it would be singularly inappropriate for this chamber to contemplate putting into legislation a provision of this type even if one allowed for the matter that I have just mentioned.

This house of Parliament is the controller of its own destiny in relation to its standing committees. In its own wisdom it decides, through its standing orders and through its own votes as carried out by the Legislative Council of the day, what its committees will do. I do not think we should be recording in a proposed act that a future standing committee of this house of Parliament will undertake an inquiry into any particular thing. That might well be at variance with a view that might be formed by this house in due course. If the honourable member wants to move that a particular committee she is referring to will undertake reviews into legislation—whether it be legislation generally, bills, or acts that are in force from time to time—that is something that needs to be addressed through the standing orders of the house. With respect, amusing as it has been in places, this debate has probably gone on long enough and we should not entertain any longer a review mechanism that automatically involves a prescriptive reference to a standing committee created by the house that may or may not endure in the future. We should not entertain further a proposed provision for a bill that seeks to bind this house specifically about matters in the future. This is not the sort of legislation that invites us to take that course of action.

Hon GIZ WATSON: In the State Administrative Tribunal Bill I recall there was a provision for review. The only difference is it did not specify which standing committee but it specified “a standing committee of the Legislative Council”. I have some sympathy with what the minister has said—I think that is probably accurate—but the way to get around that is to move the amendment I was contemplating to simply specify “a standing committee of the Legislative Council”.

Hon Simon O’Brien: I believe you are technically correct —

Hon Adele Farina: It is actually correct!

Hon GIZ WATSON: I will just take “correct”!

Hon Simon O’Brien: I just like adjectives, all right!

Hon GIZ WATSON: There is a precedent in that particular bill that passed through this place. When I was on the Standing Committee on Legislation, the debate that was had in this place was which committee the bill would be referred to. It went to the legislation committee because, by the same argument, it was the committee that had originally reviewed the bill. I guess that is Hon Liz Behjat’s argument. If we want to leave this option open and make it doable, I suggest an amendment be made to the amendment to make it a standing committee of the Legislative Council rather than any specified standing committee.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Obviously, the class of 1997 is showing the way here! Hon Giz Watson has made some good points with which I concur. However, I also offer the following view that builds on those points. It is the prerogative of this place, by direction to any of its standing committees in its discretion, and, indeed, the prerogative of probably more than one of our standing committees, by its own motion, to embark on a review of any piece of legislation and its operation in the future. That applies to this bill as well. That tends to make the proposed amendment before us redundant rather than necessary. I am sure that the minister at the table heartily concurs with my view that the government respects the right of this place, through its committees or any other mechanism, to review legislation at any time. By being prescriptive with this amendment and by trying to put the amendment into the legislation, members are arguably restricting the future capacity of this place; they will certainly not enhance it. By purporting to set some sort of precedent of this type, does that mean that other acts that are passed from time to time without such an amendment as this are not as available for review by a standing committee? Again, it is an interesting discussion, but one that has run its course for today.


Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I am glad I have inspired members opposite.

Hon Adele Farina: You have energised us!


Hon SALLY TALBOT: I appreciate the assistance that has been provided by members of the Liberal Party in framing this amendment in a more acceptable way. I accept that it is appropriate to move it in my name. I accept a further amendment to my amendment so that it simply reads “A Legislative Council Standing Committee is to carry out”. I do not, however, accept the second part of Hon Simon O’Brien’s argument about limiting the power of this place or any individual committee to carry out a review by self-referral. The reality is that the committees that do have the power to self-refer may well choose to do that and may well choose to carry out a review of these amendments in six or 12 months. If it gets to the two-year period, those committees will take into consideration the fact that there will be a review by a Legislative Council standing committee. I also point out to Hon Simon O’Brien that there are plenty of precedents for such a clause in a bill. The one to which I have already referred is the State Administrative Tribunal Act, which contains a referral to a Legislative Council committee.

Hon Simon O’Brien: But if you don’t have a clause like this, what does that mean?

Hon SALLY TALBOT: What it means is that the chamber has been prepared to put in place a formal review that will happen because it is enshrined in legislation, rather than to wait and see whether a committee will self-refer.

Hon Simon O’Brien: Who’s going to compel the house to do that, pray tell? Will the house be fined or sent to prison if it does not do it?

Hon SALLY TALBOT: If it is in the act, it becomes a legislated provision, as the member well knows.

Hon Simon O’Brien: As I well know, the Parliament is supreme. The member has not thought this through and does not know what she is talking about.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: With diminishing respect, it is Hon Simon O’Brien who does not know what he is talking about. He is proving once again that thought bubbles should be left at the door of the chamber.

Hon Simon O’Brien: You’re the one scratching out on-the-go amendments that do not appear on the supplementary notice paper.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Hon Simon O’Brien has been paying close attention to this debate. I have seen him walk in and out of the chamber a few times over the past couple of days. He will know that, far from scratching out amendments as I walk into this place, the amendment we are now debating was circulated on the supplementary notice paper.

Hon Simon O’Brien: The last one wasn’t.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: No. Was Hon Simon O’Brien here this morning? Shortly around 11.30 this morning I provided the chamber with an explanation about why Hon Giz Watson and I were suggesting that we proceed in a certain direction. When Hon Giz Watson and I came to consider her amendment to insert new clause 18, we spent a considerable amount of time between the house getting up last night and sitting this morning working out a couple of alternative ways forward. I was very happy with the cooperation and willingness that everyone on this side of the chamber showed to engage in this issue. That includes my colleagues from the other place. Hon Simon O’Brien has not been paying as much attention as I thought; otherwise, he would not be making such ridiculous observations. There are plenty of precedents for stipulating that a measure will be subject to review. There are plenty of precedents for suggesting that it will be subject to a review by a standing committee of the Legislative Council.

New part, by leave, withdrawn.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Therefore, I move —


Part 4 — Review of Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Act 2010 18. Review of Act

(1) A Legislative Council Standing Committee is to carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Act 2010 to commence on 1 September 2012 for report within 6 months of the commencement of the review.


I have written that amendment on the supplementary notice paper to prove the point that it was not scratched out on the run. It is a fully considered proposal. If we reach 1 September 2012 and there is a resistance by this


chamber to put that referral into effect, I promise Hon Simon O’Brien that I would be very happy to postpone debate on that particular point.

Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I do not know whether this is relevant. The date to which the member referred, 1 September 2012, is a Saturday. Does that matter? Does a review have to take place on a business day or can it happen on a weekend?

Several members interjected.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Jon Ford): Members, we can either descend into a rabble or conduct ourselves in good order.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I was not proposing to speak on this amendment because I thought the need for it was self-evident. The government is going to oppose it; I do not know what the government is running scared of. If it is so sure about what it is doing, one would think that it would welcome a review that would establish that the government had taken the right action, that there had been no detrimental impact as a result of these amendments and that, in fact, the approval process times had been greatly condensed as a result of the great measures that we are being asked to pass today. Why the government would run away from that opportunity is beyond my understanding. When members opposite were sitting on this side of the chamber, they frequently moved amendments to legislation requiring reviews to be undertaken. It was a frequent occurrence. Now they are sitting on the government benches, they all of a sudden have a different view about it. I found the circular argument advanced by Hon Simon O’Brien very entertaining, but I think I need to perhaps make a few corrections. Hon Simon O’Brien was very concerned about whether the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review in fact had the power to review the act in the event that it was referred to the committee. I draw to the member’s attention that the committee has the power to consider and report on any matter referred by the house.

Hon Simon O’Brien: That’s precisely what I said.

Hon ADELE FARINA: The member questioned it first. The reality is that this house is master of its own destiny and has the capacity to decide anything it so wants in terms of the future operations of this house. It is quite appropriate for this chamber to determine that there should be a review of this legislation in two years.

Hon Simon O’Brien: That’s what I said.

Hon ADELE FARINA: Is the member now supporting the amendment?

Hon Simon O’Brien: No, because the amendment is contrary to that. Perhaps when the member has a bit more experience, she will understand how the house works.

Hon ADELE FARINA: I do not see how the member can say that he made the same argument that I am now making, but that it is contrary to the powers that the house has to make those provisions. His argument was circular and entertaining, but it went nowhere. The bottom line is that the house has the power to make this provision and incorporate it as part of the bill. It has done so on numerous occasions, and I think the slight change to the amendment proposed by Hon Sally Talbot to change it to a standing committee of the house deals with some of the concerns raised by the member about whether a committee will be in existence at that point. It would simply refer it to a standing committee and the house could determine, at an appropriate time, which committee that should be. It is not an unreasonable provision to have in legislation; we have it in a number of acts. As I said, I do not know what the government is running scared of. Why would it decline to support a review provision if it is not running scared?

Hon Simon O’Brien: This is the third version of this proposal that we have had before us, because the others were wrong.

Hon ADELE FARINA: What difference does that make? I understand why Hon Simon O’Brien might be having difficulty with this, because time and again, ministers of this government refused to listen to any submissions put to them that might actually improve legislation that is before this chamber, and they simply rely on their numbers to push legislation through, regardless of whether it is good legislation. On this side of the chamber, we engage in debate, we listen, and if there are suggestions that actually improve a bill or a proposed amendment, we are happy to take them on board. I understand why Hon Simon O’Brien might have difficulties comprehending the concept of listening and responding accordingly, because it is something that he struggles to do, but on this side of the chamber we do not have a problem with that. I do not know why he is seeking to make a point about slight changes to an amendment. It is clearly not made on the run, it is well considered and it is already in other legislation. The issue is: what is the state government scared of? Why is it running away from a review of this legislation in two years? It is extraordinary. If this side of the chamber needed any indication that the government does not have confidence in what it is doing, it is this example of the government refusing to support a review provision. Only a government that is scared of review and refuses to be open, transparent and accountable would refuse. That is what the government promised the people of Western Australia, and to a much higher level than under the previous government, yet every time this government is put to the test to be open,


transparent and accountable, it takes a hike and forgets the election commitment that it made to the people of Western Australia that it would be open, transparent and accountable and that it would raise the bar. Members on that side of the chamber make promises and then forget about them. They are not people of their word; one election commitment after another has been broken, and this is another one. Members opposite promised to be open, accountable and transparent. We are seeking to put an amendment in the bill that will provide for open, transparent and accountable government, and this government is refusing to support it because it does not support open, transparent and accountable government.

