HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [ 8.31 pm ]: I rise to make a few comments about the budget. There can be no doubt that Western Australia is in the middle of an unprecedented economic boom, and with that boom comes a large budget surplus that could be spent in all sorts of ways. I will talk tonight about how the government is dealing with the conservation and management of the environment in Western Australia , and how the government is dealing with people who are missing out on the boom—there are a lot of them. Unfortunately, a growing number of people, for various reasons, find themselves going backwards in their capacity to participate in the good fortunes of the Western Australian economy. In the view of the Greens (WA), unfortunately this budget does very little to assist those people. Also, this budget’s capacity to address pressing environmental issues is nothing short of appalling. It is a business-as-usual budget and the sort of budget I would expect from a Liberal Party government. It is no different —
Several members interjected.
Hon GIZ WATSON : On those two issues —
Several members interjected.
Hon GIZ WATSON : I am going to make everybody happy tonight—I can tell!
The point is that I do not think that this budget approaches those two key issues any differently from the way we would expect from either of the major parties. It is a budget that is very much directed to big capital works programs, with $7.6 billion being allocated for that use. Obviously arguments can be made that when there is a large budget surplus, it should be invested in long-term assets, but the Greens would argue that there are critical matters that also need an injection of money, and that money has not been delivered in this budget.
I first outline how this budget fails to adequately assist people who are not sharing in the boom, and in this regard I will refer to comments from the Western Australian Council of Social Service, the peak body in this area. I particularly want to talk about housing because that issue has come up time and again. The government has suggested, which we support, moving to a policy of social inclusion. If the housing access issues are not addressed, we will never have an inclusive society in Western Australia .
I am referring to the state budget information sheets from the Western Australian Council of Social Service. The first one is entitled “Planning for Communities”, and it states —
WACOSS advocates for immediate action on developing and implementing a social inclusion strategy. We call for a public commitment to this from the Premier. We propose the formation of a taskforce, including people from Government, non-government and industry.
It is fair to say that the government has announced this initiative and it is welcome, but there are still some areas where this budget has failed to adequately support this new direction.
The WA Council of Social Service recommended in this area that support be given to a social inclusion strategy task force; that two senior policy officers, government and non-government, and a part-time administration officer be appointed. There was support within the Department for Communities for this funding, but no specific allocation for this purpose. It is interesting that this was the key announcement around the time of the budget in this area of supporting the community. There seems to be a lot of in-principle support but some of the specific funds are just not allocated.
In terms of the recommendation in evaluating WA’s social wellbeing, the government departments need to adopt social inclusion indicators as key performance indicators, establish a monitoring committee made up of a variety of departments, and annual reporting by the Premier and Parliament.
The comment from WACOSS in relation to the budget is that there were no funds earmarked for state-wide consultations. The reference group is intended to provide consultative input, but no funding announcement was made to support this reference group. As much as there is a welcoming of this initiative, there does not seem to be an equal contribution of funds to ensure that it is a participatory process.
I will talk now about housing. In another one of its budget information sheets, WACOSS states —
A range of housing strategies are proposed to ease the current crisis including increasing public housing and community housing. There are also recommendations for a new public housing funding model and strategies for increasing the stock of affordable housing. Programs established under the Homelessness Strategy should continue to be supported and expanded. We call for improvements in the diversity of housing stock, which would help address the ongoing shortage of boarding and lodging houses, and small homes. There are also recommendations to expand existing housing support programs for young people, aboriginal families, people with mental illness or living with disabilities, ex-prisoners, and tenants of residential park homes and in remote areas.
In terms of public housing, WACOSS recommended that there be increased funding to restore public housing to six per cent of total stock. Its response to the budget is that there is no new money —
The amount remaining from last year’s budget is $240M. This is estimated to provide 1,124 extra dwellings. This is insignificant toward reducing the public housing waiting list of 17,500 people.
What is estimated in the budget this year will be able to provide just over an additional 1 000 dwellings; meanwhile there are 17 500 people on the waiting list and that is growing.
By way of an example, my office spent an entire week finding and ultimately being successful in accessing emergency accommodation for a family. This success was only due to the intervention of a minister. Housing was needed for three people, a single mother and twin daughters, who were trying to complete their last year at school. They had been unable to find any accommodation and were basically living out of the back of a car. It was a stunning example for me and for my office staff to realise just how much persistence is required to accommodate one small family who have been trying for months to access emergency accommodation.
