?Eeiulatiue AssembI4; Metropolitan Zone

3632 [ASSEMBLY]

?Eeiulatiue AssembI4;Tuesday, 28 October 1986

THE SPEAKER (Mr Bamnett) took the Chairat 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

TECHNICAL AND FURTHER

EDUCATION

Reductions: Petition

MIR WATTr (Albany) 12.17 p.mn.]: I have apetition which reads as follows-

To: The Honourable the Speaker andMembers of the Legislative Assembly ofthe Parliament of Western Australia inParliament assembled.

We, the undersigned, petition thePremier of Western Australia and the Min-ister for Education to undertake, as a mat-ter of urgency, negotiations with the StateSchool Teachers Union on the proposedchanges in TAFE conditions.

We express concern that these changesin conditions will reduce the quality oftechnical education in this State for schoolleavers and others by:

1 . Increased class sites

2. Reduction in number and type ofcourses

3. Cuts in youth training pro-grammes and courses for the agedand disadvantaged

4. Cuts in retraining and adult edu-cation programmes

Your petitioners therefore humbly praythat you will give this matter earnest con-sideration and your petitioners, as in dutybound, will ever pray.

The petition bears 616 signatures and I certifythat it conforms to the Standing Orders of theLegislative Assembly.

The SPEAKER: 1 direct that the petition bebrought to the Table of the House.

(See petition No. 56.)

TRANSPORT; TWO ROCKS-YANCHEP

Metropolitan Zone Status: Petition

MR CRANE (Moore) [2.19 p.m.]: I have apetition which reads as follows-


We, the undersigned, request that anamendment to the Metropolitan (Perth)Passenger Transport Trust Act beintroduced into the Parliament to give theYanchep-Two Rocks area metropolitanzone status in line with similar areas southof the City of Perth.


The petition bears 423 signatures and I certifythat it conforms to the Standing Orders of theLegislative Assembly.

The SPEAKER: I direct that the petition bebrought to the Table of the House.

(See pet ition No. 5 7.)

TECHNICAL AND) FURTHEREDUCATION

Reductions: Petition

MR DURKEfl (Scarborough) [2.20 p.m.J: Ihave a petition from 66 residents which readsas follows-


We, the undersigned art students ofCarine College of TAfl wish to registerthe strongest protest against any cuts in theTAFE colleges that will increase the classsizes to the detriment of the students work;for example our drawing class this year hasbeen so large that the setting up of easelshas been difficult, we are not able to stepback to view our work and the teacher hasgreat difficulty moving around to correctour mistakes.

We are also concerned with the fate ofup to 300 teachers whose jobs are on theline, are they to be sacked to join the longdole queue or will they be absorbed intoareas other than teaching?

3632

[Tuesday, 28 October 1 986] 63

Your petitioners therefore humbly praythat you will give this matter earnest con-sideration and your petitioners, as in dutyhound, will ever pray.

I certify that it conforms to the Standing Or-ders of the Legislative Assembly.



PRISON: CASUARINASite: Petition

MR MARLBOROUGH (Cockburn) [2.21p.m.): I have a petition which reads as fol-lows-

To the Honourable the Speaker andmembers of the Legislative Assembly ofthe Parliament of Western Australia inParliament assembled.

We, the undersigned, totally oppose thesiting of a prison complex at Casuarinalisting the following reasons:

I . That it is incorrectly planned andplaced on an important flora,fauna and wetlands reserve.

2. There is no basis for buildingwithin Kwinana when the Can-nling Vale site has been designedto cater for a maximum securitycomplex. Building would result ina total misuse of taxpayersmonies.

3. There is no room for future ex-pansion without land resumption.


The petition bears 4 275 signatures and I cer-tify that it conforms to the Standing Orders ofthe Legislative Assembly.


(See pet ition No. 59.)

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTIONGascoyvne: Petition

MIR LAURANCE (Gascoyne) [2.22 p.m.]: Ihave a petition which reads as follows-

To: The Honourable, The Speaker andMembers of the Legislative Assembly ofthe Parliament of Western Australia inParliament assembled.

We the undersigned,I . Advise the Government of our strong

opposition to any change to the Elec-toral Laws of the State that will bringany major changes to the boundariesof the Gascoyne Electorate.

2. Advise that the seat of Gascoyne isalmost the same size as the State ofVictoria and has been sending a rep-resentative to the State Parliamentsince 1890, and we wish to retain thisright.

3. Request that the Government drop itspolicy of "one vote, one value" infavour of a policy of "one vote, equalvalue" that would recognise thespecial difficulties of our vast andisolated region.

4. Request the right for this importantregion of the State to continue to sendone representative out of fifty sevenrepresentatives in the Legislative As-sembly.


The petition bears 228 signatures. I certify thatit conforms to the Standing Orders of the Legis-lative Assembly.



TECHNICAL AND FURTHEREDUCATION

Reductions: PetitionMR MacKINNON (Murdoch-Deputy

Leader of the Opposition) [2.24 p.m.]: I presentthe following petition-


We, the undersigned, petition thePremier of Western Australia and the Min-ister for Education to undertake, as a mat-ter of urgency, negotiations with the StateSchool Teachers Union on the proposedchanges in TAFE conditions.

WE EXPRESS CONCERN THATTHESE CHANGES IN CONDITIONSWILL REDUCE THE QUALITY OFTECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THIS

3633

3634 ASSEMBLY]

STATE FOR SCHOOL LEAVERS ANDOTHERS BY:

1. INCREASED CLASS SIZES2. REDUCTION IN NUMBER

AND TYPE OF COURSES3. CUTS IN YOUTH TRAINING

PROGRAMMES ANDCOURSES FOR THE AGEDAND DISADVANTAGED

4. CUTS IN RETRAINING ANDADULT EDUCATION PRO-GRAMMES

Your petitioners therefore humbly praythat you will give this matter earnest con-sideration and your petitioners, as in dutybound, will ever pray,

The petition bears 32 signatures. I certify thatit conforms to the Standing Orders of the Legis-lative Assembly.

The SPEAKER: [ direct that the petition bebrought to the Table of the House.

(See petition No. 6 1.)

MEMBER FOR EAST MELVILLE: CARTampering; Personal Explanation

MR LEWIS (East Melville) [2-29 p.m.J-byleave: The basis on which I make this personalexplanation is that during question time lastThursday I was misrepresented. In a lengthyresponse to a question from the member forMandurah, the Deputy Premier advised theHouse that the police had concluded that therewas no evidence of unlawful interference to mymotor vehicle and that that information hadbeen made known to me earlier in the week.

The truth is that on Monday, 20 October, Irang the acting detective inspector who washandling the case and I was advised that duringthe course of the inquiry the police had-

(1) Spoken to an independent BMW ex-pert;

(2) from investigations thus far they can-not explain the reasons for the boltsbecoming loose at the one time;

(3)(4)

that it could be mechanical failure;they had yet to interview the personwho repaired the vehicle, to speak tothe service director of the companywhich had repaired the vehicle and toobtain the service records of that ve-hicle;

(5) investigations were continuing; andthat

(6) he would contact me when the policehad reached a conclusion.

On the morning of Friday, 24 October, afterthe Deputy Premier's statement, I again rangthe acting detective inspector and advised himthat, contrary to the Deputy Premier'sstatement to the Parliament, I had not beenadvised of the conclusions of the inquiry andthat I thought it quite improper for policeinvestigating a complaint of mine to disclosefindings to or report to a third person before atleast informing the complainant. I was thenadvised that investigations were still continu-ing and that further inquiries had to be madeand the matter had not been concluded.

On the basis of the above, I believe it wasquite wrong for the Deputy Premier to say thatthe police conclusions had been made knownto me earlier in the week.

Mr Pearce: He denied all knowledge of anyfurther contact after making the complaint inthe House last week. Now he is contradictinghis own statement to the House last Thursday.

Mr LEWIS: Mr Speaker, could I be heard insilence?

The SPEAKER: The direct answer to thatquestion is "No". However, you may be as-sured that if the interjections reach such a levelas to make it difficult for you to make yourspeech, I will give you protection. Indeed, Ifind it difficult to say that there will be nointeinections in this House at any given mo-ment, but I would not accept interjectionswhich cause you undue difficulty in makingyour speech.

Mr LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.On the basis of the above, I believe it was

quite wrong for the Deputy Premier to say thatpolice conclusions had been made known to meearlier in the week and, indeed, that any con-clusion had been made at all. I make the pointthat the word "conclusion" means "end",-finish", "end of inquiry". The truth is thatpolice inquiries were still continuing when theDeputy Premier made his statement and it wasonly after the member for Gascoyne's remarkson the previous evening and as late as middaylast Thursday-the day the question was askedin this House-that the police interviewed theservice director of the company which repairedthe vehicle and sighted the service records. Atthis time I understand investigations are stillcontinuing and therefore conclusions have notbeen made. Indeed, there is no contrary evi-dence to indicate that my vehicle was notinterfered with.

3634

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986] 33

I am not sure whether any other members ofthe Parliament have experienced the unsettlingsituation experienced by my family and me. Iassure members for at least my own peace ofmind that I sincerely hope the premature con-clusions of the police, as released by the Depu-ty Premier, turn out to be correct, for like theDeputy Premier, and unlike some members ofthe Government, I believe it to be a seriousmatter. Notwithstanding what conclusions, ifany, are arrived at, it reflects badly on mem,-bers of this House who try to disparage me withflippant innuendo and comment on the situ-ation. All I ask is that before making suchremarks they be kind enough to put themselvesin my circumstance.

Mr Pearce: We are sorry your car fell apart,but it does not justify the making of the kind ofsmear and innuendo that you and the Leader ofthe Opposition sought to make.

Mr Laurance interjected.Mr Burkett: Try to open your mouth without

telling a lie.The SPEAKER: Order!

Withdrawal of Remark

Mr LAURANCE: Mr Speaker, I believe thatthe words used by the member for Scarboroughwere quite offensive and unparliamentary and Iask that he withdraw them.

The SPEAKER: The member for Gascoynefinds offensive the words used by the memberfor Scarborough, whatever they were. Accord-ingly, under the Standing Orders, I ask that thewords be withdrawn.

Mr BURKETlT: The words so spoken arewithdrawn.

Point of OrderMr PEARCE: Mr Speaker, for the benefit of

members, I seek clarification on a point. Iknow the member has withdrawn the remark,but do I understand your ruling to mean that ifany member finds any words offensive, irres-pective of what those words are, and makes thepoint that he believes they are offensive, themember making the remarks will be required towithdraw them or you will make a ruling on theoffensiveness or otherwise of the remarks? I amnot referring to this particular circumstance,but seeking clarification on the general prin-ciple for the benefit of members.

The SPEAKER: I made some fairly quickinquiries as to precisely what were the wordsused. I believed them to be unparliamentary. In

answer to the query raised, it would not be myintention in future always to rule that thewords be withdrawn merely because a membertakes offence at them.

BUILDING INDUSTRY (CODE OFCONDUCT) ACT

Failure: Matter of Public ImportanceTHE SPEAKER (Mr Barnett): Honourable

members, I advise that today 1 received a letterfrom the Leader of the Opposition which readsas follows-

Dear Mr Speaker,In accordance with the Sessional Order

"Matters of Public Interest" I propose thata matter of public interest be submitted tothe House for discussion at the commence-ment of sitting today.

The matter of public interest relates tothe continuing disruption in the buildingand construction industry caused by theactivities of militant unions and the wilfuland persistent failure of the Governmentto act against them.

This matter has been highlighted in themedia today. with the public indicationthat projects of major importance to em-ployment in the State and worth hundredsof millions of dollars are delayed, yetagain.

The Government's Building Industry(Code of Conduct) Act 1986 has, in itsshort life, been demonstrated to havefailed.

Accordingly, I shall move:That the Government be con-

demned for its wilful and persistentfailure to act against militant unionsinvolved in the building and construc-tion industry and for its failure to takeany effective action against unionswhich are causing delays of small andlarge projects worth hundreds ofmillions of dollars and this Housecalls on the Government to abandonits demonstrably failed Building In-dustry (Code of Conduct) Act 1986 infavour of firm action, legislative ifnecessary, to deregister and outlawdisruptive militant unions who persistin their refusal to comply with the lawand decent standards of conduct inthe representation of their members.The Government should stand firmon these matters by acting to stop

3635

3636 ASSEMBLY]

work, if' necessary, on Governmentbuilding sites.

Mr Speaker, this is a matter of immedi-ate public interest, properly and appropri-ately brought forward to debate in theHouse today.

I trust therefore it will find your ap-proval under the Sessional Order.

Yours sincerely,W. R. B. HASSELL, M.L.A.,Leader of the Opposition

Eight members having risen in their places,The SPEAKER: In accordance with the

Sessional Order, half an hour will be allocatedto each side of the House for the purpose of thisdebate.

MR HASSELL (Cottesloe-Leader of theOpposition) [2.39 p.m.j: I move-

That the Government be condemned forits wilful and persistent failure to actagainst militant unions involved in thebuilding and construction industry and forits failure to take any effective actionagainst unions which are causing delays ofsmall and large projects worth hundreds ofmillions of dollars and this House calls onthe Government to abandon its demon-strably failed Building Industry (Code ofConduct) Act 1986 in favour of firm ac-tion, legislative if necessary, to deregisterand outlaw disruptive militant unions whopersist in their refusal to comply with thelaw and decent standards of conduct in therepresentation of their members. TheGovernment should stand firm on thesematters by acting to stop work, if necess-ary, on Government building sites.

There is no better starting point for this motionthan to read this afternoon's edition of theDaily News in which the Trades and LaborCouncil assistant secretary, Mr Rob Meecham,is reported as denying that there was any illegalunion activity in Western Australia, and tocontrast that with the decision by the Plumbersand Gasfitters Union after the executive meet-ing held in Melbourne on 22 and 23 July 1986.[ have a copy of the transcript and the decisionreads as follows-

After consideration of these reports anddiscussion Federal Executive resolves toembark on a national campaign in theBuilding and Construction Industry forimprovements to wages, conditions, hoursand other terms of employment.

It is further determined that the cam-paign be organised on the following basis:

It then lists seven items in the material, thefifth of which reads-

That the campaign be organised on theprinciple of guerilla tactics. This meansimposing maximum pressure on the em-ployers with the minimum possible effectson the membership.

That shows very clearly that Mr Meechamn istalking through his hat and, in fact, is tellingdeliberate untruths. HeI of all people is in aposition to know that the Plumbers andGasfitters Union is engaged in a campaign ofmassive industrial disruption and is using itsguerilla tactics with a view to causing damageand loss.

We have a situation in which the Govern-ment persists day by day, week by week, yearby year, in defending these militant unions andrefusing to act against them. It is not simplywhat one entrepreneur said yesterday, whichwas reported today, that counts alone; it is atotal picture of disruption across the board.

Months ago the Plumbers and Gasfiuters.Union said that it would engage in theseguerilla campaigns, and it has. Continuous re-ports have been made and received that theunion is indeed engaged in a campaign of totaldisruption. Yet on 8 April this year, under theheadline "BLF Role in WA, Burke gives an 'if'hint", there was a report that the State Govern-ment might not move to deregister the BLF,even after the union lost its Federal regis-tration. The report continued-

But referring to WA, he said: "The BLFwould be the second Or third union withwhich we have experienced most trouble".

In that respect the Premier is right: The BLFdoes not stand alone, the Plumbers andGasfitters Union has been very bad news in-deed.

In respect of the BLF the Government hasput in place a simply laughable code of con-duct that means nothing in law or practice.And, nothing is being done about the conductof these union people who have no regard, notonly for big developers such as Austmark Inter-national Lid, Bond Corporation Pty Ltd, andothers in that teague, hut also for smallerpeople; that includes the contractors,subcontractors, and smaller builders-peoplewho have gone out of business because of theunion's activities.

3636


I have presented the clearest evidence to thisHouse, starting in 1983 and continuing to thisyear, about the activities directed against MrLen Buckeridge. All of this evidence is brushedaside by the Government in its desire to pro-tect, not only the BLE but also the whole mili-tant bunch, the whole group which is not pre-pared to play by any set of rules and does notknow the meaning of the words "decency" or"propriety". It leads to a situation in whichpeople in the community have the belief thatthere is no protection from these militantunion thugs; that there is no action they cantake to give themselves the right to work or theright to carry out their businesses.

Bond Corporation also controls Austmarkand the head of that corporation, Mr AlanBond, has been moved to suggest that if theGovernment is not prepared to stand up and becounted then, firstly, he cannot be expected tostand up and be counted and, secondly, andmore importantly, his future investment will bedirected elsewhere, because this situation goeson and on.

Even Mr Roberts of Multiplex ConstructionsLtd, who was previously publicly identified as aperson who enjoyed a working relationshipwith the militant unions-a relationship barnof necessity, founded on a capacity to pay, andas a result of those payments producing per-formance-has reached the limit of histolerance.

Mr Peter Dowding: Does that have some-thing to do with the code of conduct?

Mr HASSELL: It has a lot to do with the factthat he has become a victim of the activities ofthese unions, like everybody else, and hasmoved back into the Master Builders Associ-ation of WA.

Mr Peter Dowding: Why do you think thathas happened?

Mr HASSELL: Because he is a victim ofthese activities.

Mr Peter Dowding: No, because of theGovernment's code of conduct.

Mr HASSELL: Even if what the Ministersaid is right, and there are other factors, I willdemonstrate today very clearly that theGovernment's code of conduct is a farce. It isnot working; it provides no protection and nosanction. We need to look at the essential el-ements of the code of conduct: Firstly, it is acode of conduct established by the BuildingIndustry (Code of Conduct) Bill.

Mr Peter Dowding: Which code of conduct?There are two you know.

Mr HASSELL: I am referring to the Govern-ment's legislation and what it has published inthe Government Gazette.

Mr Peter Dowding: You do not know aboutthe other one?

Mr HASSELL: There is another but I amdealing with this one at the moment, brightspark. I would have thought that was obvious.

The Minister does not want to listen, but Iwill repeat for his benefit, so that he can under-stand, that whether I am talking about this Actof Parliament, which the Government forcedthrough, or the code of conduct the Govern-ment promulgated under the Act of Parlia-ment, or any other code of conduct or what-ever, the fact is that they have all failed.

Mr Peter Dowding: The other code of con-duct put Multiplex back into the MBA.

Mr HASSELL: What does it matter whetherthe other code of conduct put Multiplex backin the MBA? Would the Minister explain howit matters in terms of the operation of thisGovernment's industrial relations system?

Mr Peter Dowding: If you do not under-stand, I will explain.

Mr HASSELL: I hope the Minister will ex-plain because the Government's industrial re-lations indicate that he thinks that by forcingMultiplex back into the MBA, and getting thatcompany to take a stance along with others, hehas solved the problems. As Mr Bond haspointed out to the Government, the strife goeson. The Government, which has been urgingthe private sector to take a stand, and indeed,seeking to force the private sector to take astand, is not prepared to take a stand itself.

Let us consider the facts in some of thesecases and what is going on in relation to them, Irefer not just to Austmark or Mr Bond, but tosome of the other projects. I start this sectionby referring very clearly to the key elements ofthe code of conduct related to the activities ofthe Builders Labourers Federation, a codewhich does not apply to some of the other mili-tants, such as the Plumbers and GasfittersUnion, which is apparently free to run riot.Whether they are subject to the code of con-duct-as the BLF is-or not-as the Plumbersand Gasfitters Union is-they are still runningriot.

Mr Peter Dowding: That is what you want-to make the plumbers subject to the code ofconduct.

3637

3638 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr HASSELL: Mr Speaker, this Minister hassome difficulty in understanding simple things.Would the Minister please try to understandthat as of today hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of WA projects are tied up. As ofSaturday we saw the almost completedinternational airport opened. That had sufferedmassive delays and overruns during the courseof its construction.

As of a couple of weeks ago, we saw theopening of the Ausimark building in Bunbury,during the construction of which all these prac-tice of the unions came out. All these havebeen accepted by this Government, and insome cases by their mates in Canberra as well.They will not act against any of these unions.

Let me tell members that the Master Builder'sAssociation has sent this document to us todaywith the free right to disseminate it. The Mas-ter Builders Association has said that industrialdisputation is rife at present, and in each casesubsequent claims for lost time and paymentfor strike pay has been demanded. That fliesdirectly and totally in the face of the require-ments of the code of conduct, yet the Govern.ment allows it to go on. Of course we predicted,when the code of conduct legislation wasbrought into the House, that it would not makethe slightest difference.

The Master Builders Association goes on tosay this-

Reasons for strikes have been mainlytechnical breaches of awards and non-union membership.

Bear in mind that non-union membership inthis great land of the free happens not to be anoffence. in fact, non-union membership is aright under the law of this State.

The Master Builders Association goes on-

The employers have not been given theopportunity to rectify technical breaches ofawards or to negotiate before the unionstake industrial action. Technical breachesof awards do not warrant stoppages of en-tire sites as is occurring at present. A re-cent example is a union organiser from theB.W.I.U. ordering an employer to distancecoathooks in an amenities shed. He took atape measure out to the site and measuredcoathooks distance. Measures like this andothers has led to increased union pressureand industrial action.

Another example, B.L.F. recently wenton strike-

That is the BLF, which is subject to this greatcode which was designed to solve all theseproblems. To continue-

-for four days because the Department ofDefence would not give it unlimited accessto Garden Island.Garden Island happens to be a defenceauthority establishment.

The fundamental requirement of the code ofconduct that this Government said was goingto solve these problems is that workers do notgo on strike. This is what this Minister saidabout the code of conduct when he introducedthe legislation on 7 June 1986. 1 would like toquote a lot of the Minister's second readingspeech, but time permits me to quote only alittle. He said-

The correctness of the State Govern-ment's approach has, I believe, been borneout by its broad acceptance reflected in anincreased stability within the industry.

The Minister may well snigger behind his hand,because it is such blatant nonsense, and hasbeen demonstrated to be nonsense.

As I have only five minutes left, let me givemembers four current case histories. The firstreads-

Principal Contractor: lnterstruct Pty.Ltd.

Project: Taylor Marine, Fremantle.Union: B.L.F.Matter:On Wednesday 10th September, 1986, a

tiling sub-contractor employed a casuallabourer at 10.00 a.m. At approximately2.30 p.m. a B.L.F. job steward, (DeanSparks) informed site management thatthe casual labourer was an unfinancialmember. Site management then stoppedthe man working. B.L.F. union organiserwas notified by job steward and arrived onsite at 3.15 p.m. At 3.20 p.m. site manage-ment informed that a 24 hour stoppagewas imposed.

That is the code of conduct which was to solvethis type of problem.

The next case reads-Principle Contractor InterstructUnions: ABLF, BWIU, OPOD,

OPPW U, PGEU.Project: Princess Margaret Hospital.

3638

[Tuesday, 28 October 19861)63

On Friday 4 July water to the site wascut off by a member of the Plumbers and(lasfi tiers Union because of:

I. Problems with the Metal Tradeson the UWA site doing plumbingwork.

2. Support action for the BIT' andBWIU over retrenchments on theEast Perth Government Officessite.

3. A Labour dispute which was, atthe time being heard by Com-missioner Halliwell in State Com-mission.

and the men went off site for 24 hours.Monday July 7 was a Rostered Day Off,the men returned to site on Tuesday July 8at 2.00pmn by which time the water hadalready been re-connected by theCompany.

A meeting was held of workers atTLO0amn on Wednesday morning and a de-cision to leave site for 48 hours taken be-cause non-union labour had been used tore-connect the water supply.

Action by the Plumbers and GasfittersEmployees Union was illegal and indus-trial sabotage. The tactic was planned andmost irresponsible.

The union breached Part VI Section48 of the Metropolitan Water SupplySewerage and Drainage Act, 1969-1977.

The company retaliated and re-connec-ted the water supply.

The arbitrator rejected a claim for strike pay,but the strike was contrary to all the intentionsof all these wonderful unions and codes thatthe Minister has been pursuing.

This is the third example-Principal Contractor: Cooper-and Oxley

Pty. Ltd.Union: B.L.F.Project: Murdoch University.BackgroundOn Tuesday, the 5th August, Saturday,

the 19th August and Monday the I11thAugust, a person other than a dogsnanswung and directed crane loads, contraryto the provisions of the ConstructionSafety Act. This person had a cranedriver's licence for 14 years and was, atthis time studying for a dogman's licencethrough the Department of Occupational

Health, Safety and Welfare(D.Q.S.K.W.A.). The company sought ad-vice from D.O.S.-.W.A. regarding the ac-ceptability of employing a trainee dogmanin this capacity on a number of occasionsand received contradictory answers.

The unions involved had contravenedthe Building Safety Code as it sets out con-ditions to accommodate the speedyresolution of this type of dispute and theunions did not observe to the fullest extentthe procedures that should have been fol-lowed for negotiation.

Mr Gordon Bourke ordered 50 per cent of losttime be paid for.

Fourthly-Principal Contractor: SabemoUnions: B.L.F., B.W.L.U., P.G.E.U.Project: Mineral House.

BackgroundAt 8.40 a.m. on Tuesday, 6th August,

1986, members of the three unionsinvolved held an on-site meeting with ref-erence to the lack of a man and-materialshoist. The men then left the site for the restof the day.

It was agreed to on that day by all thepartics that Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of theW.A. Dispute Settlement Procedures werenot adhered to, i.e., discussions were notheld between the employer and union rep-resentative or workers before the meetingleading to the decision to leave the site,nor before the men left the site.

Therefore there was no negotiation pro-cedure instigated by the unions before thestrike action.

Those are but four examples. There are stacksmore, but time does not permit me to usethem. The essential points are that the unionsare treating the Government with total con-tempt; the Government continues to accept itand is failing to act against the BLF-wliich ithas subjected to a code of conduct-and to actagainst other militant unions in any way what-soever; the powers of the Attorney General tointervene are not being used; nor are thepowers of the Minister for Industrial Relations.

The Government has simply washed itshands of the problem, which is not confined toObservation City but which exists on everybuilding site in Western Australia. The unionsare running the industry, and the Governmentaccepts it. The Government, which ought tohave the strength, at least on its own sites, to

3639

3640 [ASSEMBLY)

stand up and be counted, does not have theguts , the determination, or the capacity to takethe unions on.

The House should condemn the Governmentin terms of this motion.

Mr MacKINNON: I second the motion.MR PETER DOWDING (Maylands--Min-

ister for Industrial Relations) [3.01 p.m.]: I sup-pose that when one wakes up in the morningand reads in the newspaper that somebody ofimportance has made a comment, one can ex-pect the Liberal Party to react to it during thecourse of the day, because it is clear that, evenon issues as important at this, members op-posite have absolutely no interest in the issue-they are only interested in the politics of theissue.

If the Leader of the Opposition had beengenuinely interested in the building industry hewould have known from his sources that overthe last six weeks the Government has beenengaged in a number of serious, high-level, andvery important discussions with a number ofparties in the building industry, and it hasalready made it clear that a number of theproblems in the building industry will not betolerated.

One of the issues which, over a number ofyears, has led to the sort of industrial anarchythe Leader of the Opposition spoke about, isthe habit of some building employers-and notonly builders and building employers, butowners, financiers, entrepreneurs, and others-of deciding that they are not prepared to toethe line over any issue of importance, but willsimply pay to get the thing resolved quickly.

It is that sort of behaviour which the Govern-ment indicated it was not prepared to tolerate.Far from idly sitting back and doing nothingabout this issue, the Government took the stepof issuing a code of conduct. The Leader of theOpposition appears to be uninformed aboutthat, because it was not the subject of a piece oflegislation of this House. He seems to be so ill-informed that he is not aware that the Govern-ment notified all building employers, owners,and financiers, that if they breached the code ofconduct the Government would not be pre-pared to deal with them in the future onGovernment contracts. It is that disciplinewhich has begun to bite in the building indus-try, discipline which has been lacking for solong.

The code of conduct was issued at the sametime as the legislation in this House. That codeof conduct, which has begun to bite so heavily

in the industry at this time, is being rigorouslyadhered to by employers for about 80 per centof the time; but the Government has indicatedthat that is not good enough and that it must beadhered to 100 per cent of the time. Further-more, in adhering to that code it is not goodenough for people such as the Leader of theOpposition or some of the people involved inthe building industry to get halfway through adispute and then turn around to the Govern-ment and say, "You fix it.' We do not want totake the responsibility to fix it because the re-sponsibility for industrial relations belongs tothe parties to a dispute and they have theability to deal with those issues in the Indus-trial Relations Commission.

The Government will not stand by and allowthese people simply to bail out of theirresponsibilities, either by buying people off orby making accommodations that are not takento the commission. If I were a member of anindustrial commission, either Federal or State,I would be frustrated by the fact that so manyof these disputes are not going through the fullamibit of the powers that exist under the Stateand Federal industrial relations Acts. It is amatter of concern to the Government, and amatter about which I have personally beeninvolved in discussions in the last five days onthree occasions, and which resulted yesterdayin a decision being made by this Governmentthat it will look at its entire capital works pro-gramme if the situation does not improve.

Mr Hassell: Name one single thing you did tohelp Mr Buckeridge.

Mr PETER DOWDING: The Leader of theOpposition is like the member for Gascoyne-he wants to be heard in silence-

Mr Brian Burke: He can dish it out, but whenyou send it back to him, the Leader of theOpposition cannot take it.

Mr PETER DOWDING: The Leader of theOpposition woke up this morning, readthe newspaper, and thought, "There is a goodidea-I will have something to say about that."He did not even know that the code of conductrelated to the employers.

Mr Thompson interjected.Mr PETER DOWDING: I must say, in fair-

ness to the shadow spokesman on IndustrialRelations, that he did not get a fair go. TheOpposition will not let him talk.

Mr Brian Burke: The difference is that I haveabsolute confidence in you to carry the debate,whereas the Leader of the Opposition does not

3640


have confidence in his colleagues, and his col-leagues do not have any confidence in him.

Mr PETER DOWDING: That is right. TheGovernment has expressed its concern already.

Mr Hassell: What single thing did you do tohelp Mr Buckeridge?

Mr Brian Burke: Mr Buckeridge was at lunchwith me the other day.

Mr PETER DOW DING: And with me.

Mr Brian Burke: We went through his prob-1cm and he is coming to see me.

Mr PETER DOWDING: The Oppositionsimply wanted to make, like oil on water, athin, transparent political point, but it did notwant to hear the real issues.

Mr Hassell: Tell us what you did to help MrBuckeridge.

Mr PETER DOWDING: If the Leader of theOpposition were leading my party I would beunhappy too.

The Government has already expressed itsconcern at industrial relations in the industry,which had been good until recent weeks butwhich have taken a dive, They have been goodbecause of the actions of the Government overa period of time. However, industrial relationshave become worse, and that is affecting in-vestments and jobs in Western Australia. Weacknowledge it is important that investors beassured that these projects will not bedisrupted, and we are telling the employers thatthey are not to give in to the demands beingmade on them.

Over years of Liberal Governments em-ployers were prepared simply to buy their wayout of these disputes. We have imposed a disci-pline. We have two industrial relations Acts,and Federal and Slate commissions at whichthese issues can be dealt with, but peoplesimply were not prepared to go to them.

The Government's code of conduct for theBLF, which is a State code and is administeredby the State Industrial Relations Commission,is in place; and when the commissioner reports,appropriate action will be taken.

In respect of the Federal claims, clearly thematter is before the Federal commission and,as the Leader of the Opposition would haveknown from Professor Beazley's lectures in1961, we do not have any power to legislate inrespect of the vast bulk of the building industrywhich is controlled by the Federal industrialrelations system and the Federal unions.

The current position is that we, unlike theOpposition, have made our position absolutelyfirm with the employers and they are nowcomplying with the requirements of theGovernment. We have said that also to theunions and, during discussions I held withthem over recent days, I made it clear that wewill examine our own capital works programmebecause we are not going to tolerate a situationwhere investment decisions are then the sub-j ect of major overru ns du ring in dustrial act ion.

Of great concern to me is the fact that theLiberal Party is dishonest about this matter. 1intend to move, at the conclusion of myremarks, to amend this motion to make theposition of the Government abundantly clear,as it has been made clear over recent weeks.Before I get to that, let me say that the dis-honesty of the Liberal Party in relation to itsposition on industrial disputes can be bestgauged by two things, and I invite the House toreflect on them. Firstly, the member for MtLawley, on the day when there was a debateabout the issue of TAFE teachers, at the end ofquestion time made a cheap gibe at the expenseof the Minister for Education, a gibe whichreceived applause from the gallery. That cheapgibe was about a decision which the Ministerfor Education made that there would be nego-tiations about changes to TAFE in order toachieve a tightening of the collective belt. Whatdoes the Opposition do about that? It does notoffer criticism of TAFE teachers who aredisrupting-

Mr Hassell: Get back to the motion.

Mr PETER DOWDING: I know the Leaderof the Opposition is embarrassed by the mem-ber for Mt Lawley. We should be too becausethe member is an el cheapo and a sleaze whenit comes to this sont of thing. He is prepared tosit in this House and encourage people who areengaged in industrial disputation at the ex-pense of young people in the State about anissue which-

Mr Cash: Have you had a look at the figures?

Mr PETER DOWDING: The member forMt Lawley is prepared to support people en-gaged in industrial disputation which arose be-cause the Government has taken a decisionthat everyone nmust share in the belt tighteningactivities of the rest of the State. We do nothear any criticism from the member for MtLawley of those actions and that strike, but allwe hear from him is a cheap gibe at the Minis-ter for Education so that the member for Mt

3641

3642 [ASSEMBLY]

Lawley gets some political applause for himselffrom the gallery.

Another example of the actions of the Oppo-sition was its support for the teachers' indus-trial action in the north. Once again, it is thecommunity that gets it in the neck. It is thechildren of the north who suffered by the in-dustrial action that the teachers took in orderto achieve equality of rent payments forGovernment workers in the north.

Let us consider how this Opposition dealtwith an industrial issue as a cheap politicalstunt. The spokesman for the Opposition-Hon. Norman Moore--on 17 October said-

The Burke Government's action in in-creasing rents for Government employeesin the North was a reprehensible attemptby the Government to offload the fringebenefits tax onto its employees ...

"No matter how the Government triesto hide it, there is only one reason for thedecision to increase rents.".....if any-thing there is justification for making theirhousing cheaper ...

I know the member for Gascoyne does not liketo sit in this House very often, but if he werehere he would know that, as Minister for Hous-ing in 1982, he initiated the system and theLeader of the Opposition, as Acting Ministerfor Housing, supported in Cabinet the movefor rents to stand at certain levels. It wasintended by the Government of the day-theLiberal Government-to take the very actionwe took this month. Yet, as a cheap politicalstunt, we have members opposite supportingindustrial action and suggesting there is someform of justification for that industrial action.