New part put and a division taken, the Deputy Chairman (Hon Jon Ford) casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result —

Ayes (12)

Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Adele Farina Hon Linda Savage Hon Giz Watson Hon Robin Chapple Hon Jon Ford Hon Sally Talbot Hon Alison Xamon Hon Sue Ellery Hon Lynn MacLaren Hon Ken Travers Hon Ed Dermer (Teller)

Noes (17)

Hon Liz Behjat Hon Phil Edman Hon Alyssa Hayden Hon Max Trenorden Hon Jim Chown Hon Brian Ellis Hon Col Holt Hon Nigel Hallett (Teller) Hon Peter Collier Hon Donna Faragher Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Mia Davies Hon Philip Gardiner Hon Michael Mischin Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Nick Goiran Hon Simon O’Brien

Pairs Hon Kate Doust Hon Ken Baston Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Norman Moore Hon Helen Bullock Hon Helen Morton

New part thus negatived.

Title put and passed.

Bill reported, with amendments.

CANNABIS LAW REFORM BILL 2009

Second Reading

Resumed from 17 August.

HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.04 pm]: After that extended debate on the Approvals and Related Reforms (No. 1) (Environment) Bill 2009, we should all get up and do one of those training exercises where we stretch.

I am pleased to be able to comment on the Cannabis Law Reform Bill 2009 on behalf of the opposition and indicate that I am the lead speaker. Unfortunately, I note that I will have disjointed efforts at delivering this speech given the time of day and the state of play for the rest of the afternoon. This bill seeks to amend a number of bills. It seeks to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, the Spent Convictions Act 1988 and the Young Offenders Act 1994, and repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003. I understand from some amendments that were flagged by the advisers earlier this week that the minister will also be seeking to amend the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. Some quite substantial changes are being proposed in this legislation. I thought that I might take some time to go through the background to this bill and the opposition’s position on this bill.

This legislation has arisen as a result of the Liberal Party’s pre-election commitment, which the Minister for Energy outlined in his second reading speech. I thought it would be useful to go over the key planks that were outlined in the government’s election commitment to remind members in the chamber of what they were. As set out in the second reading speech, they were to: repeal Labor’s cannabis legislation, the Cannabis Control Act 2003, and reinstate the one-time cautioning system for possession only; introduce a new limit for possession of 10 grams of cannabis or less, down from the 30 grams allowed under Labor; require first-time offenders, juvenile and adult, found in possession of 10 grams of cannabis or less to attend a mandatory cannabis education program; prosecute subsequent possession offences; prosecute as criminal offences all cultivation offences; impose harsher sentences on dealers who sell or supply illegal drugs to children; provide offences for exposing children to harm from the manufacture of illegal drugs or cultivation of plants; and ban the sale of drug-use paraphernalia. Those were the Liberal Party’s guiding principles before getting into government. This was one of its election commitments as part of its 100-day plan. We are now two years down the track and we finally have this bill in front of us. We have seen a number of examples from this government in which proposals from its 100-day plan obviously took a lot longer to deliver than our proposals would have. Those are the guiding principles of the Liberal Party under this legislation.


The document that the Liberal Party put out and the Premier’s comments in the media refer to the opposition as being soft on crime. That was one of the reasons why it has sought to repeal the legislation that dealt with cannabis and to put this legislation in its place. I read some of the debate that occurred on the cannabis legislation in 2003–04. The decisions that were made at that time by the then Labor government were quite important and interesting. As my colleague Hon Linda Savage reminded me, part of the reason for putting that legislation in place is that it dealt with people who were not necessarily criminals—people who were not necessarily conducting themselves in criminal activities but who were perhaps ignorant of both the social and medical impacts of the drugs that they were using. The legislation was a way of unclogging the legal system that had to deal with all these people who were being picked up for using small amounts of cannabis.

The other comment that Hon Linda Savage made that I thought was very interesting is that part of the issue at the time and part of the issue that we now have to deal with is that because a lot of cannabis is grown hydroponically, it is a much stronger drug than it was when people used it back in the 1970s or 1980s. For some reason, it has a greater impact on people. Having flicked through a range of reports, I note they talk about the increase in cases of psychosis among people using cannabis. The Labor Party does not have any in-principle opposition at all to this legislation. In fact, prior to the change in government, the Labor government had conducted a statutory review of the Cannabis Control Act 2003. That review made a range of recommendations and the Labor government had proceeded to draft amendments to the legislation to comply with those recommendations. Unfortunately, given an election and the passage of time, we did not get to that point. This legislation, which repeals that act, has picked up on a number of the recommendations. I will go through the recommendations in detail so that members are aware of them.

The bill we are dealing with today goes a little further in limiting the amounts of cannabis people can use, and the time the infringement notice comes into place differs, as do the types of counselling that will be offered. I was going to say that I think everyone in this room, regardless of where they line up politically, has a concern about the increased access in our community to illicit drugs. I think we all share the concern about the implications for people who use those drugs in terms of behavioural changes and impacts upon their living and working arrangements. Everyone, of course, wants to do whatever they can to try to reduce illicit drug use. Having legislation in place that establishes parameters can be very useful, but it is not the only measure that can or should be used. I think a lot of other things can be done to try to encourage people to not go down the path of needing to use illicit drugs. One of those pathways, of course, is education. That was a very important element of the former Labor government’s legislation. Rather than trying to force people to the line, it was used to actively encourage people to be educated so that they could understand the implications for themselves and others if they chose to continue to use cannabis on either the odd occasion or in a larger dosage.

It has been a very interesting process. I note that there has been quite a lot of commentary about this in the media. I picked up a number of newspaper articles in which a range of specialists in this area, both psychiatrists and medical doctors, have given their views on the use of cannabis in our community and on the proposed legislation. Dr Paul Skerritt is a psychiatrist, and was spokesman for the Australian Medical Association at the time he made those comments. He was reported in The West Australian of 25 March 2009 as referring to this proposed legislation and to the medical evidence showing that cannabis is harmful to both the individual and the community, as follows —

But it is now urging that the crackdown announced by the State Government focus primarily on education and treatment rather than punitive measures.

Dr Skerritt said taking the “tough approach”, which appealed to the Liberals and Nationals, was not necessarily the best way of limiting cannabis consumption. In fact, it could prove to be counter-productive. “Sending people to jail is not going to help,” he said. “There are too many people in jail already. And prison is a very expensive way of making almost every problem worse. Drugs are readily available in prisons and it is not a good solution to drug problems.

“Instead, we need to have better treatment facilities for those who are seriously affected and better educational facilities for the others.

That is a very valid point. On top of whatever else the government is doing, resourcing those types of facilities and ensuring there are education processes are essential. They must be ongoing.

I think I commented last time when I had the opportunity to speak on cannabis legislation—I think my children were several years younger—about my concern as a parent and how, as we watch them grow up and they become more social, we do not necessarily have the same level of control over their activities.

Debate interrupted, pursuant to temporary orders.

[Continued on page 6258.]

Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm


QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

RETIREMENT VILLAGES ACT 1992 — REVIEW

623. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Commerce:

I refer to the review of the Retirement Villages Act 1992, which began in 2006, and which was the subject of an issues paper released in July 2007, and was further the subject of a report by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee in June 2008.

(1) What is delaying the release of the review into the act?

(2) When will the review of the act be completed and legislative changes introduced to provide greater protection to residents of retirement villages?

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question, and I provide this answer on behalf of the Leader of the House.

(1) The consumer protection division of the Department of Commerce issued a draft report of the review of the retirement villages legislation during August 2009 and invited comment from village operators and residents, and the public. The report contained more than 80 recommendations for change. The department received more than 50 submissions in response, many of them detailed and complex. The department has been working through these issues to provide a report that safeguards the interests of residents, while encouraging growth in this important seniors’ housing sector.

(2) The department is finalising the report of the review and will hold final meetings with key resident and industry groups during late September and early October. The department will then submit the report to the Minister for Commerce for consideration and approval. The minister expects to table the approved report in Parliament before the end of the 2010 sitting. The department anticipates that the report will serve as the basis for amending legislation governing retirement villages. Subject to cabinet approvals and drafting priority, the minister would look to introduce an amendment bill during 2011.

WA STATE SUICIDE PREVENTION STRATEGY

624. Hon SUE ELLERY to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health:

I refer to the WA State Suicide Prevention Strategy 2009-2013, launched last year.

(1) Have either of the following appointments been made; and, if yes, who was appointed to each position —

(a) network coordinator; and

(b) strategy agency coordinator?

(2) How many, if any, community coordinators have been appointed, and which communities do they represent?

(3) If no appointments have been made, when is it expected that these appointments will be made?

(4) Have any of the community action plans been established; and, if so, in which communities?

(5) If no to (4), when will the community action plans be operational?

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied:

I present this answer on behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health, and I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question.

(1) (a) Yes, a network coordinator has been appointed.

(b) Yes, a strategy agency coordinator has been appointed.

I note that the Leader of the Opposition has asked for the names of those two people. I am informed by the minister’s office that he is reluctant to provide the names of those people. They are not public servants—they are members of non-government organisations—and out of respect for their privacy would prefer that their names not be revealed on the public record. But, if the honourable member wishes to be briefed as to who those persons are, the minister is happy to do so.

(2) One community coordinator has been appointed. A public communication strategy is being finalised.

(3) Not applicable.

(4) No.


(5) The Ministerial Council for Suicide Prevention, through Centrecare, is currently engaged with seven different communities, and community action plans will be developed and approved in the coming months.

WESTERN POWER — POLE INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY

625. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Energy:

I refer to Western Power’s 2006 operational report, which states —

Technology is also improving the efficiency of line inspections with the use of Thermal and Corona Cameras in helicopter patrols of the distribution and transmission networks. These cameras register infra-red and ultra-violet rays to detect potential problems on pole-top equipment which could not otherwise be detected.

(1) Was the minister aware that Western Power had used this technology when he gave his answer to question without notice 589 on Tuesday?

(2) For how many years was this technology used; when was it cancelled; and for what reason?

(3) What happened to the images and data collected from this technology?

(4) Will the minister table a list of the country transmission lines where this technology was used?

Hon PETER COLLIER replied:

I thank the member for some notice of this question.

(1) The paragraph included in the 2006 operational report describes technology available; it does not describe Western Power’s practices. Western Power uses high definition digital cameras on its helicopter patrols of transmission lines, which adequately capture required data relating to defective equipment and hardware. Corona cameras are very expensive and have been tested on lines and within substations, and results were not conclusive. Infra-red thermal camera technology is used for ground patrols on transmission lines.

