Estimates
Estimates of revenue and expenditure
Consideration of tabled papers
Resumed from 19 August 2025 on the following motion moved by Hon Samantha Rowe (Parliamentary Secretary):
That pursuant to standing order 69(1), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 316A–E (2025–26 budget papers) laid upon the table of the house on Thursday 19 June 2025.
Hon Maryka Groenewald (3:14 pm): Thank you, Acting President. It is always a contest, is it not? I have watched for many years how these replies have unfolded and yes, I am probably one of those few laypeople who actually livestreamed them fairly regularly, but it is an honour to give this reply as an Australian Christians member and apply that lens in looking at some of these issues. I appreciate that it is very hard to put together a budget. It is easy to stand on this side, to criticise and to have all these suggestions, but I appreciate that it takes a fair bit of time to put together a budget. My hope today is to be constructive in how I tackle a few of these issues and perhaps give a bit of food for thought around the good, the bad and the ugly.
Before I get into the detail of my reply, it is probably a good time to raise a bit of an issue. Budgets are about stewardship and direction, which are both underpinned by integrity. More than a month ago, I discovered extra staffing allocations had been quietly granted to certain parties, apparently the result of a deal done in a previous Parliament. On advisement, three crossbench members, including myself, jointly wrote to the Premier seeking clarity about this arrangement and this issue. If three upper house members write to a Premier, one would at the very least expect an acknowledgement of that letter, Acting President. Yet, to this day, there has been no acknowledgement of any correspondence that was undersigned by three upper house members of the Legislative Council. That is unacceptable. I want to thank Hon Dr Brad Pettitt and Hon Dr Brian Walker for their openness with me on this matter because it seems that the line of deals done in the previous Parliament is not entirely correct. What the government deems to be not an entitlement for us, is, as it seems, one for the other. We are not asking for special treatment; we are just asking for fairness. We represent Western Australians who deserve the same level of vigorous representation from us and every member here has worked hard to earn their seat. We are not an inconsequential part of this Parliament. Again, I respectfully ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Premier to please respond to this staffing request, noting the inequity of this issue. It is not a good look, Deputy President. I will now move on to the budget elements.
Let us start with what this budget gets right and where it falls short. Although there are certainly encouraging items including extra funding for palliative care in hospitals and communities, the scale and continuity of future support remains slightly unclear. I have had many conversations about this and I was happy to attend a briefing here a month or so ago about the importance of palliative care and the value those services provide in our communities, so that is a good thing.
Families have seen some positives in this budget. All of us have spoken to families who have a real issue with the cost-of-living crisis. The School Breakfast Program has been expanded into more than 650 schools, which is awesome, and the KidSport vouchers are continuing. Of course, the transport cap is also very welcome. Those caps complicate the cost recovery for Metronet because there are still some questions around the long-term cost benefit of those lines, but hopefully that will yield in the future. Despite residential battery rebates flowing to some of the higher earners, that scheme has been a good initiative, but renters and low-income families miss out on this. It does seem, however, that the same issues remain: meeting basic needs around utilities, health and food is a challenge. The removal of the $400 state electricity credit is probably the biggest contributor to increased costs. I appreciate that there are offsets, but when we look at the bottom line, families are still worse off. Of course, the Metronet spend has gone up from $3 billion to over $15 billion. There are also other real issues.
I was listening to the ABC this morning and heard how, as members might be aware, 1,000 emergency phone calls were made while the Department of Health is in crisis because we do not have enough hospital beds. This morning the Director General of the Department of Health said that most of the patients were actually aged 70-plus, so sufficient funding for home care packages to free up beds is going to be an important issue with our ageing population. Of course, it is also very important to look at the shortage of allied health professionals and specialists such as occupational therapists and speech therapists, as well as the waitlists associated with them.
Considering that our revenue backdrop matters, and so, too, does what we do with that information, Labor benefits from strong mining revenues, with iron ore royalties delivering records for this state. This windfall was a generational opportunity for reform, yet the budget avoids ambitious changes and prioritises short-term measures. This budget throws money at under-resourced regional schools and crumbling hospitals, and there is still a lack of social housing. Clearly, it is not enough and perhaps too little, too late. Debt—an area that Labor campaigned on in opposition—continues to rise despite sustained surpluses. In fact, in 2017, then opposition leader Mark McGowan committed to using 50% of iron ore royalties to reduce debt, as long as WA's GST share was above 60c in the dollar. These conditions have been met for years. Another thing was if the price of iron ore was above US$85. That is still the case. Even still, net debt is projected to reach $42.4 billion by 2027–28, which is up from $33.6 billion. Debt reduction was promised, but debt is increasing, and the irony is that it is due to precisely the sort of irresponsible spending once criticised by the Labor Party in opposition.
Of course, none of this is unique to one party. Debt has grown, and it has been a bipartisan trend, but with the current revenue tide, restraint and reform really are necessary. Sorry to my Liberal colleagues, but it is fair to say that the Barnett years left the Liberal Party with a credibility problem on debt as well. Net debt went from $3 billion to $30 billion, and of course Labor has never let the Liberals forget about it. But they did deliver hospitals and we did see a new stadium, Elizabeth Quay and freeways. Those are important assets. I think the real problem here is timing. Revenue collapsed as iron ore prices fell and WA was punished with the worst GST share in the country. The government looks strong only because, in a sense, it inherited this GST fix and record royalties—things that Barnett obviously never had.
