Hansard

Motions

Cook Labor government—Transparency

Motion

Hon Neil Thomson (11:57 am) without notice: I move:

That the Legislative Council:(1) Notes the undesirable number of occasions when the WA Labor government demonstrated a strong bias towards secrecy rather than transparency in the 41st Parliament, coupled with episodes where ordinary Western Australians were not consulted about matters directly impacting upon them.(2) Expresses its alarm at this aversion to transparency and disregard for genuine community consultation, which appears to have worsened since the 2025 election. (3) Is particularly concerned at the Cook Labor government's inexcusable secrecy and disregard for consultation on the Premier's pet rugby project and his deputy's pet racetrack project.(4) Notes that meanwhile, several matters of greater importance have descended into chaos, such as the Perth Women's and Babies' Hospital, the rollout of new firearm laws, the state's decarbonisation efforts and the monitoring of violent offenders, to name just a few examples. (5) Urges the government to immediately cease its attitude of arrogance and contempt and instead build trust with the community by providing clear and accurate information on key projects and consulting with the community on matters of importance.

It is an absolute delight to be here in the 42nd Parliament. I express my congratulations to you, President, on your appointment. It is a very different place, I should say, from the one I entered in 2021. Although it is an absolute delight to be here in the 42nd Parliament, a very different configuration from the 41st Parliament, I must say that the expression of this motion is very much a disappointment because I think there is a real opportunity in this place to enable calls for a greater level of transparency from the government of the day. For members who are new to this place, we have, unfortunately, not had the luxury, you could say, of forcing the government's hand simply because we did not have the numbers required in this place, the house of review, to ensure that the proper review of legislation occurred. On many occasions, including debates on the infamous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill and the Firearms Bill, for example, legislation was rammed through this place without proper scrutiny.

Unfortunately, on an undesirable number of occasions, we saw a strong bias towards secrecy in the 41st Parliament. For example, during the recent outbreak of polyphagous shot-hole borer, local governments were required to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to partake in data sharing with the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development in order to facilitate the control of that pest. I believe those non-disclosure agreements are still required and are still in place, and that the Premier did not have a clue about the non-disclosure agreements. He recently spoke in the other place to express the point that he did not know about the non-disclosure agreements.

With the changed configuration in the Legislative Council, I encourage the Premier and the government, notwithstanding the massive majority given to the Labor Party in the other place, to take note that the people of Western Australia have now said to the Legislative Council that they want greater scrutiny of the government's actions to ensure that we can go forward in a way that will inform the community about what is going on.

I can name a few examples of answers to questions in this place. I remember the lack of information provided about the sale of the Landgate building in Midland. It was a very historic sale given the sad history and the Corruption and Crime Commission inquiry that went into that very issue, going back many, many years. Another example is the issues around child protection. I know my colleague Hon Nick Goiran—I congratulate him on his appointment as Leader of the Opposition as well—continually raises issues of child protection in this place in the public interest.

Of course, even the very configuration of this place is something that previous Premier Hon Mark McGowan had said was not on his agenda for change. Nevertheless, we saw changes made, and here we are—and I am glad we are here. I am sure nobody is more excited than me, and I am sure I can speak for my colleagues who are all very excited that with the crossbench we have, including the Greens (WA) party, we have an opportunity for one shared vision. I hope I am not out of place in speaking on behalf of the crossbench and other members in this place, because I am sure they could speak for themselves, but from the conversations I have had with members on the crossbench, I think they would like to see greater and greater transparency with the passage of legislation, the purposes of that legislation and also the decisions made by the Western Australian Government on behalf of the people of Western Australia.

I would like to just pick up on a couple of themes in relation to pet projects. We saw Hon Rita Saffioti's deplorable approach when she challenged the shadow Treasurer, the member for Cottesloe, when she raised matters in relation to the so-called Perth motorplex proposal at Victoria Park. We saw the government's approach on that pet project. The government came out and said it is going to develop a motorplex. As the shadow Minister for Planning and Lands, I am extremely disappointed in the lack of planning that has gone on. Yes, I know governments in the heat of an election campaign want to come up with an election winner and ideas that they think might be amenable to the community of Western Australia, but in this case, we are seeing a backlash from the residents of that Victoria Park precinct about this proposal on the Burswood Park precinct. The motorplex, or racetrack proposal, as you could call it colloquially, has not got the support of those residents in the vicinity. Certainly, even the Mayor of the Town of Victoria Park, Karen Vernon, has spoken against the proposal. Instead of engaging with the mayor and with the people of Western Australia on the issue, we saw a diversion to other what you could call almost frivolous matters to try to blacken the name of the Mayor of Victoria Park. We saw that presented here in this place, but the Mayor of Victoria Park is unable to present a counterview.

I make the point to members in this place that we heard an appalling statement from Hon Rita Saffioti when Sandra Brewer, the shadow Treasurer, raised the issue. Her first comment was, "She rang up. She was not shouting; she was emotional". She twice referred to some conversations she had when Sandra Brewer was CEO at that very important organisation called the Property Council. Instead of addressing the issues, we heard the appalling statement:

Honestly, I think I liked the member for Cottesloe better when she was ringing up the member for Landsdale, begging to come to a Mark McGowan conference, I really do—when she was getting emotional …

That is appalling language to put out in the public domain. Sadly, I have to raise it again because it is the way the government goes—deflect, defer and try to defend the inexcusable process of the decisions made in the heat of maybe a kitchen cabinet, I would suggest, by Hon Rita Saffioti.

I have copped it as well. I raised an issue about Hon John Carey and the level of transparency and orderliness, you could say, in the decision around the Chair of the Western Australian Planning Commission. I raised the issue only because the industry itself came to me and said, "This is not on!" A number of signatures of senior planners—I believe it was over a dozen signatories—said that the appointment of Ms Emma Cole to the WA Planning Commission did not in their view meet the standards required under the Planning and Development Act. I raised the issue on behalf of a number of female members and senior members of the Planning Commission, and what did I get? I went to a presentation and raised that issue in a respectful way. What did I get? I got accused of misogyny. Again, the government went for the person rather than the actual material. I was accused of misogyny. At the time, in that forum, the Planning Institute of Australia, I did not think it was worthy of me to actually respond to that; I thought it was beneath me. It was simply not worth it. I raised an issue about the level of transparency and process around the decision. Was it in accordance, for example, with public sector standards? The answer I got was that it was in accordance with the Planning and Development Act, which we know is required under legislation.