(2) This technology has been not used in helicopter patrols of the distribution and transmission networks.

(3)–(4) Not applicable.

MINERALOGY PTY LTD PROJECT — ENVIRONMENTAL BOND

626. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Environment:

(1) Will the minister outline all informal contact she or her office has had with either Minister Moore, Minister Grylls, the Premier or their offices regarding Clive Palmer’s request to avoid a prolonged appeals process in relation to the $45 million environmental bond?

(2) On what date were any such discussions had?

(3) What was the content of such discussions?

Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question.

(1)–(2) I had no informal discussions on this matter with Minister Moore, Minister Grylls, the Premier or members of their staff in relation to this matter. However, as outlined in my answer to question without notice 590 on Tuesday, 7 September 2010, consistent with section 45(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, I consulted relevant decision making authorities about whether the proposal should be implemented and the conditions to which the proposal should be subject. This included formal consultation with the Ministers for Mines and Petroleum, State Development, Indigenous Affairs, and Water. As indicated in my response on Tuesday, correspondence was also forwarded to my office from the Minister for Regional Development; Lands. With respect to my staff, I am advised that Minister Grylls did briefly mention this issue to my chief of staff towards the end of last year.

(3) I am advised that the brief exchange between the two was around Mineralogy and its concerns with the environmental approvals process, to which my chief of staff indicated she was aware of their concerns, as a letter from Mineralogy had been sent to me on 6 October 2009.

ROSALIE PARK — TEMPORARY CAR PARK

627. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for Health:

I refer to Class A reserve, Rosalie Park, City of Subiaco, and the proposal to use a portion of the park for temporary parking to support development on the QEII Medical Centre site.


(1) Is the minister aware that the Premier announced on radio on 26 August 2010 that Rosalie Park will be used as a temporary car park while the QEII Medical Centre site is being developed?

(2) Is the minister aware that the acting manager for metropolitan state lands in the Department of Regional Development and Lands advised the Subiaco Junior Football Club in writing on 30 August 2010 that the Minister for Lands will not support any proposal to amend a class A reserve without the consent of the relevant local government?

(3) Is the minister aware that a motion was passed at a special council meeting on 31 August 2010 that the City of Subiaco reject the state government’s proposal to use a portion of Rosalie Park for temporary parking to support development on the QEII Medical Centre site?

(4) Is the minister aware that the Minister for Health—that is the minister himself, I guess—announced on radio 6PR on 20 September that, following the City of Subiaco’s unanimous decision, Rosalie Park is now off the agenda?

(5) Can the minister now clarify who is correct—the Minister for Lands, the Minister for Health, or the Premier?


I thank the honourable member for notice of the question.

(1) The minister is aware that the Premier made reference to such a proposal.

(2)–(4) Yes.

(5) At the time of the Premier’s comment on 26 August 2010, consultation was underway with the community regarding the potential use of a portion of Rosalie Park for car parking for a two-year period. Subsequent to this, the City of Subiaco unanimously agreed to not pursue the car park any further—that was 31 August 2010—and comments made by the Minister for Health on 1 September 2010 reflect this.

DANNY GREEN – PAUL BRIGGS FIGHT — INQUIRY

628. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation:

I refer to the inquiry by Hon Geoffrey Miller, QC, into the approvals processes into the Professional Combat Sports Commission.

(1) When will this report be completed, and will it be made public?

(2) Does the minister have confidence in the commission to conduct the sham fight inquiry pending the finalisation of this report?

(3) Will the inquiry include an examination of whether the commission has the power to make decisions by circular resolution?

(4) Will the inquiry examine and report on —

(a) what medical evidence was provided or relied upon by the commission;

(b) who provided the advice; and

(c) did the commission have a conflict of interest?

(5) Was the medical advice followed by the commission?


I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question, and on behalf of the Leader of the House I provide the following.

(1)–(5) The inquiry into the Green – Briggs fight by the Professional Combat Sports Commission is underway. It would not be appropriate to comment on the inquiry until the final report is submitted.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — VACANCIES IN NEWMAN

629. Hon JON FORD to the minister representing the Minister for Health:

(1) How many Department of Health vacancies are there in each of the following areas in the town of Newman —

(a) registered nurses;

(b) midwives; and

(c) physiotherapists?


(2) Have any of these positions been advertised; and, if yes, when were they advertised and when are they likely to be filled?

(3) If not, why not?

(4) Have any ante, neo or postnatal services been affected; and, if yes, what action is the government taking to address the needs of pregnant women and new mothers in the town?



(1) (a) Two.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) One.

(2) There are current pool advertisements for nurse/midwives on www.jobs.wa.gov.au. The physiotherapist position has been advertised to backfill for a period of parental leave. No suitable applicants were identified. The physiotherapy service is now provided through fortnightly outreach from Port Hedland.

(3) Not applicable.

(4) No.

COMMUNITY HOUSING

630. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Housing:

(1) What future plans does the Department of Housing have to transfer properties to the community housing sector?

(2) Apart from asset transfer, what is the policy and growth strategy for the Department of Housing in the area of community housing?

(3) When will the affordable housing strategy document be published?

(4) When will the not-for-profit growth strategy document be published?

(5) The Social Housing Taskforce had an aspirational target of 20 000 houses by 2020. What percentage of these new houses will be allocated to community housing?


I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question and provide the following answer on behalf of the Leader of the House —

(1)–(5) A competitive process has commenced to transfer up to 559 properties to selected community housing providers. The plan for the growth of the community housing sector is being finalised and will be released for comment shortly. The state affordable housing strategy is being finalised and will then be provided to cabinet for its consideration.

CERTIFICATE III ASSET MAINTENANCE (CLEANING OPERATIONS) — MINIMUM HOURS

631. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development:

I refer to the minister’s media statement of 14 August 2010 in which he states that the minimum hours for those undertaking the certificate III asset maintenance (cleaning operations) traineeship would be reduced from 20 hours a week to 15 hours a week.

(1) Which peak bodies and industry groups were consulted about this change prior to the announcement?

(2) Was the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union consulted; and, if not, why not?

(3) Under which part of the act does the minister have the power to make this reduction?

Hon PETER COLLIER replied:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.

(1) The Department of Training and Workforce Development and the State Training Board were provided with advice from the Financial, Administrative and Professional Services Training Council Inc, which is responsible for this industry area. The FAPS Training Council comprises Graham Drury, Chairman, Security Agents Institute; Greg Mills, board member, Australian Environmental Pest Management Association; Les Marshall, board member, Combined Small Business Alliance of WA; Liz McIlhone, board member, Real Estate Institute of WA; Rick Suermondt, board member, Building Contractors Association of Australia; Neil Watson, board member, Australian and New Zealand Institute of


Insurance and Finance; Mark Berry, Deputy Chairman, ARRIX Australia; Michelle Simons, Treasurer, National Institute of Accountants; Lorraine Jones, board member, Australian Institute of Office Professionals; Kevin Starr, board member, Transport Workers Union of WA; Dr Sue Gordon, ex officio, State Training Board; and Charlies Reynolds, ex officio, Department of Training and Workforce Development.

The FAPS Training Council also undertook consultation with the Building Service Contractors Association of Australia, WA Branch, which is the peak industry group for asset maintenance—cleaning operations.

(2) The FAPS Training Council has advised that it contacted the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union on a number of occasions seeking feedback on the proposal. On each occasion the LHMU refused to participate or provide feedback.

(3) The Vocational Education and Training Act 1996 and the Vocational Education and Training (General) Regulations 2009 are silent on the minimum hours of employment of an apprentice employed on a part-time basis. This means that changes to the minimum hours of employment of an apprentice or trainee employed on a part-time basis do not require a vote of Parliament to proceed and fall to a policy position set by the department. The reduction in minimum part-time hours to 15 hours per week brings Western Australia in line with other states and territories.

ROCLA — NATIVE VEGETATION CLEARING LICENCE

632. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM to the Minister for Environment:

I refer the minister to the rejected application for a native vegetation clearing licence by Rocla to clear 25 hectares for proposed sand mines at lot 6 Banksia Road, Wellard, and lots 300 and 301 Boomerang Road, Oldbury, subsequently appealed through the Office of the Appeals Convener.

(1) Is the Appeals Convener’s investigation of this matter complete, and has a report and recommendation now been received by the minister for her consideration and final decision?

(2) If yes, what is the recommendation of the Office of the Appeals Convener?

(3) If no to (1), when does the minister expect to receive the report?

(4) Has the minister made a decision in relation to this matter; and, if not, when does the minister anticipate a decision will be made?



(1) An appeal against a decision of the Department of Environment and Conservation to refuse a permit to clear up to 25 hectares of vegetation at lot 6 Banksia Road and lots 300 and 301 Boomerang Road, Oldbury, has been received and has been investigated by the Office of the Appeals Convener. The Appeals Convener has presented me with his final report.

(2) In accordance with normal practice, the Appeals Convener’s report will be published once I have determined the appeal.

(3) Not applicable.

(4) I am yet to make a final decision with respect to this matter as I am currently considering the issues raised. The details of my decision will be communicated to the appellant and published on the Appeals Convener’s website in due course.

RAIL CROSSING — KELMSCOTT

633. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Minister for Transport:

I refer to plans to move the rail crossing from Denny Avenue, Kelmscott, to Davis Road, Kelmscott.

(1) Has the Armadale Redevelopment Authority approached the minister to assist in funding this project?

(2) If yes, what was the minister’s response?

(3) If the government is intending to provide funding for this project, will the minister please advise how much and when the project will commence and be completed?



(1)–(2) No.


(3) The proposed construction of a grade-separated crossing for Davis Road is part of the Kelmscott redevelopment project being undertaken as a partnership that includes the Armadale Redevelopment Authority, the City of Armadale, the Public Transport Authority and Main Roads WA. Main Roads has recently completed preliminary design work associated with the crossing and surrounding road network design for the project to enable an accurate estimate of cost to be prepared. This will enable the project to be considered for funding in future state budgetary processes. The updated project cost totals $72 million. A business case has been prepared. I am advised by Main Roads that the Armadale Redevelopment Authority is seeking to supplement the business case with an impact analysis on the business benefits to Davis Road to assist government funding consideration. The $72 million project cost assumes construction will commence in 2013.

OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY — GENERAL MANAGER POSITION

634. Hon ED DERMER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier:

Some notice has been given of the question.

I refer to the position of general manager within the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority.