When we consider the Opposition's determi-nation on issues of industrial relations we seetwo things. Firstly there is no debt to them and,secondly, the Opposition is prepared to prosti-tute its position on industrial relations simplyfor cheap political point scoring. If the Leaderof the Opposition took an interest in industrialrelations, apart from what appears on the frontpage of The West Australian today, he wouldknow I issued a statement-

Mr Cash: You probably didn't issue it.Mr PETER DOWDING: -where I specifi-

ally attacked the position of the Plumbers andGasfitters Union in engaging in industrial ac-tion. I made it perfectly clear at the time thatthe Government would resist it in all respects.Further, I wrote to all plumbers who wereregistered with the Water Authority of WesternAustralia and told them they should resist it

and I made it clear to the employers' organis-ation that if any of its members stepped out ofline, they too would be the subject of theGovernment's code of conduct.

Mr Hassell: What about the unions threaten-ing the employers?

Mr PETER DOWDING: 1 know it is verydifficult for the Leader of the Opposition tounderstand, but there is a Federal jurisdictionin respect of which the State Government doesnot have any position other than that of em-ployer. On 22 August 1986 1 said that theGovernment would resist the actions of thePlumbers and Gasfitters Union with all itsauthority and power. If the Leader of the Op-position does not understand that, other thanas an employer, we have no standing in theFederal commission to deal with this issue,then it is about time he had a better idea aboutit. There is no question that since we came intooffice in 1983 we have made very significantstrides in improving industrial relationsthroughout Western Australia.

1 remind the House that in 1980 the level ofindustrial disputation in this State wasapproximately twice the level it is in 1986. TheIron Ore Consultative Council has made a hugecontribution towards stability in the iron oreindustry. If it were not for the fact that in thatindustry we recently had an employer who wasnot prepared to act in a way which could beregarded as responsible, we would have had anexcellent record during the course of this year.Of course, that record can be improved on butcompared with the disputations in 1980-8 1, weare so far ahead that the Opposition shouldsurely give the Government credit for it.

Not only that, but the building industry itselfhas been the subject of a great deal of work bythe Government. In the first place, the intro-duction of the building arbitrator at the requestof the Master Builders Association, in closeconsultation with both the union and the par-ticipants in the building industry, was a majorstep forward because up until that time em-ployers had simply been getting a demand forlost time and paying it. They were not going tothe commission; they were not resisting it. Inthose areas where lost time has some justifi-cation-that is, in the areas where the industryagreed, not me, not the Government, but theindustry as a whole-where the industry hasagreed it is appropriate, the arbitrator has beenawarding about 20 per cent of all the claims.

3642


That is a huge advance on the situation thatexisted previously. It is acknowledged withinthe industry that the advance made by the ap-pointment of the arbitrator has been very sig-nificant. Its significance at the present time isnot as great as its significance two months ago,during the earlier period of its operations, buteven that was simply pooh-poohed by the Op-position. The Opposition could not understandthat the industry, with Government, wasseeking some solutions that did not come aboutat the point of a gun, and that will not comeabout simply by deregistering a State unionwhich now represents less than 40 per cent ofbuilding workers on the major constructionsites. Apparently the Opposition has not con-sidered what the situation might be if the entirebuilding industry were then in the province ofthe Federal industrial relations commission.

Where would we be if the State Governmenthad absolutely no role and the State com-mission had no role in the building industry?We would be entirely subject to decisions overwhich we had no control. So the issue ofwhether the Government simply deregistersone element-

Several members interjected.

Mr PETER DOWDING: -or whether onesuggests that the decision to allow all the build-ing industry to go under Federal unions is anappropriate one is a matter on which I wouldbe pleased to hear comments from members ofthe Opposition in due course. Perhaps themember for Kalamunda would like to makethat comment, if he urges that there should infact be a building industry union in respect ofwhich the State has no responsibility, and hasno capacity to control through the WesternAustralian Industrial Relations Commission.Not only has the Government introduced anarbitrator, but it has also introduced a code ofconduct for the Builders Labourers Federation.When the code was put up no-one suggestedthat there would be instantly no industrial dis-putation anywhere at any time.

-Mr Court: It didn't work.

Mir PETER DOWDING: And the StateGovernment is acting on that aspect. However,when the Western Australian Industrial Re-lations Commission is given the power to dealwith an issue, it is not my style, unlike that ofthe'Leader of the Opposition, to interfere withthe role of the commission. I well rememberhow the Leader of the Opposition got himselfinto such trouble when he was in Governmentby trying to nobble what is effectively the ju-

diciary, He tried to nobble the WesternAustralian Industrial Relations Commission.The Leader of the Opposition knows perfectlywell the sorts of confrontations he had withthem at the time and frankly, as a lawyer, hehimself should have been absolutely appalledto see a person with his training seeking to dothat.

However, in respect of the other areas ofoperation, of construction and industry in thisState, there is a far better industrial relationsrecord now than ever existed under a LiberalGovernment. It is an indication of how pitifulthe Opposition really is that it actually made nosubmissions at all to the Hancock inquiry.

Mr Hassell: It was a farcical inquiry.Mr PETER DOWDING: The Leader of the

Opposition says it was a farcical inquiry, but hemade no submission to it, and since it hasbrought its report down, the Leader of the Op-position has still made no submission to it. If Imight indicate to the House how pathetic thisOpposition really is, it actually announced aworks and management practices conference,and did not even invite the unions to partici-pate. If one is going to have a conference ofthat sort without inviting the union movement,one is not going to get very far.

Mr Court: We often invite the unions.Mr PETER DOWDING: Did the member

for Nedlands want to invite them? Why werenot the unions invited then? The Oppositionforgot about them, and indeed, it was not eventhe poor old industrial relations spokesman forthe Opposition who was allowed to announcethe conference. The Leader of the Oppositionobviously does not trust him, and had theDeputy Leader of the Opposition do it. That isan indication of how nervous the Opposition is'in this whole area.

Amendment to MotionTherefore I move the following amend-

ment-To delete all words after "that" and in-

sert in lieu the following-This House:

(a) expresses its concern that poor in-dustrial relations in the buildingindustry are threatening invest-

- ment and jobs in WesternAustralia;

(b) acknowledges that investors needto be assured that projects are notgoing to be continually disrupted

3643

3644 [ASSEMBLY)

by unreasonable claims and stop-pages;

(c) urges employers to resist un-reasonable claims and seek toresolve disputes within the Indus-trial Commission;

(d) supports the Government's codeof conduct in the building indus-try as an important element inmaking the industry more cohes-ive;

(e) supports the Government's viewthat current campaigns forimproved wages and conditionsoutside wage fixing principles willnot be tolerated;

(f) endorses proposals by the Minis-ter for Industrial Relations toexamine ways of overcomingsome of the problems resultingfrom Federal Award coverage inthe building industry, and

(g) supports the Government's pro-posal to re-examine the major el-ements of the capital works pro-gram me.

Points of OrderMr STEPHENS: This motion was brought

before the House under a sessional order. It iswell known by all members that this SessionalOrder has been accepted in lieu of StandingOrder No. 47, which permits the moving of amotion that the House be now adjourned tobring forward matters of urgency. However, theweakcness of that Standing Order was that it didnot allow a vote to be taken. There was noprovision, under that Standing Order, to movean amendment. If this Sessional Order is to beused in lieu of Standing Order No- 47, I think itwould be a breach of the spirit of the SessionalOrder to allow an amendment.

Mr HASSELL: On the same point of order.There are about 13 minutes left for this debateiof which 10 minutes belongs to this side andthree minutes to the other. [f an amendment isto be moved-and I do not mind debating it ofcourse-there is really no opportunity for aproper debate. It seems to be outside the spiritof the intention of the Sessional Order to dothat. In effect the Minister is putting us into aposition of having an amendment before theHouse which we cannot debate, whereas thewhole purpose of this Sessional Order, as themember for Stirling said, was to replace theurgency motion procedure, and simply to have

the Government, if it wanted to, reject the mo-tion-I assume it will want to. To move anamendment would not allow for proper debate.I assume even the Minister would want to havea proper debate.

So I am suggesting, Mr Speaker, that youshould rule the amendment out of order pend-ing further consideration of the whole matter.

Mr PETER DOWDING: There is no ques-tion of what was intended at the time. TheSessional Order was adopted to replace the pre-vious practice. The replacement provides for amotion to be moved and a vote to be taken,and I submit that it provides essentially for thenormal forms of the House to be available; thatis, that the motion may be amended.

Mr Stephens interjected.Mr PETER DOWDING: That is part of the

agreement under which it can be brought ononce a week. If the Opposition had not thoughtabout what would happen with a motion whichfalls within the normal Standing Orders, per-haps it had better sit down with the Leader ofthe House and talk it over. The Opposition canhardly argue that the amendment should beruled out of order simply because Standing Or-ders provide for amendments to be moved andthe Government believes that the House oughtto pass a particular alternative. If the Leader ofthe Opposition wants to take up all the timeallocated to the Opposition in relation to thisissue, it is a matter of judgment for him. It is asmuch a matter of judgment for me, and I haveexercised that judgment and taken more timethan he because J believe it proper that it bedealt with in that way.

Mr PEARCE: Although this is a new pro-cedure with regard to the way in which mattersof importance are dealt with, when the dis-cussions took place, a deliberate decision wasmade that motions could be moved, and notone particular version of the Federal model;chat is, that a person could indicate a matter ofimportance and have it discussed in generalwithout a vote being taken.

Mr Thompson: Was it considered thatamendments would be moved to these motionsof public importance?

Mr PEARCE: There are two ways of dealingwith a motion of public importance. One is justto make a bald statement-"I ask that the fol-lowing matter of public importance be dis-cussed, viz, the parlous state of the housingindustry", or something like that, where thereis a general discussion which concludes after anhour. Other people want the ability to move a

3644


motion so that a vote is taken. That is why themotion proposal is in there. However, once onehas a motion, the general Standing Orders ofthe Assembly which deal with those motionsare in place, and that includes the possibility ofamendment.

Mr Thompson: I am sure it was never theintention of the Standing Orders Committee oranyone else who considered this matter forthese sorts of motions to be amended. TheSpeaker has no other alternative but to rule infavour of your side on this matter.

Mr PEARCE: That seems good guidance.Mr Thompson: It is against the spirit of the

whole thing.Mr PEARCE: That is not our understanding

of the situation at all.

Speaker's RulingThe SPEAKER: I thank members for the as-

sistance they have given. In my view, irrespec-live of the negotiations which went on pre-viously, the very fact that this Sessional Ordernow allows a motion to be moved must permitan amendment to be made to the motion. I rulethat the amendment is properly before theHouse.

Debate (on amendment to motion) ResumedMR STEPHENS (Stirling) [3.34 p-n.]: I

support the motion moved by the Leader of theOpposition. It was very correct to bring thismatter before the House because industrial re-lations are the greatest problem facing thisnation. Anybody who has seen our balance ofpayments problem recognise the high cost ofproduction in this country. Much of this hasbeen'brought about by a very poor standard ofindustrial relations.

The Minister for Industrial Relations talkeda fair bit, but when it is all boiled down the factis industrial relations is still being treated as apolitical football. His speech indicated that theGovernment is doing too little too late. This isanother reason it is appropriate that the motionbe supponted.

Having said that, I can also see a degree ofsense in the amendment, It contains sevenpans, and many of them are worthwhile. How-ever, I raise a query on one which states,"Supports the Government's code of conductin the building industry as an important el-ement in making the industry more cohesive".That code of conduct has failed to have thesuccess which the Government planned for it.The fact that the Government's amendment is

worded in this way is an acknowledgement ofthe truth of the motion. The amendment ismerely playing with words; it supports the mo-tion which the Government was not preparedto support outright, and it has played withwords to say the same thing in a different way.

MR THOMPSON (Kalam unda) [ 3.3 7 p. m.J1:The Minister made great play of the fact thatthis matter was brought to the House todayfollowing a story in this morning's paperwherein Alan Bond made certain statementswith respect to the future investment by hiscompany in building projects in this State. TheMinister tried to imply that the Opposition wassimply jumping on the band wagon. During thewhole time we have been in Opposition wehave been trying to bring to the attention of the1-ouse and the public the unsatisfactory situ-ation which prevails in certain sections of ourindustry, and in particular the building indus-try.

There is nothing new about our concern inthis respect. The thing which is new is that asignificant entrepreneur in this town, who hasbeen involved in a number of Governmentprojects, has said categorically that the situ-ation which prevails in this State at present inthe building industry is unacceptable to his cor-poration, and he is contemplating, in a speechhe is soon to make, whether he will encouragepeople to invest here. The situation has becomevery serious, and the Alan Bond statement ofyesterday is but the tip of the iceberg. Unlessthere is a significant change in the attitude ofpeople involved in the building industry-some employees in that industry-investmentwill flow away from this city. That is of greatconcern to the Opposition.

Hardly a day goes by without my beingcontacted by someone in the building industrywho is confronted with some problem. The newinternational terminal at Perth Airport wasopened on Saturday, and a few of us werecontacted prior to the opening by one of thepeople who has leased space in those premises.This person pointed out to me that the prospectof his facility being completed in time forpeople to start using it was almost nil becausebuilding industry workers on the project haddecided for some reason that certain of theconcessionaires there would not get their proj-ects completed. Members can go from onebuilding project to another and they will findthese disruptive tactics occurring.

The Minister made great play of the fact thatthe situation with regard to time lost in thebuilding industry had improved recently, and

3645

3646 [ASSEMBLY]

implied that this was a result of the Govern-ment's action. The figures clearly lied. Theunions have got smart; instead of having full-blooded strikes and going out for protractedperiods of time, they stopped for a day, andthat is not recorded.

Mr Peter Dowding: They were doing thatbefore; you know that.

Mr THOMPSON: They were doing it before,but they are doing it increasingly at present.

As an example of that I ask members to con-sider the situation which occurred at Observa-tion City.

Mr Peter Dowding: It is something webrought under control.

Mr THOMPSON: I sat silent when the Min-ister for Industrial Relations made his speechin order that I would have the opportunity togive my point of view.

A couple of weeks ago the Plumbers andGasfitters Union imposed a ban on the connec-tion of fire sprinklers at Observation City insupport of the campaign, thus bringing a halt towork on that site.

On Tuesday, 16 October, Austmark Inter-national Ltd advised the union that civil actionwould be taken if the bans were not lifted. Thefollowing day the men went back and work wasresumed as normal. On Tuesday, 21 October,all the shop stewards on the site met to discussAustmark's response and, as a result, allworkers on the site went on strike for 24 hoursin support of the following-

(1) A demand for a written apology fromSwan Hotels about an unrelated mat-ter.

(2) A demand that Austmark should givea commitment not to take civil actionat any time.

(3) Payment to all workers for the timethey were on strike.

That type of activity is occurring withincreased frequency on building sites aroundPerth. It is no wonder that developers like AlanBond are coming to the conclusion that it isfutile to proceed with investing in major proj-ects in this State.

Bond's warning is timely because he has atremendous amount of influence around thistown, and I am sure he is listened to by peopleoutside this State who might otherwise be pre-pared to invest in projects in WesternAustralia.

If the Government thinks that this is goingunheeded by the community, let me tell it thatit is not. A couple of recent polls indicate thatthe community has had enough of the strongarm action that has been taken by unions inthis country. Indeed, in a poll reported in TheAustralian on 10 August 1986 under the head-line "Eight out of ten say unions are too power-ful", some statistics are revealed which simplyprove that the people of Australia recognisethat the trade union movement is causing dis-ruption to a great deal of our activity in thisState and in this country, and they believe it istime this came to a halt.

MR BRIAN BURKE (Balga-Premier) [3.43p.mn.]: I want firstly to compliment the Ministerfor Industrial Relations on his very lucidpresentation and to urge upon the Oppositionthat it should support the amendment movedby him.

Obviously the Opposition should read theamendment and, under normal circumstances,it would not find too much to disagree with inthe terms in which the amendment has beenexpressed.

Mr Hassell: Have you read the motion?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I have read the motionand the motion compared with the amendmenthighlights the absolutely contrary way in whichGovernment and Opposition in this State seekto tackle problems. The motion is negative,condemnatory, absolutely pessimistic and pol-itical, and is an attempt, in a fairly shallowway, to maximise the Opposition's politicalposition.

Let no-one be under any misapprehension ofthe Opposition's interest: It is not in settlingindustrial disputes; it is not in advancing theState's economic fortunes; it is in maximisingits own political situation-nothing else,nothing more and nothing less.

The Opposition's attempts to carve out foritself a legitimate area of concern for industrialrelations fails upon the altar of its past charac-ter when the Opposition has done nothing buttry to exacerbate industrial disputes; has donenothing but try to set employee against em-ployer in an attempt to maximise its, theOppostion's, own political fortunes. It is stilltrying, as an Opposition, to do that bymisreading absolutely the comments, as I inter-pret them, that Mr Bond made and using thosecomments as a reason for moving the motionbefore the Parliament.

3646

[Tuesday, 28 October 1 986j]64

The Opposition stands comdemned by itsabsolute failure to be positive or to attempt toframe policies that would go to the reasonablesettlement of any dispute. The Oppositionstands in stark contrast to the Government; itis condemned as seeking to exacerbate indus-trial disruption, not to solve it; as seeking tomaximise its political advantage at the cost ofthe efficiency of the building and constructionindustry; and as seeking to sacrif ice big sectionsof the community on the basis of its politicalview of the situation and how it can best bemanaged to maximise that political view orpolitical advantage.

I urge the House to support the amendmentmoved by the Minister for Industrial Relationsas a commonsense approach to a very difficultproblem.

Amendment put and a division taken withthe following result-

Mrs BeggsMr BertramMr BridgeMrflryceMr Brian BurkeMr Terry BurkeMr BurkettMr Peter DowdingMr EvansDr GallopMr Gordon HillMrlHodgeMr Tom JonesDr Lawrence

Mr BlaikieMr BradshawMr CashMr CourtMr CraneMr HassellMr LauranceMr LewisMr LightfootMr MacKinnonMr tvensaros

AyesMr ParkerMrs HendersonMr CanfMr Grill

Ayes!?Mr MarlboroughMr PearceMr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P.1J. SmithMr TaylorMr ThomasMr TonkinMr TroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

Noes 21Mr NalderMr RushtonMr SchellMr SpriggsMr Steph ensMr Thompson~Mr TrenordenMr TubbyMr WattMr Williams

PairsNoes

Mr ClarkoMr GraydenMr HouseMr Cowan

Amendment thus passed.

Motion, as Amended

Question (motion, as amended) put andpassed.

PARLIAMENTARY SUPERANNUATIONFUND

Appointment of TrusteesOn motion by Mr Pearce (Leader of the

House), resolved-That pursuant to the provisions of the

Parliamentary Superannuation Act 1970,the Legislative Assembly hereby appointsthe member for Dale (Mr Rushton) andthe member for Perth (Mr T. J. Burke) tobe Trustees of the ParliamentarySuperannuation Fund as from this day.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILLIn Committee

Resumed from 23 October. The Chairman ofCommittees (Mr Burkett) in the Chair; MrHodge (Minister for Environment) in charge ofthe Bill.

Progress was reported after clause 2 had beenagreed to.

Clause 3: Interpretation-Mr BLAlKIE: I refer to the interpretation of

"beneficial use", on page 3 of the Bill. Thisinterpretation does not refer to management ordevelopment of the environment which may befor the public benefit. I ask the Minister toexplain 'why commercial and industrial devel-opments were not considered as potential ben-eficial use. It strikes me that if we took awaythe developments that have taken place, wewould have no use for this legislation, this Par-liament would probably not be here, and wewould be back to the stone age. That may suitsome people, but I think it is only a small min-ority and their views do not reflect the generalattitude of the majority of Australians.

It is a matter of some concern that commer-cial and industrial uses were not considered inthis interpretation and I ask the Minister forhis comments.

Mr HODGE: I listened closely to what themember for Vasse said; I am not sure that Iunderstand the point he is making because itseems very obscure. I will try to answer thepoint as I understood it.

This is an environmental protection Bill, notan industrial development Bill or a commercialdevelopment Bill. Therefore, the thrust of thisBill has been to lay down the criteria and re-quirements we believe are necessary for theproper protection of the environment.

I remind the member for Vasse that this ben-eficial use approach is a quite new and I thinkvery enlightened one. It is one of the most

3647

3648 ASSEMBLY]

innovative measures in the legislation. The ad-vantage of this approach is that it enables avery practical and sensible approach to betaken on development projects and pollutionproblems. For example, it may be more appro-priate these days to adopt particular sets ofregulations and standards which are applicablein a certain area for a particular industry. Byway of example it may be quite a different setof circumstances if a large polluting industrywere established several hundred kilometresfrom Kalgoorlie than if that same industry wereestablished in the Kwinana strip. The require-ments for air and noise pollution and otherdischarges would be radically different in thosecases.

The old approach-under old legislation andlegislation in other pants of Australia-is tohave one set of standards for pollution oremissions into the atmosphere or water whichapply equally from one end of the State to theother, regardless of the residential surroundingsor other environmental matters. The new ap-proach is sensible in this day and age. Thebeneficial use approach will enable us to tailorsuitable requirements and specifications forparticular industries in particular locations,thereby maxinmising the benefit to the publicand to that industry. That industry will not helabouring under inappropriate regulations orrequirements and the public will have their cir-cumstances taken into account.

Mr Blaikie: If you follow the line you haveexpressed, does it mean that when you aretalking about an aluminium smelter you wouldhave differing standards of control for asmelter developed in farm land from one devel-oped in State forests?

Mr HODGE: That may possibly be so. Itwould depend on the environmental assess-ment of the area where that smelter will bedeveloped, what the prevailing climatic con-ditions and other land uses around that re-finery might be, and how close people jive to it.All those circumstances will be taken into ac-count and then the requirements will be set. Itmay well be possible that requirementsimposed on a refinery in one location may bedifferent from requirements imposed on a re-finery in another location.

That is a very sensible and practical way ofapproaching complex matters to ensure that in-dustry is not unnecessarily saddled with mnap-propriate requirements, and that the people liv-ing in that area receive the maximum protec-tion necessary to protect their health and well-being, and the environment in their area.

Mr LEWIS: I wish to make a point which itwould seem that the Minister has missed: No-where within the definition of the termt"beneficial use", which identifies all the otheruses, does it slate that industry is beneficial.The point the member for Vasse has made isquite reasonable. It is that if we are going toidentify those other beneficial uses, it would becompetent to include also the development, in-dustrial, or commercial purposes of "beneficialuse". Surely they should be identified as beingbeneficial to the community.

Mr BLAIKIE: I refer to the interpretation ofthe word "environment" appearing on page 4of the Bill, and I want this recorded inHansard. The interpretation reads-

"Environment", subject to subsection(2), means living things, their physical,biological and social surroundings, and in-teractions between all of these;

Subsection (2) of section 3 appears on page 7 ofthe Bill and reads-

(2) For the purposes of the definition of"environment" in subsection (1), the socialsurroundings of man are his aesthetic, cul-tural, economic and social surroundings tothe extent that those surroundings directlyaffect or are affected by his physical orbiological surroundings.

This is a very dramatic, and, I venture to say, amost significant, change of terminology fromwhat was previously contained in the Act cur-rently in force, and, in due course, it will have amajor impact on this total legislation. Thewords I refer to specifically are "social sur-roundings". We all know what damage to theenvironment is, what protection is, and whatthe conservation movement is. We know whatoil pollution, chemical pollution, and noise pol-lution are. We know what all these factors are,but in this legislation the Government proposesa new standard. That new standard would be anew form of pollution of the social sur-roundings. Should this legislation proceed, itwould be open to public intervention, control,and limitation.

During his reply to the second reading de-bate, the Minister said that the words "socialsurroundings" were added into the legislationonly recently and that he saw them as quitesignificant. I believe that, should these wordssee the light of day, not only will they be signifi-cant, but they will also frighten the pants offpeople in Western Australia because it is opento anybody's imagination as to what the newforms of pollution of the social surroundings

3648

(Tuesday, 28 October 1986] 34

will be. It is breaking new round and is acompletely, totally, and absolutely new dimen-sion.

In this context, one must also read the defi-nition of the word "proposal", which is givenas-

"Proposal" means project, plan, pro-gramme, policy, operation, undertaking ordevelopment or change in land use, oramendment of any of the foregoing;

This covens literally anything that anybodymight wish to do, and so we could have a situ-ation in which the operation of one person viol-ates the values of another because the claimwill be made that the social surroundings arebeing polluted. If one looks at the definition of"Pollution" one sees that it means-

...direct or indirect alteration of the en-vironment-

(a) to its detriment or degradation;

(1$ to the detriment of any beneficialuse;...

Thus, under this definition of "social sur-roundings", any person now has the oppor-tunity of claiming that the operation of anotherperson violates his values, and I believe thisinterpretation should be removed from thelegislation. The community by and large hasalways accepted that there are differing valuesfor differing groups of people, but there is acommunity acceptance of a general code ofconduct.

The Minister has just said that his interpret-ation of "beneficial use" will enable differingstandards to apply in differing areas. However,if the terminology "social surroundings" istaken in its literal sense, it could be used byorganised and extremist groups to wreak havocand mayhem in the community. Under thisterminology and the provisions of this Bill,fanning operations could well be the subject ofcomplaint.

I would like to know the full impact of thisinterpretation in relation to the Animal Liber-ation movement, which would have a field daylodging complaints about the activities offarmers because it would claim that its aes-thetic environment is being impinged uponunder the terms of this legislation. The Minis-ter can very easily say that groups will have theopportunity to lodge a complaint about a pro-posal but that he, as the responsible Minister ofthe day, could say, "I am going to turn thosesorts of proposals down."(115)

The point I make is that the definition in theBill at this stage is far too wide. The resultcould be an absolute and total abuse of this bysome people.

I have mentioned only one aspect ofagriculture. I would also refer to the activitiesof the Agriculture Protection Board. Againunder this legislation I can imagine the diffi-culties that the APE will have with its verminand weed control programmes whenliberationists or "well-intentioned" people de-cide to take action under the provisions of thisBill, particularly in respect of claims of pol-lution to their "social surroundings". This isnot an area which can be measured; it happensto need value judgments because we arebreaking completely new ground.

I have referred to the question of land use.One could go further, one could see complaintsinvolving local government where people couldcomplain about road traffic uses, and how thiscould bring about a reduction in the serenityand tranquillity of country areas. This opens upa minefield to people with extreme views in thecommunity, and I do not believe that it was theintention of this Government to allow that tohappen by using the terminology of "social sur-roundings". The usage of that terminology willin my judgment allow that to happen.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's com-ments as to how he sees his overcoming someaspects of the problems 1 have indicated here.There are others.

Mr HODGE: The member for Vasse cer-tainly has a very fertile imagination. I waswaiting for him to project that there wilt be anoutbreak of dandruff and ingrown toenailscaused by the inclusion of the words "socialsurroundings". The member for Vasse has goneto extreme lengths to make a point which reallyis not accurate at all. The reason that the words"'social surroundings" have been included inthat definition is for the benefit of the EPAwhen it decides to assess a major project. Itwould quite clearly be ridiculous for the EPAnot to be able to take into account any socialimplications possibly caused by a major newproject.

This is not a radical departure frm normalpractice. The EPA has been doing just that formany years without its necessarily being speltout in the definition under the Act. The Com-monwealth environmental legislation includes..social surroundings" in its definition, andmost other States' environmental legislationalso includes reference to social surroundings.

3649

3650 ASSEMBLY]

Mr Lewis: Because of the provisions allowingthird persons to object, this definition could beused in the course of arn objection to somethingas nonsensical as somebody painting his home.This could be done legitimately on the basis ofthis definition. That is the point we are tryingto make.

Mr HODGE: There is nothing that we canwrite into this legislation or take out of it thatwill stop cranks from objecting. That is not theway the definition is intended to be read or tobe used, and it wI not be taken that way.

As [ have just explained to the Chamber, thedefinition will not be used in defining pollutionitself. It will be used in laying down the par-ameters of things that the EPA should take intoaccount when assessing major projects. As Isaid in my reply to the second reading of thelegislation, there is a need on major projects forsocial implications to be taken into account.For instance, if a major new project, such asthe North-West Shelf project, were to beassessed by the EPA, a huge influx of peopleinto remote areas or small townships-a biginflux of young male workers-would defi-nitely have an impact on that small town anddistort the balance and perhaps the harmonywhich might have existed in that small com-munity. There are all sorts of implications thatthose words are there to take account of. Theyshould not be read as sociological; the Govern-ment does not intend that the EPA should getinto considering welfare matters or anything ofthat nature. Those words cannot be construedto mean that, and in fact it was to try to avoidthis sort of debate that we are now having thatwe put that other clarifying definition in onpage 7(2) which reads as follows-

(2) For the purposes of the definition of"environment" in subsection (1), the socialsurroundings of man are his aesthetic, cul-tural, economic and social surroundings tothe extent that those surroundings directlyaffect or are affected by his physical orbiological surroundings.

I think that makes the reason for this wording,and how it is to be construed, perfectly clear. Isuggest that the Opposition is misconstruing itand doing so badly, and reading all sorts ofother things into those words that cannotreasonably be read into them.

Mr RUSHTON: I support the amendmentproposed to be moved by the member forVanse.

Obviously the section in the present Act,which relates to the environment, is far moreapplicable and acceptable. I would just put tothe Minister that I thought this was going to beone of his "throw-away" lines-that he had putit in there so that it would automatically bethrown away, simply to be able to demonstratethat he was accepting the Opposition'srecommendations on a number of points. Ihave seen this happen with this Governmentbefore.

The planning of this State should be done ina long term way-that is, in the main, weshould take care of the State's environmentalsurroundings. We have seen this long termplanning lacking in the legislation which hasbeen put forward by this Government, in thesense that there should have been a strategydeveloped which was long-term and meant thatpeople could know where they stood. This as-pect, as spelt out by the Minister, should becontained in the considerations that areundertaken by the Western Australian planningcommissioners, as we know them. Thereshould be a developed plan in respect of townplanning schemes, which should accommodatethe situation being put forward by the Minister.

One should take, for example, the siting ofthe casino, which happened in the not-too-d is-tant past. Obviously the same sont of thingwould have to happen again-that is, the oblit-eration of the requirements of the Environmen-tal Protection Act for that activity. The powerof the environment Act was removed so thecasino development could go ahead withoutany consideration for the Act. For all intentsand purposes, it was removed from the Stat-utes.

Mr IHodge: That was done temporarily; it isnot uncommon.

Mr RUSHTON: If this legislation is broughtin, the next time this situation arises theGovernment could be tied up for years. Itwould have to do the same thing again-re-move the legislation conveniently from theStatutes. The Opposition is saying, "Let's befrank about it-"

Mr [Hodge interjected.

Mr RUSH-TON: That is just one aspectwhere it would apply. It could be argued thatthe social surroundings relating to the casinowould be offended.

Mr H-odge: You were reading this as "socialwelfare".

3650

[Tuesday, 28 October 19861 35

Mr RUSHTON: The Minister is just sayingthese things. What we must do is the reality ofwhat the words say-not what we would likethem to say. The previous definition of theenvironment included the physical factors pre-vailing in the State, including the land, thecoastal waters, the seabed, soil and subsoil ad-jacent thereto, atmosphere, sound, odours,tastes and radiation, as well as the social factorssuch as aesthetics, and all factors affecting ani-mal and plant life. This is far more applicablethan what is in this new legislation. One hasonly to look at the situation of Bassendean inrecent times. That is basically a town planningmatter which developed into a political con-frontation between the Minister and the Townof Bassendean over the question of the housingof some handicapped children. It has become apolitical and emotional situation. The samething happened in Subiaco in my time as Min-ister when I had to advise the leader of a groupto seek the proper zoning, which was done.However, today the same person would knowthat he has someone in the present Minister forPlanning who will turn the situation into a pol-itical and emotional issue.

It does no good for the handicapped chil-dren. They are the disadvantaged ones; they arethe meat in the sandwich. If this sort of word-ing remains in the Bill, it could apply to thesituation of those children. It should be re-moved in favour of the present requirementswhich are far more applicable.

Mr BLAIKIE: I thank the Minister for hisexplanation. I do not share his optimism thatthe Bill, when it is finally promulgated, and if itremains in this form, will apply only to largeprojects. That will not be the case at all. It willapply to any project in the State, large or small,and to any developmnt-to anything thatmoves.

Mr Hodge: To any proposal that may have asignificant effect on the environment.

Mr BLAIKIE: That will not stop any personfrom expressing his point of view as to what"'significant" means.

Mr Hodge: The EPA decides what is signifi-cant and what is not.

Mr BLAIKIE: It will mean different things todifferent people.

Mr Hodge: What it means to the EPA isimportant. That is all that matters.

Mr BLAIKIE: It is also important that Par-liament understand what is in the legislation. Ifthat terminology remains in the legislation itwill ensure that the EPA gets a daily flood of

letters from people who will use the legislationto object to any project or proposal which theyfind significant. The subjective side of this is:What is a justifiable complaint?

Including the words "social surroundings"breaks new ground in Western Australia. Weknow what noise, oil, and environmental pol-lution are, but the term "social surroundings"is new ground.

Mr Hodge: It is not included in the definitionof pollution. You are muddling the two. Readthe definition of "environment" and that of"1pollution"; they are two separate definitions,and you are rolling them into one.

Mr BLAIKIE: Pollution means direct or in-direct alteration of the environment to its detri-ment or degradation; to the detriment of anybeneficial use; or of a prescribed kind.

Mr Hodge: There is no mention of socialsurroundings there. That is where you arewrong.

Mr BLAIKIE: The words "social sur-roundings" may not appear under the defi-nition of pollution, but they will be taken up bypeople who are going to use this legislation inI8 months' or two years' time, and the Govern-ment of the day will be plagued by those words.

Mr Hodge: People who try to improperly usethe legislation will soon get the message be-cause they will not get to first base.

Mr BLAIKIE: The legislation should be clearenough for people to understand that they can-not use it to make scurrilous or insignificantapproaches. In my view the words "social sur-roundings" will cause a proliferation of com-plaints.

This clause will create new concern for theplanning industry. I can imagine local govern-ment being greatly concerned when it looks atthe interpretations set out in the Bill and whenit realises that any proposals within its area, orany changes, can be questioned through clause38 . The timber and mining industries will bequite concerned also because the term "socialsurroundings" sets new directions. The Minis-ter has said it is contained in Commonwealthlegislation and that was one of the reasons itwas put in the State legislation. There are manygood reasons for not following the Common-wealth Government in such matters and theyare valid reasons.

There are extreme groups in the communitywhose members will welcome this terminologyas an opportunity to frustrate industry and de-velopment-because that is their role in life,

3651

3652 [ASSEMBLY]

their goal and desire. We have seen them fromthis side of politics, and no doubt the Ministerhas seen them from his side. These words willalso cause departments to shudder in future. Iintend to move an amendment, but prior tothat I want to read an excerpt from theAustralian Conservation Foundation's annualreport for 1985. Page 7 indicates some of theconcern I have about measures that may betaken. I hope this will give the Minister suf-ficient cause to reconsider the comments hemade in relation to the acceptance or otherwiseof the tern "social surroundings". The articleis headed "Western Australian Campaign Ac-tivity", and it states-

During the first half of the year, the thenW.A, Campaign Officer, Bill Hare, workedon obtaining reserves in the Jarrah forest,securing sensitive areas in the Karri forestand campaigning against the proposed alu-miniumn smelter. Major victories wereachieved when the Burke Governmentmoved the proposed smelter site out ofState forest onto adjacent cleared coastalland, and when the ACE used a leakedpower contract to disrupt negotiationswith the smelter consortium, the ACE ledthe campaign against the smelter exposingthe billion dollar subsidy involved, andobtaining massive media publicity in W.A.on this issue.

