parliamentary debates · titled “adventure before dementia”. their blog for september 2008...

Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION

2015

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 1 December 2015

Legislative Council

Tuesday, 1 December 2015

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 2.00 pm, and read prayers.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS — HON RON LEESON AND DELLAR FAMILY Statement by President

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I acknowledge in the President’s gallery the attendance of Hon Ron Leeson, a former member of the Legislative Council and the current president of the WA Parliamentary Former Members Association; and members of the Dellar family who are here for the condolence motion.

HON STANLEY JAMES DELLAR Condolence Motion

HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [2.03 pm] — without notice: I move —

That this house expresses its deep regret at the death of Hon Stanley James Dellar, a former member of the Legislative Council for the Lower North Province, and places on record its appreciation for his long public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to members of his family in their bereavement.

Hon Stanley James Dellar passed away earlier this year in April. It is a matter of some regret to me that I was not aware of his passing until October, but I am glad that we are able to note today his contribution to public life, and that his family members are able to be with us. Indeed, I am advised by them that, for some of them, it is 48 degrees on the station today, so they think it is practically cold here in Perth. Hon Stanley James Dellar was born in November 1936 in Kalgoorlie, WA. He married Eileen on 11 January 1958 in St Mary’s Catholic Church in Kalgoorlie. He had three sons and a daughter, and had a happy family with many grandchildren and great-grandchildren as well. He served as member of the Legislative Council for Lower North Province from 1971 to 1977 but his public service began long before his parliamentary service and continued long after it as well. He came from a political family and, indeed, holds the rare honour of entering Parliament just six years after his father, Hon David Peter Dellar, left Parliament. His niece, Melissa Price, is a member of the federal Parliament today. If I could be so bold, Mr President, I will refer to him as Stan. Stan achieved public attention early in his life. As the front page of the Kalgoorlie Miner of 3 March 1947 tells us, he was an adventurous 10-year-old who, while on the roof of the family home one Sunday night flying a kite, touched a wire and was electrocuted but lived to tell the tale. I spoke to several former Labor members—indeed, the two here today—who served with him, and they advised me that he was a solid, reliable, dedicated and hardworking member of the Legislative Council who upset everyone’s applecart by winning his seat for Labor against all the odds by just four votes. He was active in local government in regional Western Australia before he entered Parliament. Immediately prior to entering Parliament he had been serving as the shire clerk of Exmouth—a position he held with great honour. I am told that he was a great bloke and that he was gregarious and easy to get along with. In those days the entitlements for MPs were not like they are today and members were not entitled to a car. In the six years of service that he provided, I am told he wore out two of his own cars, travelling the rough roads and great distances of his electorate. At the time, at the age of 34, he was the second youngest person elected to the Legislative Council. In one of his speeches he reflected on how he was a bit timid as a new and young member and how daunting it was to be part of a nine or 10-member opposition up against 20 government members—and I can say I know exactly how he felt. During his time in the Parliament he served on committees as well. His public service prior to entering Parliament was reflected in his service with the 17th National Service Training Battalion and two years with the Citizen Military Forces. He was a cashier and clerk with the then Kalgoorlie Road Board, assistant shire clerk in Bridgetown, assistant town clerk in Carnarvon and then, as I said, shire clerk in Exmouth. He was an audit clerk in Kalgoorlie, and a truck driver as well. He was a secretary of the Apex Club in Bridgetown and the Rotary Club in Exmouth. He served 15 years as a volunteer firefighter with the then WA Fire Brigades Board. He was a club champion for several seasons with the Exmouth Yacht Club and with the road and track cycling Eastern Goldfields Cycle Club. He qualified in defence metals identification with the United States Department of Defense in Hawaii in 1978. He noted in his valedictory speech in November 1976 —

… despite all our haggling and our differences … in this Chamber, there are some very nice members of this place. In fact, there is not one member here that one cannot get to like.

9120 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 1 December 2015]

He reflected on how he was terrified of the then Leader of the Opposition, only to find that his bark was worse than his bite. He went on in that same speech to note —

… the Opposition does not involve itself in lengthy debates where it is unnecessary, whilst on many occasions Government members have availed themselves of the opportunity to speak at length on issues which the opposition has supported. Whether that has been due to a lack of discipline, co-operation, or communication, I do not know.

His inaugural speech shows us the breadth and depth of the issues affecting his electorate at the time, and also shows that despite that speech being made some 44 years ago, some things have not changed at all. In his first speech he canvassed the US naval base where he worked for a time after leaving politics. He canvassed primary industry and, in particular, paid attention to the needs of growers in Carnarvon and irrigation issues. He also addressed issues such as fishing, mining, water conservation, the development of Carnarvon in particular, education and health services in regional Western Australia, the gap between educational outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, hostel accommodation at regional high schools, and early childhood education, particularly for Indigenous children. During his time in the Parliament he raised concerns about the cost of air conditioning for teachers’ houses in the regions, the spouses of women MPs not receiving the same superannuation as the widows of men, selling alcohol on a Sunday and the disparity between regional and metropolitan liquor licensing laws, and tax increases.

The last public reference that I can find to Hon Stan Dellar was in a travel blog by a couple named Pete and Pam, titled “Adventure Before Dementia”. Their blog for September 2008 included an item headed “A Man Called Stan”. This is what it said —

The first few times we visited Grace’s Tavern —

This is in Exmouth —

we noticed an elderly man … sitting alone at one end of the bar. It soon became apparent that that position was ‘his place’. It also became apparent that the bar staff were quite deferential towards him. One afternoon I found myself next to him at the bar and we got to talking. Stanley James Dellar was a very interesting man; he had been the Exmouth Council C.E.O. — or Town Clerk as it used to be before everyone needed a grand title — for many years. He had also been a member of the Western Australian Upper House of Parliament for six years. Stan would enter the bar at 17:00 every afternoon except Wednesday and depart at 18:00. On Wednesday he played golf and so did not arrive until 17:30. If his game had not gone well it was better not to go near him. Stan disliked the air conditioning in the bar and at 17:00 it would be quietly switched off by the bar manager. He also disliked loud music so the volume was kept low between 17:00 and 18:00. Indeed, a very interesting man.

Hon Stan Dellar served his community and his state well, both in and out of this Parliament. On behalf of WA Labor, I honour his contribution and pay my condolences and respects to his family, who, too, are rightly proud of him.

HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [2.12 pm]: On behalf of the government, I wish to support the motion. Stanley James Dellar was born in November 1936 in Kalgoorlie, the son of a mine foreman, David Dellar, who was later to serve as a member of the Legislative Council representing the Australian Labor Party from 1963 until 1965.

Stan Dellar attended Eastern Goldfields High School—an outstanding educational facility—and later worked as a cashier and clerk with the former Kalgoorlie Road Board from 1956 until 1959. Subsequently, he was assistant shire clerk at Bridgetown and assistant town clerk at Carnarvon, and served as the shire clerk of Exmouth from 1967 until 1970. He undertook national service with the 17th National Service Training Battalion and subsequently served two years in the Citizen Military Forces.

He was charter secretary of both Bridgetown Apex Club and Exmouth Rotary Club, and for 15 years was a volunteer fireman and inaugural captain of the Carnarvon and Exmouth volunteer fire brigade. He was an active member of Eastern Goldfields Cycle Club and Exmouth Yacht Club.