(1) Has the position been advertised; and, if so, how many times?

(2) How many applications were received?

(3) How many application rounds have been performed?

(4) In each round, were applicants permitted to reapply; and, if so, how many reapplied?


I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I reply on behalf of the Leader of the House. The Premier advises —

(1) The position has been advertised once in two newspapers on the same date: in The West Australian and in The Weekend Australian.

(2)–(3) Ten applications were received in response to the advertisements. Another four applications were received in response to an executive search.

(4) Not applicable, as all 14 applications received from the advertisements and the executive search were considered as part of the selection process.

ART GALLERY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA — FUNDING

635. Hon LINDA SAVAGE to the minister representing the Minister for Culture and the Arts:

I refer to comments by Ms Helen Cook, the recently retired chair of the board of the Art Gallery of Western Australia, reported in The West Australian on 12 June 2010 that the state government has cut $700 000 from the gallery’s budget in the past two years. In light of the budget surplus, will the minister now provide the Art Gallery of Western Australia with the sum of $700 000 to offset the cuts made to its budget in the past two years?

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Art Gallery of Western Australia has contributed to government-wide savings targets, including savings resulting from changes to government procurement and reductions in marketing. Like other government agencies, the gallery has undertaken a range of business improvements and savings measures. In 2008–09 these savings amounted to $181 000; and in 2009–10, to $526 000. The government continues to support the gallery as an important cultural institution. In 2009–10 the state pledged a further $5 million when the gallery matched the government’s previous $10 million contribution to the Tomorrow Fund with donations from the corporate and private sectors. The Tomorrow Fund supports increased purchases of Western Australian, Australian, Indigenous and international contemporary art for the state’s art collection. As well, the government has committed $10 million to a facade maintenance project to renew the external fabric of the gallery’s main building. The government works with the gallery and continues to play a role in our state’s cultural life. The minister will continue to work with the gallery regarding its funding needs.

LNG PRECINCT, KIMBERLEY — PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

636. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development:

I refer to the proposed Kimberley industrial hub at James Price Point and to question without notice 468 of 1 July 2010. It was reported by ABC media that the Kimberley Land Council stated the notice of intent to compulsorily acquire land at James Price Point is for the acquisition of 20 571 hectares of land and sea.


(1) How much land and sea is proposed for compulsory acquisition at James Price Point for the industrial gas hub?

(2) How much of this area is on land?

(3) How much of this area is over the sea?


I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I reply on behalf of the Leader of the House. The Minister for State Development advises —

(1)–(3) The Browse LNG precinct area totals 3 530 hectares comprising 2 090 hectares of processing and port land, 400 hectares for accommodation and light industrial land and 1 040 hectares for port waters. Additional unfenced ancillary areas required for a project of this nature, such as onshore pipelines, roads and services, total 968 hectares.

LNG PRECINCT, KIMBERLEY — CLEARING PERMITS

637. Hon HELEN BULLOCK to the Minister for Environment:

I refer to the recently granted clearing permits for the proposed James Price Point gas hub.

(1) Who did the Department of Environment and Conservation consult in the process of granting the clearing permits?

(2) What are the conditions of these permits?



(1) A clearing permit was granted to Woodside Energy Limited on 30 July 2010 to clear 25 hectares for the purpose of geotechnical and hydrological investigations. A copy of the granted permit and the report are available on the Department of Environment and Conservation’s website. DEC consulted with the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Water, the Department of State Development, the Kimberley Land Council, the Shire of Broome and the proponents, Woodside Energy Limited. Native title claimants, the Goolarabooloo and Jabir Jabir peoples, were also notified. In addition DEC sought comments on the clearing applications over a 21-day public submission period. Eleven submissions were received and considered during the assessment of the application.

(2) Conditions are set out in part II of the clearing permit, which is available in full on DEC’s website. In summary, the permit conditions include requirements to avoid or minimise the amount of clearing; prepare an environmental management plan, which must be approved by DEC’s CEO prior to clearing; minimise the risk of the introduction and spread of weeds; and rehabilitate areas no longer required for the purpose for which they were cleared.

LD OPERATIONS — PROPOSED COALMINE

638. Hon ADELE FARINA to the Leader of the House representing the Premier:

I refer to the Premier’s statements earlier today about the proposed coalmine in Margaret River and his decision that the proposed coalmine be permitted to progress through the usual approval processes. In view of the resources and assistance provided by government to the mining company through the Department of State Development, which assists and provides advice to the mining company throughout the various approval processes, will the Premier agree to establish a social impact unit in the EPA and to adequately fund the unit to provide the same level of resources, advice and assistance to the community of Margaret River as the Department of State Development provides to the mining company?


I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I reply on behalf of the Leader of the House. This answer has been provided by the Minister for State Development and Premier. The Department of State Development provides assistance to proponents to progress through the normal government approvals processes for projects for which it is the designated lead agency. Social impact assessment matters associated with specific proposals are considered as appropriate during the environmental impact assessment process or as part of a broader set of considerations in instances in which the state is the project proponent. Individual proponents are also expected to carry out social impact assessments as part of their planning processes prior to project approval.

Hon Adele Farina: So the answer is no.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The answer is what I have just given.


SCITECH — LEASE

639. Hon KATE DOUST to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Science and Innovation:

I assume Hon Simon O’Brien will answer that question.

Hon Simon O’Brien: There is nothing I cannot turn my hand to!

Hon KATE DOUST: I know; the minister is very flexible!

(1) Given the minister recently informed the house that Scitech’s lease at City West ceases in mid-2013, will he commit to ensure adequate capital funding is included in the forward estimates to give Scitech certainty it will have a home; and, if not, why not?

(2) Has the minister taken any action to ensure Scitech has a home and a future beyond 2013, or will this be another case of neglect of science and innovation by this government?



(1)–(2) The government’s existing funding agreement with Scitech, for a total of $41.57 million to assist with operational and some capital works costs, runs to 2013. A midterm review of Scitech operations is scheduled to start shortly. This will inform decisions concerning Scitech’s future funding and location. In working with Scitech, consideration needs to be given to its market, visitor location and accessibility, the full range of funding options and the outcomes it provides to the people of Western Australia for the investment committed.

GRAIN RAIL NETWORK — TIER 3 LINES —HARVEST MOVEMENT

640. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport:

I refer to the answer given by the minister to a question asked by Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm on Tuesday 7 September, in which he said that he expected that next year’s harvest would be moved by road to railheads on the Great Southern Railway and the Eastern Goldfields Railway.

(1) When will the government provide the funding to upgrade all the roads affected by this decision?

(2) Can the minister guarantee that all road upgrades in the Kwinana south zone will be completed prior to any substantial increase in truck movements occurring in that area?


I thank the honourable member for his question.

(1)–(2) The matter that the member refers to is something that was neglected under the term of the previous government, and there is a lot of catching up to be done. Fortunately, this government has taken steps and is continuing to take steps to address the matters that have been consequent upon the former Labor government’s neglect of infrastructure, and to provide the answers that the Western Australian community needs to obtain about transporting the grain harvest ultimately to the main export ports. As I have already explained to the house on several occasions, considerable moneys have now been allocated by both the state and commonwealth governments for the processes.

Hon Ken Travers: Not for roads. And Mr Abbott was going to take it away.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: No, a substantial amount of money has already been allocated for roadworks, but that is something that the member may choose to stick his head in the sand about.

Hon Ken Travers: Which road in the Kwinana south zone has been funded?

The PRESIDENT: Order! We have one question on the books at the moment, and I think we will get the answer to that one.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Indeed, Mr President. It is no secret that a business case has been prepared jointly by my department and the commonwealth government equivalent, which is being put up to cabinet, and the cabinet funding processes, for further action to be taken.

The second part of the member’s question was a bit generous with implied hyperbole, but it does not actually recognise the —

Hon Ken Travers: A guarantee that the roads will be upgraded before any substantial increase in truck movements? Where’s the hyperbole in that? Go tell a farmer in the Wheatbelt that that’s hyperbole! You should watch your agricultural backbenchers, mate; they’re looking very nervous about you.


Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I rest my case. “Implied hyperbole” was the expression I used, and we have just heard an example of it from Hon Ken Travers.

The fact is that he is talking about roads that already exist and in respect of which there is a substantial amount of work currently being done to identify and prioritise the order in which works will be done to meet the evolving nature of the freight task for grain, particularly in areas where we are expecting more localised movements on road. The member seems to think that there is some expectation out there that no movement of grain on roads can take place until the state’s road system is somehow remanufactured. That seems to be what the member is implying. I tell the member that that is not —

Hon Ken Travers: I said before “any substantial increase”, minister! Your answer the other day was that the majority is currently taken on rail and it is going to be taken on road. I want to know if you are going to fund the road upgrades before you take grain transport off rail and put it onto the roads.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Members opposite are short of attention when they are in government, but now that they are in opposition they seem to be predicting all the things that are going to happen as a consequence of what they failed to do. The fact of the matter is that this government is taking the actions necessary to meet the freight task. This has involved all stakeholders in a process that I have embarked upon. We have already identified and allocated $80 million to the process and a business case is being worked through jointly by the state and commonwealth governments, which I am progressing through the state processes of cabinet, so the member should not think that we are not on the job with this. I am not going to fall for this and I hope nobody else in this place is dopey enough to fall for it either. The intention of the member’s question is to get some sort of undertaking that the grain harvest somehow cannot go ahead until a complete road rebuilding program has taken place, and that is an undertaking I will not give. That is what he is inviting me to say, and that is plainly a nonsense.

Hon Ken Travers: No, I’m asking you to tell us what you’re going to do to fix the problem after two years in government, with $135 million from the federal Labor government on the table. What are you going to do to fix the problem?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question has been asked and the minister started his answer about seven minutes ago, by my reckoning. I am sure that he is coming very close to the end of the answer.

Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Unless the member wants to keep moving the goalposts. I have clearly responded to it, but the point is that we are not just responding to this matter with words, which seems to be all that the Labor Party has; we are actually addressing the question with action, something that the Labor Party never did in seven and a half years.

GLASS RECYCLING FACILITY

641. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Environment:

I refer to the recent commissioning of a glass recycling facility in Western Australia. What steps has the government taken to address the problems that have beset such plants in the past due to the fact that without a container deposit system, it has proved easier and cheaper to dump glass in landfill rather than recycle it?