There arc people in the community who will goto extreme lengths to win an argument. Thislegislation and this definition will only allowthem more scope to complain. It will frightenthe daylights out of industry once it under-stands what the Government proposes to do. Itwill lead to an increase in the number of com-plaints which could be upheld should the Min-ister of the day decide that some extreme per-son had a significant complaint and allowed areferral to take place. That is the whole basis ofour argument. I move an amendment-

Page 4, line 19-To delete "and socialsurroundings".

Mr MacKINNON: I support the amend-ment. As shadow Minister for Minerals andEnergy, I was approached by APEA whichexpressed its concern about this definition. Itherefore ask the Minister, on its behalf,whether the definition of "environment" willaffect off-shore oil exploration and if so, bowfar off-shore? Will it apply to the explorationtaking place on the continental shelf and if so,in what form?

Secondly, does the Bill override existingagreement Acts negotiated by the State, ofwhich I believe there are about 20? Will thoseagreements have to be renegotiated?

I ask also whether the current legislationalready takes into account the question ofsocial surroundings.

Mr Hodge: Yes.

Mr MacKINNON: If so, will the Ministerindicate how? For example, I refer to the mostrecent case of the Mosman boatshed. Weresocial surroundings taken into account in re-lation to that issue? It seems to me that the nubof the problem there has been the social sur-roundings.

Finally, the community, and certainly thebusiness community, are gravely concernedabout this legislation. Politicians of all ilks overthe years have indicated that they are commit-ted to reducing regulations that affect businessand want to make things easier. APEA hasexpressed its concern that this legislation takesno proper account of the balance between in-dustrial development and the protection of theenvironment. Certainly, my reading of thelegislation does not enlighten me to the con-trary about that matter.

Mr HODGE: The Government is opposed tothe amendment. I will attempt to answer eachpoint raised by the Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition. It is a pity that APEA did not make itsconcern known to me earlier because I wouldhave assured it that its concerns were unnecess-ary. Only at the very last minute were we madeaware of those concerns and we have now hadtalks with the group to reassure it. The Bill hasbeen a public document for several months andit is a bit late in the day for these problems tobe raised.

I have been advised that this legislation willhave application to territorial waters to the ex-tent of three nautical miles. Secondly, as isspelt out in clause 5, the Government will notabrogate any of the special agreement Acts ithas entered into.

I cannot answer the points raised about thetearooms at Mosman because I do not havethose details. Those questions should be put onnotice and I will refer them to the Environmen-tal Protection Authority for 'its advice. I knowthat that authority has left the assessment ofthe tearooms project to the Swan River Man-agement Authority. The authority deemed thatwas the appropriate body to assess theproject.

3652

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986]165

This is not an industrial development Bill ora mining Bill. It is strange that members, whenspeaking to environmental protection legis-lation, want to insert provisions that more ap-propriately relate to other fields. I am sure theywould not expect me, when introducing amining Bill, to spell out environmental protec-tion provisions. This Bill is aimed at protectingthe environment. That does not mean that theGovernment will protect the environment at allcosts. As I said in closing the second readingdebate, sensible environmental legislationshould seek to have a correct balance betweenprotecting the environment and allowing sen-sible development to proceed as speedily aspossible.

Mr Blaikie: Would you not agree that"beneficial use of the environment" includessome commercial usage?

Mr HODGE: Not if one is defining the en-vironment in an environmental protection Bill.It is really irrelevant to the definition. Thoseconcerns display a sense of paranoia on thepart of some people. They suggest that weshould adopt an unrealistic attitude to protectthe environment, even if it means closing everyindustry. That is obviously not what theGovernment intends.

This legislation has been carefully thoughtout and drafted. We have gone to unpre-cedented lengths to consult with industry. I donot agree with the Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition's observation that there is widespreadconcern in industry about this legislation.

Mr THOMAS: I oppose the amendment. Ithink it is essential to understand preciselywhat this type of legislation hopes to achieve. Itis important to include within the definition of"environment" "social surroundings" becauseotherwise the term tends to be meaningless.

I illustrate that with two examples. The firstconcerns aesthetic surroundings. Earlier thisyear there was a controversy about the clearingof the trees along a particular road which hadscenic value. It was the subject of a controversyaround Pemberton. All sorts of people jumpedup and down saying that the proposal to widenthe road, thus necessitating removal of thetrees, should be subject to environmental as-sessment. Most people, irrespective of whatthey think of that issue, would agree that aproposal such as that should be subject to en-vironmental assessment. If we remove from thedefinition of "environment" in the Bill, thewords "and social surroundings", quite clearlywe would not be able to get a proper environ-

mental assessment of the proposal to clear thetrees from the site of that road. The definitionof "environment" without those words wouldread as follows-

"environment" means living things,their physical and biological surroundings,and interactions between all of these;

Essentially a botanist would be asked about theimpact of removing the trees from the side ofthe road. The botanist would Presumably replythat in a physical or biological sense, removalof the 10, 20, or 100 trees would be no moresignificant than the chopping down of anyother 100 trees. The number of birds that livein the trees would presumably be the same. Thesignificance of the trees along the side of theroad lies in their scenic value and is, therefore,a cultural matter. We human beings ascribesignificance to them because of their culturalimportance, of which their scenic value is apart. It is for that reason that it is necessary tohave this type of provision in the Bill. If we didnot, the cultural, scenic, and other values whichwe attach to elements of the environment,could not be evaluated when matters are re-ferred to the authority for assessment.

In a similar sense, if a project which wouldentail emissions were proposed, and the auth-ority, in considering the impact of that projecton the environment, had to consider the im-pact of those emissions, it must be able to con-sider, among other things, the cultural or aes-thetic value of those emissions. Let us presumethere was a proposal for a project which had acertain level of emission which would have anaesthetic effect-by "aesthetic" I mean morethan aesthetic in a purely visual sense; I meanit also with respect to the other senses-Onpeople in the locality, but which would nothave any effect on health. There are emisssionsthat have an aesthetic impact but do not haveany adverse impact on health and hence cannotbe said to be impacting on the environment inthe narrow sense of having an effect on thephysical and biological interaction ofcomponents of the environment. Thus it couldbe possible to have emissions which have aneffect on people. It must be possible for theresponsible environmental authorities to takeinto account those types of impacts which cer-tainly affect, in the wider sense, the environ-ment of the people who live in our State, butwhich do not necessarily have a significantphysical or biological impact.

3653

3654 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr Blaikie: How would you evaluate what isan aesthetic problem or a cultural problem ifyou were doing the evaluation? If I made acomplaint, how would you evaluate it?

Mr THOMAS: The authority would firsthave to decide whether it was a matter appro-priately dealt with. As was indicated in earlierdebates, the authority could simply dispose ofthe matter when making a judgment as to whatis significant. Essentially, we are talking aboutmatters of opinion. The authority would haveto make some sort of judgment as to what wasacceptable, having regard for communityvalues and the general public interest. It wouldthen make a recommendation to the Ministerand the Minister ultimately would have tomake a judgment as to what was acceptable. Hewould then have to accept responsibility forthat decision within the wider political process.That is the only way of dealing with those typesof problems.

If we remove chose words from the definitionclause of the Bill, we would create a situationwhere, at law at least, it would not be possibleto have those matters dealt with. Would themember seriously argue that the Governmentshould not be able to deal with those matters? Ido not think anyone would argue that. Withrespect to the Pemberton road-widening issue,numerous people were asking why the Govern-ment or some appropriate authority did nottake up the issue and subject it to assessment.Without going into the merit of what that as-sesment ought to be, I think everyone wouldagree that those sorts of things should beexamined. That is the only real impact of thisParticular inclusion in the Bill.

As the Minister indicated, responsible en-vironmental authorities have been doing thatin any event because, in a practical sense, with-out taking into account the social impact, theword "environment" tends to become mean-ingless.

Mr Blaikcie: Would you also accept the argu-ment that I put forward that bodies such as theAgriculture Protection Board could be subjectto complaint under the provision we are cur-rently discussing?

Mr THOMAS: How could the APB be sub-ject to complaint?

Mr Blaikie: Somebody could lodge a com-plaint about the types of controls used.

Mr THOMAS: I cannot think of a case wherethe APB would have a significant effect thatwould be caught by the "social surroundings"addition to the definition of the environment.

Mr Blaikie: Poisoning animals.

Mr THOMAS: How does that affect socialsurroundings?

Mr Blaikie: Burning firebreaks, that sont ofthing.

Mr THOMAS: I imagine that is the sont ofthing that would be disposed of as not beingsomething that was worthy of assessment.

Mr RUSHTON: The member for Welshpoolhas just raised our very fears of what wasintended by this provision in the legislation. Itlooks like a continuance of the present activi-ties of not considering environmental aspectsin the planning stages of developing our State. Iraise the issue with the Minister that surelythese matters must be considered. A very im-portant pant of the issue is the matter of localgovernment and its responsibilities. Localgovernment is very attuned to addressing thissubject, but provision for it to take pant inconsiderations has been removed from theplanning legislation brought in by the Govern-ment. Local government is not given a formalpant to play in this legislation. In fact, it feelsthat it has been pushed further away.

Mr Hodge: Its role has been enhanced in thisBill.

Mr RUSHTON: Local government thinksthat its powers have been reduced.

Mr Hodge: If so, it is wrong.

Mr RUSHTON: The Minister is not God;neither is local government. However, localgovernment has a very important pant to play.in fact, if we had not moved the way we havewith respect to our planning legislation, wewould not have the Mosmnan Park situationtoday. If the Minister were acting actively inhis proper position as Minister for Environ-ment, we would not have this confusion aboutwhat is taking place at Mosman Park. It ap-pears to me that the Premier makes a decisionand the rest of his Ministry falls in behind him.

This legislation is centralising power so thatthe Premier has only to ring about three of hisMinisters and tell them what is going to hap-pen. This legislation will allow him to do that.The Minister cannot claim that a formal rolefor local government is set out in this legis-lation.

Mr Hodge: Can you point to any provision inthis Bill where local government has been re-moved or has had its powers diminished bycomparison with the old Environmental Pro-tection Act?

3654


Mr RUSHTON: The other day the Ministerwrote off my words as nonsense. I told him thatwe would have delegated to local governmentfar more authority than is allowed for in thepresent Act. We have had a learning curve, Wehave experienced the present legislation forsome I5 years. There is an opportunity to givea bigger role to local government. This legis-lation does not do that.

Mr Hodge: It does do it.

Mr RUSHTON: We will see as we gothrough the Bill in detail in the Committeestage.

Mr Hodge: We will if we ever get there.

Mr RUSHTON: I would be delighted if theMinister reassured me now in that regard.

Mr Hodge: All the pollution enforcementprovisions later on in the Bill make provisionfor authorised officers to police all aspects ofthe pollution laws. At the moment they areinvolved only with noise pollution. In futurethey will be involved in all aspects of enforcingthe pollution laws.

Mr RUSHTON: Local Government sees thislegislation as hindering and holding up devel-opment unnecessarily. These are simple words.

I was interested to hear the member forWelshpool. He has been involved in environ-mental aspects of our society, as I have, for along time, but he raised issues applicable to thecasino development. The casino developmentwould not have got off the ground if what hesaid was given consideration. It needs to be putinto Mansard so that we know what the Minis-ter is holding us to. HeI is not prepared to havethese words removed to satisfy our concern. Heshould be able to put in a couple of sentenceswhat he thinks will happen. I do not think hehas been clear. Everybody should know whatthe Government intends to do. This legislationcontains a tremendous number of words. Thesimpler it is the more effective the legislationwill be.

One cannot cover every situation. It is theintention of a Government which is important,and that will show as the months go by. Wherewe have a situation upsetting people, like thesiting of the prison at Casuarina, that is whenthe legislation will be seen to be effective orotherwise. When another Mosman marinacomes forward we will be able to see whetherthe legislation makes any difference. These arethe sorts of things about which the people areconcerned.

We have had about 15 years of the old legis-lation. Environmentalists did not consider it asstrong as they wanted. When in Opposition theGovernment pointed out its weaknesses. TheGovernment has been in office for three-and-a-half years and has not met the expectations ofthe conservationists. This small amendmentwould remove those doubts which have notbeen satisfied. I hope the Minister will giv~e us acouple of paragraphs of something to showwhat he is going to do, and we will see that ithappens in the future.

Mr LEWIS: I have spoken before about theemergence of the ability of people to own landin fee simple. From those times it wasrecognised that people could do what they likedwith their own particular parcel of land if theyowned it in fee simple, provided they did notaffect people without that land.

We have progressed now to town planningschemes and taken away the right of certainpeople to do what they want on their land. Wehave actually prescribed rights as to land use.Now we have another pegging back, as it were,of the right of a person to have fee simpleownership of his land.

A person may have property consisting of500 hectares. A person could legitimatelyobject to that man clearing that land to pursuehis livelihood. It may be that the personobjecting likes native and indigenous forest-which is acceptable. It could come to pass thatthat person's right to farm that land may berefused by the Minister.

Mr Hodge: Are you suggesting this is some-thing new? Under the present Act people canlodge those sorts of complaints.

Mr LEWIS: But as I understand it, there isnow power within that legislation for the Min-ister to say, "Thou shalt not do it." There werecertain rights which the people retained to dowhat they liked with their land.

Mr Hodge: You want an environmental pro-tection Minister with no powers?

Mr LEWIS: It is a very delicate balance ofhow a person buys a property legitimately,owns it, and over a period those rights in feesimple to do what he wants-

Mr Hodge: Regardless of the detrimental ef-fect to the environment? No one has powersbut the Minister acting on the advice of theEPA. There is an elaborate appeal mechanismas well. You are suggesting that people, re-gardless of the consequences, should be able todo what they want if they own a patch ofground?

3655

3656 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr LEWIS: Provided they do not affectother people without that parcel of land.

Mr Hodge: If the person were refused per-mission to clear his land, he must obviouslyknow of the serious adverse effect on the en-vironment that would have.

Mr LEWIS: That is not necessarily so.'Mr Hodge: You have not read the legislation.Mr LEWIS: This legislation is complex and

very far-reaching. I do not think people under-stand the powers it contains.

Mr Hodge: It gives power to protect the en-vironment. I suppose that is pretty radical inyour eyes.

Mr Rushton: You could protect the environ-ment before. You cannot control it by bringinglegislation into force.

Mr Hedge: We had better abolish this Parlia-ment if we are not going to try to control so-ciety by laws.

Mr Rushton: You want direct control.The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr LEWIS: What I am suggesting is, if one Isgoing to take away someone's proprietary rightswhich someone has paid for in this legislation,there should be an ability-

Mr Hedge: They have already been removedunder various other pieces of legislation, suchas the Soil and Land Conservation Act andvarious other laws.

Mr LEWIS: How far down the track does onego in socialising land absolutely? That is thetrack this Bill is going along.

Mr Hodge: This is the thin edge of the wedge,is it?

Mr LEWIS: If one is going to remove some-one's rights to his fee simple ability to own hisland, there should be provision to compensatehim for those rights being removed.

Mr Hodge: You people are not serious aboutprotecting the environment. Why do you notcome out in the open and say that?

Mr LEWIS: If the public, via the vehicle ofthe Government, deems those rights should beremoved, and the public wants that forest orbushland protected, the public should be pre-pared to recompense the owner of that land. Itis not right 10 take away someone's rightswhich he has paid for and say he cannot usethat land for the purpose for which he boughtit. I would like the Minister to address thatquestion in his reply.

Mr BLAIKIE: 1 would like first to thankthose members for the support they have giventhis amendment, and also express my concernto the Minister for what appears to be a ratherinflexible attitude.

Mr IHodge: Come off it! Which amendmentsanm I to accept?

Mr BLAIKIE: That happens to be my view,and I believe this is a very critical part of thelegislation.

The member for Welshpool let the cat out ofthe bag as to the intention of the Bill and whatthe section relates to. During the tea suspen-sion the Minister might speak to his assistantabout this matter. The member for Welshpoolsaid that an area such as the Vasse Highway atPemberton would come under the ambit of thelegislation currently before the House, whereasno action could have been taken under the cur-rent legislation.

The local government bodies and the MainRoads Department made their determinations.Governments stopped the project while valu-ations were made, yet the road is still clear. TheGovernment is intending to impinge on therights of local authorities to ensure that what-ever proposals they have are brought back tothe EPA so no proposal can go ahead unfet-tered. The Vasse Highway would come underthe provisions of this Act. I take exception tothat. I have no doubt the Shires of Manjimupand Warren, and many local bodies throughoutthe State will also take exception to the direc-tion indicated by the member for Welshpool.

The member for Dale was quite correct whenhe pointed out our concerns in relation to localgovernment and how their roles could beimpinged on. There are a series of projectsunder way. I refer to the casino. That projectwas completed with the absolute minimum ofenvironmental impact information. It is obvi-ous the Government did not intend that projectto be fettered.

Mr Rushton: They removed the powers ofthe Act.

Mr Hodge: Your Government did that onscores of occasions with special agreementActs.

Mr BLAIKJE: The Minister should not try tolink the Burswood Casino with a special ironore agreement Act.

Mr Hodge: It was a special agreement Act,the same as the others.

3656


Mr BLAIKIE: It was a special agreement Actof the Parliament but the Parliament waspresented with a fait accompli; the contractswere signed and the Parliament bad to agree tothe proposal. There was no argument.

The Australian Conservation Foundationhas claimed some credit for its activities. WhileI believe the terminology "social surroundings"will do, it will allow that organisation-andother environmental groups, be they extremeor otherwise-to launch new attacks on indus-try and development in this State.

I refer to the annual report of the AustralianConservation Foundation. It revealed that theACE has campaigned against the proposedBoddington gold mine in the eastern zone ofthe northern jamba forest, and campaigned tosave native forest; the foundation has taken itsobjections to the warden's court. The reportalso states that the AC~s national forest cam-paign is extending to Western Australia withparticular emphasis on wood chip export, li-cence renewals, and restructuring of the timberindustry.

Agreements that are currently in force willremain in force but agreements that need to berenewed, renegotiated, and reviewed again willbe subject to the stringencies of this legislation.I wish to single out the timber industry becausethat industry seems to have taken the bulk ofthe criticism from the environmental move-ment. It is the springboard for environmentalextremism. Is it the Government's intention todeclare the timber industry an industry exemptfrom the provisions of this Act? Is the Ministerintending that the timber industry and therenegotiation of the woodchip agreement beexempted from the provisions of this Act?

Mr Hodge: Of course not.Mr BLAIKIE: This legislation will put in

place a new set of rules and opportunities forthe extremists in the environmental movementto attack the timber industry. The Ministerknows full well that woodchip agreements haveyet to be renewed and renegotiated. When thisnew Bill is enforced-and when the "social sur-roundings" provision comes into effect-theextremists will have a field day. Heaven helpthe timber companies trying to ward off thenew attacks that will result from this legis-lation.

The member for Welshpool said that the re-moving of trees is a cultural matter. I have notthe slightest doubt there would be a host ofother people who would agree with him. TheGovernment has opened a Pandora's box of

new areas, in which complaints will be basedon different value judgments. What effect willthe terminology "social surroundings" have onthose value judgments? I have singled out onlyone industry. I would like to know what Alcoais thinking. The Government has said it willrenegotiate its agreement with Alcoa in relationto the Lane-Poole Reserve. The area in thenorthern jarrab forest will not have to bedammed. If that Act has to come back to theParliament to be renegotiated, does that meanthat the Alcoa agreement will then be subject tothe conditions of this Act, or is the Govern-ment to exempt Alcoa? The Government willnot exempt Alcoa. Every man and his extremistdog will have a field day. The Government hasbeen caught out, pandering to the extremists inthe community who are seeking this oppor-tunity to attack industry, development, andcommerce. The Government has an obligationto give a full account and explanation of itsintentions. The amendment to delete those twowords should be supported.

Mr HODGE: The Opposition is not dinkumabout protecting the environment. That has be-come crystal clear from the contributions of themembers for East Melville, Vasse, and Dale.

Members opposite really want to keep thestatus quo whereby they have a Minister forEnvironment who has no power to do any-thing. They would be happy with that arrange-ment. They are not really dinkum about pro-tecting the environment, as can be seen by thefact that the moment they think the Ministermay actually be about to gain some powers thatwill enable him to protect the environment,they come out with these hysterical argumentsof the sort we have heard over the last hour.

I suggest that over the dinner break membersopposite who have spoken so far in this debateobtain a copy of the Environmental ProtectionAct 197 1-80 and read it; I will send them acomplimentary copy because I do not thinkthey have read it. Were they to have read itthey would know that all the horrific scenariosthey have been expounding to the Chamber arejust not factual. Were they to have read the Actthey would realise that most of the horrificthings they have speculated about are alreadycovered by the present Act. We have not seenall those horrific circumstances to which mem-bers opposite have been referring.

Sections 54, 55 and 56(l) of the present En-vironmental Protection Act already providepower for town planning schemes to be referredto the EPA. The EPA can initiate action itselfto look at those schemes if it wishes. The EPA

3657

3658 (ASSEMBLY]

can make recommendations to the Govern-men? about those town planning schemesthrough the State Planning Commission, andthe Government can make a decision on thoserecommendations.

Under this legislation that same procedurewill occur. The Minister for Environment willbe able to consult then with another decision-making body, be that a local government auth-ority, a Minister or a commercial body in orderto negotiate and agree upon conditions to at-tach to a town planning scheme. [f all agree, theproject can proceed in accordance with thoseconditions. If all those bodies do not agree, thescheme could be submitted to an appeals com-mittee.

Members opposite have been expounding agreat deal of nonsense this afternoon. They arewasting the time of the Chamber and we will behere all night if they keep going on with thishypothetical nonsense.

Mr RUSHTON: The Minister will be in for abad time if he thinks he knows everything andno-one else is entitled to an opinion. We areasking for some simple explanations.

He let the cat out of the bag then when heindicated that his environmental powers willcover town planning schemes, whereby localcouncils will need to have their schemes ap-proved by the EPA, which is in effect the samething as the Department of Conservation andEnvironment; the two are not independentbodies. So, the EPA will have overridingpowers over all town planning schemes-

When a town planning scheme is submittedby a local authority to the State Planning Com-mission the environmental aspects of it shouldbe considered then; the EPA should not havethe power to say that a town planning schemeshould be delayed after it has been given thatinitial approval. It is essential if we are to getanything done in WA that those environmentalconsiderations be attended to at the same timeas the scheme is considered by the PlanningCommission- That is what happened with theMRPA under the old legislation. I am awarethat schemes could be prolonged because thedirector of the department wanted to haveanother go at the scheme. He had a say whenthe scheme was before the MRPA but then hewould want to take another look at it. All as-pects should be considered at the one time sothat a decision is made and it is all behind us.

The people involved with the scheme thenknow that they can get on with it.

This social surroundings provision is verynebulous. Who is to interpret it? Which pro-fessional is to give an opinion on it? The Minis-ter should reconsider the idea that the PlanningCommission should not be the sole body toconsider the environmental aspects of ascheme. If when the Planning Commissionstudies a scheme something is found to be un-acceptable, it is fair enough that the schemeshould go back.

The environmental legislation is important,but it is not all-embracing; it has a contributionto make. The Government of the day has tomake the final decision from time to time. Wedo not want planning matters to be delayed asthey could be under this legislation. Thesethings should be handled in proper sequence;in other words, the environmental aspects of adevelopment should be considered at the sametime as the town planning aspects are con-sidered. The developers involved must knowwhere they stand.

Local government is concerned about thefact that it will not be able to progress its activi-ties in a reasonable fashion. Local governmentis closest to the people and reflects publicopinion more closely. Local government is thereal watchdog of what happens to our environ-ment. The Government of the day often over-rides environmental requirements, as we haveseen with the casino. The City of Perth wouldnot have allowed that development and in factfought against it, but the Government ignoredit. That sort of thing will happen again underthis social surroundings provision. I would likethe Minister to reconsider this aspect of thepowers of the EPA in town planning matters.

Amndnment put and a division taken withthe following result-

Mr BlaikieMr BradshawMr CashMr CourtMr CraneMr GraydenMr HassellMr HouseMr LauranceMr LewisMr MacKinnon

Ayes 22Mr MensarosMr NalderMr RushtonMr SchellMr SpriggsMr StephensMr ThompsonMr TrenordenMr TubbyMr WattMr Willianis

(efl-)

3658


Noes 27Mrs Beggs Mr MarlboroughMr Bertram Mr PearceMr Bryce Mr ReadMr Enan Burke Mr D. L. SmithMr Terry Burke Mr P. J. SmithMr Carr Mr TaylorMr Peter Dowding Mr ThomasMr Evans MirTonkinDr Gallop Mr TroyMr Grill Mrs WatkinsMr Gordon Hill Dr WatsonMr Hodge Mr WilsonMr Tom Jones Mrs BuchananDr Lawrence rTfern)

PairsAyes Noes

Mr Clarko Mr ParkerMr Cowan Mrs Henderson

Amuendmnent thus negatived.Mr BLAIKIE: I raise with the Minister the

definition of the Word "pollution". The Billstates-

"1pollution" means direct or indirectalteration of the environment-

(a) to its detriment or degradation;(b) to the detriment of any beneficial

use; or(c) of a prescribed kind;

Points of OrderMr HODGE: Mr Chairman, I am sure the

member for Vasse has already spoken themaximum number of times he is permitted tospeak on this clause. Would you give a ruling?

The CHAIRMAN: 1 will give my ruling, andI ask the member for Vasse to move the secondamendment which is in his name on the NoticePaper to allow him to speak freely to thisclause.

Mr HODGE: On a further point of order, MrChairman, the second amendment does notmake sense now that the first amendment hasbeen defeated-it was consequential upon thefirst amendment being carried.

Committee ResumedMr BLAIKIE: I assure the Minister for En-

vironment that I can handle my own amend-ments, but I do appreciate his assistance. Thesecond amendment was consequential uponthe first amendment being passed.

I raise the point that I made at the com-mencement of the Committee debate: I willneed to seek clarification on a number ofclauses in this Bill, and I now seek your assist-ance, Mr Chairman.

Point of OrderMr HODGE: If the member for Vasse is not

going to move the second part of his amend-ment which is on the Notice Paper in his name,Iput it to you, Mr Chairman, that he has

exhausted his right to speak to this clause.The CHAIRMAN: The Minister for En-

vironment does have a valid point and I ask themember for Vasse to quickly wind up his lineof questioning. In view of the comments madeby the Minister, it may well be that during thecourse of the debate this evening I may have tobreak up the clauses in order that [ can rule onthe number of time members may speak.

Committee ResumedMr BLAIKIE: I question the effect of the

meaning of the word "pollution", and I ask theMinister for Environment to indicate the typeof prescribed regulations that he will put beforethe Chamber. This Bill is basically a Com-mittee Bill, and many explanations will besought during the debate. More importantly,however, the working part of this Bill, when itbecomes an Act, will be the regulations.

A precedent has been set already in relationto the Mining Act. The regulations relating tothat legislation were most important. TheGovernment allowed members to peruse theregulations before that legislation was finallysubmitted to the Parliament.

I appeal to the Minister to follow a similarformat with this legislation to allow the regu-lations relating not only to pollution, but alsorelating to the entire ambit of the legislation, tobe given to members for their perusal.

I accept that the Government has the role ofgoverning, but if this legislation is to be passed,a degree of cooperation is necessary. The Min-ister's office has been of assistance and I placeon record my appreciation for its assistance.

The regulations form a large pant of thislegislation and I ask the Minister to give anundertaking that he will explain the gamut ofthe regulations he is proposing to attach to thislegislation and which are not evident in theBill.

Mr HODGE: The member for Vasse posed aquestion about the definition of the word"Pollution". He asked what would be coveredunder paragraph (c) of the definition which re-fers to pollution "of a prescribed kind".

The sorts of matters that would be coveredunder that paragraph would be those thingsthat are presently covered by the Noise Abate-ment Act and its regulations, the Clean Air Act

3659

3660 [ASSEMBLY)

and its regulations, and the Rights in Waterand Irrigation Act and its regulations. The-prescribed kind" would be regulations of airand noise emissions. I expect that we wouldadopt the normal mechanisms that the Govern-meat usually adapts when considering thosesorts of regulations.

Clause put and passed.Clause 4 put and passed.

ProgressProgress reported and leave given to sit again

at a later stage of the sitting, on motion by MrHodge (Minister for Environment).

(See page No. 366 7)IQuestions taken.]

Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.15 p.m.

ACTS AMENDMENT (ELECITORALREFORM) BILL

ReportReport of Committee adopted.

Third ReadingLeave granted to proceed forthwith to the

third reading.MR BRYCE (Ascot-Minister for Parlia-

mentary and Electoral Reform) [7.18 p.m.]: Imove-

That the Bill be now read a third time.MR MENSAROS (Floreat) [7.19 p.m.]: I

want to say again something which I saidtowards the end of the Committee stage of theBill, before it was recommitted.

We had an exceptional debate which I be-lieve had a lot of merit and did only good forthis Chamber and its members. It is my beliefthat if this type of debate, which was devoid ofany personal attack or abuse, could be the or-der of the day throughout the proceedings ofthis place, this Chamber and its memberswould justly enjoy a much better reputationthan they do at present.

I emphasise at the third reading of this Billthat the report of the Committee debate,although very difficult to understand andneeding to be used in conjunction with the Billand the parent Act which was amended, gives afairly accurate picture of the legislationproposed by the Government and the policiesof both the Liberal Party and the NationalParty. That came about because we insisted onmoving all the amendments, although in somecases they may have appeared to be illogical

because some previous amendments wererejected.

If members refer to this report, they will seethat there are quite a number of similaritiesbetween the proposals of both the Governmentand the Opposition parties. There are, ofcourse, basic differences. The similarities aremore in principle at this stage. The fact that theOpposition also proposed the concept of re-gional proportional representation in the Legis-lative Assembly is one of these similarities; thefact that the Opposition also proposed thatthere should be an Electoral Commissionwhich was virtually independent from theGovernment, or at least from the day-to-daydirections of the Minister of the time;, and thefact that the Opposition accepted that the Elec-toral Commissioner and his deputy should beappointed after consultation by the Premier ofthe day with leaders of the Opposition parties,are all principles with are basically similar.

Members are also of one mind, as opposed tosome propositions put years ago, that the Legis-lative Assembly should have a single electoraterepresentation and electoral districts. Althoughit was not emphasised very much, I think thatit is fairly significant that there was agreement,more or less implicitly, that there ought to be ametropolitan area as an entity; that is, thereshould be a metropolitan area and another areawhich is outside the metropolitan area.

The SPEAKER: Order! Mansard is obviouslyhaving great difficulty hearing the member. Ifall members would please be a little quieter,other than the member for Ftoreat, and if hewould be a little noisier, it would help.

Mr MENSAROS: That in itself is a fairlyimportant indication that a difference existsbetween the area which includes the metrop-olis, and the area outside the metropolis. Ourpolicy signifies that difference in the fact thatin order to have proper and equal represen-tation, the number of voters within each dis-trict cannot be the same. Nevertheless, thatprinciple is very important.

Apart from those, we had fairly small, per-haps not very important, agreements on vari-ous matters. It was signified in the recommittalof the Bill, and the amendments which havebeen passed after the recommittal enjoyed thesupport of both the Government and the twoparties on this side of the House. It could beclaimed that they were cosmetic in nature, butit was a step forward.

3660

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986]166

Of course there are still very basic and im-portant differences and issues. These differ-ences can be basically described as being re-lated to the two Houses. I think we agree thatthey ought to be different, but we wanted toemphasise more the representation aspect ofthe Legislative Assembly, and the review, andtherefore legislative aspect, of the LegislativeCouncil. I emphasise that although we offeredregions for the Legislative Council in the sameway as the Government and the National Partyoffered different regions, we were not at allinfluenced by any thought of the Liberal orNational Panties gaining some predominancein those regions.

I noticed only now, because I was not presentduring question time last Thursday, that theMinister has incorporated certain figures inHansard. I have not had the opportunity tosubject those figures to lengthy study, andtherefore I do not want to challenge them at all.However, we have the Minister's assurancethat if this matter of electoral reform developsfurther we might have the opportunity to lookat those figures in more detail with the assist-ance of whatever department or help the Minis-ter can provide.

I am fairly frank and genuine about this be-cause I emphasise that what we want is asystem where the representation is assured forthe Assembly, and translated into everydayverbiage, that means a weighted vote in theLegislative Assembly between the metropolitanarea and remote and country areas. At the sametime we want to strengthen the review situationof the Legislative Council. We do not want toachieve in either House a situation whichwould benefit or be to the obvious disadvan-tage of any one of the pantics. We would like toachieve a situation where the percentage of thepopular vote, particularly for the major parties,would be reasonably well expressed by the per-centage of members in both Houses.

That was the reason I dwelt at some lengthon my argument to show that one-vote-one-value, although it is theoretically claimed toachieve that situation, has not done so in West-em Australia to the benefit or disadvantage ofeither side. At times it has benefited one side,and at other times the other side has benefited.We would like to achieve the result I haveoutlined by retaining the principle of represen-tation and introducing regional proportionalrepresentation in the upper House. This is afield where we will have to come to some agree-ment with the Government.

The other basic difference was that we arefairly adamant about the staggered term of theLegislative Council. I do not want to go intodetail, but I will mention the main argumentfor it. We do not believe that sudden changeswhich might occur and influence the politicalconstellation from time to time, and which areshort-lived, should influence the whole of thelegislature for a longer time than those ideasmight last with the public. That is the mainargument for a different term for the Legislat-ive Council, which is the case in every State inAustralia and in the Commonwealth where abicameral system exists-everywhere exceptQueensland. It is the case in almost everycountry we can think of which has this demo-cratic type of representation.

Mr Peter Dowding: Like New Zealand.Mr MENSAROS: There are differences. The

other day somebody mentioned Canada, whichhas a House of Review. It is not an electedHouse of Review; it is nominated or appointed.Various other countries have similar insti-tutions although they do not call them a Parlia-ment. That is probably not the correct ex-pression there either.

In any case of lack of agreement, either oftwo results could occur: The Governmentcould lose the Bill in the Legislative Councilbecause of the numbers only. That would be abad result because if the Bill is not passed theendeavours of all members who have spoken tothis legislation-indeed, the efforts of all threeparties-would have been in vain, despite thefact that the Opposition parties have indicatedthat they agree to a change.

If the Bill is passed, again as a result of thenumbers in the Legislative Council-and thenumbers are fairly evenly set-the legislationwill be entirely lacking in agreement. Forreasons that cannot be explained, history hasshown that such legislation generally reboundson the Government.

I believe that the measure we implementedin 1981 was a mistake. The legislation waspassed without the slightest agreement betweenthe parties, which was contrary to what oc-curred in 1965 when the electoral reform legis-lati on was agreed to by both sides of the House.