I should acknowledge that it was thanks ultimately to the Minister for Education and Training that they were provided with housing. The schooling issue for the two girls was so critical that the minister managed to intervene. However, with such an enormous number of people competing for very limited housing space, this budget will not in any way address this crisis. In terms of the funding model for public housing, the recommendation of WACOSS was to recognise the state housing authority for community service obligation funding; the budget gave no funding commitment in this area.
The issue for young people in the private market, again, is a particularly acute area of need. WACOSS recommended an increased Keystart loan amount and encouraged rentals to young people. The budget gave no specific announcement in this regard, except to help more than 4 000 households enter into or maintain home ownership in 2008-09, with more than $200 million expected to be spent in regional areas; therefore, that is some improvement.
There is no apparent funding commitment for priority to be given to the development of culturally appropriate housing for Aboriginal families and singles. In the area of coordination for clients with complex needs, WACOSS recommended that the Department of the Premier and Cabinet examine and resolve national and state government policy issues impacting on service delivery to community housing tenants; again, there is no budget commitment in this area.
WACOSS recommended an increase in the number of properties in the community options and independent living programs, with a 15 per cent increase in funding for residential mental health care; in this area there was no budget increase. In terms of the requirements for social and affordable housing developments, WACOSS recommended a 15 per cent social housing requirement in all new developments on government or crown land and that 15 per cent of new private developments also be required to be affordable housing units; again, there is no apparent budget commitment to achieve this. WACOSS also recommended an appeals process for social housing to create and fund an external independent appeal mechanism for public and community housing; again, there is no apparent government funding commitment in this area either. In terms of the Valuer-General’s calculation of market rent, WACOSS recommended resourcing the Valuer-General’s office to calculate market rents over six months to improve the viability of the community housing sector; the comment in WACOSS’s recommendations is that there is no apparent government funding commitment to this area either.
In terms of training and skills development for community housing, WACOSS calls for a significant investment to provide accredited training; again, there is no government funding to meet this request. In terms of legal and consumer advice services for housing, the WA Council of Social Service recommended that there be funding for a homeless persons’ legal clinic in the metropolitan area, a centralised residential park homes’ advice service and a tenants’ advisory service in the west Kimberley and Broome regions; the response in the budget is that there is no apparent funding commitment to meet these recommendations either.
Therefore, it is fair to say that there is overwhelming disappointment in the peak body of this state, which has spent considerable time and effort consulting with its members and summarising key recommendations to meet the shortfall in housing, that in this time of huge budget surpluses the response in the budget was totally inadequate to meet the housing crisis. We share WACOSS’s disappointment. Disappointment is a bit of a mild term. I think there is actually growing anger in the community. The crisis in public housing and in the provision of crisis accommodation is at boiling point.
It has a knock-on effect. Just last week I was discussing the fact that people who leave the prison system might be able to get some short-term accommodation assistance, but it is exceedingly difficult to move from there into an affordable house or rental property because there is such a low vacancy rate in this area. That has consequences for people who want to move on with their lives and find somewhere stable to live. If they cannot achieve that, it is very hard to stay out of trouble.
