Mr KOBELKE: In early February when I wrote to the minister outlining some of these matters.
The very next day I went with Hugh Cahill, a local resident and chairman of the Mirrabooka Action Group, to see Dr Jenkins head of the DEP and showed him the video and pointed out the clear contraventions of the licence requirement. Just aftermidnight that very night I rang through on the emergency line to the DEP and pleaded to have an officer down there first thing in the morning to obtain evidence so that action could be taken. I do not have faith that anything effective was done to get that evidence. I now have further documentary evidence that two or three weeks later Atlas was still dumping putrescible waste at night. The DEP has not been effective in ensuring that the licence conditions are being upheld.I refer now to the deception regarding the solid waste treatment plant. When the Government started to tighten up on the conditions it became clear to Atlas that in managing that landfill site it would have to close it down or spend a great deal of money to conform to the conditions. At that stage it decided it would build a high- tech solid waste treatment plant. Unsorted waste would be put through that plant, and out of the other end of the plant would come gas that could be used to generate energy that could be fed back into the grid system or sold. The plant would also produce a soil conditioner that would add humus and nutrients to the soil, and to which fertiliser could be added. According to Atlas, to date that proposal has cost in the order of $20m. The planning approval for that proposal went through in four weeks. I have never heard of a major new industry in the middle of a residential area being approved by this Government in four weeks. That approval was clearly rushed through without any real public consultation.
On the surface, it is a great project. We are all concerned about how to dispose of the waste that is created by our community in a way that will have the least impact on the environment. Therefore, it appeared to be a godsend that unsorted municipal waste could be used to produce energy which would reduce the amount of methane that is going into the atmosphere, with the problems that creates, and that could also be used to produce a soil conditioner in a State like Western Australia with sandy soil that does require products of that nature. However, it is simply not working. That has led people to suspect that the whole proposal is just a con. This type of plant has never worked anywhere in the world. It is a world first. Biodigestors have been established in many countries, and they work extremely well with a fairly specific waste stream. However, to my knowledge, no biodigestor has been able to work with a large volume of unsorted waste. It is critical to the successful operation of such a plant that the front-end sorting process achieve a high standard of waste separation. This plant has not been able to do that.
I turn now to the deception. There is clearly no deception in trying to do something. The deception is that this plant has been heralded as a great success.In early 1997, the City of Stirling put out a flyer headed "Clean and Green." The caption at the bottom of that flyer states, "Save our recyclables from landfill!" The flyer states -
The City's commitment is to eliminate all kitchen and green waste from landfill by 1998. Kitchen and other organic waste collected from domestic "wheelie bins" is already being composted in a state of the art plant commissioned in May 1997.
It states that this state-of-the-art plant that was commissioned in May 1997 is already composting waste. However, in March 1999, the plant is not yet operational, and to my knowledge it has not produced one handful of what may be considered to be the soil improver that was promised at the commencement of the project. What the company handed around at the start of the project was little bags of pellets that had been produced by a chemist in a research kitchen. It continued to depict those pellets in its photographs as product from the plant. However, that product came from that research kitchen and not from the plant, because to date the plant has not worked.
The plant has been seeded with biomass to trial start the decomposition, but it has not yet started to treat in any volume domestic waste from the City of Stirling. A clear impression has been created that this wonderful high-tech plant is working, but it is not working, and that is clearly a deception. The Government has been caught up in this deception, whether by oversight or otherwise, because it gave a green award to this company for what it was supposed to be doing, when the plant is not working at all. That is clearly a major embarrassment for the Government.
Two years after the establishment of this plant, it is not working, yet the company is claiming it is working. What is the company doing? It is dumping the waste illegally at night, or during the day if no DEP inspectors are around. We have received statements from the workers and former workers - not disgruntled workers, but workers who had to resign from the company because of the health problems from which they were suffering as a result of this waste treatment process, and who received letters of commendation from the company. The DEP claims that it knows nothing about this matter. The reason is that when the DEP tells Atlas that it is coming to the plant, the workers are told," Do not put it on the landfill for the moment because some government inspectors may come here", so the waste is kept on the trucks and is dumped after the DEP inspectors have moved on. The claim that the plant is working is false, and the company is flouting its licence conditions to get rid of the waste.
Another aspect of the problem that is even more concerning is that a lot of the waste that has gone through the sorting plant is loaded onto trucks and taken to a farm at Calingiri. The DEP has licensed that dumping. I told Dr Jenkins when he informed me that he had licensed that dumping that I found it difficult to believe that any other metropolitan council would be allowed to put its domestic rubbish through a trundle and cut it into small pieces, and dump it on a farm, yet claim that met the conditions for landfill disposal. That is ludicrous. No standards have been established for the levels of heavy metals,bacterium and pathogens that will be allowed. Therefore, anyone could set up a process and say, "We are recycling; we are putting it on a farm." That is absolute nonsense and cannot be supported in any way. I have known that this has been taking place for some time, yet I stood back and waited, because the promises that had been made about this plant were so great that I thought this was just an interim measure until the plant was up and running. However, two years later, Atlas is still dumping this waste on a farm at Calingiri, and the DEP seems to think that is okay. It is totally unacceptable that the full stream of domestic waste can be simply dumped on a farm; that is what it is. The sorting plant extracts some of the elements of that waste, but it is simply a sizing operation where the waste is shredded down to size so that it can be dumped on that farm; and any waste that cannot be shredded is dumped on the site illegally. Tens of thousands of tonnes of municipal waste is being dumped illegally, because the waste stream from the City of Stirling is about 60 000 tonnes per year, and the DEP has been totally ineffectual in controlling that dumping. We hope the minister will tell us what will be done to try to pull this company into line, because the way it is operating now is making a joke of the DEP.
I commend the Government for putting in place a landfill levy that is to be applied even if municipal waste from metropolitan Perth is dumped outside of the metropolitan area. That landfill levy still applies, but, to my knowledge, no landfill levy has been imposed on Atlas for all the rubbish that it has taken to Calingiri. Atlas is circumventing a law that has been passed by this Parliament which requires that a levy be paid on landfill. To my knowledge, the DEP has done absolutely nothing about that matter, and when I discussed it with its officers, they said they calculate the levy on the amount of waste that is recorded by the weighbridge. Does anyone honestly believe that a company that flouts so many sections of its licence will keep an accurate record at the weighbridge? I can give the minister evidence of where rubbish has been deposited on that site but has not gone over the weighbridge, just to prove that the minister cannot rely on Atlas to keep accurate records of what has been trucked to that site. A landfill levy of $3 per tonne is simply not being collected on tens of thousands of tonnes of waste, because the DEP has not gotten around to doing that, or whatever other excuse it may put forward. The minister should be aware by now that the Atlas site has an appalling record of total mismanagement by the DEP, and an appalling record of Atlas trying to flout the law at every turn when that will be to its advantage.