In 1969, Stan Dellar joined the Australian Labor Party and was endorsed to contest the seat of Lower North Province at the 1971 general election. This was the seat in which his father had been defeated at the 1965 election. Lower North Province comprised the Legislative Assembly seats of Gascoyne and Murchison–Eyre, and was numerically the smallest province in the state at the time, with an enrolment of 5 100 electors spread over one-third of the state, ranging from Exmouth and Carnarvon to Laverton and Eucla. Stan Dellar polled 2 035 votes after preferences and defeated the incumbent member of the Legislative Council, the late George Brand, by four votes. This was the only gain of a Legislative Council province seat by the Australian Labor Party at the 1971 election and remains the narrowest margin in any contest for the Legislative Council since the introduction of full adult franchise in 1965.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 1 December 2015] 9121

Although other members of Parliament have succeeded their fathers in Parliament, Stan Dellar is the only member of the Western Australian Parliament to have regained the seat lost by their father. Lower North Province was contested eight times between its creation in 1965 and its abolition in 1988, and Stan Dellar was the only candidate of the Australian Labor Party to be successful during this period. Stan Dellar was passionately committed to the development of the north west, with a particular concern for the town of Exmouth, which is where he raised his family. He is remembered as a quick-witted man, and he served as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council from 1974 until 1977. The 1974 election left him as the only Australian Labor Party member in the northern regions of the state, with all other Council and Assembly seats in the Lower North and North Provinces now being held by the Liberal Party. At the conclusion of his six-year term in 1977, Stan Dellar was defeated by Hon Norman Moore by a margin of 1 100 votes. After leaving Parliament, Stan Dellar qualified in defence metals identification with the United States Department of Defense in Hawaii in 1978. He served a term as a Shire of Exmouth councillor and as deputy shire president from 1979 to 1982. He was engaged in truck driving in the Exmouth area after 1977. Stan spent his retirement in Exmouth, where he passed away on 11 April this year. Since 2013, Exmouth has been represented in federal Parliament by his niece, Melissa Price, MP. We express our sympathy to his former wife, Eileen; to his children, Steven, Glen, Peter and Letitia and their partners; and to his 12 grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

HON JACQUI BOYDELL (Mining and Pastoral) [2.15 pm]: On behalf of the National Party, I rise to make a brief contribution to this condolence motion for Hon Stanley Dellar today. I have an attachment to the Carnarvon–Exmouth region because it is where I come from, and I want to place on the record my thanks to Hon Stan Dellar for the work that he did for the north west of the Mining and Pastoral Region. It is through the commitment of people such as Stan in that pioneering time that people such as I who have followed him have benefited from his forward thinking.

Stan would have known my grandfather, Mr Bert Day, a Labor Party member who was very active in local government in Carnarvon. I will certainly pass on to my dad that we have had this condolence motion in the house today. Stan would have also known my father, who worked in the trucking industry for a very long time. It is a great honour for the people of the north west to hear about the contributions that people have made to the towns that they live in. It is lovely that the Parliament honours the service of former members, and I welcome Stan’s family to the house today.

HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [2.16 pm]: It is my pleasure to rise this afternoon as a member for the Mining and Pastoral Region to pay my respects to Hon Stanley James Dellar. As we know, Hon Stanley James Dellar was born in Kalgoorlie on 29 November 1936, the son of Gladys Jean McDonald and David Peter Dellar, a mine foreman who went on to become a member of the Legislative Council. It is fitting that we are discussing this motion today, because it is only days after what would have been Stan’s seventy-ninth birthday. I too acknowledge members of the extended Dellar family who are with us today; in particular, Eileen and Stan’s children, Glen, Peter, Steve and Letitia.

Stan moved to the Gascoyne region in the early 1960s to take on the role of assistant town clerk of the Shire of Carnarvon, which he held from 1964 to 1967. He moved to Exmouth in 1967, to take on the role of Exmouth shire clerk. In the 1971 state election, Stan contested the seat of Lower North Province, which at that time went from Exmouth in the north, south to the Murchison River and across to the border. The election was a three-horse race. The sitting member, the Liberal Party’s George Edmund Dowd Brand, was recontesting the seat against George Julian Jensen from the Democratic Labor Party and, of course, Stan. As we know and have heard today, it was a very tight race that Stan ended up winning with 2 035 votes to the incumbent’s 2 031 votes; there were only four votes in it. Stan served as the MLC for Lower North Province from 1971 to 1977, and there is no doubt that his experience in local government served him well. He served as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council from 1974 to 1977. He again contested the seat of Lower North Province in 1977, only to be beaten by Hon Norman Moore who, as we know, ended up being a long-serving member of this place. If Stan had won that election, who knows what might have happened to the political career of Hon Norman Moore. I am told that Stan was offered the opportunity to run for a seat in the goldfields after his defeat, but he chose not to, given his love for Exmouth and the Gascoyne region. After life in Parliament, Stan was elected as a member and deputy president of the Shire of Exmouth. He also drove trucks and worked at the United States Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in Exmouth. Stan loved his sailing and had been club champion for several seasons with Exmouth Yacht Club. He also had a great passion for the volunteer bush fire brigade, for which he spent 15 years as a volunteer fireman. He had been the inaugural captain of the Carnarvon and Exmouth Volunteer Fire Brigade. As a Labor member for Mining and Pastoral Region, I want to acknowledge Hon Stanley Dellar’s fine contribution to the Legislative Council, and also his contribution to regional Western Australia—be it to the Gascoyne or the Murchison–Eyre region. I, too, offer my condolences to the Dellar family on this day.


HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [2.20 pm]: I did not know Mr Stan Dellar, but, as is the usual practice, I rise on behalf of the Greens to express our condolences to his family and friends, wish them all well and hope that the contribution from this house befits the standard required of Hon Stan Dellar.

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I also rise to join members in the condolence motion and to acknowledge the service of our former member Stanley James Dellar. As we have heard, Mr Dellar had distinguished public service in local government in Kalgoorlie, Exmouth, Bridgetown and Carnarvon prior to entering Parliament. We have heard as well that he was involved in the communities in those regions through national service and the Citizen Military Force, the volunteer fire brigade, Apex and Rotary Clubs, sailing and cycling clubs, and, I am sure, many, many more.

He had the distinction of following his father into state Parliament as the member for Lower North Province from 1971 to 1977. As we have heard, in his parliamentary service he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council from 1974 to 1977, and he served as a member of the Joint Printing Committee from 1974 to 1977.

I congratulate and thank Stanley James Dellar for his significant contribution to public life in Western Australia, and to this institution in particular. I offer my condolences to his family and friends and, as is the custom, I ask members to rise in their places to observe one minute’s silence.

Question passed; members standing.

The PRESIDENT: I will convey to his family a Hansard copy of this debate and a letter from the Legislative Council.

BILLS Assent

Message from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills —

1. Child Support (Adoption of Laws) Amendment Bill 2015. 2. Terrorism (Extraordinary Powers) Amendment Bill 2015.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DETOX FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES — ESTABLISHMENT Petition

HON DAVE GRILLS (Mining and Pastoral) [2.23 pm]: I present a petition containing 81 signatures couched in the following terms —

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

We the undersigned residents of Western Australia support a Drug and Alcohol Detox Facility and Increased Support Services to reduce the severity of Drug and Alcohol harm in our community

Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to recommend supporting the establishment of a Detox Unit at the Esperance Hospital, on call acute Mental Health services at the Esperance Hospital and increased Drug and Alcohol counselling services in the community.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[See paper 3677.]

KINGS PARK — CITY OF PERTH BILL 2015 Petition

HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [2.24 pm]: I present a petition containing 20 signatures couched in the following terms —

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

We the undersigned residents of Western Australia respectfully oppose the current actions being taken in Parliament to remove the status of Kings Park as a national treasure and replace it by incorporating Kings Park as a part of the proposed City of Perth District. Kings Park is Western Australia’s most widely known icon and is visited by at least 5 million people each year. The fact that it has survived as a national treasure is due entirely to the foresight of the Parliament of Western Australia which provided Kings Park with triple-bottom-line protections, the chief of which was to ensure that Kings Park is NOT a part of and is separate from the City of Perth District. Parliament is now being asked to remove this protection by incorporating Kings Park as a part of the City of Perth District under


Section 17(3) (a) and (b) of the City of Perth Bill 2015. This action would remove Kings Park’s national and state-wide status by making it no more than a city park. It would also lay Kings Park open to the encroachment of development for other purposes, contrary to the best interests of, not only the Park itself, but Western Australia’s most iconic feature. Your Petitioners, therefore, respectfully request that the Legislative Council takes whatever action is deemed appropriate in order to protect and maintain the current status of Kings Park.