I believe there needs to be a step up in seriousness in government. We need to step up and take the next step and apply things like public sector standards. Certainly, in my previous roles, I always applied that.

Going back in time when I was chief of staff, I know my predecessor, the very respected then Minister for Planning, Hon John Day, also applied that principle when appointing persons to the Western Australian Planning Commission. I would say to Hon John Carey that he was just one letter short of accusing me of misogyny with the M word. Its appearance is actually LMN, last minute resistance. It unfortunately gives the appearance of nepotism. That is how it appears. It is up to the minister to then defend that and show that he went through a proper process and it is not just jobs for mates.

We go back to this issue of planning because I raised questions in relation to this issue of the racetrack. These are the sorts of answers that one gets. I will not read all the questions in the essence of time because there is so much I would like to say about this. I know that members of the crossbench have spoken to me privately and said they are very interested in this issue. I know that the Greens WA have taken up this issue as well. I asked detailed questions on 9 and 29 April. I will just give a flavour of the sorts of questions. For example, I asked when the Minister for Planning and Lands was advised of the proposal, whether the WAPC had looked at the proposal and whether we had an orderly process—you could say, to paraphrase—of planning around this development of the racetrack in Victoria Park. Similarly, I asked whether the WAPC considered the proposal. I am sure this will not fly in the 42nd Parliament because members of the crossbench will start to get increasingly troubled by the lack of transparency. The answer I got for my question without notice, of which some notice was given, on 29 April was:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.(1)–(4) There is currently no development application. Due diligence is being carried out on the proposed site.

I mean, what a stupid thing to say!

That was the answer to a legitimate four-part question about when WAPC Chair Emma Cole was advised of the proposal. The fourth question related to the EPA considering the matter. These were all legitimate questions in this place, and we got, I would suggest, a rather immature answer that there is currently no development application. Of course, if the government is going to split hairs like that, it might be technically correct, but we all know there will be a racetrack there because the government said that a racetrack will be developed on the site. There are drawings and schematics, and I am sure there will be funding in the budget for it. This is unacceptable, and I am putting the government on notice. As I said, I am sure the crossbench can speak for itself, but I encourage the crossbench: this is your opportunity to assist the opposition to once again bring balance back into the polity of Western Australia and ensure that we bring back a level of transparency and accountability to the good people of Western Australia and get away from these immature deflections saying that the member is emotional just because she is a conservative female. That was the sort of behaviour and language that was used with Hon Liza Harvey and the way our previous leader Libby Mettam was presented in the chamber—if you are a conservative female, you are characterised as emotional. If you are a male, you are a misogynist. That will not fly with the people of Western Australia; I promise you. We need to see accountability and transparency going forward. All members swore that very solemn oath today that we are here to represent the people of Western Australia in various different ways. We swore that today. That is what I intend to do for the next four years. There is that matter.

We mentioned the National Rugby League project, and we saw Peter Rundle raise the question back on 10 April in the other place asking about the recent negotiations with Peter V'Landys from the Australian Rugby League Commission regarding the rugby league licence reported to set WA back $35 million. Finally, after a lot of pressure from the opposition, we saw the announcement on 20 May in which the government said it will provide temporary financial support for the development of the club of $60 million over seven years. I do not know where this government gets its numbers; it just throws them out there. Then, down the track after pressure from the opposition, it finally came clean on the fact that that project is actually worth $60 million. This will be the nature and tenor of the 42nd Parliament in this place in particular. We will continue to place pressure on the government and ensure that we do not see the lack of transparency that we saw in the 41st Parliament.

Those are the pet projects I mentioned. It is coming to that point in time when I give over to other members of this chamber to raise issues, but I wanted to raise another matter in relation to the decarbonisation projects in our state. I encourage all members, including the crossbench, to really dig into this. I know Hon Dr Steve Thomas is likely to raise some matters in relation to this. I want to point out, as the former shadow Minister for Environment, I raised a number of questions about the decarbonisation project. I will give members a flavour of the sorts of responses and maybe give members on the crossbench and new members in this place a few tips on how this place can sometimes roll and the little tricks that members must learn, often the hard way. I learned the hard way. I encourage members to get in, boots and all, and do the job of holding the government to account. I asked the minister—at that stage he was the parliamentary secretary representing the minister—a question about the WA government's $5.4 billion spend on decarbonisation initiatives in the budget papers. After some time, a list was given, which included everything from the Collie battery energy storage system, the Kwinana battery energy storage system and all the way through to the Denham hydrogen demonstration project and Esperance electrification project. It was a big list. I am happy to share that list with anybody. That came after a question. It was not provided transparently in the budget papers but after a question in this place. So, questions are useful. I asked a follow-up question to the former member, Hon Darren West, referring to the minister's answer to questions without notice, which outlined decarbonisation projects as part of the government's $5.4 billion commitment. I asked whether the minister could list in tabular form, for all the projects listed in the answer, from the Collie battery storage system to the Derby solar battery, the estimated government cost of each project, the expenses that have already been contracted and how many tonnes of carbon per annum the projects would mitigate once fully operational. Members would think this is asking for a very basic level of accountability in this place for the taxpayer of Western Australia. It does not matter which side of the fence people are on, whether they are pro and hard and want everything in renewables and net zero today, or whether they want net zero in 2050. It does not matter which side one is on; I would have thought that would be a very reasonable question. I know we can have so much in common with the crossbench, including the Greens, if we can find things to hold this government to account for.

What did the government say? There is the trick. Initially, the response was:

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question.This question asks for an awful lot of information and we think that 48 hours is the appropriate time to gather that information so the member will have an answer at this time tomorrow.

I thought to myself that this is very good; it was a fair point. I will get this information tomorrow. Instead, the answer I got was that there is no answer.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas (12:19 pm): I offer my congratulations, President, on your ascension again to the high office of President. I know you will do a fantastic job and I look forward to your continuing guidance, particularly in controlling my worst excesses, of which there are a few. So I thank you for that.

The President: Noted, honourable member.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: I address particularly the new members of the chamber and I note that most of the government members filling the quorum are new members. They will probably get used to that in the fullness of time. Well done, everybody. Members get the dirty jobs when they first arrive. I also congratulate the new members of the crossbench and the new members of the coalition, both Liberal and Nationals—the alliance of the willing. Welcome to the Parliament, everybody.