I commend the Government for putting in place the guidelines for landfill, even though I may want to argue about how good they are, because the Government watered down the guidelines that we had in place. I also commend it for amending the Environmental Protection Act to allow licensing to take place. However, that is of no value whatsoever if enforcement provisions are not put in place so that the end standards are improved. At Mirrabooka the end standards have not been improved, despite all the things that have taken place in this Parliament, as well as the issuing of licences. We need to ensure that they are applied and that the penalties are increased. If the penalties are increased with a view to using them, this is a case in which the maximum penalty should be applied.
My view of the Department of Environmental Protection is that the officers have been caught out. Like most government agencies, it is underresourced, with not enough people to do the job. The officers' approach was naive. They thought that they were there simply to check that Atlas was doing the right thing and were conforming with the standards. Over many years, Atlas has shown itself to be a rogue operator. It is not a company that can be trusted to conform to the letter of the law.
In addition to that, there have been major changes in the DEP staff in the past year or so. The previous staff, who were starting to realise the problem with which they were confronted and were trying to address it, moved on. The new staff numbers who came into reasonably senior positions gave Atlas the benefit of the doubt, and Atlas took total advantage of them and took them for a ride. In my opinion, they are the reasons that the Department of Environmental Protection has failed.
It has also failed in major ways with respect to consultation with the local community. That has left the local community with a much less forgiving view of the DEP. The minister may be aware of that. Fortunately, I live a couple of kilometres on the right side of the Atlas site when the wind blows. Therefore, I do not get the smell very often. However, the people who live in that vicinity - in Mirrabooka and Noranda - have to contend with it from day to day, week to week, and month to month. If the minister had to live in that situation, she would not be forgiving of a government department which totally failed to uphold the standards that had been laid down, compliance with which had been promised to the people in that area. My constituents, who have been long-suffering because of the Atlas site, can only blame corruption or the total incompetence of the DEP.
Mrs Edwardes: Are you saying that the department is corrupt?
Mr KOBELKE: The minister should listen. I gave four reasons why I can rationalise the total failure of the DEP.
Mrs Edwardes: That is a very serious allegation.
Mr KOBELKE: It is, and there are hundreds of people in Mirrabooka and Noranda who believe it is corruption.
That is what I am saying to the minister. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people who live in that area see the failure after failure of the DEP, and they are led to believe that the actions of the DEP result from total incompetence or corruption. I could continue for hours with the litany of failures which I have attributed to under-resourcing, the general approach of thedepartment and the change of staff. I am willing to give the DEP the benefit of the doubt. However, the minister should be in no doubt that the voters in Ballajura and Nollamara view this as total incompetence or, worse, corruption. Let us consider the litany of failure. The minister can change the views of the electors of Nollamara and Ballajura by delivering. It is that simple. They do not want more undertakings and promises from her.
Mrs Edwardes: I am disappointed in your behaviour. I held you in much higher regard. I did not think you would make such allegations against officers based on what people have said. It is almost as if you are supporting their comments. It is absolutely appalling.
Mr KOBELKE: It is not the scuttlebutt of one or two residents who are sick of the nonsense. It is common talk among people in all those suburbs. The Liberal Party has been in government for six years, and these people have seen the problem getting worse. Despite the statements that the minister made in her press release nearly two years ago, she has not delivered. I presented video evidence to Dr Jenkins when I saw him. Numerous letters have been sent and meetings have been held in which people who have worked at the site have said what is happening. Why has Atlas not been prosecuted?
Mrs Edwardes: When your constituents raise the issue of corruption, do you ask them for evidence? Do you say that it is a serious matter? Do you support the public servants because of the complex and difficult job that they are required to perform, particularly in regard to this matter, or do you just nod?
Mr KOBELKE: In this place previously I have acknowledged the hard work of those people. If the minister had been listening to me, rather than being so busy with her notes, she would have heard me point out what I was willing to accept as the reasons for this total failure. However, the views of people in the community will not change if the minister is not willing to act decisively. We want stringent compliance with the conditions of the licence and full enforcement of it. I will give an example of how the minister can do that. There is a need for a works approval extension. Is that currently before the minister?
Mrs Edwardes: That is the one under appeal, yes.
Mr KOBELKE: Thank you. In relation to that works approval, the minister can set the time for which a further extension will be given. If she gave it six months, 12 months or two years, she would have no leverage over the company to make it comply in an effective way. I am calling on the minister to give a minimal extension of that works approval and ensure that strict conditions go with it. Therefore, if within three or four months the plant is not operational and the company has not complied in every way with the requirements of the licence, that should be the end of the matter. There should be no further extensions; the plant should be dismantled and removed. If I had my way, I would simply close it down tomorrow and tell the company to remove it from the site. The minister must comply with the laws she administers.
Mrs Edwardes: How many employees are at the plant?
Mr KOBELKE: The employees there are an issue which should not be dragged up to try to get around -
Mrs Edwardes: I am asking how many employees are at that plant?
Mr KOBELKE: That is not an issue, because if the City of Stirling waste was dealt with according to the law, there would be many more jobs. The workers will not be with Atlas, but there will be more jobs if the waste goes to Red Hill or Tamala Park. It will cost the ratepayers more -
Mrs Edwardes: I asked how many employees are on the Atlas site?
Mr KOBELKE: I do not know the answer. However, that is a red herring because compliance with the regulations will create more jobs. It will mean some people will have to change to other companies, but it will create more jobs. This company employs few people because it does not comply with the standards laid down in the licence. The request I make of the minister is that with respect to the works approval, she should ensure that there are stringent conditions, that a limited extension of time is granted, and if the company does not reach the required standard, she should grant no further extensions, require the plant to be closed and, with the assistance of the Western Australian Planning Commission, have it removed from the site.
This matter has gone on for far too long. We were hopeful that the minister was addressing it in an effective way. On the surface, the steps she has taken have been in the right direction, and I give her credit for that. However, there must be enforcement. It is pointless increasing the penalties in the Act if they are not enforced. We have ample evidence that they have not been enforced. I hope that the minister will be on our side on this matter, that she will ensure that the highest standards are maintained, and that she will use the administrative procedures available to her to immediately require Atlas to conform with all requirements. If it does not conform, she should follow all the procedures with respect to fines and withdrawal of the various approvals to ensure that the plant is closed down and that there is no longer a waste disposal operation on the Atlas site in Noranda.