In the area of safety and justice, the Western Australian Council of Social Service information sheet states that WACOSS advocates for greater support to break the cycle of violence by providing more child support workers in refuges, more funding for crisis accommodation and support services, and an increase in funding for community legal centres. A number of recommendations were made in the budget process. One recommendation was to establish a crisis care centre with accommodation and counselling for Aboriginal men in the metropolitan region to provide an alternative to incarceration for a cooling-down period. There is no apparent government commitment in the budget for this request. There is no apparent government commitment for restorative programs for perpetrators of family and domestic violence. A request was made for funding for two domestic violence legal workers in the metropolitan area and possibly more in regional areas, especially in the northern corridor, and to provide targeted outreach to women and children in refugees. Again, there is no commitment. There is no commitment for new support services for other forms of partner abuse. There is no apparent government commitment for increased core funding for community legal centres. There is no funding commitment for programs for women in prisons, which are currently delivered by volunteers. It is not a good look when there is no commitment to six of the nine recommendations in the area of safety and justice. The problem is that the people in the not-for-profit sector who are providing to the best of their ability the services that are so desperately needed are disheartened to find that although there is a budget surplus, no additional money has been provided to these areas. I remind members that crisis accommodation services for survivors of domestic violence—I am sure that the minister will correct me if I am wrong—are turning away as many people as are able to receive accommodation. I find that extraordinary in a community that is as wealthy as ours. We will not prioritise the provision of what is basically a human right; that is, a safe refuge from the perpetrators of violence. We are very disappointed with that area of the budget. It is fair to say that the not-for-profit sector is disappointed. There has been increased funding to assist the various departments that work in this area, and that is welcome. I am not suggesting for one moment that that funding is not needed. The not-for-profit sector apart has received an assurance that it will have an indexed grant system, which is an excellent initiative that I give the Labor government credit for having put in place.
This sector’s actual capacity to deliver these services is resulting in greater fatigue. I had the opportunity to attend the Western Australian Council of Social Service’s annual conference. I spoke to a number of people in attendance and found that there is a growing feeling of exhaustion in the sector, particularly in providing crisis accommodation and financial counselling. People are finding it increasingly difficult to keep going.
Hon Sue Ellery : There has been a massive injection of funding into financial counselling.
Hon GIZ WATSON : The minister is correct. I stand corrected because a chunk of funding went into that area. I will take financial counselling off the list. Perhaps people were feeling tired when they expressed their feelings to me and were not aware that help for financial counselling was on its way. It is a good initiative. Obviously it is essential for capacity building to, as a community, provide assistance to people to better manage their finances. I am thinking particularly of the organisations that on a daily basis are having to turn people away from the most basic of crisis accommodation because it is already full. As Western Australia is one of the wealthiest places in the world, it is extraordinary that that is the case.
WACOSS also made recommendations about social participation, including providing English classes for migrants and refugees. We certainly have a number of refugees who do not have good English skills and there is a need to provide them with English classes. Requests were made for child care for migrants attending English classes, the provision of more free childcare places for large families, and independent translating and interpreting services. I have on a regular basis asked questions in this place about independent translating and interpreting services. Many people who are new to this country cannot access translating or interpreting services when they are dealing with legal questions, government departments or perhaps courts. If they cannot access appropriately skilled and available translating and interpreting services to understand the processes that they are going through, their basic rights are undermined.
Another recommendation from WACOSS was to provide support to volunteers. It recommended that the state government take a leadership role by working with federal and local governments and Volunteering WA to establish a variety of strategies to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses incurred by volunteers. It also recommended fair wages for young people and suggested that the state government should abolish youth wages and promote awareness of young people’s work rights. WACOSS informs me that in all these areas there is no apparent government funding commitment.
There is a great deal of disappointment in how this budget will deliver social outcomes and address the promises that the state government made to turn Western Australia into a socially inclusive community. That is the federal government’s language and it seems to be in vogue at the moment. It is a great concept, but it will not happen without substantial budget commitments. We cannot see that this budget has delivered on that.
The second area that I will refer to is funding for the environment. Our comment when the budget was brought down was that the only green thing about it was its glossy, non-recyclable cover, perhaps designed to fool a few people. It certainly is not a very green budget.
I had to look very hard to find mention of the environment in the Budget Statements. It was right at the back together with lifestyle, which probably really says it all. Somehow the fundamentals of life have been relegated to some sort of lifestyle option, such as what colour shoes to wear today or whether to have a latte or a short black coffee. It is deeply disappointing. The challenge of a booming economy is to recognise that inevitably it will put greater pressure on the environment. That is exactly what we are seeing. The “State of the Environment Report 2007” identified the top priority issues that should be addressed. Top of the list is climate change. Did the budget contain any initiatives to deal with the pressing challenges of climate change in Western Australia ? No. We saw more funding for roads, infrastructure and transmission lines. The second priority in the state of the environment report was population and consumption. Nothing in the budget will address either of those issues. The report referred to greenhouse gas emissions, land salination, salination of inland waters, introduced animals, weeds and phytophthora dieback. The secondary priority subjects included soil erosion, altered water regimes, loss or degradation of wetlands, loss or degradation of fringing and in-stream vegetation, changed fire regimes, loss or degradation of native vegetation, degradation of marine environment, settlement patterns and loss or degradation of Aboriginal heritage. That was the assessment of the environmental challenges in Western Australia . Has the budget provided anything to deal with those issues? I refer to a Conservation Council of Western Australia media release of 9 May, which reads —
Budget Ignores Damning State of the Environment Report
In July 2007, the Environmental Protection Authority released yet another damning report into the increasingly poor state of WA’s environment. The 2008/2009 Budget provides no significant additional funding in reference to this report, instead focusing on subsidises for industry and development at the expense of our rapidly degrading environment.