There is a bit of a pattern that comes in these debates. We have had a number of debates about transparency in particular over the last four years, and there is a reason for that. For those who do not remember—some of us are getting a bit long in the tooth, President—in 2017, the then Leader of the Opposition and soon to be Premier, Hon Mark McGowan, made the wonderful statement that he would deliver a government of gold-standard transparency. That was great. It was a great commitment—and it lasted until the election in 2017. Then, in 2017, we went from gold-standard transparency to lead-standard transparency.

Several members interjected.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: The parliamentary secretary is jumping up. That is fantastic! They have given Hon Dan Caddy the job of responding, and I look forward to that. I am a bit surprised that the minister is not doing it for the first debate in the 42nd Parliament, but it is good to see. I wish I could remember whether the member was Waldorf or Statler, but I am sure that he is one of them, so I look forward to his response.

The government said at the time in 2017 that there would be gold-standard transparency. It fell in a hole; it did not last. What members will see over the next four years—not the experienced members over there who are tired and jaded because they are used to not providing transparency—

Several members interjected.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: This is not for the cynical members over there; this is for the new members.

Several members interjected.

The President: Order, members! Can we please bring the heat and tone down a peg.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Thank you for your guidance, President.

I am talking particularly to the new members, because they will have to get used to this. I am going to give them a couple of really good examples just to demonstrate how this government operates and how the gold-standard transparency became lead-standard transparency and then became—this will be funny eventually when they see enough questions—coal-standard transparency. Ultimately, it will become gas-standard transparency, which is just going to be all hot air. I suspect that is what we are going to get out of the government for the next four years, but we are kind of used to it.

Let me give members a couple of really good examples of this. This is one piece of advice. I know that members of the government backbench do not get to ask questions, but they should get into all the debates they can because they do not get a lot of opportunities. Members of the crossbench will have many more and they can have enormous fun. Members should ask some interesting questions and watch how often they do not get answers. It is absolutely hilarious. Let me give them an example. The ministers and parliamentary secretaries in this house will often make a reasonably significant effort to give a half-decent answer. They occasionally send them back to the ministers downstairs and say, "Don't deliver us this rubbish." Hon Samantha Rowe now has the role of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport. I am looking forward to her sending a few answers back.

Hon Tjorn Sibma: All of them.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Yes, probably most of them, in fact. Here is a question that I have asked a few times just to give members a good example of this. I asked this question on 30 April 2025—the last sitting week—of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport:

I refer to my questions without notice 194, 241, 667, 691, 877 and 976 asked in 2022, questions without notice 58, 774 and 1492 asked in 2023 and questions without notice 1222 and 1315 asked in 2024 … for the proposed tier 3 lines of Quairading–York, Kulin via Yilliminning to Narrogin and Kondinin via Narembeen …

That is a lot of questions, because each of those questions had a number of parts. Do members know what? All those questions are still waiting for an answer. The funny thing is that it is not just me. Hon Steven Martin has asked a bunch of questions about this too. We are still waiting for answers: "We are still looking at it." What is the answer? It is a four-part question, so I will not go through it all. I asked what consideration had been given, whether the business cases had been completed and whether the business cases had gone to the federal government. The answer to parts (1) to (4) was:

The investigative study into the capital cost and economic analysis of the … lines is being assessed and evaluated within the current environment.

I have been asking about this since 2022—so, three years of this—with no answer. Members of the crossbench, the alliance and the backbench will get used to getting non-answers, because that is the way the government operates. It is lead-standard transparency. Members will have to be consistent—perhaps not as much as I have been about PFAS over the years—and get used to getting non-answers, because that is pretty normal. That is what they are going to experience. For the experienced members, we are back for more of the same, and we are going to have to keep asking those questions.

I want to finish with this particular example, because there are avenues for all the new members who do not get answers to their questions, and that will be most of them at least half the time. There are a couple of systems in place, and one of those is the Office of the Auditor General. If members' questions are dismissed pre-emptively by the government, which does not care to give them an answer because the answer might be a bit embarrassing, on occasions the Office of the Auditor General will have a look and see whether not answering the question was actually reasonable. I commend for members' perusal report 23 of the 2023–24 financial year released on 27 June 2024. The great Auditor General in this state, Caroline Spencer, looked at some of the questions that I had asked about the State Solicitor's Office and advice given to the government. I want to read this bit in just so members will know how bad it gets, and I will have to do this fairly quickly. Questions were asked. This is the quote from the Auditor General's overview:

The Attorney General declined to provide the information to Parliament on the basis that the information is covered by legal professional privilege … That is also the reason that my staff were not provided with any information to allow them to verify the Attorney General’s decision, and why I have had to issue disclaimers.

She could not give a position on it because the government withheld the information from not only the Parliament and the opposition, but also its own officer, the Auditor General, who is the person who is supposed to oversee what the government does. It absolutely gets worse. She said:

While it is disappointing to have to issue disclaimers due to a lack of evidence, in this instance I am also concerned about possible implications for my financial audits. Access to invoices and contracts to verify information in financial statements is a necessary and routine requirement for my financial audit work.

That is exactly right, and this Labor government could not trust the Auditor General to do her job. I go on:

The other opinion in this report is that the Attorney General’s decision not to provide information on the amount of money paid to the legal advisers on the basis of commercial confidentiality was not reasonable and therefore not appropriate.

On the second round of questions about how many millions of dollars all these little adviser groups got paid—the government tried to keep that secret—the Auditor General finally said that that was not reasonable. At about the sixth question in, I actually got an answer. Sometimes persistence pays.

The Auditor General took great umbrage at this. She said:

First, commercial confidentiality is not a reason to prevent me and my staff from accessing information.

It is not. If the government does not trust its own organisation, who does it trust? It should actually provide it to the Parliament. She also said this:

Second, not providing a detailed explanation of why the material is commercially sensitive makes it very difficult for me to assess whether the Attorney General in this instance made a decision based on valid concerns around the State’s commercial interests.

How secretive and opaque is the government of the day? The Auditor General, the person whose job it is to oversee the accountability of the state, said to the government, "Not only did you not give me the information that I required to assess whether you had done the right thing, but also you didn't even tell me why you wouldn't give it." How does an Auditor General operate in those circumstances? Members, have a read of this particular report. It shows in absolute clarity the absolute opaqueness of this government and its intent to hide the truth. We will try our best obviously to try to turn that around, but I do not expect to see much difference. Unfortunately for the parliamentary secretary and his cronies, I expect to see a few motions along these lines in the next four years because I do not think the government will change.