I thank the honourable member for the question. I am pleased that she has taken notice of the fact that the government has contributed quite significantly to a very important facility in Western Australia. The reality is that previously only around 15 000 tonnes was sent to South Australia. Part of the reason for that was high transport costs. The fact that we had to transport glass to South Australia was unbelievable. It also had to be cleaned; and, if it was not cleaned, it was put into landfill in South Australia at quite a high cost. The government, in combination with the Australian Packaging Covenant and Colmax Glass, which is the company running the facility, has provided around $5.4 million to this project. Up to 22 000 tonnes of glass will be recycled through this facility this year, with the ability to increase to more than 40 000 tonnes at full operation in one year’s time. I would have thought that instead of trying to be negative about this initiative, for once Hon Sally Talbot would actually be positive about a waste initiative which this government has undertaken and which was not undertaken under the previous government.

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS HUB

642. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development:

I refer to question without notice 191 asked in the Legislative Council on 4 May 2010. Can the minister explain how he can say that a supply base will be constructed at Point Torment when no due process has taken place?



I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I provide this answer on behalf of the Leader of the House. The Minister for State Development has responded in these terms —

The government recognises the need for facilities such as a marine supply base to support exploration and production in the Browse Basin. Following discussions with potential liquefied natural gas producers, the government has indicated its support for a marine supply base at Point Torment. Accordingly, the Department of State Development, in conjunction with potential proponents, is facilitating discussions and investigatory studies that relate to native title, heritage and technical issues in the area.

TOURISM WA — BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Question on Notice 2573 — Answer Advice

HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Minister for Environment) [5.11 pm]: Pursuant to standing order 138(d), I inform the house that the answer to question on notice 2573 asked by Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich on 30 June 2010 to the minister representing the Minister for Tourism will be provided on 14 September 2010.

QUESTION ON NOTICE 2610

Paper Tabled

A paper relating to an answer to question on notice 2610 was tabled by Hon Donna Faragher (Minister for Environment).

CANNABIS LAW REFORM BILL 2009

Second Reading

Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.

HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.12 pm]: Prior to the afternoon tea break, I was starting my very early remarks on the Cannabis Law Reform Bill 2009. Given the time of day and my understanding that the Deputy Leader of the House would like to deal with some other business, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage of this day’s sitting.

[Leave granted for the member’s speech to be continued at a later stage of the sitting.]

Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Simon O’Brien (Minister for Transport).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Introduction and First Reading

Bill introduced, on motion by Hon Donna Faragher (Minister for Environment), and read a first time.

Second Reading

HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Minister for Environment) [5.13 pm]: I move —

That the bill be now read a second time.

The illegal dumping of waste in bushland and other areas, particularly on the outskirts of our towns and cities, not only detracts from the beauty of our natural heritage and reduces our enjoyment of it but also poses a hazard to the environment and often to public health and safety. The existing offences in the Environmental Protection Act 1986 do not adequately allow for the control of dumping waste, as the requirements of those offences may make prosecution difficult. As a result, offences such as this are frequently dealt with as littering. However, the existing offence provisions in the Litter Act 1979 are directed at minor incidents of littering and bill posting and the penalties, which limit fines to $1 000 for an individual, are inadequate to provide deterrence. In order to rectify these deficiencies and create a real deterrent to this antisocial and environmentally destructive practice, the government is introducing the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2010 to create an offence that clearly prohibits “dumping waste”.

The bill introduces a new section 49A of the Environmental Protection Act, which creates an offence of discharging or abandoning waste into water to which the public has access or into any other place. “Place” is defined to include a vehicle or receptacle. The bill also provides that it is a defence to a charge of discharging or abandoning waste on land if the accused person can show that they had the consent of the person in control or management of the place. This defence is not available for a charge of dumping waste into water to which the public has access as there is not always an identifiable person in “control or management” of a public waterway. The offences will be tier 2 offences, with a maximum penalty of $62 500 for individuals and $125 000 for corporations, providing a very significant deterrent against dumping and encouraging waste minimising and recycling.


The Environmental Protection Act already includes a broad definition of “waste”, which is capable of including all manner of materials. It is necessary to retain a broad definition in order to capture the wide range of types of materials and objects that are unlawfully dumped. A simplistic approach, such as relying on the quantity or specified types of waste, is inadequate. Depending on the circumstances, small quantities of material can be regarded as serious acts of dumping if those materials pose an environmental or safety hazard—for example, where a quantity of green waste contains noxious weed seeds or where a small number of paint cans contain harmful chemicals and solvents. Conversely, innocuous materials such as paper can amount to a serious offence if dumped in sufficiently large quantities to despoil the landscape.

Although the definition appears to overlap with the offence of littering under the Litter Act 1979, the offence of dumping waste is not intended to apply to actions that involve the deposit of very small quantities of non-harmful material such as individuals dropping food wrappings or papers. A decision whether to apply a charge of dumping waste or a charge of littering to a particular unlawful act will be governed by the department’s enforcement and prosecution policy and a specific littering and dumping waste enforcement guideline. The littering and dumping waste enforcement guideline will stipulate that a decision to treat an offence as dumping waste rather than littering would be based on consideration of the size and quantity of the waste, whether the waste was deposited from a truck or utility trailer as opposed to being deposited by a person on foot or thrown from a vehicle window, and whether the waste is or includes substances that are hazardous to human health or the environment. Where waste is discharged in quantities sufficiently small to have been readily deposited by an individual on foot or thrown from a vehicle window, and where the nature of the waste is such that it does not pose a significant hazard to human health or the environment, it will be treated as littering under the Litter Act 1979 rather than dumping of waste.

It is not unprecedented for different offences to overlap and for decisions as to which charge to apply to be made according to an appropriate enforcement policy or administrative guideline. For example, the serious offences of causing pollution or an unreasonable emission potentially overlap with the comparatively minor offences of causing an unauthorised discharge or emitting unreasonable noise. A decision as to which charge to apply is determined by application of the enforcement and prosecution policy. The same principle will apply to the offences of littering and dumping waste.

The amendments also provide inspectors or authorised persons with the power to stop and inspect any vehicle or vessel in order to ascertain where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been or is likely to be committed. A major objective of the new offence is to prevent and punish the dumping of trailer loads of waste in nature reserves, state forests and other publicly accessible areas. At present Department of Environment and Conservation inspectors are unable to intercept trucks or vehicles with trailers entering or leaving reserves and state forests even where there are clear grounds for suspecting that dumping waste or pollution has occurred. The inclusion of this power will enable DEC inspectors to intercept these vehicles in order to investigate actual or suspected offences against the act. It will not affect lawful activities.

This power is comparable with other powers of regulatory officers in the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976, the Fertilizers Act 1977 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994. The power will also provide the ability of inspectors to investigate potential breaches of other provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, such as causing pollution or environmental harm.

The bill will also enable modified penalty notices to be issued for offences of dumping waste and will enable police officers and local government CEOs to institute prosecutions for dumping waste with the consent of the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation. The bill also provides that the existing defences in sections 74 and 74A of the Environmental Protection Act will be available in cases of dumping waste.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.

FOETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER

Statement

HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West — Minister for Community Services) [5.19 pm]: It is not very often I get up to make a statement. Today, 9 September, is International Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Awareness Day. Today at Yokine I launched a poster, which I will describe to Hansard while I am showing the chamber. It depicts the silhouette of a pregnant woman holding a glass of wine in her hand behind a prohibition sign. A picture speaks a thousand words. It is something I have spoken about in this place for many years and have said that we have needed a label and a poster that women can see. On that poster are the words, “Don’t drink alcohol during pregnancy to give your baby the best start in life. Not drinking alcohol is the safest option.” I am working with the Australian Hotels Association because I would like it to come on board so that the posters can be widely circulated.


Those of us who are interested in this subject have stood in this place before and spoken about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is vital that women think about their baby’s health and the effects FASD can have on the unborn child, when it is so obviously preventable. It is so simple: pregnant women should stop drinking. Minister Faragher is being a teetotaller during her pregnancy! I can see that she is taking in my comments.

The Department of Communities has put out a small booklet titled “Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD)” for the information of people working with children and families. This will be put out in playgroups and daycare centres. We have been finding that a lot of young women are not aware of the danger of alcohol to unborn babies. Alcohol is such a part of their day-to-day life and part of society that young women in particular do not stop to think that it could be affecting their unborn babies. I am not saying that if they have a few drinks it will cause foetal alcohol syndrome; I am saying that to give their babies the best option, pregnant women should not drink at all, because if the baby suffers the effects mentioned in this booklet, he or she could grow up suffering some sort of disability, when it is very easily prevented.

Launching these sorts of information posters is one of the nice things about being a minister. After talking about such a poster for many years while I was in opposition, when I came into government, I went for a trip to Fitzroy Crossing where the feds also are doing a lot of work. When we came back through Halls Creek, I noticed a poster similar to this one, so I took from that poster what I wanted and included it on this one so that we could get it out and about in society. We are a multicultural society and the poster is universally sight specific so that people do not need to understand English to get the message. Although it targets only a specific group, namely, pregnant women, if the AHA comes on board, the poster can be put up in bottle shops and places where alcohol is sold.

I was very pleased to launch this poster at the Yokine Play Group today where there were a lot of young mums and bubs. One of the young women who looked about 18 said that she really liked it and asked if she could have a copy to put in her doctor’s surgery. She was a qualified GP! Either I am getting older or GPs are getting younger!

Hon Alison Xamon: We’re getting older.

Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Obviously we are getting older. I am particularly proud of this launch. I hope this poster is circulated all over Western Australia. If it stops only one or two mums from drinking while they are pregnant, I will consider that I have done a good job.

Hon Liz Behjat: Congratulations, minister; it is fantastic.

CYCLE INSTEAD IN SPRING

Statement

HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [5.24 pm]: This week marks also the start of Cycle Instead in Spring, a six-week program to encourage cycling as a commuting choice. Cycle Instead is a great initiative, which is designed to encourage people to get out of their cars and on to their bikes. Two of my staff are very keen bicycle riders; they ride for fun on the weekends. They also frequently ride to work, and they tell me that during this winter, there have been lot more people out on bicycle paths than has ever been the case.

Bikewest’s bicycle traffic count figures are consistently showing an uptake in cyclist numbers when promotional events such as these occur. Also, Perth’s population of commuting cyclists has been steadily on the increase, certainly since 1998, when monitoring commenced. In fact, apparently the number of cyclists on the bicycle paths has tripled in that time. Australians are now purchasing more bikes than they are cars and have been doing so for almost a decade. We are not expecting these figures to reverse anytime soon given the well-recognised health and fitness benefits from cycling as well as the financial benefits. We are increasingly seeing benefits for people who choose to ride because they manage to avoid traffic congestion in the morning. I think we are likely to see the use of even more bikes in the future. It is therefore very important that we start looking at how our cycling infrastructure is keeping up with this continually increasing load.