Your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[See paper 3678.]

MENTAL HEALTH ACT — COMMENCEMENT

Statement by Minister for Mental Health

HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [2.25 pm]: I am proud to inform the house that, yesterday, the Mental Health Act 2014 commenced in Western Australia. As members know only too well, one in five people will experience a mental illness during their lifetime. Sadly, some of these people will become so unwell that they are unable to consent to treatment and their behaviour creates a risk to themselves or others. These people may go on to become involuntary patients within the scope of the mental health legislation. In Western Australia that number is approximately 0.5 per cent of people with mental illness. It is a very small number of people, but that does not diminish the importance of this piece of legislation.

The new act is unambiguously focused on the needs, wishes and experiences of people with mental illness and on their families and carers. The act builds in checks and balances in the form of recording, discharge planning, reporting, review, recourse and advocacy to protect patients. Members will recall the extensive debate in this place in relation to the Mental Health Bill 2013, so I do not propose to speak in further detail as to the specific provisions of the act.

The content of the act really does transform the state’s mental health legislation and, for that, I must thank the many stakeholders who provided initial input, reviewed draft bills and made further recommendations as to what should be included in the act. Over 1 000 people provided feedback, including consumers, families and carers, clinicians, other people in the mental health sector and the general public. Given the large range and number of stakeholders and given this is such a contentious and emotive area, we were bound to encounter competing views. I am confident that a balance has been achieved.

The Mental Health Bill 2013 was passed here just over 12 months ago. However, implementation planning commenced before the bill was introduced. Agencies and services have been working towards the transition, with key projects involving the development of the Mental Health Regulations 2015; forms for use under the act; the Chief Psychiatrist’s standards and guidelines; written resources for clinicians, and other custom material; brochures and handbooks to assist patients, families and carers; several publicly available e-learning packages; face-to-face training; operational changes for area health services and individual services, and transitional processes for the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist, the Mental Health Review Board and the Council of Official Visitors.

I would like to thank the many people who have been involved in the implementation process from the Mental Health Commission, the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist and the Department of Health. I commend the Mental Health Bill Implementation Reference Group led by Mr Eric Ripper and prior to him Dr Judy Edwards, whose professionalism and dedication brought together key stakeholders to progress implementation in a truly consultative manner. The reference group has received ongoing input from numerous working groups, including a lived experience advisory group and an Aboriginal advisory group, to name just a few. I am grateful for the contribution these groups made. I am confident this is a better act as a result and I am looking forward to seeing a positive transition.

I would also like to thank the 99.7 per cent of mental health clinicians who have completed online training. I understand a small number are yet to complete their training; however, plans are in place to ensure all clinicians receive the training they require. Feedback provided to the Department of Health as to the quality of training provided has been overwhelmingly positive. Comprehensive materials are readily available, and a 24-hour clinicians’ helpline will be operating for the next six months.

I would like to conclude by saying that the commencement of the act is only one step in the state’s mental health reform agenda and that the launch of the mental health, alcohol and other drug services plan is imminent. In the meantime, it is the hope of this government that the new act will be embraced as an opportunity to achieve better outcomes for people experiencing mental illness, and their families and carers. People with mental illness, families and carers, and those within the sector continue to inspire me. Many face great challenges in their lives and in their work, and they face them with great courage.


PERTH MARKET AUTHORITY — BOARD MEMBERSHIP Statement by Minister for Agriculture and Food

HON KEN BASTON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [2.30 pm]: Last week I announced that a new seven-member interim board had been appointed to the Perth Market Authority to manage its day-to-day operations. Some months ago, members of the previous board indicated their intention to resign on 31 December this year, as the asset sale program, including the Perth Market Authority, progressed. More recently, members of the old board and my office reviewed the timing of their resignations and opted for a slightly earlier departure, as the original resignation date would have required the appointment of an interim board during the holiday period. The new board, led by Brian Easton as chairman, who also chairs the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, has taken on the oversight of Western Australia’s central fruit and vegetable trading hub for a one-year term until November 2016. In addition to the daily operations, the appointment of this interim board will assist in the smooth transition of Perth Market City to new ownership. I thank the new board members for taking on this role to ensure continuity during this transitional period. I also thank the outgoing chair, David Thomas, and members of the board for their valuable contribution. Each board member brought considerable knowledge and expertise to deliver an efficient wholesale market and support for our fruit and vegetable industry. I sincerely thank them for their dedication and professionalism, which will provide a solid foundation for the future of Market City. It is essential that the state’s wholesale fruit and vegetable market continues as a sustainable operation. Market City offers a significant opportunity for private sector investment in WA’s thriving fruit and vegetable industry. I believe that private sector ownership of the market will allow it to raise capital to expand its operations, such as further developing its cold storage facilities. It will also free the market to expand its supply chains, which can potentially include greater emphasis on export opportunities, particularly given that WA’s clean, safe, high-quality food is already in high demand in the region. Increasing exports from WA helps not only those companies directly involved, but also grow the state economy. It is my understanding that the government will seek to lock in a minimum 20-year term for the site to remain a fruit and vegetable market. This is important, particularly with the growing interest by international buyers in local, clean, green Western Australian produce. I have no doubt that the free trade agreement with China in particular could open up new and lucrative opportunities for Western Australian fruit and vegetable exports. I know from my recent trip to the Middle East, where I met with Emirates Flight Catering, that there is enormous interest from companies such as Emirates that want a guaranteed source of safe, fresh and clean food. I believe that private ownership of the market will help open up new export opportunities that currently are not available and that will benefit our 500 fruit and vegetable growers.

PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LEGISLATION AND STATUTES REVIEW Ninety-fifth Report — “Co-operatives Amendment Bill 2015 — Extension of Time” — Tabling

HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.33 pm]: I am directed to present the ninety-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review titled “Co-operatives Amendment Bill 2015 — Extension of Time”. [See paper 3679.] Hon KATE DOUST: On 18 November 2015, the Legislative Council referred the Co-operatives Amendment Bill 2015 to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. Pursuant to standing order 126(7), the committee is required to report to the Legislative Council by 16 February 2016, which is the first sitting day after the expiry of 45 days noted in that standing order. On 19 November 2015, the committee resolved to seek the leave of the Legislative Council to extend the date by which the committee is to report from 16 February 2016 to 25 February 2016. This extension is requested to enable the committee to properly discharge its reporting obligations to the house in light of travel commitments of committee members over the non-sitting period.

Motion HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.34 pm] — without notice: The committee requests an extension of time in which to report from 16 February 2013 to 25 February 2016. I therefore move —

That the reporting date for the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review into the Co-operatives Amendment Bill 2015 be extended from 16 February 2016 to 25 February 2016.

Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS Fifty-sixth Report — “2014–15 Annual Report Hearings Revised Timetable” — Tabling

HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [2.35 pm]: I am directed to present the fifty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, advising the house of changes to the 2014–15 annual report hearings timetable. [See paper 3680.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: The report that I have just tabled advises the house that the committee will no longer be holding a hearing with the Corruption and Crime Commission. Instead, the committee will meet with the Fremantle Port Authority. Further, the committee will meet with the Department of Treasury on Wednesday, 27 January 2016. I remind members that they are all more than welcome to participate in these hearings.

DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Notice of Motion to Introduce

Notice of motion given by Hon Michael Mischin (Attorney General).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing Orders Suspension — Motion

HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [2.37 pm] — without notice: I move —

That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended so as to enable the following variations to the order of business on Wednesday, 2 December and Thursday, 3 December 2015 — (a) no motions on notice on Wednesday; (b) no consideration of committee reports on Wednesday; (c) no private members’ business on Thursday; and (d) to sit after 5.20 pm on Thursday night, if required, with the dinner suspension from 6.00 pm to

7.00 pm. I will just make a few comments on this motion. I moved this motion in good faith. The situation with the legislative agenda of the government is that a considerable number of bills have passed through this chamber over the past few weeks, either with or without support for the bill from members opposite, but with the cooperation of members opposite to get those bills through. I thank members opposite for that cooperation; it has been very much appreciated. However the government still has two bills on its legislative agenda that it would like passed by the time the Council rises for the summer break—the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015 and the Criminal Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015. I have indicated to the opposition and the Greens that it is the intention of the government to have these two bills passed before Parliament rises. I was never given any commitment by the opposition and the Greens; I acknowledge that. However, having said that, I have always been quite clear that it is the intent of the government to pass the bills.

At this stage, we have had a considerable amount of debate on these two bills already. The Criminal Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015 has been debated for 12 hours and 23 minutes on the second reading, and a further five hours and 52 minutes on a motion for referral to a committee. An enormous amount of time has already been taken up by the opposition on this bill. Secondly, there have been seven hours and 41 minutes of second reading contributions on the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015 from members opposite, and we have just started a debate on a motion for referral to a committee. In both instances, there has already been a considerable amount of debate from members opposite. I will say at the outset, and this will be confirmed by Hon Helen Morton who has carriage of the bill, that the government will not support the referral of the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill to a committee. I want to make that quite clear—we will not support the referral motion. I hope with that, members opposite will acknowledge the fact that a prolonged debate on referral to a committee by members opposite is not going to amount to anything; that is, we will not support the motion for referral to a committee. Hon Ken Travers: So you’ve made up your mind you’re not going to listen to reasoned argument? That’s what it sounds like to me. Hon PETER COLLIER: No. Can I just say once again: we had exactly the same situation with the Criminal Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015. The opposition does not need every member opposite to make a full, 45-minute contribution to this debate. If members opposite want to make one or two points, that is fine. Hon Ken Travers: Were you this authoritarian in your classroom?


Hon PETER COLLIER: Not at all! This is just sensible. We all know what this is all about and, as I said, we will not support it. I am trying to facilitate time for members opposite to scrutinise the bills. If they are genuine about scrutinising the legislation, they will take heed of what I have just said.

Hon Ken Travers interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a debatable motion, as members know, and if members have a different point of view, they have the opportunity to express it, but not while another member is on his feet.

Hon PETER COLLIER: That said, if members opposite support the motion I have put forward, it will provide an additional 14 hours this week for members opposite to scrutinise those two bills. That is after the considerable amount of time that has already been taken up by debate on these bills. I do not for a second diminish the significance of these two bills, and I appreciate and acknowledge the fact that members opposite do not have the same views as we do on this side of the chamber. Having said that, 14 hours is a long time to scrutinise those two pieces of legislation in Committee of the Whole debate, during which members can actually sit there and forensically scrutinise that legislation. Members opposite are being provided right now with an opportunity to do so. I think that is eminently sensible and eminently fair.

That is on the assumption that we finish at 5.20 pm on Thursday; if we do not finish at 5.20 pm on Thursday, we will provide further hours, as long as it takes, to get this legislation through. As I said, the intent of the exercise is to provide members opposite with every opportunity to debate —

Hon Ken Travers interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order!

Hon PETER COLLIER: I am not saying anything that is contentious here, honourable member. I am saying something that is sensible.

As I said, that is more than enough time to scrutinise the legislation. There has to be a point in the legislative process at which members opposite acknowledge that the question should be put. That is part of the democratic process. Whether they agree or disagree with the question, there must come a point at which the question is put. Debating ad infinitum is fine as long as the opposition says that it has issues with the bill, identifies those issues and gives the government the opportunity to debate them, as opposed to procrastinating endlessly over pieces of legislation.

Having said that, we on this side of the chamber would like to avoid sitting beyond 5.20 pm on Thursday—we genuinely would. I do not think it is helpful to anyone to sit long hours into the night, and particularly not to parliamentary staff. However, we are more than willing to do that to provide an opportunity for members opposite to forensically go through every clause of the legislation, and I refuse to believe that that cannot be done in 14 hours, but if the opposition needs more time, we will provide it.

Mr President, I will finish the way I started. The motion I am putting to the chamber is in good faith and with the express intent of providing as much time as the opposition needs to scrutinise those two pieces of legislation, the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015 and the Criminal Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015, before the house rises for the summer break. I urge members to support the motion.

HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [2.44 pm]: I rise to indicate that the opposition will support this motion, but a few of us will have something to say about it.

Hon Michael Mischin interjected.

Hon SUE ELLERY: The Attorney General might be surprised. I want to support the motion in this fashion. From the time the Criminal Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015, referred to I guess colloquially as the “protest bill”, entered this house, I made it absolutely clear that we would not support it. From the time the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill appeared in this house, which was only just over a week ago, I made it perfectly clear that we would not support that bill. The Leader of the Opposition and I have a good arrangement —

Hon Peter Collier: Leader of the Government. Hon SUE ELLERY: Sixteen months! We have a good arrangement.

Several members interjected.

Hon SUE ELLERY: Our preselection is fine, what is going on over there, though?


The PRESIDENT: Order, members, order!

Hon SUE ELLERY: Do members opposite want to waste time or not?


The PRESIDENT: Order! We will get through this debate without any interjections and without any cross-chamber threats or bullying statements.

Hon SUE ELLERY: Thanks, Mr President. The point I was trying to make was that the Leader of the Government in this place has initiated what I think is quite a constructive approach, as we come to the end of the spring sittings and the period before the Christmas recess; that is, he would indicate to me which bills the government needs to get through before the end of that session so that we can identify between us which of those we can facilitate and which we cannot. It has been abundantly clear to the government for weeks that we would not support the Perth Market Authority bill, and for the better part of a year that we would not support the Criminal Code bill. The point of difference between this chamber and the other chamber is the customs and practices and, indeed, the standing orders of this chamber give effect to the function of a house of review. There is a fundamental difference between to the two houses. The notion that the Leader of the Government would say to us today, “Pick a number, seven hours, three hours, four hours, 14 hours, 48 hours is enough time” and therefore we should cease our contributions after a certain point that he deems appropriate or that we should cease our contributions just because we know that we do not have the numbers, I find offensive.

Hon Peter Collier: Take as long as you like.

Hon SUE ELLERY: The proposition that because we do not have the numbers in this place, which is exactly what he said, and because the government will not support the referral —


The PRESIDENT: Order, members!

Hon SUE ELLERY: For example, because the government will not support the referral of either of the two bills, we should somehow take as a logical extension of the Leader of the House’s comments that we should limit our contribution because we know we do not have the numbers. There goes democracy, if the Leader of the House wants us to take that approach.

Hon Michael Mischin: Democracy is that you don’t have the numbers.

Hon SUE ELLERY: Keep going, my friend, because you are one of the major assistants in continuing legislative debate in this place. One of the impediments the Leader of the Government has is the assistance offered to him by some of his ministers.

Every member of this house is entitled to speak. In fact, just last week this house debated the notion that we might disagree with what another person said but we would defend to the death their right to say it.