I would suggest, having heard the Govern-menit say that it is quite interested in some sortof agreement, that this avenue should befurther pursued. I do not think it can be pur-sued very hastily because of the nature ofthings. If there are negotiations they have to bedone properly; they must be in-depth nego-

3661

3662 ASSEMBLYI

tiations and in every case negotiators fromboth sides of the House would have to consultwith their panics in order to get agreement. Ifthat avenue is pursued, even if after the Billpasses through this House-the Governmentwill use its numbers and I do not blame it forthat-we could achieve something which hasnot been achieved for some time; but it wouldrequire a lot of patience and time of membersconcerned.

I can assure the Minister for Parliamentaryand Electoral Reform that further negotiationswill have goodwill on my part and on the pantof the Opposition.

I emphasise again the point I made at thecommencement of the Committee debate: TheOpposition has placed its policies on record.The Opposition will vote against the third read-ing of the Bill, but that will signify only the factthat the package as presented by it was notsuccessful. It does not mean that the Oppo-siti on is rigid in adhering 100 per cent to itsevery detailed policy if there are meaningfulnegotiations and if by considered agreement wecan produce legislation that is proper.

MR STEPHENS (Stirling) [7.34 p.m.]: Likethe member for Floreat I take this oppontunityto congratulate all those members who tookpant in the debate on the reasoned manner inwhich the debate was conducted.

As the member for Floreat indicated, thediffering points of view were logically ad-vanced and, in my opinion, the debate lackedacrimony and personal abuse. I believe that itshould act as a model in this House. I feel thatif all matters can be debated with the sameattitude as was displayed on this occasion, theprestige of this place can be advanced. I hopemembers who read the debate will note thelogical way in which it was conducted and willtry to copy that format for the rest of thesession.

Like the member for Floreat, I was under theimpression when the Minister spoke during theCommittee stage that he would seek to have thefigures incorporated in Hansard during thethird reading debate. Unfortunately, I was notpresent in the House during question time lastweek and realised only this evening that thefigures have been incorporated in Hansard; butI have not had a chance to study the figuresand, therefore, I am not in a position to makecomments about them.

[ reiterate that the National Party's approachto this matter, particularly in regard to theupper House, is that it would like to see a

system which is comparable to that in the Sen-ate. By that I do not mean one-vote-one-value,but that the various seats have equal represen-tation. For that reason, the National Party feelsvery strongly that the number of seats in theupper House should be 17 in the metropolitanarea and 17 in the country.

Recognising the vast distances involved inthe country, the National Party has sought toseparate the northern and agricultural areas toensure that the north of this State would alwayshave representatives and that the southern partof the State could be considered as one elector-ate. Unless this had been done it is quite poss-ible that the representation could tend to comefrom the southern area only. The reason for thebreakdown is to maintain a balance of rep-resentation throughout the State.

The National Party believes it is exceedinglyimportant that any electoral reform be on thebasis that the will of the majority is reflected inthe voting patterns. At the same time we haveto realise that under a Westminster style ofParliament the interests of the minority havealways been recognised. This is one of thereasons the British system has endured for solong.

Under the present system, disregarding theBill before the House, we have in the Legislat-ive Assembly 30 seats in the metropolitan areaif we include the peripheral seats-many of usregard them as metropolitan seats-whichunder the present system are called "country"seats. There are 33 or 34 seats involved and,therefore, there is a majority of representationfrom the metropolitan area.

I recognise that with respect to the upperHouse the metropolitan area is in a slight min-ority, but it is not slight if one considers theadjustment of the peripheral seats, because thebreakdown is roughly 17:17.

I will give an example of where the interestsof the minority are not always considered: Overthe years we have seen many situations ariseand I will refer to the present environmentalproblems in Cockburn Sound. In years gone byindustrialists have used Cockburn Sound as anindustrial sewage outlet and we have beenfaced with a large problem; over $50 million ofthe taxpayers' money has been committed toclean up that problem.

For years we have had a problem in PrincessRoyal Harbour in Albany which has beenregarded as being brought about by industrialeffluent being discharged into the harbour. No

3662

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986])66

taxpayers' money has been advanced to helpovercome that problem.

Mr Hodge: Yes it has been.

Mr STEPHENS: Very limited. The moneythat has been spent has been used to recogni sethat there is a problem, but nothing has beenspent to rectify the situation.

Mr Hodge: Money has been included in thisBudget to help overcome the problem.

Mr STEPHENS: It i 's interesting to find outthat assistance will be given. However, the lo-cals and the department have for yearsrecognised that there is a problem, but nothinghas been spent on rectifying it to date. Thesame could not be said about Cockburn Soundbecause money has been advanced in an en-deavour to overcome that problem.

I am not trying to be political about that. Iaccept that some of the situations occurredprior to the Labor Government coming intooffice. I am trying to make the point aboutrepresentation and how the interests of theminority have not been reasonably consideredunder the present situation.

Six or nine years ago there was, as there isnow, a large Metropolitan Transport Trustdeficit. The Westrail deficit was not nearly aslarge, but Westrail increased by 10 per centfreight rates for country people to try to reducethe deficit. However, Metropolitan TransportTrust fares were increased by only five percent. It can be seen that once again there wasfavouritism towards the metropolitan area.

Many country members recognise that quitefrequently education initiatives are tried out inmetropolitan schools, found to be desirable,but are not implemented in country areas be-cause of insufficient funds. Country people aredisadvantaged yet again. That illustrates mypoint that the interests of the minority are notalways protected.

As representatives of country people, we arecompletely opposed to increasing the imbal-ance between country and city, as the measuresin the Bill before the House would do. Cur-rently a predominant number of Legislative As-sembly members come from the metropolitanarea. Even under any review that might takeplace, that would be the case. We accept that.However, the National Party cannot accept asimilar imbalance with respect to the upperHouse, particularly in the long term, as wewould like that House to be developed as agenuine House of Review.

Mr Bryce: Do you realise that the weightingin the Legislative Council Chamber is cur-rently-and would be even under the proposalsthat you brought to the Chamber-the worst inthe world?

Mr STEPHENS: It is not the worst in theworld. I have here an extract from theEncyclopaedia Brittanica with respect to elec-toral processes. I think that the Minister forParliamentary and Electoral Reform would ac-cept that that encyclopaedia is fairly authoritat-ive. It reads-

New York, with a population of nearly20 million, has in the U.S. Senate the samenumber of representatives as Nevada, witha population of less than one million.

Mr Bryce: You are talking about the Senate.You are not talking about single-memberconstituencies.

Mr STEPHENS: The Minister for Parlia-mentary and Electoral Reform has missed thepoint. I have always argued that the basis of theNational Party approach is to keep it compara-tive with the Senate system. That is the basisfor the three regions we propose. That is thebasis of our argument. It is possible to win anypoint by arguing acceptance for one part andnon-acceptance for another. However, I amconducting the argument on that approach.

The same principle applies in England. Ac-cording to figures released in 1975-1 under-stand that there has not been any substantialalteration in the ratio-the average number ofelectors for each constituency in England was65 400; in Scotland, it was 25 000; in Wales,56 000; and in Ireland 86 000. Thus there arelarge differences between 1constituencies inother countries also. It is wrong to claim thatthe figures with respect to our upper House arethe worst in the world.

In addition, the Minister for Parliamentaryand Electoral Reform has not taken into ac-count the vast distances and the low populationdensities which are a greater problem in West-em Australia than in any other State inAustralia and perhaps even in the world. Cer-tainly our population spread differs greatlyfrom other countries such as Great Britain.

I will not repeat the arguments advancedduring the second reading debate. I merely re-iterate the reasons the National Party feels sostrongly about this measure and why we weredisappointed that the Government could notsee its way to accepting our amendment. Evenif this Bill does not succeed, some good willhave come from the debate and progress may

3663

3664 [ASSEMBLY)

be made. I repeat that we were hoping that ouramendments would be accepted as a package.That has not been the case. Therefore, althoughwe still support some provisions in the Bill, wewill oppose the third reading because ouramendments were not accepted.

MR MacKINNON (Murdoch-DeputyLeader of the Opposition) [7.45 p.m.]-: I joinwith the member for Floreat and the DeputyLeader of the National Party in thanking theGovernment and all members who participatedin this debate for the manner in which it hasproceeded. As the Minister for Parliamentaryand Electoral Reform knows, 1 handled thelegislation in the absence of the member forFloreat during the second reading stage andfrom then on he handled it for the Opposition.

As other members have said, the debate hasprogressed in a very good manner. As aconsequence we have probably the best resultthat could have been expected at this stage ofthe game. Perhaps some More can be achievedin due course if discussions are held outside theParliament to try to arrnve at some agreementin that regard. The member for Floreat hasrightly indicated the Opposition's concerns, soI will not expand on those. I place on the recordthe thanks of the Opposition to the member forFloreat for the tremendous job he has done andfor the very expert manner in which he hasrepresented our point of view and representedus in a very proper and able way during thisdebate.

MR BRYCE (Ascot-Minister for Parlia-mnentary and Electoral Reform) 17.46 p.m.]: Itis nearly four months since I provided theLegislative Assembly with the second readingexplanation-on S July. At that time I took thefairly unusual step of providing members onboth sides of the House who were interested inthis Bill with the very detailed explanation ofthe clauses. I did that for a very deliberate andparticular reason. From the outset the Govern-ment has wanted the debate on this very funda-mental subject to proceed on the basis of infor-mation and facts. We can have very basic dif-ferences of opinions about where our valueslead us, but the very last thing we wanted wasfor the Bill to be dealt with on the basis of basicdifferences between the two sides of the 'Housein respect of factual material.

The second reading debate was adjournedover the long recess of approximately threemonths and the Committee stage has takenalmost the entire month of October, off and on.Thus the process has not been rushed. I ap-preciate the detail which members opposite

who have handled the debate for the Oppo-sition have applied to the task. It is quite obvi-ous that both sides of the 1-ouse have treatedthe subject as a matter of importance. It hasbeen recognised and accepted that there is aneed for reform of the electoral legislation.Pour or five important Statutes are involved.

Both sides of the House have accepted thatthere is room for mode rnisation, improvement,reform and change. Where we differ is in re-spect of the pace and the direction of thatchange. The very significant areas of agreementin substance have been achieved during theCommittee stage. However, it is true to say thatboth sides of the House remain fairly intransi-gent about certain key issues. Those issues areprincipally three in number. While the Bill int-volves 104 clauses, the differences between therespective sides of the House boil down tothree issues: The question of whether the Par-liament should be structured with two Housesthat face the people-or the shareholders, touse a colloquial term-at precisely the sametime; four-year terms for both Houses of Par-liament; or a Parliament comprising those twoseparate Houses, one with a four-year term andthe other with an eight-year term.

Mr Blaikie: You used the example of facingthe shareholders. If that had been the position,the board would have been removed tomorrow.

Mr BRYCE: That sort of innuendo wentthrough underneath the chairs on whichGovernment members sit very early in the de-bate and we decided not to conduct that debateat that level. I will, not respond to it at this stageof the third reading. We made considerableheadway on both sides of the House, althoughthere was plenty of temptation for all of us.

This question of the structure of the Housesin respect of the terms members serve is one ofthe key issues. The National Party and theLabor Government representatives in thisChamber have, in fact and in substance, agreedthat there is a great deal of validity in the Bill.We support the idea that both Houses of theParliament should be dissolved at precisely thesame time after a four-year term.

Mr Rushton: Do you think there may be atime a little further ahead when one of theHouses may not be needed because they aredoing the same job?

Mr BRYCE: The Liberal Party proposed weshould have an eight-year term for the upperHouse and a four-year term for the LegislativeAssembly. This we do not accept.

3664

[Tuesday, 28 October 1 986J166

Mr Mensaros: We are not necessarilyadvocating an eight-year tern. What we do ad-vocate is that the fixed period for the Councilshould be double the maximum of the Legislat-ive Assembly, whether it is three years and sixor four years and eight.

Mr BRYCE: I accept that correction. Ipined the distinct impression there was agrowing consensus of opinion amongst mem-bers opposite, even in the Liberal Party, that afour-year term was preferable for Governmentin the 1980~s. The implication of what themember for Floreat says is therefore for four-and eight-year terms.

The second area is the question of voteweighting. Members opposite seem quite in-transigent at this late stage of the 1 980s aboutthe structure of this Parliament, and that rep-resentation of members sbould be dominatedby a system of weighting which is much moresevere than anywhere else in Australia, and,according to research on my part and on thepart of my staff, than anywhere else in theworld which has single-member constituencies.

Mr Lightfoot: What about the ratio inTasmania?

Mr BRYCE: I intend to ignore that remarkas well, because the member is not up with thedebate. I trust he is not going to insist on pursu-ing that point of view.

Mr Lightfoot: It is a reasonable analogy.Mr BRYCE: It is not. It is an analogy which

has been rejected time and again.Mr Lightfoot: It might have been rejected by

you, but it is still a fact.Mr BRYCE: I wanted to make the point

tonight that Queensland is singled out andrecognised by Australians across the length andbreadth of their country, as the State with themost gerrymandered and unfair system ofelecting parliamentary representatives becauseof the way in which vote weighting has beenused to distort the will of the people in thatState. Amazingly, Western Australia's voteweighting system is far worse thanQueensland's. I would like to spell out thenumbers, for the sake of the record, with yourapproval.

Mr Rushton interjected.Mr BRYCE: We have already been through

this system. It is extraordinary that the Johnny-come-lately would pick on this issue. For nearlyfour months this issue has been under consider-ation. It has been admitted recently by one ofAustralia's foremost experts in this field, a for-

mer Prime Minister. He made the observationthat Joh Bjelke-Petersen came to thePremiership 18 years ago, and he inherited asystem which was crooked, a system which heimproved in his own right-he made it morecrooked. Nobody has ever suggested that thesystem that Ioh Bjelke-Petersen's predecessorsin the Liberal Party in Queensland inheritedwas not a bent and crooked system. Of course itwas.

Mr Laurance: It was made by the LaborParty,

Mr BRYCE: That does not give me any senseof pride. We can always rely on the member forGascoyne to bring down the debate to the bot-tom of the floorboards.

What we seek to do in this Bill is to eliminatethe opportunity for politicians ever to do thatin Western Australia. We invite members onboth sides of the House to join us in this. Themember for Gascoyne and his mates, whenthey were in Government, and others, went outof their way to demonstrate that politicianscannot be trusted with a pen in their handswhen it comes to drawing lines on an electoralmap. The intention is to provide for indepen-dent electoral commissioners to draw thoselines. Some of the members opposite have lostsight of the fact that we have actually reachedagreement that that independent commissionought to be put in place and ought to be giventhe job of drawing those lines in future. Thatconcerns me a little.

Mr Lightfoot: You cannot be trusted either.Mr BRYCE: I mean nobody. Nobody can be

trusted. In case the member seeks to put him-self on a pedestal, plenty of his predecessorshave demonstrated in this place-i am sorry Ido not have time to remind him of the detail-that they cannot be trusted either.

In Queensland, an average metropolitan elec-torate consists of 29 800 voters, and in thecountry areas it is about 8 000. That is de-scribed as the worst gerrymander in Australiabased on malapportionment, the way JohBjelke-Petersen has been juggling the figures.There are tiny exceptions to that average whichare slightly worse, but generally speaking therelationship between the city of Brisbane andthe regional cities and the rest of Queensland isnowhere near as bad as a similar relationship inWA, and certainly would not compare with ourupper House. The situation is Queensland isnowhere as bad.

Mr Maci~innon: They do not have an upperHouse.

3665

3666 ASSEMBLY]

Mr BRYCE: Of course they do not have anupper House Our upper House has a voteweighting system of about four to one, with theextreme case reaching a situation of more thanI I to one. In Queensland the average case istwo to one, and it gets to about four to one inthe worst possible case.

The point I am trying to make is that it iswell understood around the length and breadthof this country that all is not well. Somethingsmells in the electoral laws in the State ofQueensland, yet the irony is that in this Statethe malapportionment is even worse. If mem-bers opposite, with their colleagues in anotherplace, insist on refusing to bend now to theprinciples of fairness and justice, they will findthat their panties in this State will begin toattract the odium which is now attached to theNational Party and Joh lijelke-Petersen inQueensland.

There is scarcely an Australian who has aworking understanding of politics who does notknow that the system he has further developedover the years to serve a distorted vestedinterest is the worst in the country.

Mr Stephens interjected.

Mr BRYCE: How many times does the mem-ber for Stirling want ame to say it? TheQueensland Premier has gone to absurd lengthswhen it comes to selecting electoral com-missioners. He does not even name them in thelegislation. He says any three people may beselected by the Government of Queensland todraw his electoral boundaries. He picks anythree cronies, selected from anywhere, andgives them the job of drawing the boundaries.Is it any wonder he has gone to that length?

Mr Stephens: He did acknowledge that hehad further refined the Australian LaborParty's system.

Mr BRYCE: [ am prepared to donate, at myown expense, a hearing aid for the member forStirling. If he did not hear my response to thesmart alecs sitting opposite, he should remaintuned in for the next three minutes.

Mr Stephens: You still have not answered myquestion.

Mr BRYCE: The answer is "Yes". It provesnobody can be trusted. The tragedy of this de-bate is that there are members opposite whohave sat around discussing this issue at partymeetings, and who are mortified knowing that

members cannot be trusted, because the LaborParty might do to the National and LiberalParties over the next 80 years what theNational and Liberal Panics have done to theLabor Party for the last 80 years.

Our experience in this place, and withGovernments of all political complexions inother pants of the country, shows that some ofthem will seek to remain in office as long asthey possibly can by warping the system. Thatis why we brought to this Parliament a systemthat provided for an independent electoralcommission, taking the pen out of the hand ofthe politician and providing for a structure, inthe first instance, which does constitute astraight bat. Not a single member opposite hasactually said that the model the Governmentproposed was a model designed to give theAustralian Labor Party a long term built-in ad-vantage or majority because it was not. It wasthe fairest system that I could possibly help tostructure with the regions we have. I haveasked for other people's input to improve itsfairness.

Mr Stephens: You reflected about some of uscoming into this place and making our owndecisions. Wouldn't you agree that as represen-tatives of our electorate we come here to rep-resent the point of view of the people who putus here? I challenge you to go to my electorateto see whether I have represented views in thisHouse contrary to the will of the majority ofpeople I represent.

Mr BRYCE: I know, the members know, andthey know that I know that they do not havemore than the tiniest handful of people in theirconstituencies who understand the structure ofthis place or have ever walked into their mem-ber's office, sat down, and discussed with them,as elected members of Parliament the structureof this place. I made the point during the sec-ond reading debate that these electorates aregerrymandered; they are rigged in their struc-tures by virtue of the people who occupy them.There are people who sit in this place whohave, from time to time, gone out of their wayto preserve their positions in this place. Theydo not, as a general rule, go back to their elec-torates and ask for opinions.

I refer to the question of regions. It has be-come apparent during the course of the secondreading debate, whilst there is a considerablelist of issues in respect of which we agree, thearea where the most fundamental disagreement

3666

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986J166

surfaces is in respect of the regions. While wehave reached agreement that there ought to beproportional representation in the upperHouse, we have not been able to reach agree-ment in respect of the actual structure of thoseregions.

Having said that, I close by saying to mem-bers on both sides of the House that as wereach the final stage of this Bill in this place, Ido not regard it as being the final chapter as faras the question of electoral reform is con-cerned, either now or at any stage into the fore-seeable future.

I am absolutely convinced that not only willimportant parts of this Bill be accepted andpassed into law, but that there will be a sub-sequent series of amendments to the ElectoralAct which will attract support from memberson both sides of the House. It is one I referredto earlier in the debate as the miscellaneousamendments Bill which touches on things likenames of political parties on ballot papers, sixo'clock closing, and various other issues thatconstitute a miscellaneous round-up of less sig-nificant issues relating to the way in which westructure the Parliament. I say to those mem-bers with whom I have had significant ongoingdiscussions both inside and outside this House,that we have made very considerable progressdespite our inherent differences of opinionabout certain basic factors. As a result of thosediscussions, we will find significant room fornegotiation and compromise. I look forward toour working with the other House of this Par-liament to achieve that in respect of this Bill.

Question put.

The SPEAKER: To be carried, I advise thatan absolute majority is required and if, whenputting the question, a dissentient voice isheard, T will have to divide the House.

Division taken with the following result-

Mrs BeggsMr BertramMr BridgeMr BryceMr Brian BurkeMr Terry BurkeMr BurkettMr CarrMr Peter DowdingMr EvansDr GallopMr GrillMr Gordon HillMr HodgeMr Tom Jones

Ayes 29Dr LawrenceMr MarlboroughMr PearceMr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P.1J. SmithMr TaylorMr ThomasMrTonkinMr TroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

Meiae)

MrfllaikieMr BradshawMr CashMr CourtMr CowanMr CraneMr GraydenMr HouseMr LauranceMr LewisMr LightforotMr MacKinnon

AyesMr ParkerMrs HendersnThe SPEAKER:

achieved. I declarethird reading.

Noes 23Mr MensarosMr NalderMr RushtonMr SchellMr SpriggsMr StephensMr ThompsonMr TrenordenMr TubbyMr WattMr Williams

(refit,)

PairsNoes

Mr ClarkoMiriHassell

An absolute majority wasthat the Bill has passed the

Bill read a third time and transmitted to theCouncil.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILLIn Committee

Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.The Chairman of Committees (Mr Burkett) inthe Chair Mr Hodge (Minister for Environ-ment) in charge of the Bill.

Progress was reported after clause 4 had beenagreed to.

Clause 5: Inconsistent laws-Mr BLAIKIE: I ask the Minister why this Bill

differs from what is contained in the Act. TheBill provides that the Act will not apply to or inrelation to any Act which received Royal As-sent before 1 January 1972. The second ques-tion is: Is it intended that this Act shall over-ride all other Acts of Parliament in relation toenvironmental matters?

Mr HODGE: I have already answered thequeries in the earlier debate. Clause 5 isinserted to ensure that the State in no way ab-rogates special agreement Acts which havebeen entered into and which provide exemp-tion from environmental laws. We do not in-tend to override those special Acts, but in allother regards, if there is any conflict betweenthis legislation and any other piece of legis-lation, this legislation is superior.

Clause put and passed.Clause 6: Power of Minister or Authority to

exempt-Mr BLAIKIE: This gives the Minister or the

authority power to exempt certain areas andpremises, or any specified area, from the pro-visions of the Act. This is fairly similar to whatis contained in the existing legislation, but I did

3667

3668 [ASSEMBLY]

not want the opportunity to pass without mak-ing some comment. The exemptions will bemade with the approval of the Governor. If theauthority wants to declare a certain industry orproject to be exempt from the provisions of theAct, the authority makes application to theMinister who then takes it to a meeting ofCabinet which will make the decision.

That is a proper function of Government,and Governments must be judged on the waythey run a country, and that includes environ-mental as well as other laws. Government musthe accountable to the people. I do not want tocriticise this clause, but it gives me the oppor-tunity to refer to two or three projects in whichthe Government has used the exemption pro-visions. Some have been of a most contro-versial nature. I refer to the Burswood Casino,the Mosman Park tearooms, which is now thesubject of wide controversy, and the SwanBrewery site which is another area which wouldnot have had the absolute scrutiny of the EPA.

The Government made its determinationsand decisions, and while 1 am critical fromtime to time of Government decisions, peoplewill eventually make their determination byway of the ballot box. We need to consider afurther concept. It is all very well for Govern-ments and Ministers to make these decisions,but we are approaching a stage in environmen-tal management where Parliament in duecourse should be called on to make decisionsabout exemptions and whether certain projectsshould have environmental evaluation ratherthan a Cabinet veto. It is already the case withState forests and national parks that the ap-proval of Parliament is required if areas of landare to be added to or taken from them. TheParliament can make a determination. TheGovernment of the day can make arecommendation, but Parliament has the finalsay as to what should go on.

We are approaching a stage where futureGovernments will have to consider the demandby people that Parliament should be able tomake an expanded determination in environ-mental matters. We already have a Public Ac-counts Committee and Standing Committeesof Parliament, and I believe in the not too dis-tant future this Parliament will have a StandingCommittee to deal with conservation and theenvironment, with members drawn from bothsides of the House. One of the most importantaspects to be considered is to divorce environ-mental and conservation matters from the pol-itical arena.

If that is done more balanced decisions canbe made. I believe it is proper for the Govern-ment to grant exemptions, but I also believethat Parliaments will have to be more involvedin certain determinations through StandingCommittees so that much of the heat can betaken out of these matters before they becomethe subject of public debate.

Mr HOUSE: Many conservationists are con-cerned about this clause. As I understand theBill, this clause allows the Government to grantexemptions for things that are contrary to thespirit of the Bill. I guess one could go to theextent of quoting the example of the Govern-ment allowing a gross violation of the Bill bypermitting woodchipping in a national park. Idisagree with this clause permitting the Minis-ter to make a decision in that regard.

I believe these matters should be dealt withby the Parliament, They are matters of greatmapnitude and should not be dealt with by theMinister or by Cabinet.

Mr RUSHTON: The Bill also allows theauthority to grant exemptions. Will the Minis-ter tell me why the authority has that power?What sort of things will be exempted underthese provisions?

Mr IHODGE: The exemption provisions areincluded already in the present EnvironmentalProtection Act, the Noise Abatement Act, andthe Clean Air Act. To the best of my knowl-edge, the exemption provisions in the Environ-mental Protection Act have never beeninvoked. Exemptions are fairly regularly soughtand vran ted under the Noise Abatement Actand are occasionally sought and granted underthe Clean Air Act.

This Government has never lightly grantedexemptions. I give very serious considerationto every application that I receive. Some ofthem I reject and some of them I agree to, afterfairly lengthy consideration, but usually onfairly stringent conditions.

The most frequently applied for exemptionsare applied for under the Noise Abatement Act.Exemptions for outdoor concerts, such asCarols by Candlelight in the Supreme CourtGardens and Festival of Perth occasions arealso sometimes exempted under that Act.

The member for Dale said he thought it wasstrange that the authority would be able togrant exemptions. The authority cannot grantexemptions. The Minister and the authorityrecommend to the State Governor that anexemption be granted, which means theyrecommend to Cabinet. Obviously, if an

3668

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986) 36

exemption were applied for through the auth-ority, that application would go to Cabinetthrough the Minister. The only reason for theauthority also being allowed to recommendexemption is to allow for flexibility. There is noother motive for including that provision in theBill.

Most exemptions sought would be from thepollution control aspects of the Bill. I cannotthink of any other reason for a person applyingfor exemptions from other pans of a Bill. Themember for Vasse raised examples of the ca-sino and the Mosman tearooms of peopleobtaining exemptions under the Environmen-tal Protection Act. That is not correct. The ca-sino was not the subject of an exemption underthat Act. It was exempted by a special agree-ment Act of this Parliament, as has been thecase in scores of cases.

My notes from the department suggest thatthe Water Authority's sewerage, reticulationand waste water treatment facility may be thesort of project requiring an exemption frompants of the legislation at one stage or another.

Mr RUSHTON: The penalties under thisclause have been increased and are very severe.Why have the penalties been so severelyincreased?

Mr HODGE: We make no apology for theseverity of the penalties. If someonedeliberately flouts the exemption requirementsof this legislation, he should be severely dealtwith.

Mr Rushton: There are deucees oftransgression.

Mr HODGE: That is why we have magis-trates and they will take into account theseriousness of the offence. The penalties in thisBill are all maximum penalties, and it is veryrare for a magistrate to impose a maxi mumpenalty. We want to make it clear to the ju-diciary that Parliament considers breaches ofthis legislation very serious indeed.

Mr Rushton: Would you give an example ofwhat you imagine the maximum and minimumpenalties would be?

Mr HODGE: I would not like to speculate onthat. Obviously it is open to a magistrate todismiss a charge, and the maximum penalty isset out in the schedule. It is up to the courts todecide the penalty; it is their job to impose afine as they think appropriate. It would dependon the seriousness of the breach of this pant ofthe Bill. Certainly, the old Environmental Pro-tection Act was drawn up in 1970, and I do notknow off the cuff how long it is since the penal-

ties in that Act were revised. People whobreach this pant of the legislation wouldprobably be guilty of a fairly serious offence;and we should telegraph to the judiciary thatwe regard it as a serious matter. It is up to thecourt to decide, on the merits of the case, theseverity of the punishment meted out.

Clause put and passed.Clause 7: Continuation and composition of

Environmental Protection Authority-Mr BLAIKIE: I ask the Minister for expla-

nations for the variations between the currentAct and the Bill. At present the Act providesthat the Environmental Protection Authorityshall comprise three members, one of whomshall be a legal practitioner. I indicated in thegeneral debate that I did not know why it wasnecessary to have a legal practitioner as a mem-ber of the authority. Under the current legis-lation a further member is required to haveexperience and knowledge of environmentalmatters.

The Government proposes that the Environ-mental Protection Authority shall comprisefive persons, who shall be either full-time orpant-time members. The chairman will be thehead of the new department to be Created. Wedisagree with this aspect because we do notconsider that a chairman of what is supposedlyan independent authority can be the head ofthe department and at the same time maintainthe separate autonomy which we believe is im-portant.

Mr Hodge: It was achieved very successfullyfor more than a decade.

Mr BLAIKIE: It was achieved very success-fully for more than a decade, but in 1980amendments were made to the legislation andfor the last five years it has run successfullywith those amendments.

Mr Hodge: Not as successfully, but quite suc-cessfully.

Mr BLAIKIE: Obviously it was a goodofficer who was able to meet the policy de-mands of Government.

The difficulty is that on the one hand theChairman of the Environmental ProtectionAuthority is not subject to direction by theMinister, but on the other hand the head of thedepartment who is the same person will carryout the policy of the Minister. The time willcome when the Minister will tell the head of thedepartment that he wants certain duties carriedout in relation to policy and the head of thedepartment will say, "I have changed my hat;

3669

3670 [ASSEMBLY)

you are now speaking to the head of the En-vironmental Protection Authority and youhave no right to direct me."

Mr Hodge: It could and did happen underthe existing legislation, but it cannot happenunder these provisions. We have written it intothe Bill.

Mr BLAIKIE: It could be an administrativenightmare for the Minister of the day.

Mr Hodge: If we had not provided for it inthe legislation it could be, but we have madeallowance for it. Having two permanent headsis also an administrative nightmare.

Mr BLAIKIE: The head of the departmentcould refuse to carry out the policy of theGovernment on the basis that he was wearinghis other hat as chairman of the authority.

Mr Hodge: You would not say that if you hadread the legislation.

Mr BLAIKIE: I have read the legislation.We will agree to disagree on this clause; but

in the Minister's reply I ask him to explain howhe will overcome this hiatus in the legislation.This legislation provides an opportunity for a

series of committees to be appointed. Underthe previous legislation, a Conservation Coun-cil was available for representative groups to bepart of environmental reviews; that has nowgone.

A weakness in the legislation is that localgovernment does not have a right or a definiteobligation. The Minister has indicated that heis prepared to accept some amendments whichwill certainly go a long way towards healingthat breach in the legislation. By the sametoken, local government plays a very importantrole in Western Australia; and the Oppositionhas put forward an amendment giving localauthorities the right to be represented on theEnvironmental Protection Authority. This Billwill encompass all other environmental legis-lation; it will be an Act supreme in all mattersand will be the grandfather of all Acts of Parlia-ment. The legislation impinges on the rights oflocal government and it is important to ensurethat local government has a voice within theauthority. That voice should specifically be inthe membership of the five persons making upthat authority.

My final comment is that the Governmenthas determined, and the Committee is nowconsidering, that the five members of the auth-ority shall be appointed on account of theirinterest in and experience of matters affectingthe environment generally. That certainly gives

the Minister a very wide scope, because thoseterms of reference suggest that the Ministercould appoint any moonwalker, or any personhe may choose, because that definition wouldinclude anybody in Western Australia.

During the second reading debate we re-ferred to the people who have previously giventhis State good service-people such as Pro-fessor Bert Main, Professor O'Connor, DrMulcahy, and others of that ilk who haveserved the State extremely well. It is most im-pontant that the Minister at least give thisChamber an undertaking that when he is ap-pointing the five new members of the authorityhe is prepared to look for people with that typeof capacity. if he does not look for people ofthat capacity and is encouraged to appoint ex-tremists, whomever they might be, it certainlywill not help the operation of the legislationand will cause people to lose confidence in thelegislation when it is proclaimed.

I was quite concerned that the Governmentappointed Dr John Bailey as a member of theEnvironmental Protection Authority, because Isaw Dr Bailey, who at that stage was the Chair-man of the Conservation Council of WesternAustralia, carry out and be involved in a publicdemonstration on Farington Road. The mem-ber for Welshpool might have been there andseen Dr Dailey as well. If people want to maketheir points of view public, so be it, but if theGovernment is going to appoint people topositions such as these-

Dr Gallop: He is a thoroughly competent andprincipled person.

Mr BLAIKIE: I am not saying I doubt hiscompetence.

Dr Gallop: You are implying it.Mr BLAIKIE: [ am certainly not implying it

at all. I am saying that I question Dr Bailey'scarrying on as he did, as I saw him inFarrington Road. It does not give a person thestature he ought to command in a position suchas that. Professor Bent Main has a profoundinfluence in Western Australia, but does not goaround demonstrating in a public way. He ismore responsible. That is the point I want tomake, and I want to make it objectively.

Dr Gallop: You are implying that people whodemonstrate cannot capably fulfil a publicduty.

Mr BLAIKIE: If someone wants to demon-strate against a woodchipping terminal in anactive way, inciting other people to break thelaw, I believe it puts a question mark in theminds of people, and he will ultimately be

3670


judged by them on environmental matters.Surely to goodness, if we are going to set astandard, we should appoint to the authoritypeople who at least command the respect of thewider community.

I am not questioning the competence of DrJohn Bailey, but although he was the Chairmanof the Conservation Council at the time I donot believe his actions did him a great deal ofgood. That is my view.

When the Minister comes to appoint themembers of the authority, he will have an ex-tremely wide scope. It is very important forhim to choose people who have the generalconfidence of the community and a degree ofrespect iu order that the legislation may workeffectively, flat has been the case in the past,and the appointments made by previousGovernments have been a credit to them. Thispoint is one of the linchpins by which this legis-lation will sink or swim.

Mr LAURANCE: I want to comment on thisclause because it interests me.

[Quorum formcd.IIt is rather disappointing to see that the

Government is not interested in its own legis-lation.

Mr Camr There are more on our side than onyour side.

Mr LAURANCE: No, there are not.I want to talk about the composition of the

authority as it is intended to be set up by thisGovernment. I agree with some of the matterscontained in the legislation. For instance, thenumber of members on the authority has beenincreased from three to five. I can go along withthat, because it was always my opinion that acommittee composed of three members onlymust place pressure on these three people.

The legislation also allows for the chairmanto be a full-time member. Even that has somemerit, because it was my experience in my briefterm as Minister for Conservation and the En-vironment that the part-time chairman of theauthority was under considerable pressure tokeep up with the requirements of that position-

Mr Hodge: Professor Main recommendedthat it become a full-time position.