For a long time, Perth was considered to be a bit of a leading light in cycling infrastructure in Australia. The planning and provision of facilities for cyclists started as far back as 1975. In 1996 the Perth Bicycle Network Plan was released, which was a comprehensive three-stage plan—I have looked at it quite extensively—to install major cycling infrastructure across the city. That particular PBN consists of five parts. It has local bicycle routes, principal transport routes, regional recreational paths and highways and main roads, which are obviously the responsibility of Main Roads WA; and district roads, which are the responsibility of local government. The state government was to look after the principal transport routes, the regional recreation paths and the highways and the main roads, and local government was to look after the local bicycle routes and the district roads. This plan is yet to be fully implemented, even though we are talking 14 years since it began, and parts of the network having reached different stages of completion. There are some difficulties in retrofitting cycling infrastructure into suburbs and roads that were not originally designed with cycling in mind. We note that cycling infrastructure has


been included in the designs of newer suburbs and roads such as Forrest Highway and the Tonkin Highway south extension.

Importantly, this PBN—again, 14 years ago—was intended to have a 10-year life span. The first review of the PBN was due to take place in 2000, but it did not start until 2006. That was approximately when we would have expected a new plan to be in place. Consultation from 2006 ceased in December 2007 and the first draft was delivered to the department on 9 November 2009. I understand that numerous changes were requested by the Department of Transport. On 4 June last year, when I had not been in this place for very long, I asked a question about the PBN review. The Minister for Transport told me that the report would be finalised in December 2009 and would be published in early 2010. But we still have not seen that report. It still has not been released. I really would like to know where it is at. What we do know is that we are spending billions of dollars on road upgrades. But we seem to be dragging our heels on the PBN. Given that large chunks of the bicycle network outlined in the 1996 PBN plan have already been built, we are not talking about an insane amount of money being required to finish it.

The City of Sydney has recently done some really good work in planning its bicycle network. It commissioned an economic benefits analysis to support funding submissions to the state and federal governments. That study found that the largest benefits that were identified were decongestion benefits, travel time savings, and absenteeism and productivity benefits. It found also that there were benefits in terms of what is called journey ambience. Journey ambience includes travellers’ views about stress and frustration, and fear of potential accidents, as well as enjoyment of the surrounding landscape and townscape. The benefits over 25 years for inner Sydney are conservatively expected to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in 2010 dollar value, and potentially nearly $2 billion. I am not suggesting that Perth and Sydney are exactly equivalent, or that the results would be the same for the wider Perth area. But some of those cost benefits are already being realised in Perth, as we have had over a decade of concentration on the Perth Bicycle Network. These advantages are being lost while the central metropolitan areas are being neglected and linkages are not being maintained to standard. Therefore, it is economically desirable for Western Australia to finish this investment and to complete the links.

The City of Perth recently started a consultation process to develop a draft cycling plan for the city to support the thousands of cyclists in the city at present, and also to encourage other people to take up cycling. However, the City of Perth should not have to be doing this work. The PBN review and the new PBN plan should be doing exactly that. So I ask again: where is it?

Perth and Sydney monitoring both show that the provision of cycling infrastructure results in a huge increase in the number of cyclists using that infrastructure. For example, between the 2002 and 2003 count of cyclists, the dual-use pathway between East Parade and Caledonian Avenue was opened. Six times as many cyclists were deemed to be using that path in 2003 compared with 2002. There are now 11 times as many cyclists using that path. In Sydney, two cycleways that do not connect to a larger network were opened, and that saw an immediate 30 per cent increase in use.

As is always my argument when it comes to public transport, if we build it, people will use it; and that will result in improvements in health, reductions in congestion, and economic benefits for the community.

We do need to see the revised Perth Bicycle Network plan. Most importantly, we need to look at urgently progressing and making further investment in the PBN.

House adjourned at 5.33 pm

__________


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

HELMS FOREST BLOCK — LOGGING THREAT TO BLACK COCKATOOS

2524. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Environment

(1) Do the following species and subspecies, use Helms forest block in the Shire of Nannup as habitat —

(a) carnaby’s black cockatoo;

(b) baudin’s black cockatoo; and

(c) red tailed black cockatoo?

(2) Has the Department of Environment and Conservation, provided funding or other assistance to, the black cockatoo rehabilitation centre at Jalbarragup, near the Helms forest block?

(3) If yes to (2) —

(a) in what years was the funding or other assistance provided;

(b) for each of those years, if funding was provided, how much; and

(c) for each of those years, if other assistance was provided, what was the nature and extent of the assistance?

(4) To the best of the Department’s knowledge, what further funding or other assistance has been directed to the conservation of black cockatoos, that use the Helms Forest Block as habitat?

(5) If funding has declined or ceased, why is this?

(6) Will you ensure adequate funding is provided to allow the rehabilitation centre to continue its work?

(7) If no to (6), why not?

(8) Are you aware that the cockatoos released by the black cockatoo rehabilitation centre use Helms block for habitat?

(9) What logging does the Department understand to be planned for Helms forest block, up to and including 2013?

(10) What will the impact of this logging be on —

(a) carnaby’s black cockatoos?

(b) baudin’s black cockatoos which are in danger of extinction?

(c) red tailed black cockatoos?

(d) the release and survival of the black cockatoos from the rehabilitation centre?

(11) What evidence is this assessment based on?

(12) Do you acknowledge the vital role Helms block plays, in receiving rehabilitated cockatoos?

(13) Are you aware that Helms block is the only block, within the range of the rehabilitation centre, that has not been extensively logged?

(14) Where do you propose rehabilitated cockatoos be released, if the habitat in Helms is removed?


(1) (a)-(c) Yes.

(2) Yes.

(3) (a) 2007/08, and 2009/10.

(b) 2009/10 — $5,000 (Environmental Community Grants).

(c) Seed to the approximate value of $250 was provided in the2007/08 financial year to assist in the release of 13 Carnaby's cockatoos and 11 Baudin's cockatoos. In addition, Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) officers have provided pre-release assessments of the condition of birds, assisted the owners of the rehabilitation centre at Jalbarragup in moving birds into a new aviary, assisted them with the installation of artificial nest boxes and hollows in aviaries, and captured and banded cockatoos prior to release.


(4) DEC staff have also worked with the owners of the rehabilitation centre to ensure minimal impact to identified nest trees during essential prescribed burning in Helms forest block in 2009.

(5) Funding is subject to grant application processes and requirements.

(6)-(7) The Liberal-National Government has established a four-year, $6 million Environmental Community Grants program and groups can apply for funding through this program, Lotterywest and other sources.

(8) I am advised by DEC that it is likely that black cockatoos released from the rehabilitation centre utilise extensive areas of forest, including Helms block.

(9) The Forest Products Commission has advised DEC that harvesting is not scheduled at Helms block until at least 2012.

(10)-(11)Prior to any harvesting commencing in Helms block, the Forest Products Commission will be required to conduct a detailed planning and checking process which includes the identification of measures to protect habitat to the satisfaction of DEC. I am advised that based on observed behaviour and sightings in the area, all three species of cockatoo are not confined to Helms block and can utilise resources available in adjoining forest areas.

(12) Helms block is not the only habitat available to cockatoos in the immediate area. I am advised that only Baudin's and Carnaby's cockatoos have been released from the Jalbarragup cockatoo rehabilitation centre and that both species range widely in their search for food and preferred breeding sites.

(13) DEC records indicate that most of Helms block was last harvested in the 1930s and 1940s. Large parts of Darradup and Butler blocks, which are in close proximity to Helms block, have no record of harvesting, contain substantial areas of old-growth forest, and are unavailable for timber harvesting. Other adjacent blocks have been harvested at various times and to various intensities.

(14) I am advised by DEC that rehabilitated black cockatoos can continue to be released in the Jalbarragup area as the rehabilitation centre provides a suitable release site for these two species that range widely in their search for food and preferred breeding sites.

KALGOORLIE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES (KCGM) — VEGETATION CLEARING

2587. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Environment

I refer to question on notice No. 2393 of 6 May 2010, photographs taken on 21 January 2010, depicting clearing of vegetation and construction of bores undertaken with exploration equipment available for viewing at www.mp.wa.gov.au/rchapple/Kaltails, a document dated 3 December 2009 entitled, ‘KCGM Mining Proposal and Works Approval Application’, a media statement dated 1 May 2005 entitled, ‘Unauthorised native vegetation clearing conviction’, and another dated 30 November 2009 entitled ‘illegal land clearers fined $10000 each’, and I ask -

(1) Given the Minister has indicated that the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), has not received an application to clear native vegetation under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 in the vicinity of the monitoring bores referred to above, will the company/employees/contractors be prosecuted for breaching sections 51 C, 99Q or any other sections of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, in clearing and damaging vegetation in the vicinity of the monitoring bores referred to in the photographs above?


(3) In relation the answer provided for question on notice No. 2393 part (7), can the Minister explain why the impacts of residual cyanide in the groundwater affecting ore processing are beyond the scope of the Environmental Protection Act 1986?



(1)-(2) The matter is currently under investigation, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment until the investigation is completed and all the facts are established.

(3) The Hon Member appears to have misinterpreted my response to part (7) of Question on Notice No. 2393 which was "The impacts of residual cyanide on the processes at the Fimiston Mill relate to ore processing efficiency and as such are beyond the scope of the Environmental Protection Act 1986."

Groundwater was not referred to in my response. If the Hon Member meant water rather than groundwater then this is beyond the scope of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 as the water going into the ore processing is not discharged into the environment, but rather it is an input into the production process.


(4) Not applicable.

REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME — NINGALOO RESEARCH CENTRE

2596. Hon Sue Ellery to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development

I refer to the Regional Grants Scheme funding of $145 000 to the Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre Inc, for a concept plan and business case, and ask -

(1) Has there been any concept plans previously prepared for the Ningaloo Research Centre?

(2) Has there been any business plans previously prepared for the Ningaloo Research Centre?

(3) If yes to (1) or (2) —

(a) were any of these plans funded through the State Government, and if so, what were the sources and amounts of funding; and

(b) why is this work being duplicated through the Regional Grants Scheme funding?