Hon Tjorn Sibma (12:29 pm): Thank you very much.

A member: You guys are asleep. What's happening?

Hon Tjorn Sibma: They are impressed. Deputy President, I congratulate you on your ascension, and I congratulate all new members and returning members for the 42nd Parliament. To maintain the theme, members will get used to being disappointed by this government. Every opportunity it will have to be transparent or accountable is an opportunity that it will walk past. It was not the standard that the opposition set for it; it was the standard that Hon Mark McGowan set for the government in 2017, as Hon Dr Steve Thomas has reminded us. It is a standard that has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. There has been a cascade of evasion, and aversion to the truth, shooting the messenger and critiquing people who actually should be beyond personal critiques and assaults in this state, such as the Auditor General. In reference to the sterling work of the state's Auditor General, Caroline Spencer, it reminds me of the withering and, I think, completely unnecessary and gratuitous criticism that she received from the previous Leader of the House, Hon Sue Ellery, which I thought was an absolute disgrace, not only to the government but also to the fine person who holds that office.

Why do we request and why do we demand accountability and transparency? It is not only because it was the measure that the government set itself; it is a measure that this Parliament demands. It is what the public demands. If anything, sometimes it is provided to government members in a good spirit to help save them from themselves. It is not necessarily always a political motivation to be elusive and averse to the truth. I think sometimes members foment, justify and walk past underperformance in their own public sector. Not every answer to a question that we receive, I think, is necessarily a masterclass in political evasion, unless it comes from Hon Rita Saffioti, whom I think sets a standard of her own. But, government members should take the opportunity sometimes to pause and reflect on what they are doing. The government missed that opportunity, unfortunately, in the wake of its enormous victory of the 41st Parliament. Look at what it has created. If the government had the resolution and honesty to actually look hard and truthfully at some of its own acts and regulations, it would have avoided the absolute political disaster and embarrassment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill—a bill that we attempted to refer to the Standing Committee on Legislation. The government did not take that opportunity, despite the fact that it chaired that committee. It failed. It refused to refer the abolition of regional electorates to the committee.

The cascade and the problems go on and on and on. In the end, the government will pay the price. It will pay it in financial terms and in political terms because the modus operandi of the government unfortunately established by Hon Mark McGowan and continued under Hon Roger Cook is frankly unsustainable. It cannot continue to run and hide from the truth. I will reflect on a few examples that I think are symptomatic of the problem, which I think is metastasising in an unfortunate and avoidable way. I will reflect on one Metronet sub-project, which is the C-series railcars. Metronet is an enormous project, enormously blown out by a factor of 300% or 400% on the original cost. But if I reflect basically on the railcars, what is the political claim? The political claim is that those railcars are made in WA. My question is: Are they? Are they really? What proportion of them are manufactured in Western Australia? There is an opportunity to understand exactly what proportion and what components of those railcars are manufactured in Western Australia, because there is a six-monthly report that Alstom Transport Australia has to provide to the Public Transport Authority and the department—I think it is still known as Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, although that may have changed in the recent round of machinery-of-government changes. What is the proportion? I have provided the Minister for Transport time and again, through her representative in this chamber, with an opportunity to explain. Okay; how much is it, because the public claim is that more than 50% of these railcars have been manufactured in Western Australia? My claim, then, is to show me the evidence. Show me the evidence! I attempted to do that for, I think, six or eight months. Not once did the minister even choose to provide a redacted copy of one of those six-monthly reports, which is an obligation of the contract. Are we expected to believe that 51%, 52% or 53% has been manufactured in WA? Considering the person this comes from and this government's operating approach, I would not be surprised if the actual percentage was closer to 49.8% and they have just rounded it up to 50% and said, "We're half done. We can claim that." Perhaps the decals are manufactured in Western Australia; perhaps they are not. I will never take an answer that originates from the Minister for Transport, Hon Rita Saffioti, at its word because she demonstrates the darkest of dark arts at their absolute zenith.

This is an example I would urge other government members to avoid. Should we trust what the Minister for Transport tells us about any project? I submit to Hon Dan Caddy, who I understand has been tasked with providing a robust government response, to take it up with the transport minister. Are we to take seriously, at her word, that the Westport project will cost $7 billion when she has already presided over the blowout in Metronet of over $10 billion? This is the very same person who used to suggest that the establishment of a parliamentary budget office might be a very good idea, and then ran away from it as soon as she possibly could when she landed on the Treasury bench. Imagine if we had a parliamentary budget office in 2015 or 2016 that could have possibly disabused the notion that the Metronet project would have cost $3 billion? Instead, the government has blown it out. It has blown it out and it does not have a leg to stand on—very brave, very strong, very resolute, calling for transparency and accountability, beating its chest, moaning and crying and whingeing in opposition. As soon as this government is given a skerrick of power, its true nature is revealed, and its true nature is to run from the truth. It is to run from the truth and criticise and demean people in the community who do not like the government's plans. When provided with an opportunity to prove its case, such as the local manufacture of railcars, it will never, ever submit that evidence because it does not want to be a witness to its own prosecution. I think that is the problem. Therefore, nobody in this chamber should take anything for granted, especially not when it comes from Hon Rita Saffioti. Do not believe that person when it comes to Metronet, do not believe that person when it comes to Westport and probably do not believe her either when it comes to the buyback of the grain freight network.

I will end on this point. The government is very brave to retrospectively critique governments in the distant past. It will never, ever have the courage or the fortitude to apply that discipline to its own performance in the here and now. That makes cowards of you all because you are prepared to step back and let government ministers malign and misuse the truth in the hope of their own personal advantage and advancement. That is cowardly. I am not calling any of you cowards; I am just making an observation. It chills my blood that when the opportunity comes to actually be truthful, accountable and transparent, perhaps, at the end of the day, government members are saving their own and the government's reputation and, hopefully, saving the taxpayers of WA a future bailout or a future financial catastrophe—because these good times, my friends, will not last forever. You have an opportunity now at the commencement of the 42nd Parliament to lift—lift, Dan Caddy, lift.

Hon Dan Caddy (Parliamentary Secretary) (12:39 pm): Congratulations, Deputy President, on your new position of Chair of Committees. Congratulations also to all the new members. I am especially encouraged by seeing the new members of the opposition. Hopefully, they have come into this chamber with some new ideas.