Mr LAURANCE: That does not surprise me,because Professor Main is the Chairman ofwhom I am talking. He had great difficulty inmaintaining the requirements of that office be-cause of his other involvements around theState. I must say that he did a magnificent job

of maintaining his effort as chainnan of theauthority, but he did it with some difficultyand was under great pressure.

Professor Main may not have wanted to be afull-time Chairman of the EPA, because I knowhe enjoyed his other involvements. lHe appreci-ated that he was able to make a contribution tothe State by being chainman of the authorityand at the same time keeping up his academiclife and his other public duties, which I knowhe enjoyed.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Pro-fessor Bert Main, a man to whom WesternAustralia owes a tremendous debt of gratitude.He served as Chairman of the EPA for a con-siderable number of years, as well as carryingout his other public duties, and was a highlyrespected academic. It was a great honour forme to be a Minister of the Crown and to beassociated with him.

It is important we recognise that ProfessorMain brought a sense of balance to a difficulttask. This sense of balance is something thatany Minister for Environment in any Govern-ment should be aiming at. It is absolutely re-markable that a person with such scientificqualifications should be able to understandother people's point of view and be able to takesuch a balanced and sensible approach whenconsidering the competing interests of develop-ment and conservation, something he did in avery clever way. He is a man of great wisdom.

It was not always easy for him. There weretimes when the EPA wanted to stop variousdevelopments that the Government consideredto be desirable. On several occasions when Isaw that it was obvious there was to be nomeeting of ways by developers andconservationists, I asked Professor Main tomeet directly with the developers. He did notlike being put in that position because hewanted to be able to sit back and have theinformation come to him and his committee sothat they could make a judgment on the meritsof the submissions received. He did not like toconfront, eyeball to eyeball, those people whowere put out by decisions made by the EPA.Nevertheless, he met with those people when-ever I asked him to.

One case in particular I remember is the de-velopment known as Murray Lakes. During mytime as Minister we had a number of appli-cations for canal developments. The Govern-ment put a lot of work into the whole questionof canal developments and sent experts aroundthe world, particularly to America, to look at

3671

3672 ASSEMBLY]

good and bad canal developments. There areplenty of both examples to be found.

At the time, all canal developments put tome were approved except for the Murray Lakesdevelopment. I could not disagree with theEPA's view in knocking back that develop-ment. I must add I was delighted that thedevelopers, who were not happy with ProfessorMain, were able to pursue their objectivesthrough the town planning process and weresubsequently able to get the development ap-proved through that avenue. I realise they hadto follow an expensive and lengthy route toachieve their objectives, but I am pleased theywere successful. The EPA had said that theproject would have problems with the turbidityof the water, the developers said there would beno such problem. I do not know now whetherturbidity will prove to be a problem. I haverecently visited the area and I believe it to be amagnificent development. I hope the peoplewho bought blocks there enjoy the canals and Itrust that the water will prove to be satisfac-tory. The blocks sold in short time, so we couldsay the public voted with their cheque books. Iam not saying that the EPA was wrong or righton that occasion.

My point is that Professor Main was pre-pared to accede to my request to meet with thedevelopers, on several occasions, to put tothem directly the reason that the EPA objectedto the proposal. So I have taken this oppor-tunity both to pay tribute to Professor BertMain and also to tell the Minister that thebalanced approach shown by. Professor Mainis something which made the EPA an effectivebody and something which should be kept inmind at all times.

I support the comments of my colleague, themember for Vasse, that another member of theEPA might not be showing that balance. I amnot saying that he is not showing that balanceand nor did the member for Vasse say that; hedid not say that person was not qualified orbalanced. But the people who make decisionsin this area need to be seen to have thatbalanced approach; they should not portray adifferent attitude in the community which willhave people believing that they do not have abalanced approach.

The Bill provides that we could have fivefull-time members of the authority and I do notknow whether that is in the best interests ofprotecting the environment. I would like theMinister to indicate whether it is his intentionto have a full-time or a pant-time deputy chair-man.

Clause 4 provides that the chairman shall bethe permanent head of the department. Thisidea has been a point of contention for sometime. I was not the Minister concerned whenthe previous Government separated those twopositions, but from our experience over a longtime in Government, this arrangement moreoften than not does not work. For instance, theGeneral Manager of the State Housing Com-mission was also made chairman of com-missioners. I have the greatest respect for theperson involved, but I think it was a mistake tohave him fill both positions. I think it is amistake in this instance for the chairman tocarry out both functions.

I know Mr Colin Porter, who initially heldbath positions, was unhappy when our Govern-ment separated the two positions. NeverthelessI know he worked extremely well in the role ofdepartmental head.

He had his detractors, but I certainly was notone of them. I admired his academic qualifi-cations; I believe that he worked well with theEPA and that he and his department acted in avery objective way.

I believe the EPA operated most efficientlybecause it received submissions from the pub-lic which had been put into proper order by thedepartment.

I also had the pleasure to be able to workwith the two other members of the EPA, Pro-fessor O'Connor and Mr Athol Gibson. Onewas an academic and environmental scientistand the other a person of considerable legalstanding in this city. Those qualifications stoodthem in good stead and assisted them incarrying out their responsibilities in a pro-fessional and objective way for the people ofthis State.

The Minister should ensure that the newmembers appointed to the authority have cer-tain qualifications.

It seemed to work well when Mr Porter, ashead of the department, had to work and coop-erate with a separate head of the EPA. MrPorter never indicated to me his dissatisfactionwith having those two functions separated.While I was responsible for the portfolio, hecarried out his functions particularly well.

I believe it is not necessarily the best thing tohave the chairman of the EPA also permanenthead of the department. I know of exampleswhere that has not worked in the past.

Mr RUSHTON: In my speech in the secondreading debate, I spoke about what was desir-able for the EPA. This Bill amalgamates the

3672


EPA and the department with one head. TheMinister, however, has said that the EPA willbe at arm's length from the department. Whatreasonable thinking person would believe that?The chief executive officer of the departmentand the chairman of the authority will be thesame person. It is therefore not feasible tosuggest it will be an independent body.

The Conservation Council made commentsabout what it thought was desirable. Amongother things it said that the EPA must be en-tirely independent of the Department of Con-servation and Environment and that the direc-tor of the department should not be a memberof the EPA. It suggested that the authorityshould have its own small secretariat to preparesubmissions to it. It said that its suggestionswould guarantee the independence of the auth-ority.

My colleagues referred to the integrity andprofessionalism of previous members of theEPA. The public had great respect for and con-fidence in those people.

In this legislation, the Government isattempting to do what it has done to controlother public authorities. The Government hasnow created a Department of Transport in or-der to assume total control of transport in thisState. In doing so, the Government hasattempted to nobble the Commissioner ofMain Roads by setting up a committee. Wehave seen the same occur with the Departmentfor the Arts. The one that really scares me is theGovernment's attempt to politicise planningmatters in this State by creating the WesternAustralian Planning Commission. In doing soit has removed the checks and balances for lo-cal government by the destruction of theMRPA. I could list the effects of that move.One of the main examples, however, is the con-troversial Mosman Park situation. That wouldnot have occurred under previous planning ar-rangements- A development of that type wouldhave first to be subject to the checks and bal-ances at the MRPA level. We have witnessedthe debacle of the Premier saying that the de-velopment was approved and different Minis-tens saying they had not given their approval.Subsequently they said that they had approvedof the development.

A few years ago, the Government followedthe routine of previous Governments in sup-porting a foreshore protected for use by thegeneral public. People should not be allowed toown any part of it. Leases were granted forpeople to operate restaurants and for other pur-poses. In my time as Minister, the people of

Peppermint Grove objected to the develop-ment of a restaurant. My decision was that therights of the individual should continue unlessthe Shire of Peppermint Grove purchased theproperty. That matter is still being held inabeyance.

The Mosman Park Town Council previouslyapproved of tearooms on the controversial site.Those tearooms were destroyed by fire and weare now seeing attempts at a major develop-ment on that site. My judgment in those mat-tens was that it was desirable for agreementbetween the Government and the council be-cause the council could resist a developmentproposal approved by the Government by notapproving the connection of deep sewerage andwater across the foreshore reserve.

To me it is an untenable situation and thecouncils in both cases should take the oppor-tunity, if they want to disagree to the tearooms-type of development, to purchase those twoproperties, not to do as was suggested to meover the Peppermint Grove development; thatis, to refuse the granting of a lease for the tea-rooms. That to me was not just, but if thecouncils want to obstruct this development Ibelieve they should offer to purchase theproperties.

The facts are totally different from thosegiven by the Premier on the "Sattler Report"programme. The Premier was totally untruth-ful as far as I am concerned in the way heportrayed my part. My decision was nothinglike what the Government is doing today. Thisis just another example of the centralisation ofpower by this Government in different areas.

Mr Court: What he said was convenient forhis argument.

Mr RUSHTON: That is right, but he madepeople believe that I approved of this develop-ment at Mosman Park in the present form.That is totally wrong and untruthful. I listenedto a number of his comments and they were farfrom the truth. The sad part, of course, is thatnobody will have the opportunity of portrayingwhat is truthful. I believe this is a goodexample and it should be used as a lesson to usal.

There is a part for the EPA to play in thissituation. As far as I anm concerned, the EPAhad not made a decision when the Ministeranswered questions the other day regarding thisactivity. I think he said today that the SwanRiver conservation council had in fact given anopinion but there is confusion. Nothing seemsto be certain, and people totally object to this. I

3673

3674 [ASSEMBLY]

think we should all reinforce the decision ofour forebears that the river, basically, should beavailable for the general public and any devel-opment-such as restaurants and so on-which takes place there should not be on aleasehold basis and should not preclude thepublic from using that facility.

These two jet cty developments should receiveequal treatment and this is going to beinteresting because the Government has shownfavour to one while leaving the other languish-ing. There are examples which need to beexplained when it comes to considering thislegislation. The point I would make is thatwhen one has a situation such as this, where theChief Executive Officer and the chairman havethe same role, those positions cannot beseparated. There can be words to that effectwithin the legislation itself, but in no way canthat same person act differently with the per-son who is his master or his Minister, for thatmatter.

That person will be influenced by theGovernment's wishes and he will be influencedby what the Minister has to say. Heaven helphim if he does not because that is the Govern-ment's role. The Government and that personwill work something out together and theGovernment will then agree with it or disagreewith it. However, I think every fair-mindedperson would want to see an arm's length ap-proach by the EPA.

The weakness of the EPA over the yearswould support Professor Bert Main's opinionthat he found it to be too much for a pant-timeoperator. I would certainly like to see the com-mittee of three being given responsible support,and have the opportunity to be independentand do its own thing, instead of having to workwithin the department's parameters. That wasthe weakness of the EPA as it was, but thatdoes not mean that the situation will continue.

The Minister has come forward with legis-lation which, as he said, is to approve the EPA.I am all for that, and I am right behind thereview now taking place. However, we do notwant to put in things which are less effectivethan what we have already. It comes back tothe ability of the people involved. We havebeen well served in the past, and it is now onthe heads of the Minister and this Governmentto appoint people to these positions. The suc-cess or failure of the body depends on thepeople appointed to it. Nothing the Ministercan do will save the environment of this State ifhe has appointed the wrong people to thosepositions.

That is a very awesome and difficult task.The effectiveness of the Government in which Iserved can be demonstrated by looking at thepeople that it appointed, and the great creditthat a person such as Professor Main hasreceived. Other people whom the previousGovernment appointed also sewved in anexemplary way. The Government faces a verydifferent situation now, and the position is dif-ferent.

The Government for years has uttered inef-fective statements such as "We can't do any-thing because the EPA hasn't got any teeth."The only brief that the community will haverelating to the environment is that it wants abetter environment. That is the essential thing.Whatever one wishes to direct will not last.One has to educate people to want a betterenvironment. That can be interpreted in differ-ent ways by different people.

It is essential that the EPA be independent ofGovernment. The challenge is to the Ministernow to try to convince the people that the EPAis at arm's length from Government. No doubthe will quote some words, but he and I bothknow that when one works in a departmentthere cannot be any independence whatsoeverwhen one person wears two hats.

If the Minister tries to demonstrate to theChamber how this one person is going to man-age, I would ask: Is this person going to be apublic servant or not? I believe other membersof the committee cannot be public servants, butcan the chairman be a public servant or not? Ifhe is, how can the EPA be independent? TheMiniter has said on a number of occasionsthat this is so; however the Opposition does notagree. The public does not agree. I believe theMinister has a big task ahead of him. As I closemy remarks, I would like to confirm that what Isaid about the Mosman Park situation clarifiesmy position in that respect. It was only a briefexplanation, but it was very important to methat the Premier's incorrect presentation of thesituation should not go unanswered.

I know the Premier and his Ministers can goon the "Sattler Report" and make Pressstatements; it might be necessary for me tomake a report and attempt to have thatpublicised, because it is not good that the pub-lic should receive the Premier's misinfor-mation about the facts because this misinfor-mation is far from the truth and people need tounderstand what is the truth.

3674

[Tuesday, 28 October 1 986J]67

Mr HODGE: It may have given the memberfor Date great satisfaction to get off his chestthe Premier's allegations, made on the "SattlerReport", but I cannot relate that to the clausethat is being considered at the moment. Never-theless, I hope it made him feel better. I do notthink I could convince the member for Dalethat he should agree with what I am proposingin this Bill. I think he has well and truly madeup his mind and I could debate this matter allnight and still not convince him.

I remain convinced, however, that the auth-ority will be successful, as it was successful be-tween 1971 and 1978, when Dr Brian O'Brienoccupied both positions, and I have neverheard anyone suggest that it was not. DrO'Brien was the head of the department and hewas the chairman; Colin Porter also did thesame two jobs successfully from 1978 to 1980.There arc a number of very senior positions ofhigh office around Perth that also successfullycombine two positions. The position of Com-missioner of Police is one that readily comes tomind. The commissioner is an independentperson who cannot be subject to direction onoperational matters by the Government of theday, but he is the permanent head, the ChiefExecutive of the Police Deparment, and isanswerable to the Government on departmen-tat, administrative, and budgetary functions.The Chairman of the State Energy Commissionis the Chief Executive of the SEC and he chainsthe commisssion, it would appear to me, suc-cessfully combining both positions. The Chair-man of the State Planning Commission is theChief Executive and the chairman of the com-mission.

Mr Laurance: You tried to split the functionsof the SEC.

Mr HIODGE: Not as far as I am aware. MrKirkwood is still the commissioner and theChief Executive Officer of the SEC. [ think wewill just have to agree to disagree about what isthe most effective model. I am not saying thatthe Opposition is entirely wrong. I believe thatit is best to have the positions combined. It is arecipe for continuing conflict and unrest in thedepartmental structure to have a departmentalhead who, in theory, should be the Govern-ment's chief adviser on matters on which thedepartment is in charge, and also to have achairman of the EPA who is an adviser toGovernment on environmental matters.

Mr Rushton: Who recommended this move,the conservation committee of the LaborParty?

Mr HODGE: No, this is my move. I takeresponsibility for it. I1 am convinced that it willbe successful.

Section 12 of the Environmental ProtectionAct reads-

For the purposes of assisting the Auth-ority in the exercise and performance of itspowers, functions and duties under thisAct, the Authority has, subiect to the Min-ister and to the provisions of the PublicService Act, 1978, the administration andcontrol of the department of the PublicService of the State known as the Depart-ment of Environmental Protection.

That can be quite clearly interpreted as mean-ing that the department exists solely for thepurpose of servicing the EPA. It seems to me tobe appropriate that the head of the EPA, there-fore, is the head of that department. It is abuilt-in recipe for continuing conflict andunrest to have a permanent head of the depart-ment-who is there to advise the Minister andtheoretically to exist for the sole purpose ofservicing the EPA-who is separate from thefull-time permanent head of the EPA.

Under my formula, there will be no conflictor potential for conflict. It will be quite clearthat the department exists solely for the pur-pose of facilitating the function of the EPA.The Chairman of the EPA will issue the in-structions to the department on how it willallocate its resources, how it will do the job.The department will do its job to the satisfac-tion of the EPA.

Mr Rushton: It is a Caesar unto Caesar situ-ation.

Mr HODGE: No. The function of the depart-ment is to service the EPA. Thus it seems to mequite logical that the head of the deparrnentshould be the head of the EPA. The depart-ment's only function is to make the EPA work.

The member for Gascoyne raised the ques-tion about the Government's intentions in re-spct of full and part-time positions. My inten-tion is that the only full-time person at thisstage shall be the current chairmnan. I have nointention of appointing either a full-time depu-ty chairman or full-time members of the EPA. 1merely put in that provision to cater for whatmay happen in the future. The old legislationwas enacted in 197 1. It is now 1986 and theworld has changed considerably in that period.1 am hoping that the new legislation will servethe State well for many years to come. I amtrying to build into it a flexibility that will al-low future Governments to appoint further

3675

3676 [ASSEMBLY]

full-time people to the EPA as the State growsand the demands and pressures on the EPAincrease. I have no doubt that in years to comethe pressure of work will be such that we mayneed to consider extra full-time people.

Mr Blaikie: Wouldn't it be more appropriateto amend the legislation as the need arose?

Mr HODGE: The member for Vasse was oneof those who criticised us for being short-sighted and for amending legislation andcoming back a short while later to amend itagain. I am trying to save the Parliament andthe State a bit of expense and rigmarole bybuilding in that flexibility. Any Governmentwould then have the ability to use it if theywished, but would be under no obligation touse it if they did not so wish.

Mr Blaikie: I was saying that you amendedlegislation and then rewrote the Acts.

Mr HODGE: The member for Vasse impliedthat we were short-sighted and did not lookahead or use any foresight. Now that 1 amdoing that, he is criticising me.

There was some criticism that the qualifi-cations of the people who could be appointedto the EPA were fairly wide and fairly vagueand that anyone could be appointed. Clause 7(2) of the Bill states-

Subject to this Act, the authority shallconsist of 5 members appointed by theMinister on account of their interest in,and experience of, matters affecting the en-vironment generally-

The old legislation was remarkably similar. Itsaid that the authority was to consist of threemembers appointed by the Governor, of whomone shall be a legal practitioner. The memberfor Vasse mentioned that. It also provided thatat least one member should be a person with aknowledge of and experience in environmentalmatters. That is almost word for word what isin the present Bill.

Mr Blaikie: There is a slight difference be-tween someone having an interest in somethingand someone having a knowledge of it. There isa fairly substantial difference.

Mr HODGE: I daresay that the member forVasse would claim to have a knowledge of en-vironmental matters, but I would not fancyputting him on the EPA. The same applies tomyself, although 1 would claim to have aknowledge of environmental matters, I wouldnot for a moment think that I have the knowl-edge, the interest or the experience to be a com-petent member of the EPA. I think the member

is splitting hairs in quibbling about that word-ing.

Mr Blaikie: I take it that you will be lookingfor qualified people?

Mr HODGE: We have gone to all thistrouble. Much time and energy has gone intodrafting the Bill because we wanted to have aneffective EPA. Obviously if we do not appointthe right people, the effectiveness of the EPAwill be diminished or destroyed.

I take the opportunity to say that I have fullconfidence in all the current members of theEPA. I have not had one moment's unrest orunease with either Mr Carbon, Mr Johnson orDr Bailey. I do not know what incident inwhich Dr Bailey was involved upset the mem-ber for Vasse.

Mr Blaikie: Farrington Road.Mr HODGE: I went to Farrington Road my-

self. Part of it was in my electorate and I wasquite concerned about it. Dr Bailey has notdone anything improper or caused concern tome since he has been a member of the EPA. Hisinvolvement in the Farrington Road incidentwould have occurred before he was appoint-ment to the EPA and I do not believe it fair tohold that against him.

I am very pleased with the work of Dr Baileyand all the members of the EPA. I assure theHouse that it is the Government's intention tokeep on those existing members of the EPA andwhen it is expanded, we will do our level best tofind two additional members with the best ex-perience and those who are best able to guardthe public interest. To do otherwise would ren-der this exercise futile.

Mr LAURANCE: I further comment as aresult of the Minister's response. First, his ex-planation with regard to the department'sservicing the Environmental Protection Auth-ority has some dangers for him. He tried to beeven-handed in his response by saying thatthere were examples to show that having theone head of an authority like this and a depart-ment which services it did work and did notwork. If the Minister thinks about it for a mo-ment, he will see that if the same person is headof a department which is there to provide aservice to the Environmental Protection Auth-ority, and head of the department which ispreparing that information, looking at sub-missions and so on, and providing informationto the authority, he will not then be able to sitin judgment on those submissions in a purelyindependent and objective way. It is just notpossible for the departmental head who has

3676


responsibility for the staff who are workingthere to get all this ready, submit it to the EPAand suddenly jump across and look completelyobjectively at what is happening to-

Mr Hodge. I acknowledge that that is a possi-bility, but equally there is also the possibilitythat if the permanent head is not the chairmanthere will be disputes about the permanenthead preparing and supplying the EPA with theinformation it requires for its meeting,

Mr LAURANCE: At least they are in aposition to criticise. When the departmentalbead carries both responsibilities, any criticismwithin the EPA of submissions or the way amatter has been handled by the department is adirect slap in the face for the departmentalhead who is also chairman of the authority. Heis responsible for the department. That doesnot happen when those two functions are split.

Mr H-odge: It might not come at all if theyare split.

Mr LAURANCE: Without doing it publiclyin an acrimonious way, Professor Main-wehave both sung his praises-was in a positionto say to the department that he did not thinkmuch of this or that because he was totallyindependent. He did not worry about criticis-ing the department. A criticism of the depart-mental head could not come from the chair-man, because he is also responsible for provid-ing the information.

Mr Hodge: The departmental head is respon-sible for providing what the EPA asks for.

Mr LAURANCE: Yes. Sometimes they maynot have the resources.

Mr Hedge: That is a matter of priority.

Mr LAURANCE: It is a matter for theGovernment.

Mr Hodge: The departmental head allocatesthe priorities.

Mr LAURANCE: If he does not have thestaff he must go to the Government and theMinister to get the staff. That criticism was notalways a criticism of the departmental headbecause it may not have been within his powerto provide those resources.

Another matter on which the EPA wouldoften criticise the department was the timetaken. There may often not have been suf-ficient staff to deal with matters properly. TheMinister will be aware that very often the de-partment cannot coordinate submissions be-cause of one or two tardy departments.

Mr Hodge: It may have been the case that thepermanent head did not allocate a high enoughpriority to get the EPA's done.

Mr LAURANCE: That is a possibility. Evenso, he could well come in for some criticism bythe EPA if the chairman was not happy aboutwhat was happening. There would not be thatcriticism if the same bloke is the chairman andthe departmental head.

Mr Hodge: You could have that criticismignored equally.

Mr LAURANCE: It does not leave him in aposition of being independent and objective,because he would be pretty touchy about anycriticism from within the EPA about the de-partment; responsibility would rest clearly andsquarely on his shoulders, That is one of thedifficulties. I outlined it before, but because ofthe Minister's response I went into it in a littlemore detail.

For a period the EPA certainly had the inde-pendence it should have to do its job. Anydepartmental head who is also the head of anauthority such as the EPA will be in a defensiverole, defending his department, because he can-not be seen to do anything else. He cannot bedisloyal to his staff on the one hand and on theother say, "I am not too happy about this, that,or the other aspect." The Minister should re-consider this.

To bolster up his move, two examples havebeen quoted. Both were very poor. The PoliceCommissioner does not have within his area anauthority in any way similar to the EPA ofwhich he could be the head as well; he runs adepartment. The Minister made an obtusepoint about being independent from Govern-ment in terns of operation.

Mr Hodge: It is not obtuse.Mr LAUJRANCE: The commissioner does

not have to wear two hats, like the person weare talking about here.

Mr Hodge: Yes, he does.Mr LAURANCE: Not at all. There is no

police authority separate from the com-missioner, which meets to determine policematters.

Mr Hodge: The commissioner has authorityin himself. He is independent from theGovernment on operational matters. He is aone-man authority.

Mr LAURANCE: The Minister is drawing along bow. This man is a departmental head.There are minor differences from other depart-

3677

3678 [ASSEMBLY]

mental heads, but he has the position of beingthe head of a department.

The SEC is a particularly poor example, be-cause it was this Government which separatedthe planning aspect from the day-to-day as-pects. This very year this Government came tothe House and sought approval of Ithe Parlia-ment to separate the planning and operationalfunctions of the State Energy Commission.

Mr Hodge: You are talking about the cre-ation of the policy advisory committee.

Mr LAURANCE: Yes; quite separate. TheGovernment wanted to separate them becauseit said it was not operating efficiently or prop-erly. The very example the Government choseis the example we are talking about.

Mr Hodge: I think the chairman is still theChief Executive Officer of the SEC.

Mr LAURANCE: Look at what the Govern-ment has done. I did not bring the legislation toParliament, the Government did. The Govern-ment should took at its own reasons for split-ting those functions. The bodies had beentogether for a long time before. We found itworked all right, but this Government did not.The example the Minister used was a bad onebecause it supports our argument, not his.

Mr THOMAS: I would have thought theMinister had adequately dealt with the ques-tion of the separation of roles of the ChiefExecutive Officer and the chairman of theauthority. I do not think it is necessary to say agreat deal more.

However, in relation to what was said by themember for Gascoyne, if one looks at the pub-lic sector one can find both models. It is poss-ible to quote some organisations which areworking well and others which are not, there-fore it is difficult to discern a general rule forthe best way of organising the public sector tocarry out certain operations.

The fact of the matter is that in terms oftrack record the problem with this organisationwas that when there was a division of auth-ority, the allocation of priorities did not workwell.

Mr Rushton: Give us an example.Mr THOMAS: I do not think it is necessary

to provide examples.Mr Laurance: It certainly was not my experi-

ence.Mr THOMAS: Perhaps not, but perhaps the

member was not asking the organisation to per-form as well as the subsequent Governmentdid. For that reason, within that organisation,

one has had both models, and one is able tomake a comparison.

Clear problems arose as to priority withinthat organisation.

Mr Rushton: Give us an example so that wecan agree or not.

Mr THOMAS: The second and more import-ant point in relation to this question-and Ibelieve the other question, has been dealt withextensively by the Minister previously-con-cerns the comments made by the member forGascoyne in relation to Dr Bailey. I believethey were most unfortunate comments andshould be discounted. The fact of the matter isthat there are people in the community who arevery concerned about matters of the environ-ment, and they are organised into a voluntaryenvironmental movement. An organisation iscentred round the Conservation Council ofWestern Australia, with which most of thoseorganisations are affiliated. For the most partof the history of those organisations, they havebeen excluded from any official role in decisionmaking. This has led to a degree of frustrationand an unfortunate degree of character as-sassination, represented by some referencemade by members opposite earlier.

Dr Bailey, who was previously President, Ithink, of the Conservation Council of WA andan activist with some position within theTasmanian Wilderness Society, has performedvery creditably since his appointment to theEPA. In fact, he has been asked to chair aninquiry which the Government has com-missioned into the interaction of the miningindustry and national parks and nature re-serves. I understand from feedback I havereceived to date-the committee has yet to re-port-from both conservationists and rep-resentatives of the mining industry, that every-one has praised his role as chairman of theinquiry.

That -illustrates very well the point I amseeking to make, which is that if we give peoplethe responsibility and the opportunity of mak-ing a contribution to public policy-making,they will act responsibly and make a creativeand professional input into that decision-mak-ing structure. The role of Dr Bailey since he hasbeen appointed to the EPA is witness to that.The somewhat snide comments made by mem-bers opposite about him were quite gratuitous.

My third point in relation to the structure ofthe EPA, a topic which has arisen in discussionon this clause, concerns the allegation that thedual role of Chairman of the EPA and execu-

3678

[Tuesday, 28 October 1 986J)67

live officer of the department will make it im-possible for the EPA to be able to be indepen-dent. In fact the very converse is the case.

The structure which is created by this legis-lation-not only at this clause but also else-where-is one that will almost guarantee suchindependence to the extent that legislation canguarantee that we will have an independentorganisation.

[ cite two factors: One clause in the Bill pro-vides that the authority is not able to bedirected by the Minister. How much more clearcan we have it than that? Secondly, the auth-ority is to operate in an atmosphere of, if I canput it this way, open government.

So many provisions are sprinkled throughoutthe Bill over every stage of the formulation ofthe authority's advice and its rendering of thatadvice to the Minister. Virtually every piece ofdocumentation and advice must be made pub-lic and available for public scrutiny. Thismeans that the authority's submissions and theMinister's responses will be on the publicrecord. It will not be possible to have a "secret"direction from the Minister to the authoritysaying, "I want you to make this decision be-cause it suits the Government." The peoplewill know 'what is happening all the time andeverything will be in the open. There will bepublic scrutiny and the nature of the field issuch that it will probably be expert and closescrutiny. Members opposite cannot have a bet-ter guarantee of the independence of the organ-isation.

Mr BLAIKIE: The member for Welshpoolhas just claimed that the authority shall becompletely independent from the Minister.The Bill provides that whatever the authoritymay wish to do it will be at the discretion of theMinister. it can send out as many letters as itwants, but the writing of those letters will besubject to the discretion of the Minister. Themember for Welshpool should not run awaywith the notion that the authority will be inde-pendent-

Mr Hodge: What clause provides for that?Mr BLAIKIE: It is sprinkled throughout the

Bill. Clause 28 provides that submissions fromthe EPA can be made to the Minister and theMinister will make determinations. On it goesthrough the legislation.

Mr Hodge: Clause 28 relates to people whoare appealing to the Minister.

Mr BLAIKIE: And the Minister can take cer-tain action.

Mr Hodge: But that is not interfering withthe EPA's decision-making

Mr BLAIKIE: The Minister can assess sub-missions from the EPA and make determi-nations. The authority will not have a blankcheque to operate on its own. But we Can con-tinue this argument on other clauses. The auth-ority will have absolutely no autonomy. Thedepartment is to become part of the authorityand this is at total variance with what hashappened previously.

Mr Hodge: No; I have just read you clause 12of the present Act. The sole purpose of thedepartment's existence is to assist the EPA, andit is subject to the EPA.

Mr BLAIKIE: The EPA has been an indepen-dent body with its own independent head, whohas not also been head of the department.

Mr Hodge: The EPA is not as independentunder the present legislation as it will be underthis Bill.

Mr BLAIKIE: Time will tell who is right.This legislation will remove the EPA's auton-omny.

In a moment I shall move an amendmentwhich is on the Notice Paper to delete para-graph (c) of subclause (2). If the deletion isagreed to it will mean that instead of having allfull-time members of the authority, three shallbe part-time members. It will further ensurethat one of the five-person authority shall bechosen by the Minister from a panel of namessubmitted to him by the Local GovernmentAssociation and the Country Shire CouncilsAssociation.

There is a real purpose for having localgovernment representation on the authority.Local government has a very positive role toplay in environmental matters. Unfortunatelyover recent years we have seen a diminution oflocal government's role in this area. Govern-ment is fast becoming controlled by and basedin the city. A local government person wouldbe accountable to local authorities. This legis-lation being all embracing, there is a need forsome assurance that the views of countrypeople will be heard.

Our town planning body has recently beenrevised and all its five members are city-based.I can assure the Minister and the Governmentthat people in the more remote areas of theState feel very sore they they will not have avoice on the State Planning Commission; theybelieve their representations are beingoverlooked. That may not be the case, but ifthis legislation is to work it needs to appear to

3679

3680 [ASSEMBLY)

country people that their interests arerecognised.

I move an amendment-Page 11, lines 8 and 9-To delete "and

(c) 3 of whom shall be full-time or part-time members"

Mr RUSHTON: I support the amendment. Iwould like to see provisions in the Bill allowingfor the delegation of power to local govern-ment. In that way we can demonstrate to localgovernment that we have some regard for it.Some responsibilities are better carrded out bylocal government.

I referred earlier to the MTT and the Minis-teres assuming a more dominant role in its con-trol. The same dominance now occurs in allareas of transport, including matters to do withmain roads.

Mr Hodge: Don't you believe in theWestminster system?

Mr RUSHTON: I believe that our officersoperate best when they have responsibility andare subject to the Minister's control, as oc-curred in the past. The Commissioner of MainRoads must now feel that he has noresponsibilities at all. He is a superb adminis-trator, as are other administrators in the PublicService who are gradually losing all control oftheir responsibilities. The good thing in thepast in this State was the degree of autonomythat many of these people had. That shouldcontinue.

The Government has now also created a De-partment for the Arts so that the Minister nowdirectly controls all aspects of that portfolio. Ihave received reports from various sources thatthe Minister has been intruding into mattersthat should be under the control of differentagencies.

I said previously that the area which scaresme most is the Minister's control of planningmatters. No longer do we have the checks andbalances provided by the MRPA. I know that,in the past, some people accused it of being tooslow. However, I believe those checks and bal-ances are preferable to any politicallymotivated control of those functions.

Mr Blaikie: When those planning proposalswere in place, local government wasacknowledged.

Mr RUSHTON: Yes, local government hadan input into the MRPA.

I believe that the real checks and balances inour community are those applied by localgovernment. Local government is directly re-

sponsible to the people at the grassroots level.This legislation has no regard for that. Is it notstrange that this Government is attempting totake away the powers of local government?

I hope the Minister will accept the amend-ment which should provide for a balancewithin this five-man authority. It will at leastdemonstrate to local government that it hasbeen given some credit for the part it plays inthese matters.

Mr HOUSE: The National Party supportsthe amendment. It is important that we havecountry representation on the authority, and Isupport the amendment which seeks that rep-resentation.

Mr Hodge: This amendment does not saythat.

Mr HOUSE: What does the Minister think itsays?

Mr Hodge: It says that the Minister shallselect from a panel of names submitted to himby the Local Government Association and theCountry Shire Councils Association. There isno guarantee that the authority will end upwith a country member on it.

Mr HOUSE: Perhaps there is no guaranteethat the Minister would select someone fromthe Country Shire Councils Association. I amsuggesting that perhaps he would.

Mr Hodge: The amendment you are support-ing will not achieve what you desire it shouldachieve.

Mr HOUSE: It certainly gives local govern-ment an opportunity to be involved.

I am concerned that the world has becomefull of academics. I have no objection to theirbeing involved in decision making, but we alsoneed a lot more practical people. I raise, by wayof example, the situation in the FitzgeraldRiver National Park, which has been closedbecause of the dieback problem.

Mr Hodge: It is a real problem.Mr HOUSE: Has the Minister seen it?Mr Hodge: No. I would not know it if I fell

over it.Mr HOUSE: That is my point exactly. The

people the Minister appoints to this authorityshould have some practical experience.

Mr Hodge: How do you know whom we willappoint?

Mr HOUSE: If the amendment is passed,people with some knowledge of these mattersmight be appointed.

3680

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986)168

Mr Hodge: And you might get an academicfrom the country.

Mr HOUSE: There are not many academicsin the country; country people are too smart forthat.

The point of the amendment is to involvepeople who are reasonably practical and con-cerned about the environment, and people whowill not get bogged down in hypothetical situ-ations.