(4) What is the estimated total cost to construct the Research Centre?

(5) What progress, has Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre Inc, made towards raising money for construction costs?

Hon WENDY DUNCAN replied:

(1)–(2) Yes

(3) (a) The Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre (NOERC) Project received two Regional Development Scheme (RDS) grants through the Shire of Exmouth (applicant) for the following:

• 2002 — Round 2 RDS, $72,000 for Stage 1 — to engage consultants to provide Concept Plan.

• The total project cost is $107,476 and includes $10,000 contribution from the Shire of Exmouth.

• $25,476 in-kind contributions from the Shire of Exmouth and Gascoyne Development Commission.

• 2005 — Round 5 RDS, $80,000 for Stage 2 — to professionally prepare feasibility study and business plan, to retain services of Chairperson, and to formulate and launch fund raising campaign.

(b) Work is not being duplicated.

In 2003, architectural firm Sandover Pinder was contracted to provide a concept design for the Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre. A site at the Exmouth Marina, within a larger parcel of land, known as Superlot E, was assigned for the Research Centre. Based on the work of Sandover Pinder, the building proposed for the site at the Exmouth Marina included modules for research, teaching/training, chalet/dormitory accommodation, government agency offices, boat storage and a centre for public education.

In 2005 the steering committee for the Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre commissioned a feasibility study and business plan for the proposed research centre. This was completed in March 2006 and was based on the Sandover Pinder concept design. The study concluded that a regionally based research centre could operate successfully. However, such a facility would, at least initially, require stakeholder support for its operating funds. A Trust Fund supported by the major resource companies active in the area was proposed in the study as a base for providing these operating funds. However the Trust Fund model has not proven to be an attractive option for corporate sponsors as it required too large a commitment at one time.

The objective of the current consultancy is to provide a detailed sketch design based on the concept plan and an associated business plan for the proposed Ningaloo Research Centre. The Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre might be accommodated by a simpler and cheaper design than originally proposed. A review of the basic requirements was undertaken by the steering committee for the Ningaloo Research Centre in May 2009.

The current business plan will directly relate to the sketch design plan of the building and will use this as the basis for calculating recurrent operational costs. The business plan will demonstrate the full financial situation of the Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre and


address ongoing operational funding issues given the original Trust Fund model proved to be unviable. The business plan will explore all avenues for covering the operating costs such as visitor entry fees, corporate sponsorship through neighbouring offshore oil and gas operators, University research teams, grants and possible collocation of government services.

(4) An estimate and detailed breakdown of 2010 costs for the capital works and fit-out is currently being prepared as a part of the current consultancy.

(5) The Ningaloo Ocean and Earth Research Centre has been included as a flagship project on the Gascoyne Regional Development Plan 2010-2020 and as such may be suitable for funding through the Gascoyne Revitalisation funds. The Federal Minister for the Environment, Hon. Peter Garrett has expressed an interest and requested more detailed information which can be presented to him at the conclusion of the current consultancy. The proposed World Heritage listing of the Ningaloo area would make a contribution from the Commonwealth Government appropriate. The NOERC Inc. Steering Committee is currently liaising with the resource sector, in particular those operating in the neighbouring offshore oil and gas fields, who have not only expressed an interest in supporting the Centre but also in utilising the facility to conduct some of their necessary explorative research.

REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME — CARNARVON AIRPORT


I refer to the Regional Grants Scheme funding of $250 000 and $400 000 to the Shire of Carnarvon for Carnarvon Airport and Carnarvon Airport runway refurbishment respectively, and ask -

(1) For each of these two projects —

(a) what is the total cost;

(b) what is the source and amount of any other funding;

(c) what are the details of the work to be undertaken;

(d) has the work commenced and if not, when is it due to commence;

(e) has the work been completed and if so, when was it completed; and

(f) if the work is not completed, when will it be completed?

(2) Has the State Government provided any other funding for work at the Carnarvon Airport in the 2008-09, 2009-10 or 2010-11 financial years?

(3) If yes to (2), what are the sources and amounts provided, and for what purpose?

(4) Does the Minister agree with the Carnarvon Shire Council resolution of November 2008 that, ‘at some point the needs of the Carnarvon community will not be able to be met by the existing airport’?


(6) If yes to (4), what action has the Minister taken in assisting the Shire of Carnarvon, to establish a new airport?


(1) (a) The total cost at the time of application through the Gascoyne Regional Grant Scheme (GRGS) for the Carnarvon Airport was $287,500.

The total cost at time of application through GRGS for the Carnarvon Airport Runway Refurbishment was $800,000.

(b) Carnarvon Airport: $37,500 — Own contribution

Carnarvon Airport Runway Refurbishment:

$221,000 — Regional Aerodrome Development Scheme $27,000 — Own Contribution $193,000 — Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program

Please note that the total project cost of $800,000 is as per the application. A progress report identified a cost escalation due to the discovery of major flaws in the sub-structure during the initial repairs. The Shire of Carnarvon sourced additional funding through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program to cover the additional cost of $41,000.

(c) Carnarvon Airport: The Shire of Carnarvon has identified a location north of the Gascoyne River as the preferred site for a new airport. This project involves engaging professionals to


examine the site and provide the necessary studies to confirm the site is a suitable location, provide advice and support to gain the necessary approvals and acquire the land, and to scope the required works (cost estimates, drawing and specifications).

Carnarvon Airport Runway Refurbishment: The project involved carrying out essential remedial works to the runway of the existing Carnarvon airport.

(d) Carnarvon Airport: Yes

Carnarvon Airport Runway Refurbishment: Yes

(e) Carnarvon Airport: No

Carnarvon Airport Runway Refurbishment: Yes, 30 June 2010

(f) Carnarvon Airport: 31 March 2011

(2) No

(3) Not Applicable

(4) Yes

(5) Not Applicable

(6) I have met with the Shire of Carnarvon on this issue and support the Regional Grants Scheme allocation as recommended by the Board of the Gascoyne Development Commission. The Department of Regional Development and Lands has identified the location of the proposed airport and is currently working through the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 to secure the land for future development.

REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME – SHIRE OF EXMOUTH


I refer to the Regional Grants Scheme funding to the Shire of Exmouth, and ask –

(1) For the grant of $36 000 for the Exmouth Swimming Pool shade —

(a) what is the total cost of the project;

(b) what is the source and amount of any other funding for this work;





(2) For the grant of $100 000 for a multipurpose community centre business plan —

(a) what is the total cost to prepare the plan;


(c) has the work on the plan commenced and if not, when is it due to be commence;

(d) has the plan been completed and if so, when was it completed;

(e) if the plan is not completed, when will it be completed; and

(f) if the plan has been completed, has the Shire made any decision about construction of the Centre and/or approached the State Government for funding assistance for construction?

(3) For the grant of $300 000 for the Vlamingh Head Lighthouse Precinct —







(4) For the grant of $500 000 for a Townscape Development Plan —

(a) what is the total cost of this project;

(b) what is the source and amount of any other funding for this project;



(d) has the work on the plan commenced and if not, when is it due to be commence;

(e) has the plan been completed and if so, when was it completed; and

(f) if the plan is not completed, when will it be completed?


(1) (a) $62,212.37 (GST Exclusive)

(b) $25,000 — Former Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

$1,212.37 — Own contribution

(c) Supply and construction of steel framed and colour bond steel clad roof to the children and toddler's pool.

(d) Yes.

(e) Yes, November 2009.

(f) Not Applicable

(2) (a) $100,815.83 (GST Exclusive)

(b) $815.83 — Own contribution

(c) Yes.

(d) Yes, November 2009.

(e) Not Applicable

(f) No, the plan is under consideration by the Shire of Exmouth. The project is identified as a flagship project by the community in the Gascoyne Regional Development Plan 2010-2020.

(3) (a) Total project cost is $390,000 (GST Exclusive).

(b) $40,000 — Own contribution

$50,000 — Gascoyne Regional Grant Scheme Strategic Funds 09/10 (Approved at February Board Meeting)

(c) Initial GRGS application outlined work including urgent conservation work (corrosion removal and repainting) of the lighthouse lantern and replace broken windows; prepare a site interpretation plan, interpretive history and brochure; write text, select images and produce a style guide for interpretive signage; prepare a site management plan; make and install interpretive signage; and construct paths and the car park to the lookout and interpretive signage.

Following a tender process for the urgent conservation work, the budget to complete these tasks had to be reviewed. Due to the specialised nature of the work and the extent of damage to the lighthouse lantern the total budget for the project was increased and utilised to cover the conservation works only. A variation to the initial grant proposal was approved by the GDC Board at the February 2010 Board meeting.

(d) Yes.

(e) No.

(f) September 2010.

(4) (a) Total project cost at time of application for GRGS was $1,000,000 (GST Exclusive).


$100,000 — Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government — Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program

$240,000 — Royalties for Regions Country Local Government Fund

(c) Detailed design, specifications and tender documentation for the Ross Street Mall upgrade and road crossings and the closure of Bonefish Street and connection of Thew Street to Maidstone Crescent, construction of the Ross Street Mall upgrade and pedestrian crossings and car parking rationalisation.

(d) Yes.

(e) Yes, 3 May 2010.

(f) Not Applicable


REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME — CARNARVON CHRISTIAN SCHOOL


I refer to the Regional Grants Scheme funding of $40 300 to the Carnarvon Christian School for a new multipurpose school building, and ask -

(1) What is the total budget for this building?

(2) What are the other sources and amounts of funding for this building, if this grant is not the total budget?


(1) The total project budget at the time of application for GRGS funds was $950,300 (GST Exclusive).

(2) $850,000 — Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Building the Education Revolution Program

$20,000 — Mobile Mission Maintenance

$40,000 — own contribution

REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME — SHIRE OF CARNARVON


I refer to the Regional Grants Scheme funding to the Shire of Carnarvon, and I ask -

(1) For the grant of $180 000 for Carnarvon Aquatic Centre improvements —

(a) what is the total cost of the improvements;

(b) what is the source and amount of any other funding for these improvements;

(c) what are the details of the improvements to be undertaken;




(2) For the grant of $250 000 for integrated water supply delivery —


(b) what is the source and amount of any other funding for this project;



(e) has the work been completed and if so, when was it completed;

(f) if the work is not completed, when will it be completed; and

(g) what is the role of the Water Corporation, which operates and maintains water supplies in the Gascoyne Region, in this particular project?