DR EDWARDS (Maylands) [4.29 pm]: In 1995 I was a member of the Select Committee on Recycling and WasteManagement. I first came across Atlas and its proposals at that time. In fact, the committee was rather impressed with what the company was trying to do. On page 15 of the committee's report, reference was made to Atlas, and the new technology that involved the biodigestion plant was described.
We went through how that would work in some detail; waste would be degraded in an anaerobic environment, methane and carbon dioxide would be produced and the methane would be used as a power supply for the nearby brickworks. The committee praised this idea. Obviously it was a system which private enterprise was putting into effect and the energy component meant that it was cost effective for it to do so. It also meant that the City of Stirling could address its problem of running out of landfill. At that time, some of us thought it was too good to be true but when we looked into the proposal in detail and cross-examined witnesses who appeared before us, we received a lot of information which seemed to indicate that the proposal could work; therefore, the committee supported it. An item we raised which is pertinent today was food waste. Food waste is a problem because it is organic waste and decomposes. The committee was somewhat sympathetic to Atlas' notion that with its biodigestives there might soon be an alternative to disposing of food waste in landfill. Such an alternative would be a very good idea.
This afternoon I will describe the chronology of events to show that the select committee's optimism was ill-founded and that local residents and the surrounding communities have been left with a potential environmental disaster. As early as 1995 there were problems with the Atlas site when asbestos was seen to be driven over. Members would know that disposing of asbestos can be undertaken with suitable precautions but if one exposes asbestos to the elements and drives over it, the fibres are likely to be released which can cause environmental and health problems. In 1995 Atlas was pulled into line and told that it must dispose of its asbestos in the proper manner as prescribed by the regulations. Around this time we thought the whole process would be operational by early 1996. Unfortunately, that was not so and as the member for Nollamara indicated, it is questionable whether the whole process as initially described is fully operational even today. I hope the minister can shed some light on that.
There is some confusion about the term biodigestion. To me, it is the final process when waste is anaerobically cooked and passes through that part of the scheme. From the information given to me, I am not confident that that is happening and I think biodigestion is the term being applied to all the processes that take place at the so-called "front end" of the process. I hope the minister can also clarify that.
As far back as 1996 when the project was all meant to be up and running, it was not ready and we had the first extension to the land filling. In July 1996, the Minister for the Environment received a memorandum from people within the Department of Environmental Protection spelling out the concerns the department had about Atlas. This memorandum was written in response to pressure from somebody, presumably linked to Atlas, who had probably complained that the department was not being sympathetic enough to Atlas. The department had been in a difficult position during this time. However, the department pointed out that even by June 1996 Atlas had been given special approval to continue land filling putrescible waste despite regulations flowing from the Select Committee on Recycling and Waste Management meaning that others had had to stop doing so and three other landfills had been forced to close. Atlas was given a special dispensation in the middle of 1996. However, even in that year the Department of Environmental Protection said that staff from its division, which I understand was the waste management division, were having to spend more time with members of staff from Atlas than any other metropolitan landfill, advising them on technical aspects of the landfill operation and assisting them with the community liaison activities. Perhaps what is even more worrying is the listing of the frustrations the department was feeling with Atlas' actions even in 1996. They are listed in the memorandum. The first was that Atlas was not meeting deadlines for completion of its new biodigestion system. Although the DEP was sympathetic, it was continually having to extend those deadlines. It also pointed out that Atlas was not meeting the deadlines for submissions on simple progress reports; that is another worry for the whole community. The DEP said that Atlas was not responding in a professional manner to requests for information about the biodigestion process. In addition, the DEP pointed to a failure to attend to a significant number of what it called "minor operational matters" which were creating a lot of concern in the community. Therefore, even in the early stages of 1996, before the whole thing was properly operational, there were problems with Atlas and with people complaining about the department.
In 1997, the licence conditions were finalised. They covered all the expected issues such as post-closure plans, security of the landfill cap, monitoring reports to the DEP, an internal buffer zone and fence repairs. It was reported around that time that the community was generally happy but the odour problem persisted. On 1 May 1997, the Minister for the Environment released a media statement saying that the Atlas landfill in Mirrabooka would be closed to the dumping of putrescible waste from that date. More importantly, the minister went on to describe putrescible waste. She described it as organic matter such as kitchen scraps, grass clippings and tree prunings which rot down and emit odorous gasses. The minister pointed out something which needs to be restated today given the facts that the member for Nollamara has raised about the continued dumping of this putrescible waste. The minister pointed out that the Atlas landfill site was unlined and located on sandy soil and would contribute to ground water pollution if it continued to accept that type of putrescible waste. As the minister said, it had been the subject of community concern for some time. The minister went on to describe biodigestive plants and the use of methane gas in power generation. Unfortunately, this highlights the problem the community faces today. We havehad videotape evidence provided by the community of two episodes of putrescible waste continuing to be dumped and the Department of Environmental Protection issuing a notice to the company to "please explain". This situation persists nearly two years after it was meant to have concluded. There is ineptitude and incompetence somewhere in there. I hope the minister can clarify to what extent it is Atlas, to what extent the DEP and where the fault lies on both sides.
The next problem which arose was caused by odorous gas. I have seen reference to the internal memorandum from the Health Department in which the chief toxicologist Dr di Marco raised concerns about the emission of dimethyl sulphide from the site. Dimethyl sulphide is a chemical which is not only flammable but also can be carcinogenic. No wonder the community was concerned. There was an odour and if one lived downwind of the odour, one smelt it. Not only was there are an odour, but a carcinogenic gas was contributing to it. People must be concerned if they know that something carcinogenic is in a landfill or process near them. It is a very genuine community concern.