Hon SUE ELLERY: The notion put to us a mere few parliamentary days later that we are being unreasonable for exercising our right to oppose and to use means available to us to stop the passage of two pieces of legislation that we find odious and that we oppose is really ridiculous. As I said, the point of this place is different from that of the other place. We have a different set of rules; different customs and different practices and this will not be the first time that ministers, and indeed Premiers, will need to contemplate the difference between the two houses and that they, therefore, will need to do things differently. To be fair to government members of this place, if government members of the other place had set their legislative agenda in a bit more effective and organised fashion, we might not be in this position. The announcement of the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015 was made in August 2014. That bill entered the Legislative Assembly at the end of September 2015. It took more than a year to get the legislation to Parliament. We started debating it last week, and today—shock, horror!—the government is wasting Parliament’s time. It is just a nonsense! It is a reflection of the government’s inability, and particularly the inability of government members’ colleagues in the other place, to organise the legislative agenda efficiently.

We will support the motion, the government can give us as many hours as it wants, we will continue to oppose the bills, and we will take as long as we deem fit to make our contribution.

HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [2.51 pm]: I will add a couple of remarks to those of the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Sue Ellery, who put our position very, very clearly. I absolutely approve of one part of Hon Peter Collier’s motion; that is, that should we sit on Thursday night, we will break for dinner only from 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm. I think that is an excellent idea, Hon Peter Collier! I wish Hon Peter Collier would work on his colleagues to make sure that we never have more than one hour for dinner, because we would all thankfully devote an extra half an hour to the business of this house. We do not need that archaic 90-minute dinner break. Unfortunately, that is the only part of the motion I approve of. Although the opposition will support the motion —



Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have a limited amount of voice left this week, so I will not to try to talk over members. Several members interjected. Hon SALLY TALBOT: It will not stop me—do not worry—but I will not talk over members who interject. Unfortunately, that is the only bit of the motion I really like, although, as Hon Sue Ellery said, the opposition will support the motion. Hon Peter Collier and his colleagues in the Liberal and National Parties need to understand that our opposition to these two bills is deeply principled. We will not get to the stage of running out of things to say about them. We will not get to the stage of rolling over and saying, “Right, we’ve had enough of this; let’s put the question”, because the arguments, insofar as we are concerned, are compelling. It is not about the number of hours we debate; it is about the quality of that debate. I think it is true to say that on any objective measure, the quality of debate on this side of the house has been extremely high on both bills, despite the large number of hours it has taken. Mr President, it is a sign of competence that the Presiding Officers, including you, would not allow the debate to range off into the long grass that does not fall within standing orders. All these debates are fairly tightly constrained, and when in the chair you and your colleagues always make sure we stick to the point.

Let us continue down that track. It saddens me to see what the first thing to go is when we are under government self-imposed time pressure, as noted by Hon Sue Ellery. I wish Hon Peter Collier would be a little fiercer with his colleagues from the other place, as was the consistent position of his predecessor, Hon Kim Chance, when he was leader of the government in this place. Hon Peter Collier has to explain to members of the other place what real life is like in the house of review. He has to explain to them that they cannot get bills that we oppose through in a metaphorical five minutes. Indeed, I think compelling arguments have been made against both these contentious bills. As Hon Sue Ellery said, it has been almost three months since we indicated to the government that we would not support those bills. Clearly, they should have both been referred to committee posthaste, and they could have been back before this place this week. Our previous experience has been that the government would have been on much stronger ground in attempting to limit the amount of debate if those two bills had been referred to a committee.

The particular point I want to make is that whenever we face this situation, the first casualty is always motions on notice. Last week, motions on notice were not debated in this place because at that stage, with six more sitting days to go, members of the opposition wanted to show, in the spirit of good faith that Hon Peter Collier has already noted, that we too were onside with trying to get legislation through in a timely manner. The opposition gave up motions on notice last week. I am sure it has not escaped the attention of a single honourable member from this place that the motion in question is mine. It relates to container deposits—one of my favourite subjects. I am sure that if Hon Donna Faragher were not constrained by the discipline of adhering to her own party’s internal rules, she too would say, “Let us debate motions tomorrow.” I am sure she would have loved to do that last week.

Hon Donna Faragher: I love debating them. Hon SALLY TALBOT: This is one of her favourite subjects as well. My motion on container deposits, which the opposition is now graciously conceding, will take second place to the government’s orders of the day for the second week running. I gave notice of the motion on 19 June 2013. When Parliament comes back to debate this motion, it will be well-nigh three years since notice was first given that that motion was an appropriate subject to debate.

There are 37 motions on the Daily Notice Paper. The Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges constantly looks at more timely ways to deal with these things. Every time we pass a motion to suspend standing orders and change the order of business, the motions list is pushed out even more. I notice that of the 37 motions, 34 were moved in June 2013. It is not the proper way to organise business in this place. The opposition always likes to be positive and come up with solutions for the government such as, “It could have been done this way; these are the options that have been overlooked.” I have given the government one of them—the bills in question should have been referred to a committee. Even if there were a minority report, the results would have come back to this house with a lot of the work already done on the two bills; but we now have to do that during the second reading debate and Committee of the Whole stages. That would have meant we would not have had to deal with this motion to suspend standing orders and revise the order of business for tomorrow and Thursday. We could have proceeded with the motions, not in an ideally timely manner but in a more timely manner than we are able to do under the present circumstances.

HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural) [2.57 pm]: Although the government of the day has the ability to arrange the order of proceedings in the house, and the opposition respects that, like my colleagues, I too have some comments to make about the changes that have been put before us today.

From my understanding as a relatively new member of Parliament, the standing orders have been crafted and formulated over many years by successive governments in a bipartisan manner to create fairness and to give all members of the house the opportunity to contribute to the debate on various motions and to give members from


different electorates and regions across the state the opportunity to bring forward important issues. We have a very good set of standing orders. It should be of a very rare culture indeed that we change or suspend the standing orders, especially when it is for a matter of government incompetence. The opposition is being asked to forgo motions for the second week in a row. Motions are a most important aspect of this Parliament. It is a great opportunity for members like me from regional areas, and others, to put motions on the notice paper, as I have done. I note that the very next motion in the order of business would be a motion that I put forward in June 2013 about the future of the tertiary organisation Muresk Institute, which is in my electorate. I was really looking forward to having a frank and robust discussion in Parliament regarding the future of Muresk and the government’s failure to sustain that facility for the long term. I will be denied that opportunity because essentially the government has not been able to get its act together and pass its legislative agenda. Here we are, in the last week of Parliament. In the second last week we gave up two hours’ debate on motions, which we agreed to do in a bipartisan manner and in good faith to help the government. We are now in the last week, and we will all remember the little stunt that was pulled in Parliament to try to gag our non-government time last week, which was unsuccessful. We were debating a very important motion on the Asbestos Diseases Compensation Bill 2013. We all remember that little stunt. Today we get to Parliament and in a top-down, typical, conservative approach we are told from above how things will be. We accept that the government has the right to make changes to the order of business of the house and we will support that, because that is a time-honoured convention. However, when we honour that time-honoured convention, we hope that it is done for legitimate reasons and in good faith. I am not so sure that that is the case.

Here is a government that has become a rabble. Last week, there was such a shambles in the other place that Parliament was adjourned for the day because there was not a single government member—not a single Liberal or National member—in the house. That is the sign of a government in a rabble. This week we have to suspend standing orders and there is the threat of sitting extra hours. There is also the retraction of motions on notice, debate on which I think is important. It is told to us that it is democratic and in good faith. This is where I also have an issue. The Leader of the House says the government would like to pass legislation. The government would like to do a lot of things, but this is a democracy and this is a house of review. It is not a dictatorship and it is not a communist authority. This is a democratic state; that is, a democratic jurisdiction where all the members of this house have an obligation to their electorates to come in here and review legislation and to make the points that their electorate wants them to make. That we are made to feel as though we are doing something wrong by carrying out our job, I too find offensive.

A government member interjected.

Hon DARREN WEST: That is what I am hearing on this side of the house, that we are doing something wrong by taking 14 hours to debate legislation.

Hon Peter Collier: I didn’t say that.