Mr HODGE: Firstly, I will correct the mem-ber for Dale. It will not be a five-man auth-ority; it will be a five-person authority. I hopethat some of the appointments to it might bewomen to break the long drought of a man-onlyEPA. r do not think a female has ever beenappointed to that authority.

The Government does not dispute the factthat local government has an important role toplay in helping to manage the environment.That does not necessarily mean, however, thatlocal government, be it country or city-based,should be represented on the EPA.

Mr House: If you think it is so important,why is there no provision for it to have aninput into the EPA?

Mr HODGE: I mentioned the other day thatthere is provision in the Bill for an extensiveadvisory network to be put in place. I envisagethat local government, along with otherinterested organisations and groups in ourcommunity, will play an important role whenwe establish the advisory committee structure.I have an open mind as to what that structureshould be and how it should be put in place. Iwill be having wide consultation with the pub-lic, seeking its views on what sort of advisorystructure we should put in place. We may havea seminar and invite public participation andsubmissions suggesting to us what type of struc-ture we should have and what sort of advisoryrole local government and other strata of so-ciety should have.

I said, by way of inteijection to the memberfor Dale, that there is an enhanced role for localgovernment already built into this Bill. Themember for Dale did not accept that, but ifmembers go through the Bill they will see in itnumerous places where reference is made toauthorised officers-health surveyors and shireofficials; they will be appointed to take care ofenforcing all sorts of provisions in this legis-lation, particularly in relation to counteractingpollution and enforcing the provisions in re-lation to noise, clean air, and water pollution.The local government authority will play a very(116)

big role in all those fields. I will shortly bemoving an amendment to make it crystal clearthat power can be delegated to local govern-ment officers to enforce this legislation.

I do not believe it is appropriate to appoint aperson specifically to represent local govern-ment on the EPA. The Liberal-NationalCountry Party Government was in office formany years and in charge of this legislation. itnever thought it was essential to do that. It wasin office from 1974 to 1983 and had ampleopportunity to amend the Environmental Pro-tection Act if it felt it was so important for localgovernment to be included.

Mr Rushton: They were obviously commit-ted to delegation of local government. Thai wasto come into their review.

Mr HODGE: We have not changed that atti-tude. We are happy for local government to befully involved. Once the door is open to ap-point one special interest group--and themember for Vasse made the point in his contri-bution that they were there to represent localgovernment and accountable to local govern-ment-I think that destroys the very carefulbalance and independence that all membershave spoken of as being absolutely essential tothe operation of the EPA. I do not think we canafford to have a person on the EPA, not to be amember and have sole loyalty to the EPA, butto represent local government, report back, andbe accountable to local government. I do notthink that would be conducive to the best oper-ation of the EPA.

There will be numerous other groups thatcould claim membership of the EPA as a rightif the Local Government Association weregiven it. The Conservation Council of WesternAustralia would have a right to demand aposition.

Mr Lewis: Why is that?Mr HODGE: Because it is a very large com-

munity-based organisation which representsthousands of members of the public through itsaffiliated organisations.

Mr Lewis: They only have one ideal.Mr HODGE: It does not. The member obvi-

ously does not know much about the Conser-vation Council of Western Australia. I suggesthe has a look at its list of affiliated organis-ations. It covers a very broad spectrum. Thatorganisation would have a strong claim for say-ing it should have a guernsey as well. We wouldthen go to the Environmental Law Association,and perhaps the Australian Medical Associ-ation. Health has a large input into consider-

3681

3682 ASSEMBLY)

ation of environmental matters. We could goon and on and end up with an EPA the size of afootball team representing the various groupsthat elected it. I think that would be a fatalerror.

If members opposite stop and think, they willremember that their Government never did itduring the years it was in office. It never saw fitto amend the Act to put a particular vestedinterest group on the EPA. I am not about to doit. I understood the member for Vasse agreedwith the action I was taking to take out thespecific reference to a lawyer being on the EPA.I am not saying a lawyer is not a valuable mem-ber to have on the EPA. There will almostalways be a lawyer on the EPA, but we havetaken out the specific undertaking that lawyersshould be automatically represented on theEPA. I am not about to agree to this amend-ment for the reasons I have given.

Mr BLAIKIE: I am disappointed the Minis-ter has taken the view he has. I believe localauthorities have a special role in this State. Arepresentative drawn from that particular areacould have performed a very important func-tion as a member of the EPA, not specifically asa representative of local government, but tobring to that authority a special degree of ex-pertise and practical knowledge.

The member for Katanning-Roe indicated hewould have liked to have seen a country personas part of the five-person authority. I would bevery disappointed if the Minister, in makingthe appointment, failed to appoint a personwho had a knowledge and understanding ofcountry areas. When one starts to make de-cisions in relation to the environment and pol-lution, there is an important degree of practicalknowledge, application, and experience. Itwould augur well with the others appointed ifthe Minister chose to appoint a country person.

I do not believe the Minister can draw ananalogy between local government in WesternAustralia and the Conservation Council ofWestern Australia. There is no comparison.

Mr Lewis: One is an elected bodyrepresenting the third tier of government.

Mr Hodge: What about the Chamber ofMines or the Confederation of WesternAustralian Industry?

Mr BLAIIE: The Chamber of Mines andthe Confederation of Western Australian In-dustry would also like to see a person on thisauthority representing their particularinterests. I am not putting them forward.

A member: I know there is a proposition thatthe Federal Government might like to haverepresentation.

Mr BLAIKIE: The State should be respon-sible for the sovereign right of that State inmaking its decisions. I do not see any reasonfor having a Federal representative.

Local government has a very special and im-portant role in this State. Over the years, par-ticularly under this Government, the variousroles of local government have been dilutedtime and again. This legislation will be grand-father legislation which will control other legis-lative processes in the State. It is important, ifit is to work successfully, that the people whoare appointed to the authority need to haverecognition from the greater pant of WesternAustralia. The Minister was quite wrong in say-ing he was not prepared to look at this amend-ment which would have ensured a panel ofnames being submitted to the Minister fromthe Local Government Association and theCountry Shire Councils Association.

The authority will be making decisions af-fecting the environment. It will also be makingdecisions affecting people. They will need tohave an academic and technical understandingof the environment, the community, and thepeople concerned.

In the second reading debate I instanced a setof circumstances that occurred in the UnitedKingdom. A Select Committee of the House ofLords was investigating a matter in which theenvironmental protection group in that countryhad protested against the implementation of adraft directive with regard to the production oftitanium dioxide. The committee concludedthat the draft directive would haveconsequences adverse to the environment with-out any proportionate benefit to the quality ofcertain rivers. Not only did the committee haveregard for the environment but also for theproportionate benefit to the total community.

A very positive role could be played by atleast one member of the authority being a per-son with practical knowledge and understand-ing of Western Australia. Local governmentcould well provide that person.

If the Minister in his wisdom agrees to thisamendment, he could ensure that one of thefive members was representative of countryareas of Western Australia. If he fails to dothat, in due course the authority will not havethe regard it should have, If it gets off to a badstart in this instance, the Government will have

3682


difficulty selling this legislation as a positivelegislative package.

I recommend the amendment to members.Mr LAURANCE: I support the amendment;

it has a great deal of merit. I would not agree toit if we were to remain with a three-membercommittee, but now that it is proposed to ex-pand the membership to five that gives theMinister the opportunity to broaden the experi-ence of the committee by drawing upon localgovernment knowledge. If the Minister chose amember from a panel of names submitted bycountry and city local authorities, he could wellchoose a person from the country.

More and more the Environmental Protec-tion Authority will be concerned with countryareas of Western Australia, and it would bemost appropriate for a person with localgovernment experience to be involved in theEPA. That may well be the reason that theMinister has increased the number and why wesupport him in doing so.

I commend this amendment to the Minister.He has been very fair-minded in acceptingsome amendments, and has shown that he hasa capacity to accept the other point of view.Here is an opportunity to prove his flexibilityand fair-mindedness-by seeing the value ofarguments put forward by the Opposition.

I touch also on a point made by the memberfor Welshpool. He gave a magnificent orationsupporting the point of view 1 put forwardearlier. He was talking about having the depart-mental head as chairman of the EPA. Whenputting his argument he said that it had to beindependent because the Bill made it indepen-dent. The Minister is getting tied up with hisownBil

I understand that clause I I gives the auth-ority independence from the Minister. On theone hand, the chairman of the authority is in-dependent of the Minister; but on the otherhand, as head of the department, he is subjectto the Minister. There we have a conflict, andthe member for Welshpool made a beautifuljob of explaining why my argument is absol-utely right; we should not have the same mandoing both jobs. How can a person be indepen-dent of the Minister one moment and subjectto him the next moment? Clearly, he cannot; itis a paradox of the first order. It will be mostdifficult for this person to occupy bothpositions because of the way the Bill has beenwritten. It is obviously wrong and two differentpeople should be doing those jobs so that theycan maintain their independence.

I thank the member for Welshpool foradding support to my argument; and the Minis-ter has now had time to reflect on the wisdomof accepting the amendment put forward in aresponsible and serious manner by the Oppo-sition.

Amendment putfollowing result-

Mr EiaikieMr CashMr CourtMr CowanMr CraneMr HouseMr LauranceMr LewisMr MacKinnon

Mrs BeggsMr BertramnMr Terry BurkeMr CarrMr Peter DowdingMr EvansDr GallopMr HodgeMr Tom JonesDr LawrenceMr MarlboroughMr Pearce

AyesMr ClarkoMr HassellMr MensarosMr LightfootMr BradshawMr TrenordenMr Orayden

and a division taken with the

Ayes 18Mr NaiderMr RushtonMr SchellMr SprigsMr StephensMr ThompsonMr TubbyMr WattMr Williams

Noes 23Mr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P.3J. SmithMr TaylorMr ThomasMr TonkinMr TroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

PairsNoes

Mr ParkerMrs HendersonMr Gordon HillMr Brian BurkeMr BridgeMrfBryceMr Grill

(Teller

arll")

Amendment thus negatived.Clause put and passed.Clause 8: Independence of Authority and

Chairma-Mr RUSHTON: This clause cannot be seen

to be practical as it is. The Chief ExecutiveOfficer is answerable to the Minister. Thewording of this clause seeks to make him seento be independent, but in no way can he beseen to be so. We should wait and see whetherthe other place does something about it. Weshould observe the result, and remedy it in duecourse, when we have the authority to do so. Inthe meantime, it is consistent with what theGovernment has been doing. This is one of theareas which is similar to what it has alreadydone.

It is a matter of concentrating power, and theclause gives the Government more authority todirect what will happen. It is a very dangerouspractice because the success of the people in the

3683

3684 [ASSEMBLY]

Environmental Protection Authority is basedon their independence. People such as BentMain, Professor O'Connor, and others, havebuilt up a tremendous reputation of having in-dependence of thought and action, and haveserved us tremendously well.

It will be interesting to see whom the Minis-ter appoints. He has already indicated that MrCarbon will be there in his dual roles, but fourothers are to be appointed. I do not agree withthis clause, but the Government has the num-bers and the authority to put in what it wishes.The saddest thing is that it takes away thecredibility of the legislation because the auth-ority can in no way be seen to be independentof Government direction.

Clause pnt and passed.Clauses 9 to 15 put and passed.Clause 16: Functions of Authority-Mr BLAIKIE: It seems that the functions of

the authority were compiled by a committee,and that every man and his dog involved on thecommittee had an opportunity of putting in aparticular clause that related to a particularfunction. Some of them appear to be ex-traneous.

I draw the Minister's attention to subclause16(a), and ask him whether it is the intention ofthe Government that the authority will in factconduct environmental impact assessments, oris the authority to require environmental im-pact assessments to be carried out? That is avery salient point. Will the authority now haveits own army of environmental scientists tocarry out the work one would expect either theprivate sector or other sectors of the comn-muncity to carry out?

Elsewhere in the legislation, reference will bemade to people in the community who will beobliged under certain conditions to carry outenvironmental impact assessments, if the ChiefExecutive Officer or the Minister determinesthat they should do so. If that is to be the case, Ienvisage a proliferation of environmentalscientists joining the ever-increasing army ofpeople being employed by the Government.

My second question relates to subclause (h). Iimagine the authority will be inundated withwork in any event, let alone having a rolewhereby it can be canvassed by the public.Surely that is not what the Minister intends themembers of the authority to be doing. Mem-bers of the public should contact the depart-ment to make their representations. I cannotimagine people using Bent Main, say, as a pointto which to direct their personal represen-

tations. Surely the role of the authority shouldbe beyond that of a general wailing post for thecommunity. That subclause has obviously beeninserted for a reason, and I ask the Ministerwhat the reason is.

Mr LALJRANCE: I refer to subelause (mn)which relaxes to the coordination of activitiesrelating to the environment. I agree with manyof the subclauses prior to that, most of whichare motherhood-type statements which no-onecould oppose; and indeed, we expect to seethem in environmental legislation such as this.The coordination referred to ini subclause (in)relates also to clause 38 of the Bill, and I willdeal with that in due course. However, I wishto deal with subelause (mn) as it relates togovernmental activities.

Every time a Government sets up an auth-ority, that authority wants to have jurisdictionover other Government agencies. For instance,the new State Planning Commission hasassumed a number of roles that previously werethe responsibility of other Government depart-ments. It is usually the newest and latest de-partment that decides it wants in some way tobe above all the decision-making bodies. It is aproblem for all Governments. I am not talkingin a party-political way, but of the business ofgovernment-of running the State and gettingthings done.

All the various functions of governmentshould have equal billing. There should not beone which says, "You can all belong here, butwe will be on top, and when you have madeyour decisions you can refer them to us." ThePlanning Commission is guilty of that; it wantsothers to look at things and refer them to thecommission. The EPA wants everyone to do itswork and it will coordinate and give the finaldecision on whether a project should go ahead.

it is a trap for Governments that each el-ement of the bureaucracy wants to be in a pre-eminent position to make the final decision onbehalf of the Government. I do not believe thatthe environmental lobby or agencies should bein that situation. The environment is import-ant, but it should rank with all other Govern-ment decision-making bodies.

One of the most frustrating things for peoplewho want to do things in this State is that theyhave to refer their proposals to more and moreGovernment agencies. We have all been guiltyof initiating more agencies, because as life getsmore sophisticated and complex we want to setup more hoops for people to jump through. Ifone said to a developer at the outset of a devel-

3684


opment that these were the steps he had to gothrough to get approval most projects wouldnot get off the ground. Thankfully, mostdevelopers believe it is going to be easy andthat there are only a couple of people to refer aproject to, and then they will he able to do whatthey want.

I refer to the canal developments. I can re-member the previous Government puttingtogether a booklet on those developments tomake it easy for the developer. It outlined allthe steps be had to take. I do not want tobreach Cabinet solidarity, but I was neverhappy about the proposal. It was such aconvoluted decision-making process that wewere putting developers through. Rather thanassist them, any self-respecting developer whoread it would have run 100 miles.

There are so many agencies to refer things to.We not only have this plethora of agencieswhich want to be consulted and have someinput into the decision-making process, butthere are all types of departments which say,"Do that first, and then bring it to us." TheMinister for Environment has an importantrole to play here.

Another problem is that if any one of theGovernment agencies decides to change part ofthe proposal all the others say they want thedeveloper to resubmit the proposal in the newform. It may have gone to 20 different depart-ments, and the Main Roads Department wIsay, perhaps, that the developer has to change atraffic light. The developer agrees, and theother agencies say that now he has changed oneaspect, he has to resubmit the proposal.Developers go around and around the ring, andthen the EPA says, "Now that you have doneall that, refer it to us."

It may be the Planning Commission which isthe culprit. That may not be intended underparagraph (in), but if it is intended it is a worry,not in a party political sense, but in a govern-mental sense. The environmental agencyshould rank equally alongside all the otherGovernment agencies which are required togive approval before a development can takeplace. The EPA is important, but all the otherdecision-making bodies are equally important.It is not the supremo, and it should not be; itshould not he the final arbiter. People involvedin environmental legislation and agencies maysay that because of some mumbo jumbo theirbody is more important than other parts ofGovernment-

Mr Blaikie: That will happen under this legis-lation.

Mr LAURANCE: I do not believe it shouldhappen. I warn the Government that it shouldensure it does not happen. Rather than any oneGovernment agency-whether the State Plan-nling Commission or the EPA-being the finalbody that any proposal should go to, thereshould be only one final arbiter under oursystem of democratic government, and that isthe Cabinet.

If there is a disagreement between agenciesresponsible to different Ministers, the Govern-ment has to make a decision in the final analy-sis. If Cabinet makes the wrong decision, theGovernment is answerable to the people. Thatis the way it should be. It is a magnificent formof government. It has served this State and thecountry extremely well for a long time. Ourstability, security, and development have beenpart of that form of Cabinet Government. Onedoes not need all these agencies to do theirwork and ask for final approval from the EPA.It should take its place alongside those otherdecision-making bodies, because if there is anydifficulty between the agencies about pre-emi-nence, it is a matter far Cabinet.

It may he the Minister for Environment, orany of his Cabinet colleagues, who takes a mat-ter to Cabinet for decision. Our system isserved best when any dispute between Govern-ment agencies winds up in the Cabinet room. Adecision is made, and the Government iscriticised or applauded by the community. Ifthere is any flak, and the community is upset, itexpresses its disapproval of Cabinet and theGovernment in the appropriate way. We acceptthat no matter who is in Government. if aGovernment makes enough decisions whichare not accepted by the public, that Govern-ment will be removed. That is an importantpant of the democratic process.

If this clause means that the EPA is aboveand beyond the other developmental agenciesthe Minister should proceed with extreme cau-tion. I would like him to tell me that that is notthe way this clause is to be interpreted-

Mr HODGE: The member for Vasse raisedthe question of whether the EPA would get intothe business of conducting environmental im-pact studies itself. I can assure him it will not-When a proposal is referred to the EPA, it willdecide whether that proposal is likely to have asignificant effect on the environment. If it de-cides that that is likely, it will require the pro-ponent to conduct a study of the likely effects

3685

3686 (ASSEMBLYj

on the environment. The study may be at vai-ous levels of intensity, and when it iscompleted it will be provided to the EPA whichwill assess the study. That is precisely whathappens now and will continue to happen inthe future. There will be no change in practicalterms to the present system; it will beformalised by putting it into Statutes.

Mr Blaikie: Would you have a further look atthe wording? It may give it a slightly differentmeaning.

Mr HODGE: I will have another look at it,but I am reasonably happy that the wording isaccurate. I will get some advice.

The role of the EPA is to assess the environ-mental impact, and it does that with the benefitof a study by the proponent according to theterms of reference worked out in conjunctionwith the EPA.

Pair from putting on hordes of staff, the EPAhas divested itself of staff and recently it hasshed a number of functions. Some staff havegone to the Department of Agriculture, some tothe State Planning Commission, and some tothe Department of Conservation and LandManagement. So the actual staff numbers inthe EPA have been reduced recently, and itsrole and functions have become more defined.

The member for Vasse raised a point con-cerning paragraph (h) which states that thefunctions of the authority are, "To receive rep-resentations on environmental matters frommembers of the public". I think the memberhas misunderstood that paragraph. The rep-resentations do not necessarily have to go per-sonally to the three or five persons who makeup the actual authority. In future the wholeestablishment, including the department, willbe known as the EPA.

I refer members to section 56(0) of thepresent Act which states--

Any person or body may in writing referto the Authority any matter which givesrise to concern as to a possible cause ofpollution.

The word "pollution" has a wide definition inthe Bill. There is plenty of scope for membersof the public to do what is contained in para-graph (hi) of clause 16. 1 do not anticipate aflood of frivolous letters to the EPA in thatregard.

The member for Gascoyne made a goodpoint-with which in general terms I do notdisagree. What the member said about compe-tition between the various bureaucracies with

each one wanting to be the boss cocky and headdepartment is true. However, I do not believehis comments are relevant in this cae. Theexact words are contained in the current Act;they have not been changed. Paragraph (h) ofsection 30(4) of the existing Act states-

co-ordinate all activities, whethergovernmental or otherwise, as are necess-ary to protect, restore or improve theenvironment in the State;

Members opposite do not need to worry, be-cause this is an environmental Hill. The powersand functions of the EPA are restricted to en-vironmental matters and to coordinating theactivities, which are environmental activitiesand not planning or developmental activities.

Indeed, I saw it working a few days ago whenMr Carbon, in his capacity as Chairman of theEPA, convened a meeting of all interested par-ties involved in the current dispute about theMosman tearooms. Interested pantics wereinvited by Mr Carbon to take part in a round-table conference to discuss the problem. Rep-resentatives from the local authority, the archi-tect and all those people who have a vestedinterest in the development took part in thediscussions and we hope that some of the issueshave been clarified and that the warring partieswere given the opportunity to have their say.

Mr Rushton: What was the result? Did thecouncil change its mind?

Mr HODGE: They did not reach a finalagreement, but many people were able to ob-tain information which they had not been givenbefore and a lot of points were clarified. Itserved a useful purpose.

Mr Laurance: It was an informed debate?Mr HODGE. Yes. While I agree with the

sentiments espoused by the member forGascoyne I think I can confidently assure himthat he need not worry in relation to this partof the clause.

Clause put and passed.Clause 17: Powers of Authority-Mr BLAIKJE: In his comments to the pre-

vious clause the Minister clearly said, whentalking about the powers of the authority, thathe was, in fact, referring to the body that will beestablished and not necessarily to the five per-sons appointed to the authority. Subclause (1)states that the authority has all such powers asare reasonably necessary to enable it to performits functions. Subclause (3) states that withoutlimiting the generality of this section, the auth-ority, if it considers it appropriate or as

3696

[Tuesday, 28 October 1 986J168

requested to do so by the Minister1 may do aseries of things.

The new agency has the capacity to do aseries of things which have been set out in theBill. I refer the Minister to paragraph (h) whichstates-

exercise such powers, additional to thosereferred to in paragraphs (a) to (g), as areconferred on the Authority by this Act oras are necessary or convenient for the per-formance of the functions imposed on theAuthority by this Act.

I believe that paragraph (h) becomes a blankcheque and it will allow the authority to makeother determinations which it may wish tomake before it carries out the functions of thelegislation.

[ ask the Minister to indicate to the Chamberthe reason that he believes this is necessary.Paragraph (h) confers wide powers on the auth-ority and they are not subject to approval bythe Minister. The authority can go ahead andexercise other powers as it sees fit.

I look forward to the Minister's response andindicate to the Chamber that if I am not satis-fied with it, I will make further comments.

Mr HODGE. The member for Vasse has mis-understood this clause. The powers which theauthority may exercise are only those powersthat are authorised and contained in this legis-lation. It has no power to exercise any powerswhich are not included in this Bill.

This clause is no different from section 29(e)of the Act which states that the functions of theauthority are-

generally, to administer and give effectto the provisions of this Act and to carryout such other functions as may beprescribed.

The terminology in this clause is very similar tothat used in the original Bill. The authority willnot be given additional powers to thosecontained in the Act.

Mr Blaikie: You are intending to ha ve aseries of prescribed regulations on which theauthority would act?

Mr HODGE: Of course there will be regu-lations and environmental policies enactedpursuant to this legislation being passed andthe authority will be responsible for policingand enforcing those regulations and policies.

Mr Blaikie: The words in the existing Act areclear and the Minister's explanation is satisfac-tory.

Clause put and passed.Clause 18: Delegation by Minister-Mr BLAIIE: I ask the Minister the reason

for this clause. I have searched through theexisting Act and I certainly cannot find a simi-lar section. The Minister's role in relation toinfluence and power needs to be zealouslyguarded.

I would be very concerned if the Ministerdelegated his role to other people. To what ex-tent can the Minister delegate his authority andwhy does he seek such a provision?

Mr RUJSHTON: From my observation itwould appear that under this Bill many morepowers will reside in the Minister. The oldauthority had certain powers. It had the powerto delegate. Under this Bill, most of the powersreside in the Minister and he needs to delegatein order that he is not burdened with carryingon the business of administration. The inde-pendence of the authority is seen not to bestanding up under this clause.

Mr HODGE: This clause gives the Ministerauthority to delegate to local government or toofficers of other Government instrumentalitiesor authorities powers to enforce the pollutioncontrol provisions of the Bill. Again, it is not aradical departure from the present circum-stances. I refer members to the Noise Abate-ment Act, section 17(a), and the Clean Air Act,section 12(a), which provide for delegation bythe Minister to other officers to fulfil pollution-policing roles.

At the moment it is very common for localgovernment health surveyors to prosecute inregard to excessive noise and to enforce theprovisions of the Noise Abatement Act. As Isaid before to the member for Katanning-Roc,that role is enhanced considerably in-this legis-lation. There is a much greater role for localgovernment officers to enforce the provisionsof this Bill. This is one of the clauses that helpsfacilitate that greater role.

Mr Blaikie: Is it simply your intention tohave people within the system assist in theproper functioning of the Act? It is not yourintention to bring somebody else from outsideas an adviser or a de facto member of Parlia-ment?

Mr HODGE: No. As I said before, I antici-pate that it will be local government authorityofficers and officers of perhaps the WesternAustralian Water Authority and Governmentinstrumentalities who will have delegatedpower to act on matters to do with pollutioncontrol.

3687

3688 (ASSEMBLY]

Mr Blaikie: An unscrupulous Minister couldhave a bit of a birthday with this provision if hewanted to.

Mr HODGE: A Minister, unless he is verysatisfied about the maturity and responsibilityof the people to whom he delegates his powers,would be very foolish because the buck wouldcome back and land at his feet if the persons hedelegated abused that power. Ministers usuallythink long and hard before delegating theirpowers. They need to be satisfied that thepeople to whom they delegate are very respon-sible.

Clause put and passed.Clause 19 put and passed.Clause 20: Delegation by Chief Executive

Offricer-Mr HODGE: I move an amendment-

Page 18, line 12-To delete "or thepower to institute prosecutions under sec-tion 114".

This amendment has been requested by theWestern Australian Water Authority and theInstitute of Health Surveyors so that the Minis-ter and Chief Executive Officers can delegatetheir powers to allow outside agencies to carryout prosecutions. This clause has to be read inassociation with section 114, relating to the in-stitution of prosecutions. It is foreseen that theMinister, as necessary, will delegate his powerof granting consent to a prosecution and theChief Executive Officer will, as necessary, del-egate the carr-ying out of that prosecution. It isin a similar vein to the provision we were justdiscussing.

Amendment put and passed.Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 21: Authority to make annual report-Mr BLAJKJE: This clause sets out the re-

quirement for the authority to make an annualreport. The Opposition recommended anamendment to which the Minister hasindicated his agreement. Currently, the auth-ority reports on its activities during thefinancial year and the Minister tables theannual report in the House within nine sittingdays of receiving it. The administration of de-partments needs to be tidied up in a number ofareas, not that I am making any implicationsagainst the environmental protection bodies assuch. However, the Opposition recommendsthat the report should lie on the Table of theHouse before the end of the October followingthe end of that financial year. The financialyear finishes on 30 June. By the end of

October, the department will be obliged tocomplete its annual report and deliver it to theMinister, who will put it in the hands of theParliament. I move an amendment-

Page 19, line 3-To insert before "makean annual report" the following-

and in any event before the end ofOctober next following that financialyear

Mr HODGE: The Government supports thisamendment. The member for Vasse suggested anumber of amendments to me. I have had themassessed by my advisers and the ParliamentaryDraftsman and have agreed to most of them.This amendment has quite considerable meritand the Government is happy to support it.

Amendment put and passed.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clauses 22 to 24 put and passed.

Clause 25: Advisory groups, committees,councils and panels-

Mr BLAIKIE: Clause 25 proposes that theMinister or the authority may establish advis-ory groups, committees, councils and panels asthey think fit for the purpose of advising eitherthe Minister or the authority.

One of the weaknesses-and I know the Min-ister is determined to cooperate as much aspossible with all groups in the community-isthe establishment of this total system of panels,groups, and committees. At the end of the daythe Government must still make the decisions.As the Prime Minister of Australia has found,one can go out and offer consensus to everyone,but eventually the Government of the day mustmake the decisions. Those decisions will notachieve consensus for all people. The Ministeris attempting to offer a palliative to manygroups in the community. I can well imagine,when he was framing this legislation, the Con-servation Council of Western Australia, theWA Chamber of Mines, and other groupsbadgering the Minister for a position of influ-ence on the authority. The Minister might say,"Hang on a minute I will find a place for yousomnewhere." The "somewhere" will be onthese committee council panels.

The Minister indicated that the former Con-servationl Council did not work satisfactorily.With all the best will in the world I doubtwhether the series of panels the Minister ishoping to establish will work satisfactorily.

Mr Hodge: What would you do?

3688


Mr BLAIKIE: I would have looked at therole of the Conservation Council and put agreater degree of balance into it so as to offsetsome of the influence that the heads of depart-meats had in their set ways.

Having watched the programme "Yes, Min-ister" I certainly know it would not happen tothis Minister. Heads of departments can be im-possible on occasions. If they do not want to siton a particular committee the work of thosecommittees can be quite impossible. 1 can wellimagine from time to time some of the heads ofdepartments will be sitting on these panels any-how. One of the Minister's ministerial counter-parts may ask for his departmental head to siton a certain body to look after the particularinterests of that department or that Minister'sinterests.

With all the best will in the world, Govern-ments still have to govern. Although the Minis-ter is attempting to satisfy the wider demandsof the community, in the true light of day theMinister will finish up with a bigger headachethan what he has now because he will still beobliged to make decisions. He will be. makingdecisions against some of the interest groupswho, although they have been able to makeinput to the various panels, will not be satisfiedand two or three years down the track the Min-ister will make the decision anyhow.

I expect to be here in three years' time. I donot want to be accused of having hindsight. Iwish the Minister well in his endeavours. Itwould not have been the way I would havegone about this clause.

Mr HOUSE: The National Party supportsthis clause because it is an area in which we canobtain involvement for country people. Wherethere are specific areas of interest, groups andcommittees can be set up to report to the EPAon particular areas. There is a danger that con-cern is not so much about the people the Minis-ter might hear from, but about those he doesnot hear from. It is open to the Minister's in-terpretation as to whom he will appoint andallow to report to him.

Will there be any accountability for thefunds? In the clause it says there is room forremuneration for people who serve on thoseadvisory committees.

Mr RUSHTON: I have had the experience ofboth situations in the Transport portfolio. Wecreated a situation where we appointed com-mittees to deal with specific subjects. I haveseen it work. It depends on the ability of thechairman to appoint members who will achieve

a result. On the other hand, the Liberal Partywould have supported the continuation of theConservation Council of Western Australia be-cause continuity of advice should beencouraged. People have been giving attentionto the issues the Minister would want dealtwith, and I refer to the Conservation Council ofWestern Australia. There has been support forthat. The council should be made to work moreeffectively than it does at the present time.That body is being disbanded. It does not bringcredit upon the powers that be that the Conser-vation Council of Western Australia did be-come ineffective.

It will depend on the quality of the peopleappointed to the new structure and the abilityof the Chief Executive Officer. Is he to be thechairman of all committees or will he delegatethat chairmanship to other people? I suspect itwould depend on who is chosen, but in thetransport area the Director of Transport, DrJohn Taplin, chaired those groups. Heprovided the continuity within that area. Thatis why I would prefer to see the ConservationCouncil of Western Australia continue.

Mr HODGE: I do not disagree with most ofthe points made by the three members. I thankthe member for Katanning-Roe for his activesupport of the clause. I have an open mind asto what mechanism shall be put in place, and Ihave had some experience of establishing sucha mechanism. I did so when I was responsiblefor the Health portfolio and established a struc-ture called the health advisory network.

It was a rather extensive network of healthcare consumers and providers who eachreported to a council. There was a coordinatingbody that linked the two councils. I did notappoint all those people. I appointed thechairperson of the three bodies-the two coun-cils and the coordinating body. The remainingpeople were elected from within their ownranks. We conducted quite proper and formalelections under the supervision of the StateElectoral Department. All the various interestgroups and elected representatives were to beplaced on the various panels. The network hasbeen commended by international experts asbeing one of the best models they have seen. Itis early days yet to claim its success in thehealth area as it has been operating only a shorttime. I lean towards that sort of model. I amopen to suggestions from the public.

As I earlier indicated, we may hold a seminaror ask for public submissions on what form thenetwork should take. I do not think that I, asMinister, should have the say in hand-picking

3689

[ASSEMBLY]

the people to be appointed to the advisory net-work-

I would envisage that most of the memberson the advisory committee would not be paidat all. It is possible they would be paid an ex-pense allowance if they had to travel, but Iwould not envisage that they would be paid asalary.

The health advisory network committee hadthree chairpersons who each received a smallsalary. I think, from memory, two councilchairpersons received what amounted to$3 000 a year, and the chairman of the

coordinating panel received $ 5 000. So, it was avery modest operation. I believe it cost $ 10 000for the entire year, Or something like that. Iwould envisage something along those lines.

This is a very innovative clause and I ampleased that it has received the support it has.

Clause put and passed.

ProgressProgress reported and leave given to sit

again, on motion by Mr Hodge (Minister forEnvironment).

House adjourned at 11. 11 p. m.

3690


QUESTIONS ON NOT1ICE

TRANSPORTTaxi Licences: Temporary

1339. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister forTransport:(1) How many temporary taxi licences

have been issued for the period of theAmerica's Cup?

(2) When are these additional licences be-ing used?

(3) Has this period been extended in re-cent weeks?

(4) How is demand generated by theAmerica's Cup monitored?

(5) Has the Taxi Control Board receivedany complaints from America's Cupvisitors about the tack of taxis?

(6) How much has the demand for taxisincreased in recent weeks as a result ofthe America's Cup?

Mr TROY replied:

(1)(2)

54.Thursday 6 p.m.-Friday 6 a.m.Friday 5 p.m.-Saturday 5 a.m.Saturday 6 p.m.-Sunday 6 a.m.Sunday 6 p.m.-Monday 6 a.m.

(3) Yes.(4) Through the radio companies and by

the observation of the board's fieldstaff.

(5) The board does not distinguish be-tween local and visitors' complaintsregarding lack of taxi service.

(6) The Taxi Control Board's observationis that the America's Cup has had onlymarginal impact on the taxi industryto date.

TRANSPORTTaxi Fares: Non-payment

1340. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister forTransport:(1) is he aware of numerous complaints

within the taxi industry regarding thenon-paymnent of fares by taxi patrons?

(2) Have such complaints been examinedby the Taxi Control Board, and if so,with what result?

Mr TROY replied:(1) No-

(2) All complaints of this nature areexamined. However, the Taxi ControlBoard has only recently taken steps togive it full legislative powers in thisregard. It is because of the lack oflegislative authority to prosecute,understandably, that its efforts havemet with only moderate success.