I invite members to look at the report I pulled out. I had to dust it off. We have debated this thing three or four times. Hon Tjorn Sibma has nothing new; he has nothing in the tank. I will try to talk about all the things that have been raised, including the entertainment precinct, decarbonisation and questions on notice, which was a classic. I have some great quotes for members. My good friend Hon Tjorn Sibma spoke so passionately against local manufacturing and local jobs. It is in the DNA of those opposite to oppose local jobs, and that is exactly what it is doing.

I want to touch briefly on the entertainment precinct because I know members opposite and some of their friends in local government are opposed to it. The premise of what the honourable member was saying—that this is something new and something that will be foisted on the community—is simply not true. There has been a master plan for the Perth entertainment sporting precinct for some time. Hon Tjorn Sibma knows this; he is peddling something that is not entirely correct. There are four legs to it, including a new outdoor auditorium, which will provide a fantastic space for both international and local bands and will very much help our local entertainment industry; a multi-use track for cycling, supercars and community sport; a multipurpose building; and better transport and connectivity, including disabled parking and other such facilities. Those four key points align with the Burswood Park master plan. Hon Tjorn Sibma stands up and says that he prefers the current model, which involves trucking in loads of diesel generators and water trucks, which is hardly a sustainable option—but that model remains his preferred position. I cannot understand why he cannot look at it and say, "This needs to change." We are doing that. We are revitalising the area.

Members opposite often talk about the stadium that was built in Premier Colin Barnett's time. It is a fantastic stadium—a great stadium. It was never meant to be there on its own. It was a jewel in what was to be an entertainment precinct crown. We are taking the vision of Colin Barnett and we are proceeding forward.

Hon Tjorn Sibma spoke about questions on notice. I want to quote something from Hansard of 18 February 2014, which I have already quoted. I am going to give members a bit of a history lesson. The quote is from my good friend Hon Nick Goiran, who stated:

I rise this evening to grumble. Specifically, I want to grumble about the process at the moment for answers to questions on notice.

The Liberal government was so woeful that its own members had a go at it. I want to read something else. I love these words in the following answer to a question:

This detailed information would require considerable time, which would divert staff away from their normal duties, and it is not considered to be reasonable or appropriate use of government resources to provide this information. If the member has a more specific query, I will endeavour to provide it.

Do members want to guess what that was about? That is the answer that the Liberal Party gave in this place 137 times. When members come in here and start talking to us about transparency and how we answer questions—

Hon Nick Goiran interjected.

Hon Dan Caddy: It was a totally unacceptable standard, honourable member.

Hon Nick Goiran: So why are you doing it all the time?

Hon Dan Caddy: I am not doing that all the time.

The Deputy President: Order! Please direct your remarks through the chair.

Hon Dan Caddy: Thank you for your guidance, Deputy President.

That is totally unacceptable. I will speak shortly to section 82s, but I want to try to stay in the order in which things were raised.

It was interesting that Hon Tjorn Sibma raised the issue of decarbonisation. He is still arguing about whether it should happen. The transition is here; the bus has left the station, my friend. Western Australians are voting with their feet. We know as a community that we need to decarbonise, not just because it is better for the environment, but also because it makes economic sense to do so. The economics of fossil fuels simply do not stack up.

Hon Nick Goiran interjected.

Hon Dan Caddy: The member had his shot; maybe he should just sit there and listen, and he might actually learn something.

Rooftop solar panels in Perth homes now generate more electricity than our biggest coal-fired power stations used to. The shift is here. The member should not come into this place and argue about whether it should happen. He should get on board, try to be part of this journey and try to contribute positively to what we are doing. The Liberal Party's plan is confusing and contradictory.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

Hon Dan Caddy: Honourable member! In 2021, the Liberal Party proposed shutting down coal by 2025, which is this year.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

Hon Dan Caddy: That is absolutely true. That was its policy. Its policy flip-flops all over the place. The one thing Liberal Party members cannot agree on is energy policy. We have seen that with its federal colleagues, because the greatest marriage in political history in Australia is now the greatest divorce in political history in Australia as National Party members walked away from their friends in the Liberal Party. Where the Liberal–National Party sits in all that, I do not know because it is already a hybrid.

That is what the Liberal Party was saying back in 2021. Now it wants to cling to coal indefinitely. Its members are standing up today and putting forward a motion on transparency, yet they cannot even agree amongst themselves on its policy, much less sell it to the people.

Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

Hon Dan Caddy: Oh, honourable member!

I want to briefly turn to section 82s because it was touched on earlier. I am pretty sure that Hon Nick Goiran might have a lot to say on this shortly. The number of section 82 notices—listen carefully, members—has no bearing on any government's transparency. It is about the findings of those notices and the ministers who take those notices forward. At times, obviously it is entirely necessary to protect the interests of taxpayers and the interests of the state. It is also interesting to note—we have not seen it so much this time, but we certainly saw it between 2017 and 2021—that the questions that were being written to ministers, particularly the ones asked in this place, were specifically designed to trigger a response that would then lead to the minister going down the section 82 path. I know the honourable member who raised this was not a member of the government at the time, but he was certainly a senior person within government ranks in Dumas House. He would be well aware that the Barnett government's approach to section 82 notices—it is actually a self-reporting mechanism—was just an old report. We do not report. The numbers are down because the opposition is simply not going down that path as opposed to what this government has done.

In the six minutes I have left in which to speak, I want to talk about transparency as a whole. Members are going to love this because I am going to bring up the Special Inquiry into Government Programs and Projects: Final Report: Volume 1 findings. Once again, we are going down this whole path and members want to talk about it. This is a reflection on the former Liberal government and the way it did things. Page 15 of the findings states:

… Ministers worked to advance their individual agendas and often coerced public servants into applying significant resources to ideas and programs that they knew were unlikely to be approved.…Many practices that led to the deterioration in standards and discipline in the public sector occurred at the encouragement, if not insistence, of Ministers.

For the member's reference, page 41 states:

There were … many instances of poor process and decision making which can be sourced back to the lack of good governance practices.

Page 42 states:

The Government's strategic whole-of-government focus or strategy was not known to any officer who appeared before the Special Inquiry.

That goes back to the theme of absolute confusion, which is part of the reason why the member is sitting where he is today.