Hon DARREN WEST: That was certainly the inference and the implication of what I heard on this side. I do not think there is anything wrong with that and I am pleased that the Leader of the House does not either, because if that is what we have to do, that is what we should do. Our electorates demand that legislation be reviewed thoroughly. We have a bicameral political arrangement under the Westminster system. We should take all the time that is required and we should sit here as long as it takes until the legislation has been thoroughly reviewed, especially when it is rubbish legislation and especially when it is appallingly written, and legislation that the people who elected members to Parliament had no idea would be brought into Parliament when they went to the polls in 2013. Had the government told them that it would bring in legislation that reverses the onus of proof for carrying a “thing”, I think they may have voted very, very differently. The onus is on us as the opposition to stand up against poorly drafted legislation and to at least try to amend it.

The other point that I will come to, on both the Criminal Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015 and the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015, is that I have not seen a shred of evidence of the government wanting to compromise at all on these pieces of legislation; even though we pointed out over and over again in our second reading contributions to the debate, and made the point that everybody else in Western Australia gets except the government, that having the word “thing” in legislation opens it up to all kinds of possibilities that people who are not guilty of anything may be arrested and may have the onus of proof reversed. There was a very important democratic point in that legislation that we made over and over again. Rather than say, “Yes, we acknowledge that this is not quite right and how about we pitch it another way”, or “Let’s amend the legislation”, or “Let’s send it off to a committee”, the government could have avoided hours of debate by at least getting the legislation scrutinised, because it is very poor. There are 70 groups in Western Australia that agree with us that it is a very poorly drafted and unnecessary piece of legislation. We think that this legislation should be reviewed; that is our job. It should be reviewed here in the house, with the capacity to amend—should the government be at all willing to compromise and reach a neutral position—and if that cannot be achieved, then at the very least, send it off to a committee that can go further into the details —


The PRESIDENT: Order! I believe the member is now straying into a motion that is on the notice paper in terms of referral of a piece of legislation to a committee. We are currently debating a motion without notice about the times and suspension of standing orders to achieve those times for the debate that you are now referring to. Hon DARREN WEST: Thank you, Mr President; you are quite right, and I do apologise. I will finish my remarks soon.

The Leader of the House talked about good faith. I have not seen very much good faith in this motion at all. The Leader of the House also talked about democracy. What is happening with these pieces of legislation is democracy. The definition of “democracy” is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”. That is what I am proud to be. As an elected representative of my electorate, I will stand up against poor legislation. The Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015 is poor legislation, and there is a lot more to say about that, but I will not go into it now. The Criminal Code Amendment (Prevention of Lawful Activity) Bill 2015 is also very poor legislation.

Although we will support the motion, I think those points need to be made. Members opposite need to be aware that we do not support bad legislation, nor does the majority of the population that we represent. We will debate that bad legislation in the hope that we can reach a compromise position or that that legislation can be reviewed, referred to a committee or changed in such a manner that makes it palatable. That is our job and that is what we will do. That is what we should be doing, that is what we are paid to do and that is what we are sent here to do. If it takes extra time and extra sitting hours are required, that is the job of a parliamentarian and I look forward to carrying out that job.

HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.06 pm]: The Leader of the House inspired me to get up and make a few comments this afternoon. He can check with the Leader of the Opposition. I was not planning to say anything today until I heard the remarks that he made. The opposition, as is the tradition and custom of this place, will support a change to the way this house operates in the final days of sitting for the year. That is why we will be supporting the motion moved by the Leader of the House. For the Leader of the House to berate the opposition during his speech and say that the government will not consider referring any bills to committees follows on from the Minister for Agriculture and Food standing in this house and giving a ministerial statement that treats and pre-empts the decision of this house as if it were a foregone conclusion, completely ignoring whether the Liberal Party’s own government partners want to move amendments to the legislation. That is completely contemptuous.

In the past, when I have disagreed with a bill, I have been known to use the only resource available for me to make that point; that is, to engage in extensive scrutiny of the legislation. In the past, I have done that on bills that I thought were unfair; for example, the way the electricity corporations were being dealt with or various tax bills that were introduced by this government. Seeing as the Leader of the House raised it in his comments, I want him to understand that compared with those previous bills, my passion for opposing the bills that are before the house for consideration this week is 10 times. I have passion beyond comprehension. He can say that the government will give the opposition as much time as it likes to debate the legislation. I assure the Leader of the House that there is plenty of material on both these bills that will make it very unlikely that I will no longer be able to speak in this chamber or that the President will sit me down because I become tedious and repetitious. I will probably run out of breath before I am found to be tedious and repetitious. I will do that with passion. Even if my leader tells me to sit down, I will have an argument with her behind the Chair on these bills. Ultimately, I know who will win that battle. I am completely opposed to these bills. The government can give us as much time as it likes to speak because its members may happily walk away from defending the fruit and vegetable industries in Western Australia but whilst I have breath in my lungs, I will use it.

One issue is not covered in the motion moved by the Leader of the House. He talks about what we will do for the dinner break, but I suggest to the Leader of the House that he should also have—if not in this motion—some arrangements with the staff of this place and the Leader of the Opposition about when we will break for breakfast and when we will come back to continue the debate on Friday morning. I hope that we do not end up with a situation like the last time when we sat beyond seven o’clock and the Leader of the House completely abdicated his responsibilities to the staff of this place and let the debate just draw on until the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to stand up and make something happen. That is why Hon Peter Collier is termed the “Leader of the House”; he is supposed to lead the house. On that night, it was clear that the only leader in this place was the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that the Leader of the House will not wait until six o’clock in the morning when I am mid-flight, halfway through some of the problems with the short title of the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015, to think about what time he will hold breakfast and when he will adjourn the house. I hope that the Leader of the House will stand up and show some leadership on this occasion by doing that in advance of reaching that point on Friday morning. I have to tell the Leader of the House that, having


moved this motion today, the first thing I will do is ring my office to make sure that the staff clear my diary on Friday and if we have to, I hope we can jump over the estimates week to come back the week after estimates. In that case, I will clear my diary of the school graduations I intended to attend that week. Let there be no doubt about the passion I hold for these matters and the way in which this government is treating us with contempt. As part of moving this motion, the Leader of the House raised the issue of referring the bill to a committee. I think Hon Peter Foss talked about how, if we want to pass difficult legislation, some roughage needs to be provided. I have not seen much roughage provided in this house. We need to pick the highly contentious bills, in which there is clearly doubt even from the government’s own side about whether that bill is correctly drafted or needs to be amended, and refer them to a committee. It is great to come in here and give the opposition a lecture about how evil and bad it is for us to want to stand up and do things such as refer bills to a committee when a bill such as this is so highly contentious within the industry and among the government’s own members, and the Leader of the House completely refuses to refer it. We have seen so often in this place that, even though the opposition is strongly opposed to a bill, it is referred to a committee — The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the member on his feet that we are talking about a motion that refers to times; we are not talking about referral. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I understand that, Mr President. I am simply responding to the remarks made by the Leader of the House when moving this motion about times that indicated that the opposition should give up on a motion to refer a bill to a committee. In light of the fact that the Leader of the House has raised that as part of the debate this afternoon, it is clearly an issue that goes to the amount of time that the house will give to this motion. I certainly will not trespass into all the matters that I intend to raise when we get to the Committee of the Whole House debate. I simply make the point that it is fine for the Leader of the House to move a motion such as this to ask for more time and to have the opposition’s cooperation to provide more time, but a simpler method to providing that time would be for the government to allow the bill to be referred to a committee. One of the issues about us sitting later on Thursday night, and later this week, is, of course, what happens should any amendment be made to this legislation. If we need to sit later this week because an amendment is passed by this house—if the government is prepared to allow some amendments to be made to this legislation, or members of the National Party stand up for the fruit and vegetable industry in Western Australia and allow some amendments—we will find that the Legislative Assembly is not sitting. Why are we sitting late on Thursday night? Why would we want to put the chamber through so much pain by sitting late, because if an amendment is accepted by the house during those debates, nothing can happen with that legislation until next year? If an amendment is made by this chamber to either of the bills that the Leader of the House wants to go through the house this week, with the additional time he is asking for, will the government recall the Assembly? As I say that, the Leader of the House leaves his chair, I am sure, on urgent parliamentary business. That is what I want to hear from the government in response. The opposition is happy to give the government as much time as it likes, but if amendments are moved and accepted by this house, the house of review, during the week, will the government bring back the Assembly? If the government is not prepared to bring back the Assembly, a serious question needs to be asked: why would we want to sit for hours and hours, days and days, on weekends, or whatever it takes until we run out of breath on these bills, if amendments are made and the bills will not be passed and become law until next year? The government needs to consider those matters; we do not have the option of considering those matters. It will make complete nonsense of the process if the house is asked to sit late on Thursday night and the government refuses to allow the bills to go to a committee of the house—we can have the debate later about the merits or otherwise of the great benefit of referring these bills to a committee—and they ultimately sit on the notice paper as a message waiting in time for the Assembly to return in 2016. Those are the questions to which I want the Leader of the House to respond and to provide advice to the house. What are we going to do about breakfast on Friday morning? When are we going to have it? When are we going to reconvene after we have had our breakfast? How are we going to ensure that the occupational health and safety of staff are protected in this place? That is the Leader of the House’s obligation. He has been put on notice. Also, should the house choose to amend the bill, will the government guarantee to bring back the Assembly or will these bills sit in the ether until the return of the Assembly? If that is the case, why are we even bothering to sit beyond six o’clock on Thursday night? As always, the opposition will operate and cooperate with the government to give the time that it wants to give to this house, but the Leader of the House should not make a nonsense of it. The PRESIDENT: It being a motion to suspend standing orders, an absolute majority is required. Question put and passed with an absolute majority.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing Orders Suspension — Motion

HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.18 pm] — without notice: I move —


That so much of standing and temporary orders be suspended as to enable me to move a motion without notice referring an urgent matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

At about 8.20 this morning a staff member of my office contacted the government to ask which ministers would not be available this week to provide answers to questions. We were told that four Assembly ministers would not be available today, four Assembly ministers would not be available tomorrow and three Assembly ministers would not be available on Thursday. I think this is a matter of considerable concern and I would like to suspend standing orders so that I can then move a motion without notice that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges inquire into the issue of ministers failing to make themselves available to respond to questions without notice of which some notice has been given. That is the purpose of this motion to suspend standing orders.

This is not an extra sitting week that has been tacked on and that the government did not know about. This is a regularly scheduled sitting week. It is not unusual that one or two Assembly ministers are not available to answer questions. That also happens when both houses are sitting at the same time. However, on two days of this week, four Assembly ministers will not be available. There may even be days this week when one of the ministers in this house is not available, such as today, when the Minister for Housing, Hon Colin Holt, is not available. That means that five ministers are not available today to provide answers to questions without notice of which some notice has been given. That is not good enough. The Leader of the House should have endeavoured to explain to his ministerial colleagues that it would be good form if, in the five-hour period between when questions are lodged and question time occurs in this place, some ministers made themselves available to provide answers to those questions.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges needs to give consideration to this matter and provide advice to this house on how we can send a clear message to the Assembly that this is not good enough. If ministers are travelling overseas and are in another time zone, frankly, there should be an acting minister who can provide answers in their absence. I note that Minister Joe Francis is not available this week because he is on leave. However, we have been advised that an acting minister is available to provide answers in his absence. When ministers are travelling overseas or are taking a period of leave, an acting minister should be provided. However, if ministers are travelling within Western Australia, modern technology is available that would enable them to answer questions. I find it hard to believe that today, five ministers are not available during that five-hour period to provide answers to questions. That modern technology is called email. Ministers also have mobile phones on which they can get emails and text messages. They even have old technology available in the form of fax machines. However, we are asked to believe that there is no way in which a minister’s office can process questions, put them in front of the minister and get an answer ticked off in that five-hour period. Five ministers today are not able to do that. I think that is treating this place with contempt. Parliamentary questions are lodged by us at 11 o’clock. The department prepares the answers, the ministerial office liaises with the department about how the answers are looking, and the minister ticks off on those answers, all to be ready by 4.30 pm when question time starts. With email and texting, and even with an old-fashioned fax machine, it should be possible to get answers from at least some of those ministers who are travelling. I do not know whether all five of those ministers are travelling. We have been told that one of those ministers might be travelling. I do not know where the other ministers are. We are told that five ministers today, four ministers tomorrow and three ministers on Thursday will be unavailable across the whole of that five-hour block. That is not acceptable.

That is even more unacceptable because of the government’s galling behaviour in the other place last week, when government members abandoned their post, if you like. Government ministers and government members were not in the chamber, and the government Whip was not in the chamber, and the Parliament shut down. That is a sign of a ragged government. That is one thing—if the government wants to be judged as a ragged government, it can go for its life. However, it is unreasonable to treat this place with the contempt that we are seeing today, when five ministers are not available at all. This is just another example of a government that is thumbing its nose at its responsibility to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. It is not acceptable.

We know what the numbers in this house are. However, I want to make this point, and I cannot think of a clearer way in which to make this point than by moving this motion. It should not be the case that five ministers today, four ministers tomorrow and three ministers on Thursday are not available to answer questions. These are ministers with serious portfolios, including the Treasurer, while we are debating one of his bills; the Minister for Health; and the Premier. These are serious ministers with serious portfolios, who decided that because a year ago they agreed to schedule the Legislative Council this week, they do not have to make themselves available to answer questions. That is not satisfactory, and I think that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges should have a look at it. The way for me to bring this issue to the attention of the house is to try to suspend standing orders in order to give me the authority to debate the substantive motion.

HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [3.25 pm]: I am very pleased to second this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Sue Ellery.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It does not require a seconder.


Hon SALLY TALBOT: I thank Mr President for his guidance. I meant to speak second in the debate on this motion moved by Hon Sue Ellery.

I would like to make a couple of additional points over and above Hon Sue Ellery’s very eloquent opening to this debate. I really think that this is a very, very important question, and I appeal to every member of this house to support the motion to suspend standing orders. As Hon Sue Ellery noted, this is not an extra sitting week. It is not as though we had sat through the night on Thursday—which we may well end up doing—and into Friday, and as part of that extended sitting had an extra and completely unanticipated question time. Ministers have known that there was going to be a question time on Tuesday, 1 December; Wednesday, 2 December; and Thursday, 3 December since about October 2014. That is how long ministers have had to put the administrative arrangements in place to get their questions answered on those three days. As Hon Sue Ellery outlined, we all know how these questions are answered. It is not actually the minister who gets the first look —