FREMANTLE GAS AND COKE CO LTDPurchase: Cabinet Approval

1366. Mr HASSELL, to the Premier:Could be explain why the $40 millionpurchase of the Fremantle Gas andCoke gas reticulation network was notsubject to Cabinet approval when the$20 million sale of the Perth Techni-cal College and the $450 000 sale ofthe Midland abattoir both requiredthe approval of Cabinet, and when theproposed $2 million purchase of theLinley Valley abattoir will also re-quire, according to the Minister forAgriculture, the approval of Cabinet?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:All of the cases raised by the member,other than the SEC's purchase ofFremantle Gas and Coke, impact insame way on the Consolidated Rev-enue Fund or on Government policy.For example, proceeds from the PerthTechnical College site were paid intoState funds. The sale also had impli-cations for other departments besidesthose making the sale-e.g., Edu-cation.Essentially, Cabinet exists to deter-mine Government policy, resolve dif-ferences between differing portfolios,and set priorities in terms of Govern-ment expenditure. Normally whenthere are matters which do not impacton any of the above, they are notbrought to Cabinet except where theMinister concerned feels that he needsthe advice of his or her colleagues onthe matter.In the Fremantle Gas case, there is noimpact whatsoever on the State'sBudget and it does not impact onother departments. The Government'spolicy, and indeed the SEC's policy, ofwishing to acquire the operations waswell known. Thus the Minister con-cerned quite appropriately handled itwithin his own portfolio.

3691

3692 [ASSEMBLY]

HOTHAM VALLEY TOURIST RAILWAY

Economic Circumstances1381. Mr BRADSHAW, to the Minister for

Transport:

(1) Is he aware that due to-

(a) increased charges by Westrail;

(b) large costs for Westrail staff,

fears are being expressed for the sur-vival of the Hotham Valley TouristRailway?

(2) Is he prepared to review charges byWestrail so that the Hothamn ValleyTourist Railway can continue to pro-vide the excellent tourist service,bringing joy to the thousands ofpeople who travel on these trains?

Mr TROY replied:

(1) Yes.

(2) Yes. Various aspects of the HothamtValley Tourist Railway operations,which affect the level of charges, arecurrently being reviewed by Westrail,as are sonic aspects of the charge it-self. The parties as recently as lastSaturday, 18 October 1986 met in myoffice under my chairmanship to dis-cuss this matter.

DEPUTY PREMIER

Office: Staff

1385. Mr MacKINNON, to the DeputyPremier:

(1) How many people are allocated to theoffice of the Deputy Premier

(2) In each case, what are their duties?

Mr BRYCE replied:

(1) 1 refer the member to Divisions 15and 17 of the Consolidated RevenueFund Estimates of Revenue and Ex-penditure for the year ending 30 June1987. In addition, officers areseconded to my office from time totime for brief periods to carry outspecific project work.

(2) The duties of officers within theDeputy Premier's office consist ofclerical, keyboarding, secretarial, ad-ministrative, research, and policy.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES:RELOCATION

Bunbury: Incentives

1400. Mr MacKINNON, to the Premier.

What incentives or assistance has beenprovided to employees relocatingfrom their positions in the metropoli-tan area to a relocated position in theBunbury Tower?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:

None.

"MANAGING CHANGE IN THE PUBLICSECTOR"

Policies: Implementation1404. Mr CASH, to the Premier

(1) Further to his answer to question 1 253of 1986 concerning changes in thepublic sector, will he advise if he hasalready consulted with the Civil Ser-vice Association on the strategy to en-able implementation of the policiesoutlined in the white paper?

(2) If "Yes", will he advise on the fre-quency and extent of these consul-tations; and has the Civil Service As-sociation indicated its membership issatisfied with progress to date?

(3) If "No" to (1), is his reluctance to con-suit in conflict with the policiesoutlined in the white paper?


(1) Yes.

(2) The Government's proposals for con-sultation with the Civil Service As-sociation on the implementation ofthe white paper were outlined by meto a meeting of their executive an 20October. Further details on the im-plementation process will beannounced at a conference of perma-nent heads to be held on 7 November.

The Civil Service Association has ac-cepted an invitation to take part inthis conference, and it is anticipatedthat the Civil Service Association willjoin working and consultative arrange-ments to be established after that con-ference.

(3) Not applicable.

3692


HEALTHGenetically Engineered Organisms: Use

1410. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Industryand Technology:(1) Are genetically engineered organisms

being-(a) used;(b) tested;in Western Australia?

(2) If "Yes'-(a) can he identify these organisms;(b) what regulations or guidelines

exist to control the use and testingof these organisms?

Mr BRYCE replied:(1) (a) Yes;

(b) yes.(2) (a) Escherichia coli is commonly used

as a host for geneticallyengineered material in WesternAustralia;

(b) the Federally-sponsored recom-binant DNA monitoring com-mittee has issued guidelines forwork with genetically engineeredorganisms.

WATER RESOURCESManjimup: Government Commitment

1418. Mr STEPHENS, to the Minister forIndustry and Technology:(1) Further to question 1154 of 1986,

with respect to the provision of suit-able water supply arrangements forManjimup, what are the details of theGovernment commitment?

(2) What are the details of the "buy-back"arrangements which are pant of theEdgell proposal?

(3) In view of the Government's assist-ance to both the Manjimup Canneryand Southern Processors, did theGovernment suggest or encourageconsultation between the groups to seeif a merger or joint arrangement waspossible? If "No", why not?

(4) Despite several requests, why did hetake so long to respond to a letter sentto him by Southern Processors on 18June?

Mr BRYCE replied:

(1) Edgell is presently examining alterna-tive water sources in the Manjimuparea for its plant, and until those de-liberations have been completed theextent of investment required by boththe Government and Edge]] will notbe known.

(2) The Crown Law Department has beenasked to prepare a formal agreement,the salient features of which will be-

the agreement will have a maxi-mnum life of 12 months;

it covers only the existing can-nery;

it will be exercisable only if Edgellis prevented from proceedingwith its proposed vegetableprocessing works;

the causes of prevention will bedefined and will cover only mat-ters over which the Governmentcan exercise direct or indirectcontrol-provision of an ad-equate water supply, environmen-tal approvals, and building per-mits are the principal items ofconcern to Edgell;

the buy-back will lapse as soon asconstruction commences oneither the processing works or thewater supply;

in the unlikely event that the buy-back comes into force, theGovernment will repurchaseassets on terms comparable tothose which applied to the Edgellpurchase.

(3) Yes.

(4) Southern Processors' letter of 18 June1986 was received in my office onFriday, 20 June 1986. A reply wasdespatched on 14 July 1986. 1 do notconsider that delay to be inordinate,and my files do not reveal any interimrequests for a reply. I might add thatin my reply I prevailed upon SouthernProcessors to make contact with thecannery.

3693

3694 [ASSEMBLY]

TRANSPORT TRUST FUNDCollctions

1429. Mr RUSHTON, to the Minister forTransport:(1) What is the total amount within the

Budget Estimates to be collected intothe transport trust fund this financialyear?

(2) What is the source and amount of thecontributions making up this total?

(3) To what agency and for what purposeare allocations within the Budget be-ins made this financial year from thetransport trust fund?

(4) Is any provision being made in thisyear's financial arrangements for astart to be made towards the electrifi-cation of suburban rail services?

Mr TROY replied:

(1) and (2) $90 million from the whole-sale licence fee on petrol and road-usediesel fuel.

(3) Transport subsidies administered bythe Department of Transport, $3.0million;Transperth deficit, substantiallycovering peak period operationswhich reduce traffic congestion andminimise the demand for peak periodroad capacity, $44.5 million;Main Roads Department works pro-gramme, $42.5 million.

(4) A start has already been made on sub-urban rail electrification with the ex-penditure in 1985-86 of $0.6 millionon planning. A further $0.3 miliion isto be spent on planning in 1986-87.

SMALL BUSINESS GUARANTEESSCHEMEApprovals

1432. Mr COURT, to the Minister for SmallBusiness:(1) How many guarantees has the

Government approved under its smallbusiness guarantees scheme over thelast 12 months?

(2) What is the avenage time taken to pro-cess the application?

(3) What is the total value of the guaran-tees given?

Mr TROY replied:(1) and (3) Operation of the scheme

commenced October 1985, and as atthe end of September 1986, 39 appli-cations for a total of $2 million hadbeen approved.

(2) Each application currently takes theequivalent of five working days toconduct the evaluation of the proposaland arrange the administrationnecessary. This time is on averagespread over a period of four-six weeks,depending upon the degree of support-ing material available from the bankerand the client.What should be understood is that theprocessing of applications is not asimple matter of ensuring that all thespaces on a form are filled in. Whatthe processing officer at SBDC has toconstruct is essentially the businessplan for the enterprise. Until SBDC issatisfied that the proposal, and thepeople involved, are commerciallysound in all respects, it is not preparedto provide its endorsement to the ap-plication.I am entirely satisfied with -itsmethods of assssment and believe theoutput rate to be satisfactory.

MAIN ROADS DEPARTMENTEmployees: Kununurra

1446. Mr COURT, to the Minister forTransport:(1) How many people are employed by

the Main Roads Department in theKununurra operations?

(2) Are the Kununurra operations to betransferred to Derby?

(3) How many people will be transferredand how many will be retrenched?

(4) How many will remain in Kununurra?(5) What effect will this have on

Kununurra-based contractors workingfor the Main Roads Department?

Mr TROY replied:(1) 40.(2) No.(3) Eight people will be transferred from

Kununurra. Two people have beenoffered alternative work. Of these, onehas elected to resign. No-one will beretrenched.

3694


The reduction reflects the reducedroad programme in the Kununurraarea.

(4) Of those currently employed, 3 1.(5) The adjustments to numbers

employed are not expected to haveany significant effect on Kununurra-based contractors working for theMain Roads Department.

STATE FINANCE: GENERAL WOAN ANDCAPITAL WORKS FUND

Allocation: Carnarvon1453. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister for

Water Resources:Will he provide details of the worksproposed with the following fundsprovided in the capital works pro-gramme for 1986-87 at Carnarvon:(a) Water supply-SI 084 000

Mr

(a)

(b) Sewerage-S 46 000(c) Drainage-$790 000(d) Irrigation-$425 000?

BRIDGE replied:

1. Gascoyne Junction watersupply improvements

2. Exmouth water supply-source improvements

3. Denham water supply-minor improvements

4. Carnarvon Town watersupply

-source -improve-ments-minor improve-metnts

5. Town water suppliedwithin the district

-minor improve-ments and extensions-works forsubdivisions

10000

115000

150000

357000

89000

312000

52000

TOTAL SI1084000

(hi Exmouth sewerage minor im-provements

-sewer mains exten-sions and connectionsto subdivisions

(c) Carnarvon Drainage DistrictFlood mitigation works-Closure of the South Ann andland mattersInstallation of telemetry equip-ment on Gascoyne River

TOTAL

46000

785000

5 000

$790000

(d) Carnarvon Irrigation District-improve lieadworks byautomation of some bores-investigations-minor improvements

TOTAL

148000124 000153 000

S425 000

TRANSPORT TRUST FUNDIncome

1454. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister forTransport:(1) What is the total amount expected to

be raised for the transport trust fundin the 1986-87 financial year?

(2) How will these funds be appropriated?Mr TROY replied:

Refer to my answer to question 1429.

STATE FINANCE: GENERAL LOAN ANDCAPITAL WORKS FUND,

Alloation: Mandurab Police Station1475. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Police

and Emergency Services:(1) Will he provide details of the

proposed expenditure of $2 573 000in respect of the proposed MandurahPolice Station, of which $1 000 000has been set aside in the capital worksprogramme for the year ending 30June 1987?

(2) When is the project due forcompletion?

Mr GORDON HILL replied:

(1) The new police station complexproposed for Mandurah at anestimated cost of $2 573 000 will re-place the existing inadequate facilityerected in 1958 near the old trafficbridge and will accommodate generalduties police, CIB, liquor and gamingofficers, and traffic police.$1 000 000 has been set aside in the1986-87 capital works programme toenable construction to commence thisfinancial year. The remaining expen-diture will carry over to the 1987-88capital works budget.

(2) November 1987.

3695

3696 [ASSEMBLY]

STATE FINANCE: GENERAL LOAN ANDCAPITAL WORKS FUND

Allocation: Police Department1476. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Police

and Emergency Services:Will he provide details of theproposed expenditure of $2 859 000for the computer equipment as set outin the capital works programme forthe year ending 30 June 1987?

Mr GORDON HILL replied:The $2 859 000 provided for com-puter equipment is for-

I.Upprading of the centralmainframe system andperipherals $1 463056

2. Purchase of an NECautomated fingerprintindentification system $1 072 315

3. Purchase of computerterminals, printers, wordprocessors, andmicrocomputers $323 629

TOTAL 32859000

WASTE DISPOSALLittering: America's Cup Races

1479. Mr HASSELL, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister with specialresponsibility for the America's Cup:(1) What measures are being taken to en-sure that people of all nationalities are

encouraged not to permit garbage,rubbish, or other matter to be de-posited in the control area asdesignated by the America's CupYacht Race (Special Arrangements)Act 1986?

(2) What action -will be taken against suchoffenders?

(3) (a) Have special- arrangements beenmade to monitor the ocean shore-line daily and clean up any pol-lution that might occur as a resultof the America's Cup races;

(b) if not, will such arrangements beconsidered?

Mr PEARCE replied:This question has wrongly beenaddressed to the Minister with specialresponsibility for the America's Cup.It has been referred to the Minister forTransport, and he will answer thequestion in writing.

SEWAGE DISPOSALAmerica's Cup Races

1480. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forHealth:(1) What measures are being taken to en-

sure that sewage from the spectatorfleet viewing the America's Cup doesnot cause a health nuisance to thewaters and shorelines in the Pertharea?

(2) If the waters do become polluted,what measures will be taken to ensurethat the waters do not become a healthhazard?

Mr TAYLOR replied:(1) The Government has proclaimed a

regulation under the America's CupYacht Race (Special Arrangements)Act 1986 which states that a personshall not discharge wastes-includessewage-from a vessel. Arrangementshave also been made with a privatecontractor to remove solid and liquidwastes from pleasure craft and ferries.Education of the boating communityin relation to the need for voluntarycontrol of pollution from vessels isalso being undertaken.

(2) The Health Department of WesternAustralia regularly samples oceanbathing areas, and should any of theseresults indicate a pollution potential,action will be taken to protect publichealth.

WASTE DISPOSALLittering: America's Cup Races

1481. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forTransport:(1) What measures are being taken to en-

sure that the boating public viewingthe America's Cup races do not permitrubbish, garbage, Or other material tobe deposited in the control area as perthe America's Cup Yacht Race(Special Arrangements) Act 1986?

(2) If such rubbish, garbage, or other mat-ter is deposited in the control area,what arrangements are being made toensure that local beaches are notpolluted?

(3) ifthe beaches become polluted, whatmeasures will be taken to rectify thematter?

3696


(4) Is a publicity campaign planned to en-courage the boating public not to per-mit garbage, rubbish, or other matterto be deposited in the control area?

(5) If so, when will the campaign com-mence?

Mr TROY replied:

(1) Directions have been given to all boatowners and operators by the HarbourMaster, Fremantle and Harbour Mas-ter, Port of Perth, under the America'sCup Yacht Race (Special Arrange-ments) Act prohibiting garbage, rub-bish, or other matter being depositedin controlled waters. Those directionswere published in the Press on IOctober 1986, and it is planned to re-publish them monthly.Spectator vessel operating instructionsissued by the Department of Marineand Harbours and the Fremantle PortAuthority through their own publiccounters, the America's Cup Infor-mation Centre, yacht and boatingclubs, and organisations of boatowners and charter vessel operators,contained warnings against litteringthe oceans.

Department of Marine and Harboursinspectors aboard patrol vessels keep awatch on vessels around the courses inan effort to detect litter, etc., beingthrown overboard.

The Keep Australia Beautiful Councilis providing litter bags at public boatramps.

(2) No practical arrangements can bemade to prevent isolated andundetected garbage from beingwashed onto beaches. The State coun-ter disaster plan for marine pollutionis designed to counter serious pol-lution by oil and other noxioussubstances.

(3) Beach clean-up is a matter for the rel-evant local authority.

(4) and (5) The Keep Australia BeautifulCouncil (WA) has undertaken a$170000 television campaign whichcommenced on 22 June 1986 and willextend until mid-February 1987. Themessages are aimed at the boatingpublic to prevent litter being droppedoverboard.

"ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENTGUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL BASED

INDUSTRIES"Publi cat ion

1488. Mr RUSHTON, to the Minister forWater Resources:(1) Will he please let me have a copy of

the report or draft report,"Environment Management Guide-lines for Animal Based Industries"?

(2) Is the authority requiring owners oroccupiers to licence non-artesianbores in the Peel groundwater areawhich are used for domestic and stockpurposes only?

(3) If "Yes" to (2), are these licencestransferable on sale of property?

(4) If "No" to (3), why is the licence nottransferable?

(5) Because of the potentially severe ad-verse effect on the property value dueto non-transferability of the licence,what administrative practice is avail-able for owners to such transferance ofthe licence over the water bore?

(6) Are pigs regarded as livestock for thepurposes of licensing when the auth-ority considers wells and bores beingutilised for domestic and stock pur-poses only?

(7) If "No" to (6), what is the reason forthis determination?

Mr BRIDGE replied:(1) As stated in my answer to the mem-

ber's question 823 of I5 July 1986 onthe same topic, the document is still inthe hands of the subcommitteeinvolved in its preparation. Thissubcommittee, which includes indus-try representation, expects that anupdated draft will be available forwider circulation at the end of theyear. I will arrange for a copy of thereport to be made available to themember after it is finalised.

(2) Yes, but only for non-artesian wellssituated on lots of area 2 000 squaremetres or greater.

(3) No. The new owner must apply for alicence in his own name, and a licencewill normally then be issued as a mat-ter of course.

3697

3698 (ASSEMBLY]

(4) Under the provisions of the Rights inWater and Irrigation Act, licences arenot transferable.

(5) It is common practice that a purchasermakes an offer subject to the prantingof a licence. The Water Authority nor-mally gives an undertaking that a li-cence will be issued to the new owner.

(6) and (7) Yes, but only to the extent ofthe drinking requirements for free-range operations. Intensive raising of'pigs can be a relatively large user ofgroundwater and has the potential topollute the water resource. Overallwater requirements are evaluated onthe same basis as other large users.

WATER AUTHORITYProfessional Surveyors

1490. Mr MENSAROS, to the Minister forWater Resources:(1) How many professional surveyors are

employed by the Water Authority ofWestern Australia at present?

(2) How many auxiliary staff to assist thesurveyors are employed?

(3) What are the-(a) city; and(b) country depots from where these

surveyors work preparing con-struction jobs?

(4) Would he please describe the con-struction jobs presently ready for sur-veying work?

Mr BRIDGE replied:(1) Professional surveyors 33(2) Trainee surveyors

TechnicianSenior Instrument HandsInstrument handsSurvey hands

Total

2

228

50

83

(3) (a) City depots are Leederville,Shenton Park, Hamilton Hill,Welshpool, and Owelup;

(b) country centres are Mlbany,Broome, Bunbury, Collie,Carnarvon, Derby, Geraldton,Kalgoorlie, Karr-atha, Kuntunurra,Mandurab, Merredin, Narrogin,Northam, and Port Hedland.

(4) The surveyors situated at the abovelocations provide surveying servicessupporting design, construction, andmaintenance of the authority's facili-ties.The surveying service provided forconstruction works is only one of thefunctions performed by the surveyor.The number of actual constructionjobs ready for survey control are toonumerous to separately list. Generally,however, the construction projects in-clude sewerage reticulation, risingmains, pumping stations, treatmentworks, water mains, service reservoirs,drainage, and utilisation works.

SPORT AND RECREATION: COMMUNITYCAMP

Noalintba: Use

1497. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forSport and Recreation:(1) Are the Australian institute of Sport

members currently housed at theNoalimba Reception Centre?

(2) If so, where will they be housed whenthe Centre closes?

Mr WILSON replied:

(I) Yes.(2) The Department for Sport and Rec-

reation is cooperating with theAustralian Institute of Sport to findalternative accommodation. A meet-ing has already been held with rep-resentatives from the Australian insti-tute of Sport and the men's andwomen's hockey associations to dis-cuss this issue. Further meetings are tofollow, end the needs of the AIShockey unit will be fully addressedduring the feasibility study that is tobe conducted in relation to the pro-vision of residential accommodationfor sporting and community groups.The State Government has been at theforefront in securing for WesternAustralia the MIS hockey unit and hasensured the unit will remain in thisState by providing an annual grant ofup to $50000 and contributing $1.3million towards the cost of the ad-ditions to the Commonwealth HockeyStadium including facilities for a per-manent A.IS headquarters.

3698


PLANNING: TEAROOMSMosman Park Building Licence

1505. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forTransport:(1) Does he recall a report in The West

Australian newspaper of last Fridaythat he had asked for the developmentof the Mosman Park river tearooms tobe halted till he had approved a build-ing licence for the project?

(2) Whom did he ask to halt the develop-ment?

(3) Was it halted?(4) Is it still halted?(5) Has he yet given approval for a build-

ing licence?Mr TROY replied:(1) Yes.(2) The General Manager of the Depart-

ment of Marine and Harbours.(3) Yes.(4) No.(5) Yes.

PLANNING: TEAROOMSMosman Park- Access

1506. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forTransport:(1) In giving approval for the develop-

ment of the Mosman Park river tea-rooms, what arrangements has he ap-proved in relation to-(a) access for land-based services;(b,) parking for patrons relative to the

capacity of the tearooms?(2) Will those arrangements comply with

requirements which would be imposedif the development were on landwithin the Mosman Park munici-pality?

Mr TROY replied:(1) (a) Power, water, and sewerage have

already been provided to the de-velopment site by the relevantauthorities;

(b) this matter was considered by theState Planning Commission priorto it approving the development.

(2) The land planning issues are matterswhich are outside the area of my re-sponsibility.

PLANNING: TEAROOMSMosman Park: Liquor Licence

1507. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forTransport:

In relation to the Mosman Park rivertearooms development, in what wayand by what arrangements will theGovernment guarantee-(a) that the development is operated

as a tearooms only;(b) that there will be no liquor licence

on or in respect of the site at anytime in the future;

(c) that the business of the provisionof food will not operate outsidethe hours 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.?

Mr TROY replied:(a) The jetty licence will specify the ap-

proved uses for which the buildingmay be used;

(b) the jetty licence will contain con-ditions relating to the restriction onobtaining a liquor licence; thisGovernment will oppose any appli-cation for a liquor licence for thepremises;

(c) the jetty licence will specify the hoursof operation of the business.

PLANNING: TEAROOMSMosinan Park: Plan Approvals

1508. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forTransport:(1) Does he recall his statement of last

Thursday, reported in The WestAustralian last Friday, that he wouldnot issue a building licence for theMosman Park river tearooms develop-ment until the plans had been ap-proved by the State Planning Com-mission, the Swan River ManagementAuthority, the Department of Marineand Harbours, and the Mosman ParkTown Council?

(2) Why is he not now proceeding on thatbasis?

(3) Has final approval for the develop-ment to go ahead now been given?

Mr TROY replied:(1) Yes.(2) Since making that statement the

Government has seen fit to examinethe proposed project. It considers that

3699

3700 [ASSEMBLY]

all necessary approvals have beenobtained and that the project shouldbe permitted to proceed.

(3) Yes.

EDUCATION: PRIMARY SCHOOLBroome: Renovations

151if. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister forEducation:(1) Did he give an undertaking that re-

pairs and renovations would be car-ried out at the Broome primaryschool-Weld Street site-when hemet with the parents and citizens andlocal representatives at the schoolearlier this year.)

(2) Has any allocation beeni made in the1986-87 budget for this work to becardied out? If not, why not?

Mr PEARCE replied:(1) and (2) Minor items of repair and

renovation are to be undertaken in thecurrent financial year. Any work ofthis nature will be independent of thegeneral building programme which isscheduled for Broome this year.

POLICE FORCERecruitments

1512. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services:

How many persons are to be recruitedinto the Police Force betweenTuesday, 21 October 1986 and 30June 1987?

Mr GORDON HILL replied:In order to provide the Commissionerof Police with additional manpower toenable him to meet the policing tasksimposed as a result of increased activi-ties in the Fremantle area during theAmerica's Cup period, whileminimising possible disruption topolicing in the rest of the State, theGovetniment authorised the Com-missioner of Police to recruit in ad-vance, in respect of both increases toauthorised police strength and re-placement for anticipated retirements.This advance recruiting programme isnow completed and accordingly it isnot planned to recruit further untilafter 30 June 1987 as officers whowould normally have been recruited to

that date have already been recruitedearlier than may otherwise have beenthe case, and the necessary funds tosupport this advance recruitment wereallocated in the recent Budget.

I welcome the opportunity providedby the member's question to againplace on record that this Governmenthas provided the most substantialboost to police numbers in the historyof policing in this State, by increasingthe authorised strength of the PoliceForce by 300 officers in its first termand undertaking to repeat that initiat-ive in its second term of office, in or-der to address and rectify the neglectof the previous LiberalAdministration in regard to policestrength.

FORESTS

Wooddzipping: Surveys

1513. Mr STEPHENS, to the Minister forConservation and Land Management:

(1) With respect to proposals advancedyears ago by Whittakers to developwoodchipping in the south-west, inwhat year were the surveys done?

(2) What area is involved and how manyhectares?

(3) What tonnage is sought and what arethe proposed terms of operation?

(4) What was the substance of the reportto the Government and what were therecommendations in respect to mak-ing the resource available for the par-ticular project?

Mr HODGE replied:

(1) The feasibility studiesundertaken in 1970 and 197 1.

were

(2) No particular area was specified. Theinvestigations were initiated on areaseast of the Frankland River.

(3) The initial proposal envisaged an ex-port tonnage of 100000 to 200 000tons per annum. No precise terms ofoperation were laid down.

(4) In view of the State's commitment tothe WACAP project, a second projectdid not proceed.

3700


LOCAL GOVERNMENTAlbany: Boundaries Commission Investigation1514. Mr STEPHENS, to the Minister for

Local Government:(1) With respect to the appointment of

the Boundaries Commission to inves-tigate the situation in the town ofAlbany and the Shire of Albany, underwhat section of the Local GovernmentAct was the appointment made?

(2) Who are the appointees?(3) What are the terms of reference?Mr CARR replied:(1) Section 12(6) of the Local Govern-

ment Act.(2) Chairman-Dr Michael C. Wood,

Secretary, Department of LocalGovernmentMember-Mr James 0. Burnett,Mayor, City of South PerthMember-Cr. Richard W. Maslen,Shire of Greenough.

(3) The Boundary Commission's terms ofreference in respect of the Albany situ-ation referred to-

I . The viability of the establishmentof the one local government onthe boundaries proposed in thepetition submitted to theGovernor by the Albany OneMovement and the effect of thatproposal on adjoining localgovernments;

2. The impact of the formation ofone local government on ratingand services;

3. The desirable arrangements forrepresentation; and

4. Other matters which the Com-mission believes should bebrought to the attention of theMinister for Local Government.

PLANNING: TEAROOMSMosman Pak Approval

15l1 Mr RUSHTON, to the Premier(1) Adverting to question 1430 of 1986,

will he please table a copy of the Pressstatement?

(2) Who gave approval for the MosmanPark marine complex to proceed?

(3) Under what Act was this approvalgiven?


(1)(2)

Yes. The statement follows.The Minister for Transport, StatePlanning Commission, and the De-partment of Marine and Harbours.

(3) The Metropolitan Region Town Plan-ning Scheme Act and the Jetties Act.

MEDIA STATEMENTDepartment of the Premier andCabinetThe State Government will op-pose any application bydevelopers Dallas Demnpster andDenis Marshall for a liquor li-cence for the tearooms being builtat Mosman Park.Premier Brian Burke said todaythe Government would also insistthe developers give a commit-ment the tearooms would be openonly between 8 am and 8 pma.Local residents had expressedfears the owners would operatethe tearoomns as a restaurant.

The State Planning Commissionalready had insisted that a secondstorey be removed from the plansbefore approval was given.

There had been complaints alsothat the original plans providedseating for only a handful ofpeople and the tearooms wouldbecome an exclusive club for therich.Mr Burke said the latest plansprovided much greater public ac-cess to the tearooms and kiosk.

The Premier said the developersof the project had received all thenecessary Government approvalsfor the work currently beingundertaken.

"After hearing reports from theMinisters for Transport, Planningand Environment it appears everylegal requirement has been met bythe developers," he said.

The first approval was given byall parties in March to replaceSmith's boatshed and tearooms.

3701

5.

3702 [ASSEMBLY)

That approval had been givensubject to three conditions. Thesewere to use building materialsmore in keeping with the environ-ment, to reduce the height of thebuilding and to clean up old pilesand debris around the site.The new plans-which providedfor a slightly smaller developmentbut increased public access-hadbeen approved by the State Plan-ning Commission and now an ar-gument had developed aboutthem.The only approval still requiredwas the final approval from theMinister for Transport for a jettylicence to enable the constructionof the buildings. The developersalready had permission to pro-ceed with the jetty part of thestructure.Mr Burke said initial plans for themarina were approved in Marchafter talks between thedevelopers, Mosman Park TownCouncil, the State Planning Com-mission, Swan River Manage-ment Authority and the Depart-ment of Marine and Harbours.


Lecturers: Conditions of Employment1516. Mr COWAN, to the Minister for

Education:(1) Can he advise the House of the

required teaching hours and dutyhours of various grades of technicaland further education lecturers?

(2) How does this compare with edu-cational institutions elsewhere?

(3) Is the Government following therecommendations of the Dormer Re-port, either in part or in whole?

(4) If "Yes", how closely?Mr PEARCE replied:(1) The weekly duty hours for all techni-

cal and further education lecturers inthe Education Department is 30. Theactual teaching hours vary dependingon the grade of lecturer, nature of sub-jects taught, the number of differentsubjects taught, and whether work

undertaken after 5.30 p.m. falls withinthe 30-hour weekly duty.The teaching hours are determined ac-cording to the following chart- ref.TSPI 106.02-with further re-ductions for work undertaken after3.30 p.m. Each hour worked after 5.30p.m. as normal tour of duty is countedas I V2 hours toward the required 30weekly hours.

(2) Other institutions in the State do notoperate in a manner comparable in allrespects to the complete set of ar-rangements outlined in the answer toquestion (1). Furthermore, annualleave entitlements vary across insti-tutions, which makes comparisonseven more difficult.

(3) No. The decisions taken by Govern-ment are in no way connected withrecommendations contained in theDormer Report.

(4) Not applicable.PREPARATION OF TIME-TABLES:TSPI 106.02TABLES I and 2 LECTURING HOURS ANDDOTT.1. See Policy 106.2.

TABLE 1: LECTURERSLecturr A LwumtmhI

Subjec Lod Categwy B & aLecturer L~curers

1 2 3 4 B (Tra~des) (TIS&*)

tectwing in 5or momuwubjec 16 I8 20 21 21 22Iecturingin4ubjtt 17 99 20 22 22 22Lectring in 3 subject 18 20 291 23 23 23Lecuiqi;in 2subjec 19 20 21 23 23 23Lectuig in I nubject 19 20 21 23 23 23

3.-TABLE 2: SENIOR LECTURERS

Senior Lcn, A saeturn a

Subjet 104 tC~f V S/Lectwm BI 2 3 4 (Tmdul)

Lectring in 5 or momnsbject 32 14 16 17 17Lwcun nm4subject 33 I3 16 3S IALecuinjgsin 3 subec 34 36 17 39 39Lccuningin 2 sbject 15 16 97 99 39LeuinginIsubjct 95 16 17 39 19

*Category 1: Not less than 12 actual hoursGroup 1.

3702


Category 2: Not less than 12 actual hoursGroup I and 2 not less than 5actual hours of Group 1.

Category 3: Not less than 12 actual hoursGroups I and 2.,

Category 4: Less than 12 actual hours GroupsI and 2.

EDUCATION: SCHOOLS

Computers: Policy

1517. Mr BRADSHAW, to the Minister forEducation:

(1) Does the Government have a policyand/or plan for computers in schools?

(2) If so, what is the policy and/or plan?

(3) Has he written to those schools whohad been promised a computer andexplained the Government's attitude?

(4) When can the schools expect to re-ceive computers as promised?

(5) Is any research being carried out intouse of computers in schools?

Mr PEARCE replied:

(i) and (2) Yes- However, the abandon-ment of the Commonwealth computereducation programme and pro-fessional development programme, inaddition to the recently announcedState Budget decisions, have obligedme to seek a major review of the Edu-cation Department's plans for com-puter education. The results of this re-view will be announced as soon aspossible.

(3) [ have taken steps to see that schoolswill be advised of the implications ofthese Budget decisions.

(4) The Government will continue withits subsidy scheme for the provision ofcomputers during the 1986-87financial year. The prospect of moreextensive support will be kept underreview.

(5) The Education Department is engagedin a collaborative project with theUniversity of Western Australiaexamining the effectiveness of differ-ent approaches to learning throughcomputers.

SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTeBuildings

1519. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Mineralsand Energy:

(1) What does the Government intend todo with the Solar Energy Research In-stitute of Western Australia buildingsat Bentley?

(2) Did the Government consult with thestaff at the Solar Energy Research In-stitute of Western Australia before thedecision was made to amalgamate theSolar Energy Research Institute ofWestern Australia with the WesternAustralian Mining and Petroleum In-st itute?

(3) If "LNo" to (2), were the staff infonnedof this decision?

(4) Does this reflect Government policyon its dealings with its staff

Mr PARKER replied:

(1) No decision has yet been made.

(2) to (4) The decision to amalgamate thefunctions of SERIWA and WAMPRIwas a policy decision. The staff wereinformed of the decision immediatelyprior to the Budget presentation.


Lecturers: Non-striking1520. Mr CASH, to the Minister for

Education:

(1) Is he aware that some lecturers at tech-nical and further education insti-tutions who have been presentingthemselves for work at their respectiveplaces of employment have been toldby their supervisors that there is nowork to be performed during the cur-rent industrial action and that irres-pective of whether they present them-selves for work and remain at workready and willing to perform theirjobs, they will have deducted fromtheir salary an amount equal to thenumber of days of the industrial ac-tion?

(2) (a) Does this action by supervisorsconstitute a lockout;

(b,) if so, what action does he proposeto take?

3703

3704 (ASSEMBLY)

(3) Will any deductions be made from thesalaries of lecturers who present them-selves for work during the current in-dustrial dispute?

Mr PEARCE replied:

(1) It is possible that such action has oc-curred since most senior college-basedstaff with authority to close classes arealso members of the union that tookindustrial action last week. The de-partment has taken action to ensurethat staff who did not take industrialaction will not suffer loss of pay.

(2) (a) I accept that some closure ofpremises is inevitable during in-dustrial action by lecturers, forsafety and security reasons, whereinsufficient staff are on duty;

(b,) departmental staff are endeav-ouring to ensure that classes cancontinue wherever lecturers areavailable for duty.

(3) No.

ENERGY

Solar Projects: Terminations

1521. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Mineralsand Energy:

(1) Will he list the solar energy projectswhich were under the control of theSolar Energy Research Institute ofWestern Australia when the Treasurerdelivered the Budget on 16 October1986?