Conservation Council of WA spokesperson, Jessie Cochrane said “This budget clearly displays that climate change and the environment are not priority issues for the Carpenter Government. Yet again, despite a record state budget, the carefully considered advice of the EPA has been ignored favouring further acceleration of the resources boom.”
Some of the areas highlighted by the EPA as requiring urgent action ignored by the Carpenter Government in the preparation of this budget are summarized below.
Biodiversity . . .
The Environmental Protection Authority stated in the state of the environment report —
There is insufficient knowledge about biodiversity in WA. Most biodiversity issues are serious and appear to be getting worse.
The budget response to this issue is some more money for the herbarium and no new money for biodiversity research or management. I might add that there is no sign of a biodiversity conservation bill either; not that it has anything to do with the budget, but the commitment to dealing with biodiversity issues in this state is appalling.
In the area of climate change the EPA stated —
WA is getting warmer. Rainfall is decreasing in the South West. Ocean levels are rising. Implications are severe. WA has the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world. Total emissions are relatively small on a global scale, but increasing rapidly.
Total emissions are increasing rapidly because this government intends to build more coal-fired power stations. How on earth the government can stand with any credibility and claim to be making any serious attempt to address climate change and at the same time approve the construction of new coal-fired power stations is absolutely breathtaking. There is no credibility in it at all.
Hon Bruce Donaldson : Shouldn’t we replace those with nuclear power stations?
Hon GIZ WATSON : No! Does the member want me to go on for another hour or two?
Hon Bruce Donaldson : You cannot have it both ways.
Hon GIZ WATSON : I think the member has heard that argument before.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order!
Hon GIZ WATSON : Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will focus my attention once more on the matters at hand. The budget response to climate change was the allocation of $50 million for renewable energy projects, and $8.9 million for low-emission energy research and development. It is worth noting that this is less than the powerline subsidies to various new mining projects. I refer particularly to $9.4 million allocated for new transmission lines for the Boddington goldmine and $4.6 million for a transmission line to Grange Resources’ mine. I cannot for the life of me work out why we subsidise companies to that extent. It is absolutely extraordinary when, if it is a profitable company, it should be able to stand on its own two feet. I have never understood why taxpayers’ money is spent on infrastructure for private companies.
Although the Environmental Protection Authority’s budget summary says that Western Australians’ ecological footprint is among the largest in the world, there was absolutely no budget response to this. The EPA says that the conservation sector has improved reservation levels in recent years, but there has been limited achievement against national reservation targets. It is worth noting that in my particular area, which is marine conservation, we are still progressing exceedingly slowly, not least because the Department of Environment and Conservation is funded too miserably to allow those reservations to be progressed. No additional money has been allocated to meet reservation targets.
A large number of weeds are present across Western Australia , and management action is currently inadequate. No additional money has been allocated to weed management, even though weeds are identified as one of the most significant threats to not only biodiversity but also agricultural areas.
In the area of loss or degradation of native vegetation, the EPA summary says that improved regulations are now in place, but clearing is still occurring as a result of population growth and economic development. No additional money has been allocated to protect native vegetation. A large number of feral animals are present in Western Australia . We have had some success in preventing incursion and eradication, but no additional money has been allocated for management or research, although the summary notes that $200 000 has been allocated to develop a rangeland goat industry—at the expense of the environment—and the agriculture budget has $140 000 for the control of feral animals, including goats, and $2.4 million for the control of starlings. The point is that some money has been allocated in the budget to deal with agricultural pests, but there has been no additional budget allocation to deal with environmental pests. However, I acknowledge that if we can knock off the starlings and goats, it will be a win-win situation.