The PRESIDENT: Order, member! We are debating that standing and temporary orders be suspended to move a motion. We are not debating any particular motion at the moment, except the need for standing orders to be suspended.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate the President’s advice on that matter. I am outlining a series of points—there are not that many of them, so if members can just bear with me. I know it is frustrating, but I tell members, whatever frustration they are feeling at the moment, it is nothing compared with the rage that we were consumed with at about 9.30 this morning when we found out that over the course of the week, in those three slots, 10 ministers have made themselves unavailable to answer questions. That is the reason the half a dozen points I am going to make are all directed towards why standing orders should be suspended. Frankly, we are not going to get any answers out of question time this week, so the suspension of standing orders is the only way that we can get some of these important questions on the record to be answered. Can we move into the debate about the substantive motion, which Hon Sue Ellery has foreshadowed is a request for the President to refer this important matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges, because it is the only way that we can address these questions? I make the point that if government members do not support this motion to suspend standing orders, it will add to the impression that the Liberal and National Parties have an utter disregard for the way that this Parliament works. We are seeing question time being completely subverted this week. This is a very, very important, not just for members of the Opposition who are just trying to do their jobs. We are still in the middle of some very hotly contested issues, and it may well be that other members have matters that they want to raise in question time, which we are now not allowed to raise. I want the answer from the procedure and privileges committee about what we can do about this, so that it never happens again. I have issues that I want ministers to address that are absolutely to do with the business of the house this week. We all know that only five or six ministers and a couple of parliamentary secretaries are in this place, so over the years we have put in place this somewhat interesting notion of questions without notice of which some notice is given.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I think the member is straying into a motion that the Leader of the Opposition has foreshadowed, but we have not actually got to that point yet. The only question before the Chair is that standing and temporary orders need to be suspended for the purpose of referring an urgent matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If the house agrees to that, we may move on to another motion, but we may not. That is the only matter before the Chair at the moment. This is the only way that what the Leader of the Opposition seeks to do can be achieved.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you for your advice, Mr President. I will come back to the substantive motion that standing and temporary orders should be suspended to debate this matter of the referral. If we do not suspend standing orders in the interim to the substantive debate, we will have set a precedent for this place. We know ministers in the other place have tended to have a cavalier view about the operations of the house of review. I wonder how many of them are following the debate now about the suspension of standing orders. I wonder how many ministers in the other place, and, indeed, backbenchers in the other place, have a view about whether we should suspend standing orders.

Hon Ken Travers: My experience is that they don’t follow debate in their own chamber, let alone anywhere else!

Hon SALLY TALBOT: I agree with Hon Ken Travers; they find it hard enough to focus on that. But the suspension of standing and temporary orders is a very serious matter to be debated. It does not happen all that often. It is just a very odd situation that we should have had this matter arise twice, in fact, on two consecutive sitting days. We have had Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday in between, but last Thursday the same motion to suspend standing and temporary orders was moved by the government. It always reflects something that the mover of the motion and the members of the party of the mover of the motion feel very, very strongly about. It always reflects a matter on which tempers will run hot. The Leader of the Government in this place obviously had strong feelings when he moved the motion to suspend standing and temporary orders, because these things matter very, very greatly to the way business is conducted in this place.


I hope we hear from ministers. I hope the ministers themselves will respond to the motion moved by Hon Sue Ellery. I want to hear from Hon Peter Collier who represents the Premier and the Minister for State Development, who is one of the ministers who has made himself unavailable this week to answer questions in this place. I want to hear from Hon Helen Morton, the Minister for Mental Health; Child Protection; Disability Services who represents a raft of ministers who have made themselves unavailable to answer questions in this place. She represents the Deputy Premier, who has made himself unavailable, I think, for two consecutive question times, and she also represents the Minister for Environment; Heritage, who is the minister who moved me to get to my feet to try to urge the chamber to enter into the substantive debate, because I had a number of questions for him. I have already said that sometimes we argue on behalf of ourselves when we put forward our views about motions to suspend standing and temporary orders, but sometimes we try to represent the interests of our constituents. In this particular case, I had questions lined up to ask the Minister for Environment; Heritage, and I found out that he is one of the ministers represented by Hon Helen Morton who has made himself unavailable. Only one person might want to absent himself from the debate when we get to the government’s contribution to the debate on this suspension motion, because he might still be out of the house on urgent parliamentary business, as he is now. He may not want to contribute, even if he is back in the house, because he in fact is the only minister who has done the right thing. The minister he represents, the Minister for Emergency Services —

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is now debating an anticipated motion and not the current motion before the Chair, which simply and narrowly refers to the suspension of standing orders. That is the debate before the Chair.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you for those comments, Mr President. I take your advice very seriously. As Mr President can tell from my comments, I am cognisant that the terms of the debate are very narrow, but I would be better informed in the substance of my contribution to this narrow debate had somebody from the government side sought the call when Hon Sue Ellery sat down. I absolutely recognise your technical point, Mr President, that this motion did not need seconding. I was very concerned to put my views on the record, so, of course, I sought the call as Hon Sue Ellery was taking her place, but nobody from the other side jumped up. I would like to have heard the defence for not suspending standing orders to debate this motion. I am reading body language, and maybe I am reading it wrongly, but I am getting the feeling that Hon Peter Collier, the Leader of the Government in this place, is not going to support the debate on the substantive motion. Would it not be sensible to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges? I can tell members that we would be doing each and every one of us a service if we make this point: we cannot allow matters such as this to slip past without a substantive debate on the matter in question. That is what will happen if we end up voting along party lines on this suspension motion.

I know that this is something that Hon Nick Goiran has given considerable thought to. I went back only the other day, when preparing for another debate that we are getting to shortly in this place, to some comments that Hon Nick Goiran had made about whether government members were free to support motions. He did not specifically refer to a suspension of standing orders, but I would imagine that this type of motion comes within the collection of motions that he was talking about. He said that if only the opposition would give the government sufficient time to consider the opposition’s position and to inform colleagues of its intentions, sometimes they would be more inclined to support the opposition when we moved motions. I think that Hon Nick Goiran was talking about the referral of a bill to committee, but I think that the suspension of standing orders, being a very serious motion, will be the type of motion that falls into that category.

I am sorry that we cannot do this. I am sorry that we could not discuss the suspension of standing orders last week, because if the opposition had been aware of the situation that has given rise to this motion—that is, having 10 vacant spots, 10 complete silences from ministers, over these three sitting days when it came to questions—it could have done what Hon Nick Goiran had foreshadowed and told the government that we were going to move this motion, and I bet we would have got some government members coming over to this side. We simply cannot proceed on the basis that this chamber—indeed, this Parliament—can be treated in such a cavalier fashion.

I point out to members on the government benches—members of the Liberal and National Parties—that Labor in government never, ever did this. We know there is a proper procedure in place when a minister is unavailable, and that is to appoint an acting minister. We always did that!

The PRESIDENT: Order! Now you are straying into an anticipated debate about some other matter. We are talking about a very narrow debate referring to the suspension of standing and temporary orders. That is the motion before the house and not any wider debate.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you, Mr President. I am going to wind up my remarks in about 60 seconds. I want to say that if we had been able last week to foreshadow this debate on the suspension of standing orders, it may very well have been accepted by this house.


Indeed, I urge all honourable members to support the motion. If the reason they do not want to support the motion to suspend standing orders is that they do not want to support Hon Sue Ellery’s substantive motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I urge them not to have that fear because they can vote it down at that stage when they have heard the substantive arguments from this side of the chamber; indeed, by that stage many members might have had a chance to reflect on what might be their contributions to that debate. I urge all members in this house to not set a precedent, not let the other place get away with this, teach the other place a lesson and support the motion.

HON ADELE FARINA (South West) [3.41 pm]: I support the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Hon Sue Ellery in order for Hon Sue Ellery to move a motion about the significant absence of ministers available to answer questions asked in this house this week. We have been informed that nine of the 17 ministers—that is more than half the cabinet—will not be available to answer questions in this place. The motion to suspend standing orders is not taken lightly and is absolutely necessary in this instance, because the notification that those ministers will be unavailable to answer questions will impact on the business of this house. It is a standard part of each sitting day to have question time, and it is accepted custom and practice that ministers make themselves available to answer questions during that question time. We have been informed that half the cabinet will not be available to answer questions, and that will impact on the business of this house. This house is the master of its destiny and needs to be able to fulfil its functions, and one of its functions is to hold government to account. The purpose of question time is to hold ministers and government to account for their policies and actions. Effectively, the government, in advising us that nine of the 17 ministers will not be available at various times during this week to answer questions, is impacting on the business of this house. This is a very serious matter. It will also im

parliamentary debates · titled “adventure before dementia”. their blog for september 2008...

Documents