(2) Will any solar energy projects beterminated when the Solar Energy Re-search Institute of Western Australiaamalgamates with the WesternAustralian Mining and Petroleum In-stitute?

(3) If "Yes" to (2), which projects will beterminated?

(4) Will the amalgamation of the SolarEnergy Research Institute of WesternAustralia and the Western AustralianMining and Petroleum Institute resultin cost savings?

(5) If "Yes" to (4)-

(a) how much will be saved;

(b) how will these savings be made?

(6) Will there be any likely conflict ofinterests in the new organisationformed by the amalgamation of theSolar Energy Research institute ofWestern Australia and the WesternAustralian Mining and Petroleum In-stitute?

Mr PARKER replied:(1) The following projects were under the

control of the Solar Energy ResearchInstitute of Western Australia-SERI WA-when the Treasurerdelivered the Budget-

Solar powered electrical servicesfor remote Aboriginal homelandsettlements;interfacing and control of PVdiesel systems;solar water pumping evaluation-NE RD DCinverter evaluation programme;design guide for energy-efficientbuildings;Broken Hill Associated Smeltersbattery investigation;Northern Territory solar waterpump evaluation;monitoring of Balladonia Road-house;manufacture of two Solar Paks forAboriginal community;energy balance booster control;PV spectral reference measure-ments.

The institute also provides an infor-mation dissemination service, spon-sors external design competitions, andfunds external projects.

(2) It is hoped thatbe completedinitiated byWAMPRI.

existing projects willand new projectsgrants made by

(3) See (2) above.(4) Yes.(5) A final figure in regard to the savings

that will be made is yet to beascertained. However, SERIWA askedfor a grant of $750 000 for the currentyear from the State Government. Thefinal savings will at least amount tothe salary and overhead costs of theadministration of SERIWA.

(6) No.

3704


STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation: Police Department

1522. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer(1) Will he detail the items in general

terms which made up the $4 381 000expended on plant, equipment, etcunder Division 93 of the 1986-87Consolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates?

(2) Why is the budget estimate for thisitem in 1986-87 only $842 000?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Police andEmergency Services, and he willanswer the question in writing.

STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation; Police Department

1523. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer(1) Will he detail the items in general

terms which made up the $6 347 345expended on support services underDivision 93 of the 1986-87Consolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates?

(2) Why has the Budget estimate for thisitemr increased in 1986-87 to$13 642 000?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Police andEmergency Services, and he willanswer the question in writing.

STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation; Police Department

1524. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer.(1) Will he detail the items in general

terms which make up the otherstaffing costs of $ S5 579 646 expendedin 1985-86 as listed under Division 93in the 1986-87 Consolidated RevenueFund Estimates?

(2) Why is the Budget estimate for thisitem in 1986-87 only $556 000?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Police and

Emergency Services, and he willanswer the question in writing.

STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation; Westrail

1525. Mr MacKINNON, to the TreasurerWhy has the depreciation provision inDivision 87 of the 1986-87Consolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates reduced from $14 965 000 in1985-86 to an estimated $7 million in1986-87?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Transport,and he will answer the question inwriting.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEESSuperannuation; Agreements

1 526- Mr MacKINWON, to the Premier

(1) Has the Government, since 1February 1986, concluded any agree-ments for workers in its employ whoare not covered by the StateSuperannuation Scheme?

(2) If so, what are the details of thoseagreements?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:The members question is not under-stood. If he is able to clarify it, Ishould be only too pleased to respond.

STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation: Surveys and Studies

1527. Mr MacKTN4NON, to the Treasurer

What surveys and studies were carriedout in 1985-86 and in each case atwhat cost for the total expenditure of$434 965 under the heading "Surveysand Studies" on page 74 of the 1986-87 Consolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates?


This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for BudgetManagement, and he will answer thequestion in writing,

3705

3706 [ASSEMBLY]

STATE FINANCE: BUDGET

Allocation: Systems Research Institute

1528. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer.

For what purpose has $625 000 beenallocated to the Systems Research In-stitute of Western Australia in the1986-87 Consolidated Revenue FundEstimates?


This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Industryand Technology and he will answerthe question in writing.


Allocation: Incidentals

1529. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer

What payments were made in 1985-86that totalled $80 003 under Item 115of the Miscellaneous Services vote inthe 1986-87 Consolidated RevenueFund Estimates?


This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for BudgetManagement, and he will answer thequestion in writing.

HEALTH

Specific Learning Difficulties AssociationFinancial Support

1530. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer

(1) Will the Government be providingany financial support to the SpecificLearning Difficulties Association ofWestern Australia during the yearending 30 June 1987?

(2) If so, what will be the nature of thesupport?

(3) If not, why not?


This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Education,and he will answer the question inwriting,


Allocation: Rural Adjustment and FinanceCorporation

1531. Mr MacINNON, to the Treasurer

What plant and equipment is to bepurchased by the Rural Adjustmentand Finance Corporation of WesternAustralia for the $554 000 allocatedfor that purpose in the 1986-87Consolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister forAgriculture, and he will answer thequestion in writing.

EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY TRUST FUND

Administ ration

1532. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forEmployment and Training:(1) Who administers the Employment

Strategy Fund Trust Fund?(2) What was the balance of that fund as

at 30 June 1986?Mr PETER DOWDING replied:(1) The Department of Employment and

Training.

(2) $97 852.47.


Allocation: Nurses 'Salaries

1533. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forHealth:

What increase in nurses salaries hasbeen budgeted for in the 1986-87Consolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates?

Mr TAYLOR replied:In accordance with nornal practice, ageneral provision for award increasesin 1986-87 for the health work force asa whole has been included in theConsolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates for hospital fund-operatingand other subsidies. At this time it isnot possible to separate an amount fornurse salaries in general.

3706



Allocation: Community Health Services


Why has the budget allocation forCommunity Health Services increasedfrom an expenditure of $2 849 046 in1986-87 to the budgeted figure of$11 770 000?

Mr TAYLOR replied:

The major factors contributing to the1986-87 increase in the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund allocation for Comn-munity Health Services are increasesin the joint State and Commonwealth-funded home and community careprogramme, the transfer from CRYItem 1S Senior Citizens Services re-home and community care pro-gramme, provision for escalation, andan increase in expenditure underCommonwealth community healthprogramme.


Allocation: Health Department


Why has the Budget allocation foroperating and other subsidies-Item.12 in Division 75 of the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund Estimates-increasedfrom an expenditure of $426 483 000in 1985-86 to a budget figure of$497 370 000 in 1986-87?

Mr TAYLOR replied:

The major factors contributing to the1986-87 increase in the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund allocation to the hospi-tal fund-operating and othersubsidies are additional costs of indus-trial decisions and new initiativesflowing on from 1985-86, provisionfor escalation in wages and othergoods and services, charges in revenuefrom various sources, recurrent costsfor 1986-87 associated with capitalworks to be completed in the financialyear, and various other items, net.

STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation: Government Property Unit

1536. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer.(1) Will he list the expenses which made

up the $121 860 expended in 1985-86under Item 14-Government Prop-erty Unit-Division 80 of the 1986-87Consolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates?

(2) Why has the 1986-87 budget expendi-ture for this item increased to$271 000?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Lands, andhe will answer the question in writing.

STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation: Tourism Commission

1537. Mr MacKJNNON, to the Treasurer(1) Will he list the prants and subsidies

made by the Tourism Commission in1985-86 that totalled $978 455 in the1986-87 Consolidated Revenue FundEstimates?

(2) Why has this item's budgeted expenseincreased to$ 1i324 000 for 1986-8 7?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer, It has beenreferred to the Minister for Tourismand she will answer the question inwriting.

STATE FINANCE: BUDGETAllocation: Tourism Commission

1538. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer.(1) Will he list for me the detail of expen-

diture made by the Tourism Comn-mission in 1985-86 under the heading"South East Asian Development"which totalled $469 866?

(2) Why has this Item's budgeted expen-diture declined to $130 000 in 1986-87?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:This question has been incorrectlyaddressed to the Treasurer. It has beenreferred to the Minister for Tourism,and she will answer the question inwriting.

3707

3708 ASSEMBLY]

WATER RESOURCES: DAMMurray River:- Rejection

1539. Mr MENSAROS, to the Minister forWater Resources:

To what extent does the announcedCabinet decision to reject watersupply dams on the Murray affect thelong planned and proposed NorthDandalup dam; is the latter stillplanned to go ahead in the 1990s orhas it been rejected with theannounced Cabinet decision?

Mr BRIDGE replied:The decision of Cabinet is related topotential developments within theLane-Poole reserve and does not affectplanning for the proposed NorthDandalup dam. The Water Authorityis proceeding with planning and en-vironmental studies evaluating theproposed North Dandalup dam andits alternatives.

WA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONNoalimbw: Transfer

1541. Mr COWAN, to the Minister co-ordinating Economic and SocialDevelopment:(1) When will Noalimba be transferred to

the Western Australian DevelopmentCorporation?

(2) Is it the Government's intention tosell Noalimba-(a) to the Western Australian Devel-

opment Corporation;(b,) through the agency of the Western

Australian Development Corpor-ation; or

(c) by any other means?(3) If "Yes" to (2), by what method?!Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) to (3) The transfer details have yet to

be negotiated between the WADC andthe Government.

WATER AUTHORITYStaff Collie

1542. Mr COWAN, to the Minister for WaterResources:(1) Has a decision yet been made on the

future of Water Authority staff at Col-lie?

(2) If "Yes", what is that decision?(3) If "No", when will the decision be

announced?Mr BRIDGE replied:(1) No.(2) Not applicable.(3) No proposal regarding the future of

Water Authority staff at Collie hasbeen put to me for a decision. How-ever, in the event of my making such adecision, I will announce it as soonthereafter as possible.

RURAL AND INDUSTRIES BANKCapital Stock Issue

1543. Mr NALDER, to the Treasurer:(1) With reference to the capital stock

issue of the Rural and Industries Bankearlier this year, is information relat-ing to which institutions took up thecapital stock available publicly?

(2) If so, where?(3) Does he view with any concern the

inclusion of $30 million of the stock inthe Armstrong Jones prime invest-ment fund?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(I) No.(2) Not applicable.(3) No.

EDUCATIONTertiary Fees:, External Students

1544. Mr HOUSE, to the Minister forEducation:(1) With reference to the recently

announced $250 fee for students en-rolling at tertiary institutions for1987, is the fee to be paid in full byexternal students?

(2) Is the fee to be paid in full by part-time students?

(3) If "Yes" to (1) and (2), what steps hashe taken to point out to the Common-wealth Government the injustice ofthe application of full fees on pant-time and external students?

(4) Is he considering the waiving of com-pulsory guild membership for thoseexternal and part-time students whocannot afford to pay both guild fees ortheir equivalent and the new fees?

3708

[Tuesday, 28 October 1 986J]70

(5) If "No" to (4), what financial assist-ance, if any, is the State Governmentprepared to offer pan-lime and exter-nal students so that the total of feesmaintains relativity to the fees pay-able by full-time internal students?

Mr PEARCE replied:(I) Yes.(2) Yes.(3)

(4)(5)

I have made representation to theCommonwealth Government aboutthe fee in general and the anomalies inparticular.No.This is a Commonwealth charge, andState financial assistance would not beappropriate. However, the Common-wealth is proposing that arrangementsbe put in place for students in need tohave loan arrangements from tertiaryinstitutions for the payment of theadministration charge.

SPORT AND RECREATIONHonse Training Track- Rockingham

1545. Mr TRENORDEN, to the Minister forRacing and Gaming:(1) Has the Government approved, or

does it plan to approve in the foresee-able future, funds for a training trackor any other facilities to do withhorseracing in the Rockcingham area?

(2) If so, how much money is involved?(3) Who is in receipt of the funds?Mrs BEGGS replied:(1) to (3) There is a submission by the

Southern Districts Thoroughbred As-sociation before Government for as-sistance of $500 000 to develop horse-training facilities in Rockingham. Nodecision has yet been made.

ROADSFitzgerald Street-Peel Terrace Intersection,

Nonrtam: Petition1546. Mr TRENORDEN, to the Minister for

Transport:(1) Has he received a copy of a petition

addressed to the Northam TownCouncil with approximately 2 500 sig-natures concerning the Peel Terraceand Fitzgerald Street intersection inNorthamn?

(2) What are the Government's plans toimprove the safety factor at thisdangerous intersection?

Mr TROY replied:(1) No.(2) Fitzgerald Street motorists approach-

ing Peel Terrace from either directionshould see an advance warning signand two stop signs at this intersection.Nearly all reported accidents involvevehicles which have violated thesestop signs. Even if they have stopped,they do not appear to have given wayto vehicles in Peel Terrace, particu-larly from the west.Violations of the no standing zones atthe intersection have also beenobserved.Stop sign control should be adequatefor this location. However, a furtherexamination of all the factors will beundertaken shortly. In the meantime,the police traffic branch will berequested to give the intersectioncloser attention.

REGIONAL COORDINATORNortham: Applications

1547. Mr TRENORDEN, to the Minister forRegional Development:

On I March 1986 in The WestAustralian newspaper an advertise-ment for Position No. 241 647-Re-gional Co-ordinator-sought appli-cations by Thursday, 20 March 1986.When will this position he filled?

Mr CARR replied:Due to Budget constraints andcutbacks in the public sector, theposition will not be filled.

UNEMPLOYMENTTeenagers: Statistics

1551. Mr CASH, to the Minister forEmployment and Training:

Will he provide details of the numberof teenagers looking for jobs, on amonthly basis, for the period June1985 to September 1986?

3709

3710 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:15-19 year olds looking for full-timework, Western Australia

Firs JobSeekers

Month ('000)June 1985 5.0July 1985 315August 198$ Z6September 1985 4.0October 1985 3.2November 1985 2.0December 1 985 6. 0January 1 986 5.6February 1986 51 IMarch 1986 4.'0April 1986 2.4May 1986 3.1June 1986 2.9July 1986 2.6August 1986 2.2September 1986 2.50

0Preliminary

11.610.010.611.110.3

13.413.8

12.7

13.2I1I.99.7

tjnem.

(W%)20A415.219.619.219.41 7.322.221.1

19.221.820.01 6.1I16.519.7*

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICESTATE FINANCE

Consolidated Revenue Fund: Withdrawal316. Mr HASSELL, to the Treasurer

I refer to page 27 of the Auditor Gen-eral's report, and to the audit com-ment detailing the deposit and with-drawal of $23.6 million into and outof the Consolidated Revenue Fundwithin the last financial year.(1) Why was this amount deposited

into the Consolidated RevenueFund on 30 December 1985?

(2) Why was this amountsubsequently withdrawn from theConsolidated Revenue Fund on30 June 1986?

(3) Is it true that had the second.tansacsion not been made theState wouldhave bad a surplus ofapproximately $24 million for the1985-86 financial year?

(4) Has the Treasurer taken adviceabout the Auditor General's com-ments, given that they indicatethe 30 June withdrawal was fl-legal?

(5) If "yes" to (4), what was that ad-vice and what action will theTreasurer take?

(6) If "no" to (4), will the Treasurertake advice and report to thehouse in regard to the AuditorGeneral's comments?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:I am aware of a Press statement putout by the Leader of the Oppositionthis afternoon referring to this matter

and accusing me of almost every con-ceivable wrongdoing apart from verydeliberate arson, and that was only be-cause there was not enough space inthe Press release.I think it is appropriate that I draw theattention of the Parliament to the wayin which the Leader of the Oppositionappears to think intemperate and ex-treme language is the norm to be usedin addressing any issue, no matter howinert and antiseptic it might be in itssubject.In answer to the Leader of the Oppo-sition's questions, I am advised-(1) At the time it was estimated that

the interest earnings would berequired to balance the Budget.The earlier year's interest earn-ings were therefore transferred tothe Consolidated Revenue Fund.

(2) Improvement in the Budget in theensuing six months meant that itwas not necessary to bringinterest earnings to account tobalance the Budget, and thetransaction was reversed. Thisgave effect to a long-establishedpractice of bringing to accountonly sufficient of the earnings tobalance the Budget.

(3) As in past years, it might also beargued that the whole of theinterest earnings of $56.5 millioncould be represented as a Budgetsurplus if the propositioncontained in this part of the ques-tion is to be agreed to. However,as the Leader of the Oppositionwould know, the Treasurer is notrequired to pay all or any of thoseearnings to the Consolidated Rev-enue Fund.

(4) to (6) 1 do not believe it is necess-ary to obtain legal advice on theAuditor General's comments. Inthe past any drawings uponTreasury interest earnings to bal-ance the Budget have beenbrought to account on 30 June;and I will ensure that that is thepractice followed in the future.

All of the comments made by theLeader of the Opposition in his rathercolourful and flamboyant Press releaseaccuse me, for example, of being devi-ous and guilty of all sorts of things

3710

[Tuesday, 28 October 1986J]71

connected with this matter, and meanand narrow characteristics. However,if the Leader of the Opposition hadbothered to ask, I could have told himI had no knowledge of the transfer ofthis amount Of money into or out ofthe Consolidated Revenue Fund. Thatwas confirmed by the UnderTreasurer today. It is very difficult tobe devious about something when onedoes not have any knowledge that ithas occurred.

Mr MacKinnon: I cannot believe it.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The Deputy Leaderof the Opposition might not be able tobelieve it.

Mr MacKinnon: It is like buying theFremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd andnobody has authorised it.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Whether the Oppo-sition likes it or not, or thinks it funnyor incapable of belief, I am simply say-ing as succinctly as I can that it is hardto be devious and deceitful, as theLeader of the Opposition claims me tobe about everything I do, when I haveno knowledge of it. Members oppositemay say that I should have had theknowledge and that I am delinquent innot having that knowledge, but theycannot say that I am somehow orother devious in doing somethingabout which I do not have the knowl-edge.

MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES

Regional Scheme317. Mr P. J. SMITH, to the Minister for

Police and Emergency Services:With respect to the recent announce-ment to the effect that the Police De-partmaent will be instituting a regionalsystem for motor vehicle registrationsand motor drivers' licence renewals,would the Minister please provide de-tails concerning-

(1) How this scheme will beinstituted?

(2) Details of the proposed scheme.

(3) How it will affect the Bunburyoffice?

Mr GORDON HILL replied:(1) The Government has made the re-

sources available to the Police Depart-ment to enable the extension of thepolice computer system throughoutthe State, thus providing on-line in-quiry and update facilities atstrategically located centres for motorvehicle registrations and motordrivers' licences.

Regionalisation in this sense meansthat all vehicle and driver coliectioncentres in country areas that do notpossess on-line facilities will forwardtheir documentation to their regionalcentre for updating of records. Thiswill have the effect of a speedier re-trieval of information from the re-gional centres to the local areas. It willalso mean a speedier updating of col-lections, together with a reduction inthe workload at head office and a bet-ter utilisation of resources.

(2) At the moment Albany, Northam,Narrogin, Merredin, Mandurak, andGeraldton are operating on a regionalbasis. Bunbury has commencedregionalisarion operations on asmaller scale and will be completelyoperational as soon as alterations toexisting equipment are completed.Boulder and Karratha will beoperational in the first half of 1987.

(3) Bunbury will service I I areas, namelyBoyup Brook, Bridgetown, Busselton,Capel, Collie, Donnybrook,Manjimup, Pemberton, MargaretRiver, Augusta, and Nannup. I stressthat I am talking about police areas.An additional staff member has beentransferred to Bunbury from Perth forthis purpose. We have also improvedthe service delivery in the town itselfwith the addition of computer facili-ties.

BUILDING INDUSTRY CODE OFCONDUCT

Breaches318. Mr THOMPSON, to the Minister for

Industrial Relations:(1) Is the Minister aware of any breaches

of the building industry code of con-duct since its inception?

3711

3712 [ASSEMBLY]

(2) If "Yes", can the Minister give detailsof those breaches and of any actiontaken by the Government in respect ofthose breaches?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:(1) and (2) 1 did not have any notice of

this question so I obviously have notasked for any departmental advice onthe matter. Perhaps the member, byinterjection, will say which code ofconduct?

Mr Thompson: Either.Mr PETER DOWDING: In respect of the

employers' code of conduct, it hasbeen reported to me that an employerhas been in breach of that code butnot in a serious way. I understand thatthe organisation, the Master BuildersAssociation of WA, now accepts-Iunderstand a statement was put outtoday by the director of that organis-ation-that the Government's aim isfor employers in the industry to im-pose much greater self-regulation.Therefore, I have not taken anyspecific action on that reported breachhut merely said to the MBA that itneeds to discipline itself within itsown membership. Having regard tothe meetings I have had with the di-rector and other members of that or-ganisation, I feel sure it will occur andthat it will not be necessary for theGovernment to intervene at this time.In respect of the code of conductwhich is the subject of the legislation,that is a matter for the Industrial Re-lations Commission-

Mr Thompson: You seem to know whatthe employer situation is.

Mr PETER DOWDING: Let me finish-give me a go.The legislation requires reports to goto the Industrial Relations Com-mission and not to me, and I under-stand that reports have gone to theIndustrial Relations Commission. Ihave not yet received the first reportfrom the chief commissioner, butwould expect to do so when he regardsit appropriate.

Mr Thompson: How can you claim such araging success, then?

Mr PETER DOWDING: Belt up and giveme a chance, will you?

Mr Brian Burke: If you keep at hint, he willburst into a nervous giggle.

Mr PETER DOWDING: Some of themburst into tears when you attack them,and I do not want to do that.I have been informed by a number ofemployers that they have made re-ports to the Industrial Relations Com-mission, and of the substance of thosereports; but as it is a matter for theChief Industrial Commissioner itwould be inappropriate for me to takeany action.

POPULATIONLow Birthrate

319. Mrs WATKINS, to the Minister forWomen's Interests:(1) Is he aware of an article which ap-

peared in yesterday's edition of TheWest Australian newspaper entitled"Warning over low birth rate"?

(2) Would he care to comment on the ac-curacy of the allegation that feminismis a threat to population growth?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) and (2) 1 must say that during the past

few weeks I have expected someoneeither to hand me a VC for bravery incombat or to shoot me and put me outof my misery, but when I read anarticle like that I realise that the Op-position really does have more on itsplate than it can handle.This article demonstrates that notonly is feminism anything but a threatto the birth rate, but also that thosepeople who are prominent in respectof the Liberal Party's cause do notseem to understand much about theirown community or the way in which itcan be advanced. I refer members tothe article, which is headed "Warningover low birth rate", in which MrBrian Peachey is quoted. He is aspokesman for the WA branch of theAustralian Family Association, andsomeone who has prominentlysupported the Opposition during thecourse of the Midland abattoir in-quiry. In a monumental demon-stration of intellectual prowess, MrPeachey reaches the following con-clusion-

3712

(Tuesday, 28 October 1 986] 71

People would simply recycle their-old family homes and the build-ing trade would be halved."The decline in population(growth) makes it economicallyand commercially ludicrous foranyone to build a new brickworksin WA,- said Mr Peachey.

I have not seen the Opposition rush todisown this piece of nonsense. Wheredoes the Opposition stand? Are we allto go forth and propagate, or am I torestrain myself on the basis that if I donot, someone might set up a brick-works in opposition to Mr New? Itreally is something the Leader of theOpposition should stand up and dis-own. How can these people, so wel-come to the cause of the Oppositionon other occasions, be allowed to saythese sorts of things?

Mr MacKinnon: It is a free country.Mr BRIAN BURKE: I know it is a free

country, and the Leader of the Oppo-sition is free to dissociate himselffrom this, in the same way as it islegitimate for me to ask where the Op-position stands on the changes toTAPE, and on the GEHA housing rentincreases. Where does the Oppositionstand on any number of importantmatters concerning the communitytoday?

Mr Watt: Just worry about those polis.

Mr Laurance: You must be desperate tocome in here blackguarding promi-nent Catholics.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Thai is a tribute tothe level on which the member forGascoyne thinks, it realty is, havinglast Thursday once again beendemonstrated to be-

Mr Lightfoot: What has it to do with thequestion?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: What does the mem-ber mean? It has a lot to do with theinterjection, surely? Am I allowed toanswer the interjections, or not? Whenmembers opposite stop interiecting, Iwill stop answering them.Having demonstrated last Thursdaythat the member for Gascoyne is pre-pared to make a whole array of accu-sations, which within two hours are

denied by such suspicious witnesses asthe Commi ssioner of PolIice-

Mr Laurance: Untruthful.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The member forGascoyne says the Commissioner ofPolice is untruthful.

Let me get back to the question,because the member for Murchison-Eyre wants the question answered.

Does the member think the declinein population makes it economicallyand commercially ludicrous for any-body to build a new brickworks? Doeshe support that nonsense? A minuteago, he was interjecting.

A Government member interjected.Mr BRIAN BURKE: The member should

not say "red herring" in front of themember for Murchison-Eyre-weknow how that will send him off. Thenext thing is, he will be staking amining claim in the precincts of Par-liament House-he has already doneKalgoorlie.

The article in question is a load ofnonsense, and every time the Oppo-sition refuses to grasp the nettle, everytime it attacks legitimate and right-thinking women in our communitywho want only to advance theinterests of the community, and everytime it fails 1o confront that nonsense,it takes one step further backwards,regardless of the polls.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTESIllegal: Government Action

320. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forIndustrial Relations:

My question relates to the Govern-ment's policies and practices, and notto someone outside the House forwhom the Government is not respon-sible. I refer the Minister to commentsattributed to Mr Alan Bond in today'sedition of The West Australian, inwhich he said-

unless the Government acted onillegal union stoppages, projectssuch as the David Jones sitewould remain vacant and the sec-ond and third stages of Observa-tion City would not go ahead.

1117)

3713

3714 [ASSEMBLY]

(1) What action has thetaken in the past weeklegal union stoppagessites?

Governmentto combat ii-on building

(2) What action does the Governmentnow contemplate taking to combat il-legal union action on building sites?

Mr Brian Burke: More than you ever did.Mr PETER DOWDING replied:(1) and (2) It is very true to say that the

Government has done more than theLiberal Opposition ever did when inGovernment. One of the problemswas that when we came into office weinherited a system under which theway the previous Government solvedindustrial disputes was to buy its wayout of them. We have put an end tothat.The director of the Master BuildersAssociation has acknowledged todayin a public statement that the Govern-ment's actions are not only effectivebut are also actually beginning to bite,and employers are now prepared tostand shoulder to shoulder and notpay out unreasonable or illegal de-mands. That is as a result of theGovernment's action, not as a resultof anything the Opposition has done,or said, or even suggested. It is theresult of our own actions.The second comment I would make isthat neither the Opposition nor theGovernment runs the industrial re-lations of individual companies. It isthe responsibility of each company tomanage its industrial relations. I amquite sure that no employer runs intothe Leader of the Opposition's officeand expects him to go out and solve anindustrial dispute. The place to dothat is in an industrial commission-State or Federal-and that is wherethese disputes should go.I will say this, and I am quite happythat it be said publicly: Some em-ployers have not been prepared to usethe facilities that are provided forthem in the two industrial com-missions, and it will continue to beimpossible to deal with industrial dis-ruption unless people are prepared touse the Federal and State industrialcommissions. I urge employers to dothat, and not simply to expect that by

paying an unreasonable demand or byasking for someone to say somethingabout it, that demand will go away.The sooner that is understood, and thesooner members opposite stop sayingsilly things-

Mr Court: We know your stupidschemes-they do not comply withthe Industrial Relations Commission.

Mr PETER DOWDING: The patent ab-surdity of that is a vote of no confi-dence in the Master Builders Associ-ation, because we have been workingside by side with them, giving themthe support that they have asked usfor. We have done everything theyhave asked us to do, and everythingwe have done has been done in consul-tation with them. Therefore anythingthe member for Nedlands says by wayof criticism is a criticism of the peoplewho are actually involved in the build-ing industry.We will go through this performanceuntil we get some discipline in thatindustry-that is, discipline on allsides-and it is now beginning to bite.I am pleased to see that the Oppo-sition is beginning to understand thatrhetoric is not enough and that actionmust occur. That action is exactlywhat the Government has taken.

MEMBER FOR EAST MELVILLECar Tampering: Police Investigations

321. Dr WATSON, to the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services:(1) Was the

ChamberMelvillenation?

Ministerwhen themade his

present in themember for East

personal expla-

(2) If so, will he advise the House of thebasis upon which he sought a reporton police investigations into alle-gations concerning the member forEast Melville's car?

Mr GORDON HILL replied:(1) Yes, I was present in the Chamber and

heard the member's personal expla-nation in which, amongst other mat-ters, he expressed the view that it wasimproper of police to supply me withinformation concerning their inquir-ies-

3714


(2) The allegation of unlawful inter-ference with the member for EastMelville's car was made public as aresult of the statement made in thisHouse on Wednesday, 15 October1986, after which the allegation wasbroadcast by the media, including me-dia circulating locally in the electorateof both the member for East Melvilleand that of the chairman of the upperHouse committee, who was quick totake political advantage of the issue asoutlined in the question answered inthis House by the Deputy Premier onThursday, 23 October 1986.

Mr Brian Burke: Is that the answer wherethe member for Gascoyne was onceagain proved to be a weeny bit off themark?

Mr GORDON HILL: That was the ques-tion where the member for Gascoyneshowed that he and the chairman ofthe upper House committee were con-siderably off the mark.

Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! Order! I do not

think!I have given any evidence of be-ing testy today, but I am certainly get-ting that way with people deliberatelyignoring me. I ask very nicely that forthe rest of question time memberslisten very carefully and, when I callfor order, come to order. If membersdo not, I will take action against them.

Mr GORDON HILL: My request for a re-port from the police followedimmediately upon a speech by themember for Gascoyne in which he,carelessly and obviously without anyproper inquiry, made a quite outland-ish claim that the Government wasnot taking the matter seriously.The allegation was made public in thisplace and responded to in this place.It is quite unnecessary for inquiries tohave been completed before a pictureof substantial clarity emerges. What Ireported to the Deputy Premier, andwhat he conveyed to this House, wasthat the clearly emerging picture wasthat there was no evidence to supportthe allegation of unlawful interferenceand, indeed, substantial evidence ofmechanical failure as an explanationfor the condition of the member forEast Melville's vehicle.

The member for East Melville said inhis explanation that the word"conclusion" mean "end of inquiry".The Concise Oxford Dictionary in-forms me that it also means"inference". The Deputy Premier ad-vised the House of the inferenceknown by the police from evidenceknown to them at the time of my in-quiry of them. A balanced consider-ation of his answer confirms that thereal thrust of my advice to the DeputyPremier was that certain members ofthe Opposition-and I do not includethe member for East Melville-couldhave saved themselves embarrassmentif they had kept, or been kept, up-to-date with developments before mak-ing sensational claims before a properinquiry was at least at an advancedstage and reasonable inferences couldbe drawn. Those conclusions whichthe police informed me of were accu-rately conveyed to the House. lastThursday by the Deputy Premier.

WATER RESOURCESAgaton: Development

322. Mr SCHELL, to the Minister for WaterResources:(1) Has the Minister given consideration

to my submission for an extendedAgaton water scheme which wouldsupplement an expanded country andgoldfields water scheme to reticulatedesignated water-deficient areas andto meet increased goldfields demands?

(2) If "Yes", what steps is he taking tomake himself aware of the costs andbenefits of the proposal?

(3) Is he aware that the proposed alterna-tive-the development of on-farmwater supplies-to the original Agatonproposal has many deficiencies in thesupply of a reliable source of clean,fresh water to farmland in the north-eastern wheatbelt, and that the costlyexercise of carting water has not beenreduced in this area?

Mr BRIDGE replied:(1) to (3) 1 thank the member for some

notice of his question.I am very much aware of the concernthat has been expressed by the farmingcommunity of the area involved in re-

3715

3716 ASSEMBLY]

spect of the deficiencies currently be-ing experienced with water supplies inthe region. The member will recallthat some little while ago we had adiscussion in which he raised with methe matter of my undertaking a visit tothe area to examine the problem atfirst hand and to discuss measureswhich might see some effective andfurther examination of this proposedscheme.

Since I became the Minister for WaterResources I have had many dis-cussions about this matter with otherinterested people. For example, theMinister for Agriculture has talkedwith me at considerable length aboutreviving the Agaton scheme, if poss-ible, in lieu of the existing on-farmmethod of supplying water. Hon. JimBrown in the other House has alsomade constant representations to meon this matter.

I am aware of the problems involved,and because of the concerns expressedI sought to have the Water Authorityprovide me with an up-to-date reviewof the scheme, giving regard to theproblems that currently are associatedwith it. In a nutshell it is really thecost of the scheme which must receiveour consideration and with which wemust come to grips if we are to doanything about the scheme.

The scheme fits the vision of peoplelike me and, of course, the manyfarmers in the area, who quite clearlysee it as the only effective way of pro-viding the type of water supply theysee as being essential. To that end Iam very keen to visit the area as soonas possible and examine at first handwhat is involved and discuss with thecommunity there some way in whichwe might be able to advance this pro-gramme a stage or two down the track,notwithstanding the very great Lostinvolved and our present inability tocome up with the required funds.

I give the member my firm commit-ment that I will pursue the scheme aspositively as I am able. I expect tovisit the area in the next couple ofweeks. I will inform the local membersinvolved so that they and interestedpeople in the area can discuss the

scheme with me in a series of meet-ings. After that visit we may be able toproceed further down the track. I amkeen to look at the Agaton scheme in apositive way with a view to possiblyreviving it at some time.

SPORT AND RECREATION: COMMUNITYCAMP

Noatimba: Closure323. Mr D. L. SMITH, to the Minister for

Sport and Recreation:Will the Minister outline what actionsare being taken to offset the proposedclosure of the Noalimba hostel?

Mr WILSON replied:I thank the member for his questionbecause I welcome the opportunity toreassure members that every effortwill be made to assist the groups affec-ted by the closure of Noalimba to findsuitable alternatives.The decision to close the hostel fol-lows a period of two years duringwhich the Government has borne thecost of providing the community witha service not previously available; but,despite some success in increasing thelevel of usage, the experience hasshown that in its current formNoalimba is no longer a viableproposition. It is therefore proposedthat between now and the date of clos-ure, a feasibility study will beundertaken which will take full ac-count of the accommodation needs ofthe different user groups, includingthose from country regions, theAustralian Institute of Sport hockeyunit, and sports associations.Preliminary discussions have beenheld with some of the relevant groups.The study will give consideration toall reasonable options which may in-clude the partial redevelopment ofNoalimba or the establishment of aself-sustaining accommodation unitnear the WA sports centre, or in someother suitable location.Where appropriate, increased use willalso be made of other Department ofSport and Recreation facilities in themetropolitan area. The capacity toservice groups through this means has

3716

(Tuesday, 28 October 19861

been greatly enhanced by the Govern-ment's recent $1.8 million redevelop-ment of the Pant Walter conferencecentre.

Finally, I am pleased to confirm thatall existing Noalimba. bookings for useof the hostel before the end of Aprilnext year will be honoured.

3717

?Eeiulatiue AssembI4; Metropolitan Zone

Documents