The gas was referred to as being flammable. Unfortunately there were then fires at that tip. Nearby residents are horrified when something is burning in a tip. Who knows what is burning? How can it be controlled? What is being emitted into the atmosphere? At that time, in response to issues I had raised with the minister, I received a letter telling me that there were ongoing concerns but the department was working closely with Atlas. Needless to say, the residents were not reassured. This is part of the irony of the situation. For every problem and every genuine concern in the community, a raft of positive information was released. At the same time there was concern about the fires and the methyl sulphide, the City of Stirling was crowing about the huge amount of waste it was diverting from landfill. At that stage, the figure claimed was 73 per cent. As the member for Nollamara has pointed out, all was not well. Who knows how much of that has ended up in landfills? One of the most stunning episodes was referred to by the member for Nollamara. Late in 1998 the City of Stirling, in conjunction with Atlas Group Ltd, was the winner of a State recycling and waste reduction award. Not long afterwards, the department which had responsibility for all of this - even the awards - issued a show-cause notice to the company as a result of the videos of putrescible waste being dumped in the dead of the night. To summarise: In the mid-1990s this company promised the earth; it promised that it could divert huge amounts of waste from landfill in a cost-effective manner and burn off the gas which would power its brickworks. The City of Stirling was so convinced that it signed a contract that locked it in until 2004.
Right from 1995 the Department of Environmental Protection knew these operators needed very close supervision. I have been over the issues relating to asbestos - the late reports and the failure to provide information. The Department of Environmental Protection must have known this was not the most professional operator in Perth. Today there are still questions about whether the digesters are working. It has been claimed to me that a number of truckloads of sewage have been put in to feed the digester. I hope the minister can throw some light on that. Getting back to the ironies, on one page of the Eastern Suburbs Reporter we read what is going on at the site; on the same page an article shows the real power behind Clean Up Australia Day, Ian Kiernan, at the site, saying what a fantastic solution it is to the waste management problems. The truth is not out, and I hope the minister helps to make it come out.
In March an episode of "Landline" showed the Atlas staff and people from the City of Stirling saying how great this process was. Before this program went to air, the company had been issued with a notice by the Department of Environmental Protection indicating it was breaching its licence conditions. No wonder the community is feeling a bit cynical about this matter. Before the community's eyes, in the dead of night, the residents are seeing putrescible waste put into landfills. They then open their newspapers and read about the chairman of the Clean Up Australia committee saying that this is one of the best processes in Australia. They then switch on their televisions, go to the ABC channel and see "Landline" praising the whole process.
I hope the minister can clarify what goes on at Calingiri. My understanding is that the waste that is put in the front end of the Atlas site, goes through a process and at the other end is trucked to Calingiri. It is put into windrows and it is now being suggested that it be used as compost. I put these questions to the minister: If an awfully dirty nappy went in at the beginning of the process, how do we know it has not ended up on a paddock in Calingiri? Has testing been done to examine the viruses and the bacteriology of the waste there; and what sort of supervision is going on? I know this process is licensed, but given the history of the involvement of the Department of Environmental Protection in this matter, the problems this department has had and the frustrations it listed in great detail in 1996, I ask whether this is being monitored sufficiently for us to reassure the public that all is well. I have much sympathy for the Department of Environmental Protection. I have argued in this placed that that department needs more resources. Since 1993 its tasks have become more complicated and the number of tasks it has had to deal with has increased dramatically. Perhaps the minister can clarify this matter for me: With a switch of the personnel involved, from the waste management division to the pollution prevention division, or whatever the proper terminology is, has there been a lack of communication between those two sections? There is no doubt that the Department of Environmental Protection has failed to force Atlas to comply with the licence conditions. In doing so, it has fed the angst of the members of the community who live around that area and the wider community who are concerned with what is going on.
In conclusion, it is up to the minister to sort out this mess, to tell us exactly what is going on at the Atlas site and in Calingiri, and how all of that is to be resolved; in particular, to tell us what she will do for the Department of Environmental Protectionto make sure it has all the resources, support and backing it needs to do its job properly. If that cannot be delivered, the minister should close down this site.
MR THOMAS (Cockburn) [4.45 pm]: I will illustrate what can happen if these sites are not managed properly, and the later consequences for residents. I refer to Vela-Luka Park in my electorate of Cockburn. It is located in a small subdivision in Spearwood which was built over a site formerly owned by the Fremantle Gas and Coke Co, on which a gas plant manufacturing coal gas was located. Some residual waste was left. There was a dump on the site into which the company got rid of the waste from that process. Long after the company manufactured gas on that site, it applied to the then Department of Conservation and Environment for a clearance to subdivide that land, which it received; in other words, it was given permission to subdivide the site. Subsequently in a portion of that subdivision - that is, the public open space known as Vela-Luka Park - black material has come to the surface, which has caused concern to the residents. That material has been tested and found to contain polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which are carcinogenic. Fortunately, the material does not pollute the water or the air, and if it is not touched, it should not be a matter of concern.
Mr Kobelke: You play on the park, but do not touch the ground.
Mr THOMAS: That is right. To illustrate the seriousness of this matter, from time to time residents dig up samples of this material in their backyards. When there is a possibility of people coming into contact with this material, it is recommended that they should wear gloves, pick it up, put it in a plastic rubbish bag and take it to a toxic waste disposal site. It is pretty dangerous stuff. This material is in the park where children play. As a consequence of advice it has received, the Cockburn City Council has closed the park. It has been fenced off for 15 months, while someone sorts out what will happen to it.
The residents of the City of Cockburn believe the State Government is responsible because the then Department of Conservation and Environment gave a clearance and said it was okay for the area to be subdivided, subject to certain treatment of the material that remained from the Fremantle Gas and Coke plant. It seems that the treatment involved shoving a bit of sand over it. The residents of Spearwood want Vela-Luka Park cleaned up so it can be reopened. This illustrates the importance of tips for waste, be it industrial or domestic waste or whatever, being managed properly so that later, when residential developments encroach near or on those areas, they do not cause conflict and trouble for the people living there.
MRS EDWARDES (Kingsley - Minister for the Environment) [4.48 pm]: I thank members opposite for their comments. In the first instance, I will refer to Vela-Luka Park. I had the opportunity to meet with the residents in and around that area last week. I indicated to them that we would be proceeding with the clean-up of the site and that I would get back to them within a month to work out the timing - winter is a good time - to remove that material. The member for Cockburn indicated that some of the residents are actually picking up the material in their own yards. It has been shown that there is no health risk associated with the material that was found on residents' properties and tested. We have offered testing for anybody else who might have a similar concern. Therefore, it is the site of a park which has received all the contamination. One can see how it happened in those days with the material being pushed down into that area. It is a matter that has taken far too long for a decision to be made but that is because there are always a number of steps in these matters that need to take place. Those steps are: Firstly, to determine what is the level of the contamination; secondly, what is the best method of dealing with the material; and, thirdly, which body will pay for it?