I do not really have time to go through all the key findings, but I will quote a couple of them. Page 16 states:

A general lack of transparency and default response of 'commercial-in-confidence' to questions about projects …

I am not going to go into the specific details, but we all know the projects involved—Pelago and all of those projects. It states on page 89 that there was a lack of transparency around the commercial negotiations involving major projects and large contracts, even when there was no disadvantage to any party. But my favourite one—I could not wait to reel this out again—is a former staffer, and the honourable member may know him: Darren Brown, with whom the member would have worked. This is a fantastic report—fantastic. Oh, Hon Tjorn Sibma worked with him as well? All these members did in their former jobs. The WAtoday article is titled "Safe and maybe not-so-sound: the art of transparency and accountability". These are the words of a chief of staff in the former Liberal government. It states:

As a vocal critic of those who advocate for total government transparency … I believe there is a place for some secrecy in government.

That came from the very top of Dumas House, or it may have been down the Terrace at that point, when the opposition was in government. This is a former chief of staff to Hon Peter Collier, a man I respect very much, a former leader in this place and a very accomplished government minister. But this is damning. This is a damning, damning quote from his chief of staff. Character matters, my friend, and if that is the way the government was being run at the time, that is the way it was being done.

I have another article, once again from WAtoday, and this one is from 20 February 2018:

Former Premier Colin Barnett repeatedly ignored warnings from treasury about budget blowouts and approved multibillion dollar projects without supportive business cases …In a scathing report into the Barnett government's management of government programs and projects between 2008 and 2017, special inquirer John Langoulant found the government used a "temporary boom" in state revenues to pay for permanent promises.

These are Mr Langoulant's words:

"Because there was no plan, everyone thought it their opportunity to get a piece of the cake," …"The absence of a stand-alone business case to underpin the $4.3 billion Serco contract—

Which we spoke about only a few days or weeks ago in this house—

was the worst case of financial risk taking for the state to be reviewed by the special inquirer."Royalties for Regions, a fund capped at $1 billion a year and derived from 25 per cent of royalties received by the state, was labelled the catalyst for destabilising WA's finances and was criticised by the special inquiry for operating outside of the state's budget.…"There were large buckets of [Royalties for Regions] money allocated to high level and relatively undefined objectives such as 'Pilbara Revitalisation'," …

Does the member want me to read through the paragraphs on Pelago and Osprey? The member wants to talk about transparency and accountability. He was a senior member of staff during that government. He was a senior member when there were billions of dollars flying out. There were no business cases; there was nothing at all. Royalties for regions was being used as a slush fund at the time. I am going back to the report of the special inquiry. The member does not have to take my word for it; this was John Langoulant. The WAtoday article continues:

Of the 50 Royalties for Regions projects assessed, the report found only five had business cases which were considered adequate.

At the end of all of this, when Mr Langoulant had almost finished his inquiry, what did he do? He invited the former Premier to respond to some questions that he had. What did the former Premier say? He declined his invitation to meet with the special inquiry. The lack of transparency continued for years and years after the member was no longer in government. There was $115 million for Osprey, and SuperTowns just went up and up. We got some singing toilets and we got some plastic cows, but we did not see any business cases and we saw no transparency around anything the government was doing during that time.

Hon Dr Brian Walker (12:54 pm): Thank you, Deputy President, and congratulations on your elevation to that post today. I hope we will serve as we should. Congratulations also to the new members of the crossbench, because I think it is about time we experienced what we are about to experience. We have not really had the voice of the people of Australia represented more fully.

I am going to suggest something about the point of this motion. I am going to put the case that I actually agree with the concept, but, as members may know, I am a fundamentalist—by which I mean that we should deal individually with the problems that arise. We spend so much time and money, but we fail to deal with the underlying causes of those issues, and that is actually ineffective. We are not getting efficiency. We need to deal with the underlying causes. We have all agreed this morning, have we not, that we are going to serve the people? What I will say applies to both sides—this duopoly of government—because at the moment, we are in strife. What was so ably demonstrated here by the honourable member was echoed on the government side. They are both saying that the other side is worse.

Transparency in government always appears as a threat, because then we can be held accountable, and this word "accountable" has been used a couple of times. I recall, when I was working in Newman Hospital, we were sending patients out once or twice every weekend at a cost of about $15,000 to $30,000 because we had no laboratory in the hospital. A business case was being made for a $7,500 machine that we could use when the lab closed at midday. Hon Kim Hames was health minister then. Eighteen months later, with a choice between a $7,500 machine and a cost of $30,000 every weekend, the government still had not worked out whether it was worthwhile putting that little machine into our hospital in Newman. It was utterly ludicrous. That was not told to the people, either—the wastage we had there, the suffering and the lives being put at risk. The salt in the wound is that that person's salary was paid through the tax I paid.

I recall that in May 2021, when COVID was causing a problem here, during the budget estimates I asked the Chief Health Officer what information had been given to the government at the time. Bear in mind, I am a member of Parliament representing the people of my electorate, and I am also a practising medical practitioner. This is information I find very valid and very important. The information I got back at the estimates hearings, when I was holding the government to account, was, "I'm terribly sorry; I can't give you that. That's cabinet-in-confidence." Time has since proven that the information my Chief Health Officer colleague gave to government was, in fact, false. It was wrong. It was based on incorrect information. It was based on misguidance from pharmaceutical industries. It did not serve the people. Cabinet-in-confidence?

What we are seeing here is exactly what we saw in programs like Utopia or Yes Minister. All governments defend their actions by hiding what they are actually doing—all governments. I say: a pox on both your houses. I said it in the last Parliament, and I will say it again now: a pox on both your houses for the way you treat us. At least I am a classicist! It is based here on the fear of the people when the people actually find out what is happening. The legislation coming through is guided not by actual need, but by vested interests. It seems to me and to a large part of our population that our legislation is actually for sale. The crossbench here, I think, would stand up for the rights of the people to be heard—that legislation should actually serve our needs.

I asked in Parliament a few months or a year ago: of all the legislation over the last 30 years, have we actually got any better? Are we any more profitable? Are we able to afford better houses? Are we able to get by with just one worker in the house? Are we able to walk the streets safely? Are the police officers being managed when their PTSD is causing them to kill themselves? Is that happening? The answer, colleagues, is no, it is not. I could go back further, I am sure, but we have had 30 years of legislation to what end? It has not been to serve the people, which is maybe one reason why the people we represent are disengaged and why they think that they cannot trust politicians. They cannot trust you and they cannot trust me because they have seen what we are not doing, and that is serving the people adequately.