(3) For the grant of $500 000 for fascine urgent remedial works and enhancement design —








(1) (a) Total project cost at time of application for GRGS was $205,000 (GST Exclusive)


(c) Contracting consultants to develop a Master Plan to implement the findings of the Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study; and essential remediation works to existing swimming pool facility including replacement of balance tank lid, safety signage, replacement of shade structures, restorative work in toilets and shower facilities and restorative work on concourse.


(d) Yes.

(e) No.

(f) September 2010.

(2) (a) Total project cost at time of application for GRGS was $287,500 (GST Exclusive)


(c) Design and development of all components and requirements necessary for the successful implementation of an integrated water supply delivery system for the town of Carnarvon's urban landscape needs; and implementation works for the town of Carnarvon's integrated water supply delivery system.

(d) Yes.

(e) No.

(f) March 2011.

(g) The Water Corporation supplies two of the five water resources currently in use in the Shire of Carnarvon and will play a major role in partnering the Shire of Carnarvon to identify solutions for a more integrated and efficient water supply delivery system.

(3) (a) Total project cost at time of application for GRGS was $575,000 (GST Exclusive).


(c) Whole of waterfront design/development and continuation of the Carnarvon Surge Wall project; and contract works on remediation to the Fascine wall and footpath.

(d) Yes.

(e) No.

(f) March 2011.

REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME — WEST PEMBERTON AVOCADOS


I refer to the Regional Grants Scheme funding of $48 964 to West Pemberton Avocados for an electricity upgrade, and ask -

(1) Is West Pemberton Avocados a privately owned business?

(2) If yes to (1), what is the name/s of the owner or owners?

(3) What is the total cost of the electricity upgrade?

(4) Are there significant benefits to the broader community or industry sector resulting from this grant?

(5) If yes to (4), what are they?

(6) How many people did West Pemberton Avocados employ prior to the electricity upgrade?

(7) Has the electricity upgrade been completed?

(8) If yes to (7), when was it completed?

(9) If no to (7), when is the upgrade due to be completed?


Funding of $48 964 was allocated to West Pemberton Avocados during the 2008/09 South West Regional Grants Scheme for electricity upgrade to be undertaken by Western Power. West Pemberton Avocados subsequently withdrew their application on 17 October 2009 following advice from Western Power that there would be no charges for the work involved in the upgrade.

(1)-(9) Not applicable.

REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME — RAPID ASCENT PTY LTD


I refer to the Regional Grants Scheme funding of $15 000 to Rapid Ascent Pty Ltd, for the Anaconda Adventure Race, and I ask -

(1) Does the State Government provide any other funding for the Anaconda Adventure Race?

(2) If yes to (1) —


(a) how much; and

(b) from what source?

(3) Has the State Government provided funding for previous Anaconda Adventure Races?

(4) If yes to (3) —

(a) when was the funding provided;

(b) how much was provided for each year; and

(c) what source was the funding provided from for each year?

(5) Is Rapid Ascent Pty Ltd a private venture?

(6) If yes to (5), what are the name/s of the owner or owners?

(7) Are there significant benefits to the broader community or industry sector resulting from this grant?

(8) If yes to (7), what are they?


(1) Yes.

(2) (a) $30 000.

(b) Eventscorp (a division of Tourism WA) — Regional Events Scheme.

(3) Yes.

(4) (a) $30,000 in 2007/08 and $15,000 in 2006/07.

(c) Both years by Eventscorp — Regional Events Scheme.

(5) No. Rapid Ascent Pty Ltd (Australian Company Number 112 064 016) is a proprietary company limited by shares.

(6) Not applicable.

(7) Yes.

(8) The following information regarding the benefits to the community as a result of the event was obtained via a survey conducted by the organisers.

• direct expenditure estimated at $1.34 million to the region.

• total bed nights was 10,426.

• total number of participants in the race was 1,561.

• total number of participants in the Junior Survivor Race was 320.

BUSH FOREVER — SITES MANAGEMENT

2610. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Environment

I refer to the Budget Papers page 820, Services and Key Efficiency Indicators Number 1 — Nature Conservation, and ask -

(1) How many Bush Forever sites are currently managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation?

(2) Which sites are they?

(3) How much recurrent and new funding is provided for each of these sites?

(4) What budget has been put aside for common branded signage for Bush Forever sites?

(5) What programs are in place, or will be funded this year, to educate the community about the importance of Bush Forever sites, and Perth’s biodiversity?

(6) Please provide the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 Budget actual, and the 2010-2011 Budget estimates, for managing each of the following Bush Forever sites —

(a) Site 385 — Mirrabooka Bushland;

(b) Site 342 — Anstey Keane Bushland;

(c) Site 345 — Forrestdale Lake;

(d) Site 306 — Talbot Road Bushland; and

(e) Site 86 — Burley Park and adjacent Bushland?



(1)-(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) manages all or part of 122 Bush Forever sites (70 whole sites and parts of 52 sites). [See paper 2411.]

(3) Budgeting for conservation area management are generally allocated for broader groupings of lands and waters, such as for each regional park or geographical grouping of nature reserves, rather than individual sites.

For 2010-2011, DEC has allocated approximately $1.9 million in the nature conservation program to management of areas in the Swan Region containing Bush Forever sites, and approximately $640,000 to management of regional parks which contain part or all of 27 Bush Forever sites.

(4) DEC has consistent signage for lands under its management. DEC does not have signage specifically for Bush Forever sites, nor does it normally place signage on areas not under its management without the consent of the landowner.

(5) DEC delivers a number of community and school-based environmental education programs which relate to the importance of Perth's biodiversity and Bush Forever sites. These include the Nearer to Nature, Healthy Parks Healthy People, Eco-Education and Urban Nature programs. In addition other agencies and organisations fund and deliver programs which relate to the importance of Perth's biodiversity. These include programs run by local governments (including the Perth Biodiversity Program and local initiatives) and Perth Region Natural Resource Management.

(6) (a) This site is not managed by DEC.

(b) The budget for the Jandakot Regional Park, which includes Bush Forever site 342 is approximately $38,000 per year for each of 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11.

(c) 2008/09 — $37,881

2009/10 — $36,153 plus additional funding of $122,411 (which included grant funding of $49,150) to replace a boardwalk

2010/11 — approximately $18,000.

The change in funding for the Forrestdale Lake site follows a significant period of targeted investment in new facilities and maintenance works which has now been completed.

(d) The budget for Bush Forever site 306 is approximately $30,000 per year for each of 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11.

(e) This site is not managed by DEC.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — SCIENCE DIVISION


I refer to the Budget Papers page 818, Significant Issues Impacting the Agency, regarding the Science Division, and ask -

(1) What is the budget for staffing and service delivery for the Science Division for financial year 2010-2011 compared to financial years —

(a) 2007-2008;

(b) 2008-2009; and

(c) 2009-2010?

(2) How many taxonomists are employed as taxonomists?

(3) How many samples of fungi, algae and other plants species are waiting to be identified and named by the Science Division?


(1) $15,819,609

(a) $15,032,370

(b) $15,888,903

(c) $16,080,326

(2) 7.2 FTE

(3) As of 31 August 2010 there are 1,614 taxa of vascular plants to be named and formally described.


ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE — PROJECT AUDIT


I refer to the Budget Papers page 843, Environmental Compliance Audits, and ask -

(1) Has the Environmental Protection Agency pursued sanctions against companies whose projects fail to meet environmental conditions?

(2) If yes to (1) —

(a) which companies; and

(b) what sanctions?


(1) The Environmental Protection Authority is an independent advisory body and does not have powers to monitor and enforce compliance under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act).

The General Manager of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, and prior to 27 November 2009 the Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Conservation, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of proposals and determining whether the implementation conditions have been complied with. If a non-compliance is identified enforcement action is taken.

(2) (a) For the 2009/2010 financial year the following companies were found not to have complied with the relevant implementation conditions relating to their proposals.

ARC Energy Limited and Origin Energy Developments; Bemax Resources Ltd incorporating Cable Sands; CSR Gyprock Fibre Cement; Department of Water; Fremantle Ports; GeraldtonPortAuthority; Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd; HISmelt (Operations) Pty Ltd; KalgoorlieConsolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd; Midland Development Authority; Rio Tinto Iron Ore Pty Ltd; Shire of SharkBay; Tallwood Nominees Pty Ltd; Tiwest Pty Ltd; and Water Corporation.

(b) In respect of each non-compliance identified the proponents were required to take action. In most instances, the proponent's implementation of the proposal is now in compliance with the relevant conditions. Where a non-compliance is continuing, investigations are being pursued to inform appropriate enforcement action.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT — LICENSING CALLS RECEIVED

2679. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Transport

I refer to the answer to my question on notice No. 2500, regarding calls made to the 131 156 phone number for contacting the Licensing Department, and further ask -

(1) Is this number of unanswered calls usual for the Licensing Department?

(2) Will the Minister please specify for each of the last 12 months —

(a) the number of calls made to the line; and

(b) the number of calls answered?

(3) How does the Minister intend to resolve the problems the Department is having, in providing this service to the people of Western Australia?

Mr M.J. COWPER replied:

(1) Yes.


(2) (a)-(b) Month (a) Number of calls

made to the line (b) Number of calls

answered July 2009 131 418 64 959 August 2009 87 694 67 288 September 2009 84 371 66 597 October 2009 92 907 73 579 November 2009 94 638 70 990 December 2009 87 199 66 928 January 2010 142 684 55 812 February 2010 126 686 56 909 March 2010 131 812 63 901 April 2010 171 789 50 960 May 2010 171 162 60 036 June 2010 187 380 44 383 July 2010 142 061 62 885 August 2010* 116 706* 59 616*

*August figures as at 27 August 2010.

(3) Firstly, several improvement initiatives have recently been introduced to help reduce the number of calls to the Department of Transport's Customer Contact Centre. These initiatives include -

• the introduction of BPay as an alternative payment option for licensing transactions;

• a redeveloped licensing website that is more accessible, easier to use and provides more answers and functions;

• on-line access to driver's licence and vehicle registration details; and

• the implementation of a new Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) system that will provide greater capacity for callers and on-line payments.

Further self-service functions are also planned to be introduced over the next year, which are currently being scoped by the Department of Transport.

In addition, a detailed evaluation of the Customer Contact Centre is currently underway, which will determine the current status of the Customer Contact Centre and further opportunities for improvement.

__________

c38 s1 20100909 all - parliament of western australia · your petitioners therefore respectfully...

Documents