There are a large number of contaminated sites in and around Perth. Many of those sites will not cause any problems and will become an issue for the Government of the day only when there is an application for redevelopment or rezoning and the like. However, where there is a health risk or a potential contamination of our waterways, that clearly requires immediate and urgent action and those steps are implemented in order to make a determination. Legislation on contaminated sites will come forward in the next round of amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. That will clearly identify a polluter-pays system. It is legislation that is long overdue and will clearly spell out to the community at large the method by which the whole issue of contaminated sites will be dealt with rather than as they are presently on a one-off basis.
However, this Government cannot be criticised for not taking action on contaminated sites. We have undertaken one of the largest clean-ups on the Omex site. In excess of $6m is being spent which shows our bona fides in ensuring that where there is a potential contamination - in that instance to the underground water - action is taken and will be followed up by a real commitment by the input of dollars and seeking the best practice for the removal of the contamination from that site.
The Government does not support the motion primarily because some of the premises outlined in the motion are incorrect. I will go through that with the member for Nollamara. However, I put on the record that the Government and the Department of Environmental Protection are committed to improving the environmental performance of the Atlas site and achieving and maintaining an accepted level of environmental protection for those areas. The member for Nollamara asked how I would like it if I lived in such a location. I do have experience of living in a buffer zone next to a waste water treatment plant. Many of the environmental decisions that I make are as a result of past poor planning. In the area in which I live where houses have been built within a buffer zone of a waste water treatment plant, yes, I cop the smells, as do all the other residents around me; and that is not acceptable. The rezoning that occurred on the Atlas site, again, was a poor planning decision that was taken by the Labor Government - I just checked my notes as we went through the debate. Mr Kobelke: Why are you continuing to open up new subdivisions in north Dianella? They are even closer.
Mrs EDWARDES: It is not acceptable to make planning decisions that put people in locations where they will be subjected to noise, dust and odour. In this case to a limited extent it is noise.>
Mr Kobelke: Your Government is subdividing St Andrews estate. That is closer to the plant than the people in Mirrabooka.
Mrs EDWARDES: The member for Nollamara cannot get around what actually happened and how the zoning occurred.
Mr Kobelke: So why are you continuing to do subdivisions in St Andrews estate?
Mrs EDWARDES: Let us return to the issue on the odour. I acknowledge what the residents are experiencing because I have been there and I have travelled that path on a regular basis. I know that the smell in those areas is even greater during the Christmas period and in the dry summer months. It has been worse this year than in the past year. Therefore, when the residents, whom I met last week, talk to me about the odour, I have first-hand experience of what they are living with; and I would not like it, and I do not accept that they have to put up with that either. That is the reason for the Government taking these issues seriously.
I would like to point out to members opposite a couple of things that are taking place and of which I am sure they are aware. I cannot understand the reason for the member for Nollamara bringing forward the motion other than perhaps for political purposes. He knows already that the Department of Environmental Protection is investigating those three instances which involved Atlas. That information is with the Crown Solicitor's Office. Prosecutions do not occur straight away. One must to deliver a "show cause" letter; then the Government will get the proper legal advice on the matter. I do not want to jeopardise any potential prosecution by debating those issues in this place. The DEP has investigated those three incidents. We are getting legal advice and we are continuing to collect other relevant evidence as a result of those investigations. Therefore, it is not a matter of not taking enforcement action or prosecuting. These things do not happen overnight. It is presently under consideration. The legal solution is not the only mechanism in the DEP's enforcement policy.
As to the current situation, I indicated that the works approval was under appeal; that is wrong, the licence and conditions attached are presently under appeal.
The mere fact that the residents themselves have not appealed against those ministerial conditions tends to indicate that the conditions are acceptable to the community at large. The point has been made that in the past those conditions have been breached and there has been no follow-up action on that breach. I intend to ensure that there are clearly set out benchmarks. Breaches of ministerial conditions are not acceptable. Section 58 of the Environmental Protection Act says that it is an offence to contravene a licence condition and that the offence carries a penalty of up to $125 000 with a daily penalty of up to $25 000. We regard those breaches under that section as very serious and when there is a breach of a ministerial condition attached to that licence, we will take it seriously.
The company has been heavily involved in this site over a long period of time. However, the member for Nollamara, the community, the DEP and I have reached the limit of our patience. We are concerned about potential breaches. We are concerned about the ongoing dissatisfaction in the community which indicates that things are not as they should be. We are moving towards best practice licences. However, some companies will never achieve best practice licences. It will only ever be a small number of people who will never achieve best practice, but that will take up the resources of the regulator, in this instance, the Department of Environmental Protection. In the past two months, the Department of Environmental Protection has contributed huge resources. Twenty-one officers have visited the site over the past two months on an average of once every two days. Not all of those visits have been with prior notice; they have been unannounced.
Mr Kobelke: Are they taking a core sample to determine how much waste is going to areas where it should not?
Mrs EDWARDES: I have information on what water has been taken. My office may be able to find the answer to that question for the member while I am on my feet. All the complaints made since 11 February were investigated immediately. The chief executive officer, Dr Brian Jenkins, has involved himself in finding an environmental solution for this site. During that appeal process of the licence, discussions have been underway with the City of Stirling as well. The contract belongs to it and the Government is the regulator. As such, it has indicated that it would like to play a much greater role than it has played in the past. I applaud and encourage that. The Government is attempting to find a solution for residents. I encourage the City of Stirling to be involved, as the mayor has told me it would. That will provide a greater level of assistance for and surveillance of the operation because not only will the DEP officers investigate complaints, but the City of Stirling officers will also become much more heavily involved in the investigations. We will be setting benchmarks which we will work through with the City of Stirling as well as with the company. The works approval expires on 5 April 1999. That is not the one that is under appeal; that is the one that expires then and we will be putting through the benchmarking.
Mr Kobelke: That is not far away
Mrs EDWARDES: It is not. The appeal will be determined before 5 April. It is appropriate that the appeal lays down conditions and identifies benchmarks for this operation to ensure a greater level of environmental approval. Mr Kobelke: What can you tell the House at this time about your attitude toward the works approval?
Mrs EDWARDES: I am still to receive the appeal advice.
Mr Kobelke: Is that separate from the appeal licence?
Mrs EDWARDES: It is, but it is important to determine that appeal prior to the works approval expiration, and I will be doing that.
Mr Kobelke: I accept that. That gives you a chance to ensure tight conditions are included in the licence. However, the issue to which I specifically referred in my speech was that the further extension you gave on the works approval was a critical element of what control you could exercise over Atlas.