The marine environment has been highly impacted in coastal areas, and the condition of most marine environments remains largely unknown. The budget response has been to allocate no additional money to research, management or protection of this area.
The EPA summary states that the area of the south west affected by land and water salinity is increasing. Active management is underway, but significant land use changes are still required. Many south west waterways and wetlands are still severely affected. The budget response is no additional allocation of money.
The Environmental Protection Authority states about dieback —
This disease is affecting large areas of South West bushland and is increasing in extent. No cure is available as yet.
No additional money has been provided to dieback management or research. It states further —
An increased number of wetlands and water ways in the South West are affected [by eutrophication]. Severe loss of wetlands has occurred on the Swan Coastal Plain and in the wheat belt.
The budget response is that no additional money has been allocated for management protection or research. Those are the priority issues that the EPA has identified as the key environmental challenges in Western Australia . The media statement goes on to state —
With a $1.8 billion surplus, the Department of Environment and Conservation and other relevant agencies should have been given the necessary resources to respond to the SoE report, but only a minor budget of $238 million has been allocated to the DEC.
This budget is really disappointing for the environment. The Premier has said that the Government will re-invest every cent of the $1.8 billion surplus to build our state to ensure that everyone is benefiting from our strong economy. But no-one benefits when the environment is allowed to degrade.
It is worth noting that no-one is denying that, as I say, with increased economic activities, particularly mining activities, there are increased pressures on the environment and an increased need to manage the impact of those pressures. What do we see? We see that this government is prioritising a review of the environmental assessment process, which we have been assured has nothing to do with fast-tracking. However, every indication in the language is that it is about efficiency, cutting red tape and removing duplication. From an environmentalist’s point of view, those are all the warning bells we have heard many times before. There is an emphasis on how we can facilitate business as usual in this state and let the environment go to pot, and that is basically what is happening.
This budget for the next 12 months reflects a lost opportunity for addressing the enormous environmental challenges in this state. It is a lost opportunity to invest heavily in things like known technology for renewable energy production. It is a lost opportunity to seriously tackle the huge environmental degradation in our rural area, the enormous challenge we face now given some of the information that is coming through in the media about increasing costs of fruit production, fertilisers and fuels and the global crisis facing food production. All these things are happening at an extraordinary rate. Here in this tiny corner of the south west of Australia we are very vulnerable to a range of factors. What I do not see in this budget is any real understanding of the challenges we are facing. This budget says let us continue to have a booming mining economy, let us continue to dig it up, ship it out and burn it off as quickly as possible because it is about making money. That is surely what it is about. Quite frankly, it does not indicate a government that cares about looking after those people who are falling through the cracks. Because we have a booming economy, those people are suffering the effects of increased house prices. Increased house prices are fine for those who already own a house that is becoming a more valuable investment. However, for people who do not own a house and want to get into the market or just want somewhere to rent, it is almost impossible to do so in Perth at the moment. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government cannot even provide good quality temporary accommodation for people who are caught in the housing crisis. On these cold nights, they are basically sleeping in the backs of cars or on someone else’s couch because they cannot find somewhere to rent or cannot access crisis accommodation.
I find it extraordinary that this budget has been all about good news and has not grappled with the growing problems that are not only causing people to stress, but also will continue to cause increasing social disunity. If we do not put money into these areas not only the individuals who are missing out, but also the community across the board will reap the consequences.
In conclusion, if we do not take seriously the challenges and changes that are already afoot and happening at an accelerating rate as a consequence of climate change and global warming, we will lose the very slim window of opportunity that we have to use the wealth that we are creating now to put in place capital works such as flash buildings, “Dubai by the Swan”—that is, the floating islands off Fremantle—and other glittering things. We should also be investing for generations of the future and children and grandchildren. If we do not apply this budget surplus to stabilise and repair the environment, we will continue to degrade the wheatbelt, our river systems, our Swan coastal plain and our forest systems. Obviously this plea is too late for this budget but there will be another one. I hope that by that time, this government will realise that we cannot ignore those priorities. We ignore them at our peril and we ignore them by gambling with the future of all Western Australians.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Bruce Donaldson.