I will take, for example, the recent things, like the Firearms Act, which has come in now. "We have consulted widely." Well, I have heard from people who have been "consulted". They actually were not consulted; they were told what was going to happen. The government took no advice and it did not listen. It simply said what it was going to do, and we know that because the next morning the bill was presented into Parliament.

Sitting suspended from 1:00:00 pm to 2:00:00 pm

Hon Dr Brian Walker: Thank you, Deputy President. Moving on, I think we agree that there was little consultation worth the name for the Firearms Act, as it is now. The same was true of the Environmental Protection Agency, when the consultation was indeed fulsome but only for those from the industry, which was not actually made very clear at the outset. I do think that what we are looking at here is in fact the status quo. This is not a problem of either side of government; this is a problem of the systems, the very structures underlying government, to which we are all bound. They are pretty much bound to the idea of keeping things the same, not making any changes, because changes and new ideas are dangerous. They cost money and they may lose votes. I think we are being instructed to follow the status quo, and the status quo is in fact an enemy of democracy. We ought to conclude from that that change is desperately needed because carrying on as we have been carrying on for the past decades is not serving the people. We need to focus on serving the people.

No-one will be surprised when I use a reference to the cannabis issue as my prime example of the main thrust of what I am saying. We are seeing that the use of a generally healthy healing herb has been propagandised against for unscientific purposes. A false narrative has been created, and as a result we are now seeing consequences that are measured in trillions of dollars and millions of lives being negatively impacted for no good reason. It is actually hampering the evidence for a profitable hemp-based industry and its products that could be sent into space and used by the Australian Defence Force to make coverings that protect our forces from bombs and bullets. We are actually not allowing that because we are frightened of something that we should not fear.

Status quo thinking does not allow us to look with fresh eyes for new ideas that benefit the community in not just this area but all the areas we are looking at. We are sticking with old ideas, old thoughts, old status quo thinking, and that needs to stop. It is the idea that parties across the chamber are going to oppose each other and fight because they want to be in power. Members want their party to be in power and the benefits of being in power, and to have access to the levers of power so that they can actually do the things they want to do for the benefit of the people. I think that rather than making points across the chamber, we really ought to be focusing on working together in a cooperative manner whereby the intelligences and the friendships we have can be devoted to the service of the people we represent.

I would say that what has been put in the motion today is not an adequate attempt at that. Indeed, the replies we got from government are not the way we want to be working. We need to be working in a cooperative, supportive and developing manner to serve the people. That is the main point I would like to put out at the beginning of this 42nd Parliament, drawing that line in the sand that we the crossbench—I hope I speak for the crossbench—are here to speak with the voice of the people, not so much the parties we represent or whose banner we have come into Parliament under. It is the voices of the people who have chosen us to represent them in this most august place. It is a place where we can have an effective review of legislation to ensure that what passes here serves the people in stark contrast to what has gone on.

I could mention a number of things. One area that was particularly upsetting yesterday was that my question asking for a paper to be tabled was conflated with the whole instruction manual being tabled, and therefore nothing is going to happen. We need transparency. We need truth, and truth, as we all know, is not valued in politics; it is the perception of truth. Let us, brethren, change this and value truth, transparency and service to the people.

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt (2:04 pm): Thank you, Deputy President, and congratulations on your election to the role.

Transparency and accountability are absolutely essential. The point I want to make on the back of debate on this motion is that it does raise some really important issues, maybe not in language I would choose, about how we make sure that governments are transparent and accountable. The heart of that is actually sticking to a plan or even perhaps having a plan.

There are a couple of key issues that are really worth raising in relation to that. I will be quick to leave time for other speakers. I will start with the master plan for Burswood. Hon Dan Caddy said that there is a plan that will be fulfilled on this. I want to table that plan. It is here and there is no mention of a speedway. There is no mention of a motorplex. There is not even a mention of any of the key elements other than the auditorium. Interestingly, it is half the size of the auditorium in the new plan. I have no problem with a larger auditorium. There may even be merit in some of these things, but the idea that the government has diverted from a 20-year vision, one that has been published and has gone to community consultation, through an election promise on which it did not consult, and then be absolutely unwilling to consult or change in any form after that, actually undermines transparent and accountable government. What is the point of doing these kinds of plans? I seek leave to table the plan.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: I did that so that members in this place will never again have the excuse of saying that it is in the plan. There is no supercar track in the plan. In fact, the plan is largely an auditorium, which we all agree with—it is in the new plan as well; great, no-one is arguing about that. It has urban forest, some nature play and minigolf. There is a whole bunch of things that are now absent from the new plan. The plans are chalk and cheese. If we are going to do the right thing and be accountable, we have to make sure we actually follow through on plans that we have done with the community, not divert and then consult on merely the colour of sound walls and the like.

Similarly, we talked a lot about energy around decarbonisation. We all agree. In fact, we have the Premier and the government saying again and again that we want to be, to quote the Premier, "a renewable energy powerhouse", but we do not have a plan to do that. Do you know what? We are not delivering it. I want to table another document. It is a graph that outlines all the large-scale renewable energy generation projects added to the South West Interconnected System over the last decade.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: Members will see from this graph that there are very few projects. There has been one over the last four years and there will be one or two over the next few years. Because we do not have a plan, we have no accountability or transparency as to how we are getting to this point.

These are really important things. This is actually part of the transparency bit. I want to refer to an article published in The Guardian that came out just before the election. It referred to what the government really thought about the transition of the decarbonisation plan. I quote:

… the "decarbonisation work program" in Perth’s electricity grid had "stalled to date".

That is what is really happening. Because we all want to go in this direction, we should all be transparent and accountable about where we are at. If the renewable energy transition to date has really stalled, as confidential advice to government has said, we should be concerned about that and actually working out what those blocks are. Just repeating in an untransparent and unaccountable way, when one has no plan to measure to, that it is all going well and we are going to be a renewable energy powerhouse actually does us all a disfavour because we will get to coal closing down in the late 2020s and 2030s, and we will not have enough renewable energy in place to do it. We will be bringing a whole bunch of new gas on stream, which will lock that in for decades to come. That is not good for the climate and not good for our bottom line.