Mrs EDWARDES: I believe the conditions that will be included in the licence - obviously they are under appeal and still to be determined - together with the benchmarks that we are setting and the tight time frames that will be set, will allow the works approval to be extended. However, I have no intention of extending that works approval for a lengthy period. Sufficient compliance has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction to warrant such a long extension of the works approval. The first step is to determine the appeal with respect to the conditions.
The other issue of concern is the amount of resources that have gone into site inspections and responding to complaints. The DEP has undertaken noise, odour and dust monitoring to assist in the enforcement of compliance and where appropriate, action to remedy dust and noise problems has been required on the Atlas site. Management programs are also being prepared by Atlas as part of the licence enforcement action. Clearly, the DEP has and will continue to enforce the requirements of the licence conditions for the Atlas site because breaches are regarded as being extremely serious. The award to the City of Stirling was given for its efforts to divert domestic waste from landfill. I admit that I missed the member's point on that matter, because the organic materials are used currently for the production of compost. There is no question of deception on that account. The award was determined by a judging panel comprising representatives of business, industry, local and state government bodies.
Mr Kobelke: I am not saying they were compliant; I am saying they were conned.
Mrs EDWARDES: The member's suggestion is absolute nonsense. Is the member suggesting that these people have been involved in something untoward when giving this award?
Mr Kobelke: There is no recycling. It is all going to landfill; that is the point I made in my speech - 100 per cent is going to landfill.
Mrs EDWARDES: I believe the people who comprise the judging panel would have a greater knowledge and understanding about the process when they assessed -
Mr Kobelke: Can you give me evidence of some part of the stream from the City of Stirling that is not going to landfill? Can you provide me with evidence of one tonne of the 60 000 tonnes a year that is not going untreated to landfill?
Mrs EDWARDES: I will get to that, but I make the point that the suggestion of a deception with respect to that award is absolute nonsense because of the composition of the judging panel.
The landfill levy is being paid. The member indicated that some of the waste was not going over the weighbridge. When Atlas was told that it must take all of it over the weighbridge, it has done it and an assessment -
Mr Kobelke: It has not been doing that in the past month. I can cite an example in the past month when it did not go over the weighbridge.
Mrs EDWARDES: When we brought this to its attention, an assessment of what had gone outside and not over the weighbridge was calculated and the landfill levy on that was paid. We regard that as serious.
Mr Kobelke: How do they calculate and discount the water content of what goes to Calingiri?
Mrs EDWARDES: I will return to the Calingiri issue shortly. The levy payable is based on the classification of this landfill site. That is a dollar per tonne because of the waste land -
Mr Kobelke: So it is paying on the putrescibles that are dumped, but not paying the right rate.
Mrs EDWARDES: That is another issue. It is on the waste which is landfill at the landfill site.
Mr Kobelke: It is paying $1 a tonne, which is the inert rate; but it is dumping putrescibles, which should be $3 a tonne.
Mrs EDWARDES: That is presently under investigation. I hope the minister understands that is something which we are investigating further and obtaining relevant evidence on. It is presently with the Crown Solicitor's office. Earlier this year the Department of Environmental Protection sampled and analysed the unlined sump. The results do not show soil contamination. The water in the sump met acceptable water criteria.
Mr Kobelke: I cannot accept that in view of advice from former employees. They must have tested the wrong sump.
Mrs EDWARDES: The results were presented to the consultative committee on 8 March. If the member for Nollamara is referring to another sump that was not in that report he should let us know and we will investigate that.
The member for Maylands asked what studies and testing had been done on the Calingiri compost operation. It is being produced according to Australian standards, which include metals and bacteria levels, so that members do not need to be concerned about the health effects.
Dr Edwards: Given the history of what has occurred when they have said they were doing one thing but were not, are they audited for compliance with those standards?
Mrs EDWARDES: I do not have that information with me.
Mr Kobelke: What is the standard with which the Calingiri operation must comply?
Mrs EDWARDES: I will provide that to the member on another occasion. The composting process uses high temperature to kill bacteria.
Dr Edwards: Where is that done?
Mrs EDWARDES: I do not have that information.
Mr Kobelke: How do they reach the high temperatures needed? Do they put it out in paddock only when the temperature is 40 degrees, and not when it is cold?
Mrs EDWARDES: I have the answers to members' questions about the Atlas site. However, as members are concerned about the Calingiri issue I will obtain that information and we will go through it as a separate issue. It might be helpful to deal with the history of the Atlas site as well as the key issues, so that members are aware that the Government takes this matter seriously. The level of resources and the commitment from the Government over the years, particularly in the past few months leading up to the licence renewal and approval to extend the works, confirms that commitment.
Odour is a key issue, and I am aware that is much more of a problem this year than last. Dust is also an issue, and members are concerned about its impact on health. The DEP is continuing to collect dust samples and to analyse them. The Health Department will also assess any new results.
Mr Kobelke: In addition to analysis of the basic chemical composition would the minister request an analysis of biological matter and types of spores? They are the constituents which cause asthma and other respiratory problems, rather than high levels of copper, lead or other heavy metals.
Mrs EDWARDES: Is the member for Nollamara referring to the level of total suspended particulates, which are dust particulates? The particulate dust levels have ranged from 46.6 to 99.5 micrograms per cubic metre averaged over 24 hours.
Mr Kobelke: Will they analyse the composition of dust particles? It is my understanding that is not currently occurring.
Mrs EDWARDES: I will take that on board. The levels are similar to those which are recorded in the central business district at this time of the year, and are below the guidelines set down by the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. However, we will continue to investigate and monitor that area. The Health Department is on the public record that there is no demonstrated health concern based on the assessment conducted by its officers. However, we are continuing to collect and analyse dust samples. I will put forward the member's proposition and advise how the dust samples are presently being analysed. The Health Department will also assess any new results that come through. The other key issue has been inert waste disposal to landfill. This site is meant to accept only inert waste with a 5 per cent allowance for putrescible waste. That issue is under investigation.
The other key issue, which the Government will address, is the final fill height of the landfill. The noise level at night is not acceptable. The Government regards that issue as serious. The Atlas site has been operating since 1954. Its activities have included sand extraction, brick manufacturing, concrete batching, lime production, landfill operations - class 2 up to April 1997 and class 1 from that date on - and waste processing. The site has been used for a considerable time. The DEP issued the 1999-2000 licence on 16 February; that is presently under appeal. Prior to issuing the licence there was significant community consultation via working groups. The fact that the local community has not appealed against those conditions indicates that they are probably right. I expect the report will come back to me within two weeks, and I hope to have it shortly. In those two weeks a number of meetings needed to take place, including a meeting with the City of Stirling to assist in establishing benchmarks and how they will be monitored and enforced. That is a key issue.
I believe I have addressed most of the issues raised by members opposite, and I will provide information on the Calingiri operation. It is not acceptable for any operation in Western Australia to breach licence conditions. We regard them seriously, particularly when they are ministerial conditions. We will continue to put huge resources into this area, although we should not have to do that. We are a regulator and not a monitor. I am pleased that the City of Stirling wishes to take a more active role in monitoring. We should not have to monitor that lease as regularly as we are now doing. We have a number of landfill sites in Western Australia, but this site is taking up a huge amount of our resources by comparison with others. We acknowledge that it is new technology and its success will make a tremendous difference to future waste management. However, we need to assess the outcomes for the short term and the long term future of the site. If the operators were to do this again, they would probably do it differently. It is easy to look at these things in hindsight. However, we must ensure that those residents can live in their homes without being subjected to that sickening odour. I have personal knowledge of the odour and also live in a buffer zone in which the residents are regularly subjected to odours. I therefore feel for the community.
The commitment from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Government is that we will ensure that the operators abide by strict environmental conditions. Those residents will then have an appropriate environment in which to live and will not be subjected to activities that will impinge on their lifestyle.
Government members support monitoring and enforcement of the conditions that have been placed on this operation. We believe that the company must meet certain benchmarks that will be released once I determine the appeal. The Government is also taking action on the alleged breaches since February. Investigations are under way and further relevant evidence is being collected. That matter is with the Crown Solicitor's Office following the dispatch to the company of letters requesting that it show cause as to why it should not be prosecuted. For that reason, the Government cannot support the motion; it is certainly not because it does not support the residents. The Government supports the residents and will ensure they get a fair deal out of this company in its environmental performance in the future.
MRS PARKER (Ballajura - Minister for Family and Children's Services) [5.24 pm]: I rise on this occasion as the member for Ballajura. I have listened with interest to the debate and particularly to the minister's response. Although this landfill site falls just outside my electorate, I have long been involved in the issue, along with the member for Nollamara, because of the odour and conditions that some of my constituents in Noranda and Ballajura experience resulting from activities on the site.
I look forward to a continued determination on the part of the Department of Environmental Protection to pursue this matter to a far more satisfactory conclusion. The member for Nollamara would agree that over the course of the past few years, particularly in 1998, the community liaison group has worked very well. Members of the group have worked with great patience to deal with the issues. While they are not completely satisfied, they have exhibited a great deal of goodwill. The community liaison group has worked through the issues with officers of the DEP. We established a good rapport with those officers in the early part of last year, but unfortunately both have since moved on to other positions. I do not wish to criticise the new officers, but because it has been a complex issue with much history the changeover has slowed the momentum towards a satisfactory resolution.
Over the course of the 1998-99 summer, conditions on the site deteriorated. As a result, a great deal of concern was expressed, particularly towards the end of January and early February. Again we have had to implore the DEP to enforce the licence conditions. I appreciate the resources of the DEP that have been put into the site recently. I do not get to all the community liaison group meetings but attend when I can, and I have met privately with Dr Brian Jenkins on the matter and expressed my concerns directly to him. A member of the liaison group whose workplace is close to my electorate office briefs me once a week as he catches me around my electorate. I am sure that I reflect the mood of the group in saying that, since the disturbing deterioration of the conditions at the site over the summer, we have again seen a renewed determination by the DEP. That is encouraging. I appreciate the minister's commitment to this issue, as do my constituents. They have always felt that she had a genuine commitment to and interest in bringing it to a far more satisfactory conclusion. I look forward to continued work towards that end.
I would not want to jeopardise any of the DEP's activities in trying to address the issue of the operator abiding by the licence conditions. I accept that activity is occurring and for that reason I accept the reason the minister will not support this motion. I agree with her, acknowledge her commitment to this work and thank her. My constituents and I will be watching closely with interest and probably a little less patience than we have exhibited in the past. We must ensure a far better outcome for the residents. This is the first licence to be tested. Given that, it is a test case and provides some new challenges for the department. My great hope and expectation is that the DEP, under the minister's direction, will proceed with commitment and determination to bring about a far more satisfactory outcome for the residents in my electorate and those in the electorate of Nollamara.
MR KOBELKE (Nollamara) [5.30 pm]: At the outset I must say that I am very disappointed at the minister's response. It indicates that she does not understand the issues involved. I recognise that she has been very busy with other crucial issues, but her response indicates that she has misunderstood some of the fundamental issues in this problem. The minister asked why this matter was being debated now. That clearly indicates that she does not understand the issues.
Mrs Edwardes: Only on the basis that it seems to be political catch-up given the amount of resources applied and the actions taken.
Mr KOBELKE: That does not make sense. For some time the Department of Environmental Protection has been putting a lot of resources into this site and it has not improved. It is critical now because it is possible that between the end of this week and the next parliamentary sitting the minister will determine the appeal on the licence and move on the extension of the works approval. It could happen before the Parliament next sits. In only the last month or two we have had documented evidence of major flouting of the conditions of the licence; it is not a question of minor failures to comply. The minister's questioning of the reason this should come up for debate is an indication that she is not taking it seriously.
Mrs Edwardes: I am taking it seriously but I want to place on the record that the motion is carefully couched to say that the Government is not taking action or taking it seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr KOBELKE: The motion does not suggest that the Government is not taking the matter seriously. I will refer to the motion in a moment, because the minister has misunderstood its wording. There is a long history to that site. I have been involved with it personally for more than 10 years, and people are no longer willing to take the Government on trust or to accept that the minister takes it seriously and therefore everything is satisfactory. They want to see the runs on the board, and they do not just want to hear the minister saying time after time that the Government takes it seriously. I recognise that because the minister is perhaps moving towards prosecution, she is limited in what she may say. However, that sort of thing cannot be used as an excuse time and again. It is not an excuse now, but it will be seen as an excuse if some clear action is not taken within a month or so that results in some improvement in the situation. I hope it will be through a prosecution, but the minister is yet to go through due process to see what that might mean.
I refer to the motion which the minister has rejected. I suggest that the minister should read her contribution to this debate and I predict that it will be very hard for her to find any rational undermining or rejection of the points in the motion, other than that in paragraph (c) with regard to deception. The minister has accepted the prima facie evidence that putrescible waste has been dumped illegally at this site.
Mrs Edwardes: I have said that investigations are under way, it is with the Crown Solicitor and there is little I can say about that at the moment. You are saying that the Government has not prosecuted.