Finally, I wrap up with urban canopy cover. Again, where is the plan and where is accountability? The latest data that one can find on urban canopies in this state is from 2020. We know that at that point it was in decline. For five years, they have said, "Oh, it's under review. We're going to publish it." Five years later, how can we still have no sense of where we are going? I know where we are going; we are going down. We are not being accountable and we are not being transparent. We can and we must do better.

Hon Nick Goiran (Leader of the Opposition) (2:10 pm): How disappointing the response has been from the government with regard to the excellent motion moved by the opposition whip earlier this morning. It is incredible to think that once again, the only response that has been provided by the government today on a motion about accountability, our concerns around government secrecy, the government's unwillingness to be transparent and its complete unpreparedness to consult with the people of Western Australia, has been from one spokesperson from the government, whose only line of defence is to go back to more than eight years ago and talk about a former government. At some point, I hoped that this government would actually be accountable for its own performance. That is what it is supposed to do under our system of responsible government. The members opposite are to be responsible and responsive to the Parliament for their own performance, not continuously talking about our former government. Somehow, the line of defence is to say, "Well, the performance was poor in the past, so that justifies our continuing underperformance." How utterly absurd! It is no wonder that Hon Dr Brian Walker feels as exasperated as he does and calls for an improvement. I note in particular that today Hon Neil Thompson asked the government—in fact, he has urged the government—that it immediately cease with its attitude of arrogance and contempt, yet, that is all that we have heard in the response that we received earlier this morning.

It was interesting to me that the one spokesperson for the government decided to talk about section 82 notices. To his credit, the point that was made by the honourable member, if I can paraphrase his argument, was that the sheer number of section 82 notices ought not be the only determiner of whether a government has been transparent or not. In one sense, that is true. In other words, the member was saying that if there has been, let us say, 100 section 82 notices, what does that raw number tell us as to whether a government has been transparent or not? If one only hears that raw number, it does not tell one anything. But, honourable member, it does tell us that that particular government actually complies with section 82. New members may not be aware that section 82 is only triggered if the government tables a section 82 notice. The reason that there has hardly been any section 82 notices in the recent Parliament is this government has been so arrogant and contemptuous towards section 82 that it just does not issue notices. It is very cute for the government spokesperson to come along here and talk about quantity of section 82 notices. As I say, they are right; it does not tell us too much about transparency. But it would be good, and perhaps we could start today, honourable members opposite, to actually comply with section 82. That would be a great start.

President, I congratulate you on your re-election earlier today. I will have more to say about that later in my Address-in-Reply speech. I have in my possession the Annual Report 2023–24 of the Office of the Auditor General. I wonder whether the government spokesperson has read this report. It is the most recent annual report from the Office of the Auditor General. Again, for the benefit of new members, the Auditor General does the investigation into these section 82 notices. In other words, if the government can be bothered to comply with section 82, it would table in this place and give to the Auditor General a notice called a section 82 notice to say that it has decided not to provide information to Parliament. That then triggers an investigation by the Auditor General. The Auditor General cannot do an investigation if the government contemptuously and arrogantly does not comply with section 82. This report, the most recent annual report, tells us some very important information. I draw to the attention of members opposite, who I assume at this point in time are unfamiliar with its content, that it tells us that in the last financial year, there were seven opinions tabled. In other words, the Office of the Auditor General conducted seven investigations into information that the government refused to provide to Parliament. What was the outcome of those investigations? Remember, Hon Dan Caddy told us this morning that it is not the sheer quantum that matters. In other words, what comes out of the opinion from the Auditor General matters. What happened in respect to those seven cases, honourable members? Very interestingly, zero were found to be reasonable. Not one of the investigations done by the Auditor General led to a finding that what the government had done, in other words, not providing information to Parliament, was reasonable—not one. I am quite happy, Hon Dan Caddy, if we say that from now on—from 22 May onwards—the new standard will be not the sheer number of investigations undertaken by the Office of the Auditor General but the outcome. I am quite happy for that to be the case because, apparently, in the last financial year, this government scored zero out of seven. In respect to what happened with those other seven matters, two were found to be not reasonable. That is the worst that we could possibly have. The Auditor General's job is to decide whether it was reasonable that the government decided not to provide information to Parliament. The Auditor General said that on zero occasions was the outcome reasonable and on two occasions not reasonable. That is pretty bad, but it gets worse. On five occasions, the Auditor General gave a disclaimer of opinion. New members will say what on earth is a disclaimer of opinion? Helpfully, at page 88 of this annual report, which evidently members opposite have not read, it states, "This year we" —remember who is talking here: the Auditor General of Western Australia. This is an independent officer of Parliament whose job it is to look into these section 82 notices—again, only if the government can bother to comply with section 82, which, as we know, only happened seven times in the last financial year.

The Auditor General says this:

This year we have issued the highest number of disclaimers of opinions in one year.

"The highest number"—members opposite must be so proud of the fact that the Auditor General of Western Australia, whose job is to look into the secrecy of this government, says that they have had to issue the highest number in one year. The Auditor General goes on to say:

It is disappointing to have to issue disclaimers due to a lack of evidence as the inability of an auditor to access the information they need to meet their obligation is a serious matter for the auditor and for those who rely on their opinion. If an auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, they have few options. One of these is to issue disclaimers of opinion. To best serve the Parliament, community and public interest, we encourage—

Who is encouraging who here? The Auditor General is encouraging the government—if it can be bothered to read page 88.

… we encourage all ministers to choose openness and disclosure as their default position, rather than seeking to identify rationale for not providing information, and only restrict information where there is a genuine matter of public interest to do so.

So when the government spokesperson earlier today suggested that the opposition might have a few things to say about section 82, my word, we do. We intend to continue to raise this throughout this 42nd Parliament. The performance of the Labor government in the 41st Parliament with respect to transparency has been catastrophically poor. Do not take my word for it. It can be too easy to say, "Well, of course the opposition is going to say that". How about we take the opinion of the independent statutory officer, which is the Auditor General, who is paid by the taxpayers of Western Australia to determine exactly these things.

When Hon Neil Thomson, the opposition Whip, moves a motion like this, my encouragement to the government is to forget about this pretence of going back eight years ago and saying, "What about what you guys did eight years ago?" That is not the standard. The government itself has said that that is not the standard. If government members want to improve things, be accountable for the motions that are put forward by this member and others. They can expect a heck of a lot more of them over the next four years.

Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.