Mr KOBELKE: The Government has not prosecuted, although it might in future.
Mrs Edwardes: The issues are under investigation.
Mr KOBELKE: The licence has been in place for almost two years, there is evidence from workers that illegal activities have been occurring during that period, and the Government has not "yet" prosecuted. The minister could have amended the motion to say that the Government has not yet prosecuted.
The second point the minister has not been able to refute is that on numerous occasions there have been breaches of the licence conditions. The minister took issue with the third point and claimed there had been no deception. However, she gave no evidence for that and cannot refute the evidence in my speech that there has been deception. The Government's best argument is that the deception has been minor.
Mrs Edwardes: I did not say that the best argument I could put was that the deception had been minor - the member should not put words into my mouth.
Mr KOBELKE: Is the minister saying that there has been deception?
Mrs Edwardes: I have said it is an absolute nonsense, given the judging panel -
Mr KOBELKE: The minister is not listening to the debate. The deception does not relate solely to the green awards. The motion states in paragraph (c) -
condoned the deception that the City of Stirling has reduced the percentage of householder waste going to land-fill when the waste to energy plant is not yet working;
That is true. The plant is not working. Is that correct?
Mrs Edwardes: What is your deception?
Mr KOBELKE: The deception is the letter from the City of Stirling that said it is working. That letter was distributed to every ratepayer in the City of Stirling and it said the plant is working, although it is not. No correction of that letter has been issued. The minister may say it is only a small deception, and that she disagrees with the whole motion. I say the whole thing is deception but that is not in the motion. There is clear evidence of deception and we could argue about the degree of it. The minister did not take that up.>/font>
Thirdly, I refer to the collection of the landfill levy. The minister admitted that this organisation is paying the landfill levy on what goes on the site, and not on what goes to Calingiri. Under the Act, it should pay the landfill levy on material dumped at Calingiri. Mrs Edwardes: Not on compost.
Mr KOBELKE: But it is not compost; it is putrescible waste that has been shredded and to which water has been added..
Mrs Edwardes: It is according to the Australian Standards.
Mr KOBELKE: If the minister continues down that road, she will undermine the law that went through the Parliament and make a mockery of it. People cannot take household waste from a bin, shred it, throw some water on it and then describe it as compost. It is ludicrous. The minister has no objective scientific basis for putting that into legislation or a regulation that can be enforced. It is absolute nonsense. It confirms that she does not understand the issue.
Mrs Edwardes: It is nice to have the chance to debate issues with you again, but in respect of this issue on composting I understand it is not just putting it through a chainsaw and adding water. It is more than that.
Mr KOBELKE: It is sized. That is the only difference.
Mrs Edwardes: I will get the member for Nollamara and the member for Maylands the full details of the process, given their level of interest and concern in this matter. I am advised that we have been collecting the landfill levy that is required to be paid.
Mr KOBELKE: The Government has not, and I have told the minister where. I can give her the names of the workers to whom I have spoken, who tell me what is happening and that the law is being flouted. The minister needs to tighten the definitions. The minister also referred to the licensing of the plant. The key issue is that a time limit must be imposed on the proving-up period for the plant.
Mrs Edwardes: You would agree that setting benchmarks is one way of clearly identifying what they are supposed to achieve with proper monitoring. I believe that is the way to go in respect of this. There should be clear benchmarks with a clear period.
Mr KOBELKE: If before the end of this calendar year, the plant is not fully working, to between 90 and 95 per cent capacity, or closed down, the Government will have failed.
Mrs Edwardes: It is not my plant.
Mr KOBELKE: We have been going for years on promises of performance. It cannot continue. An election will be held next year. I am being generous when I give the Government a year, but my constituents have said that the Government should be given only one or two weeks to take action. If that plant is not operating by the end of this year or closed down, the minister will have failed because it has gone on for year after year. This company has flouted the regulations.
Mrs Edwardes: We agree on the basis that all our patience has come to an end.
Mr KOBELKE: I am concerned about the minister's suggestion that the whole process is taking up too many of the resources of the Department of Environmental Protection.
Mrs Edwardes: I am concerned because we should not have to do it this way. It is a criticism not of the DEP or the community, but of the operation.
Mr KOBELKE: I understand the minister's frustration because she has many environmental issues with which to deal and this is but one problem -
Mrs Edwardes: It is a very important problem and one in which I am personally involved.
Mr KOBELKE: I accept that and I am not putting the minister down. The minister indicated that she would rather the Department of Environmental Protection draw back and not have to commit resources, and for the process to be running smoothly. All members hope that; however, in this instance -
Mrs Edwardes: The environmental performance would have been maintained.
Mr KOBELKE: I am very concerned that is a result of the continuation of the approach of self-regulation. Many of the matters covered by licensing are self-regulatory already. I and many others have no confidence that the minister can allow this operator, Atlas Group Pty Ltd, to self-regulate. I hope the minister will not allow this operator to do that.
Mrs Edwardes: I said that some operators will never get a best practice licence; that is, operators who are shown to have breached conditions on a regular basis. One breach is enough to ensure best practice licences do not go to those people.
Mr KOBELKE: I am disappointed with the minister's response. She has not dealt adequately or fully with the matters raised. The proof of the pudding will be in what can be done in the next three to six months, whether the minister can get compliance or whether these problems will continue, as they have for far too long already. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and a division taken with the following result -
Ayes (19)
Ms Anwyl
Mr Brown
Mr Carpenter
Dr Edwards
Dr Gallop
Mr Graham
Mr Grill
Mr Kobelke
Ms MacTiernan
Mr Marlborough
Mr McGinty
Mr McGowan
Ms McHale
Mr Riebeling
Mr Ripper
Mrs Roberts
Mr Thomas
Ms Warnock
Mr Cunningha
Noes (26)
Mr Ainsworth
Mr Barnett
Mr Barron-Sullivan
Mr Bloffwitch
Mr Board
Mr Bradshaw
Mr Day
Mrs Edwardes
Mrs Hodson-Thomas
Mrs Holmes
Mr House
Mr Johnson
Mr Kierath
Mr MacLean
Mr Marshall
Mr Masters
Mr McNee
Mr Nicholls
Mrs Parker
Mr Shave
Mr Trenorden
Mr Tubby
Dr Turnbull
Mrs van de Klashorst
Mr Wiese
Mr Osborne (Teller)
Notes on here, are as written in Hansard. Parliament of Western Australia.
Question thus negatived.