Given that, the most significant opportunity I see when I look at this lies in tax reform. I think that somewhere along the line we are going to have to bite the bullet and look at long-term solutions, because short-term sugar fixes during an election campaign will reel in votes but they are not long-term solutions. I know and appreciate that some of the things I might mention have a national policy response, but what an incredible opportunity for WA to be leaders in this space, particularly on stamp duty, payroll tax and income splitting. Some changes to stamp duty have been welcomed. That is a really good thing, but, of course, the stamp duty threshold is capped at $500 000 or $700 000 for families that want smaller housing. The median price at the moment is $800,000, so how many families are going to miss out because they are simply priced out of the market? Where will people find a family home for under $500,000? Many people who want a family home are being priced out of the market or are slugged with stamp duty charges that are discounted only at a low-duty threshold.
Secondly, payroll tax could also be phased out, unlocking investment and job growth. A recent study on Brazil done by the University of California, Berkeley, found that consumers bear 65% of payroll tax, business owners bear 23% and workers bear about 12%. Slashing payroll tax in Brazil saw a 12% rise in job creation, and it was primarily driven by small businesses. I think we are all at a point at which we can appreciate that we need to think outside the box and we need to do things differently.
Lastly, cost-of-living pressures can be reduced by seriously looking at lobbying the federal government on income splitting. Yes, there are costs associated with this, but it is a plan to be much more effective with how families look at their income. Australia's tax system is individual based, so it often disadvantages single-income families. Of course, this would put long-term money back in their pockets. We need to add back choice.
It would be remiss of me not to speak about women's health, the need for choice in this area and, of course, balance. The budget provides $2.5 million for a sexual health clinic in Cockburn, which will include abortion services—another escalation. I can appreciate that many might feel a bit uncomfortable with me talking about this, but it is important that we address this issue. We have to be able to look at both sides of the life issue.
There are real concerns raised here. For instance, I have attended and chaired the Rally for Life at Parliament House for the last five to 10 years. I have spoken to countless women, men and professionals about this very issue. The rally itself has been going for 20-plus years, yet I have noticed a stark change at the last few. Groups have mobilised to counter-protest—yelling, swearing and carrying on in front of children and families. We even had people intimidate us at an event. Some elderly members were shoved around to the point at which the police were called. There is a new level of indifference and aggression that I am noticing in our community, and it seems that a lot of these groups are emboldened to aggressively disrupt. Every year I approach them to have a conversation and say, "Look, give me your concerns", only to be spat at or yelled at. I really do believe that how we deal with and talk about this issue—I know it is a sensitive one—and how we interact with each other is important. How these groups react is a reflection of what we model politically and what we institute in laws. It is important. Our decorum in all our interactions matters, and that is why I raise the issue of funding for the clinic.
Of course we want women to be healthy and we want to care for them, but we have to give them a choice. We have to give them the necessary information to make a truly informed choice. The primary stated purpose for this centre is abortion services, both surgical and medical. There is a brief mention of other reproductive services, but the main driver is the abortion component of it. I have already mentioned how terrible WA's abortion reforms are, and this service raises further challenges about lawmakers' default position on the issue of unplanned pregnancy. I would love to see a pathway that supports mum and baby to live their lives, and to live them well. Many pregnancy support centres around Western Australia do an incredible job of listening to and supporting many of these women who are facing terrible situations. I often wonder why we cannot have these conversations simultaneously. Sufficient assistance for those providing support and counselling would be of tremendous benefit to those women pre-abortion and post-abortion.
I was quite surprised recently when I received an answer from the Minister for Health in which she confirmed that a staggering 25 girls under the age of 15 had abortions last year. These statistics are sobering. I have to say that this is heartbreaking. Although every abortion is a tragedy, I grieve with these girls, who are also, in a sense, children. That is why I asked the question about coercion. I was assured that screening was available and happening, and I hope that the Department of Health closely investigates each of those 25 cases with great urgency. I will be honest with members; I would have been shocked if I had been told that 25 girls under the age of 15 had got pregnant last year, let alone had abortions. We also know that a further 781 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 had abortions. They need physical, emotional and psychological support.
The budget also references funding for stillbirth autopsies, which sits uneasily alongside earlier reforms removing the requirement to report to the coroner babies born alive following an abortion. Most recently, this legislation was amended to remove the coroner requirement. Before, these deaths might have been investigated, but now there is no longer an obligation to report or do so. It is not a death like any other. It still happens. In the last election cycle, former health minister Amber-Jade Sanderson labelled reports of babies born alive after an abortion as misinformation, despite her department previously advising that 31 newborns had shown signs of life post-abortion. Recently, in a response to a pre-budget hearing question, we also learnt that eight more babies had been born and left to die between December 2021 and December 2024.
Of course, I say "at least", because thanks to Labor's abortion reforms, the coroner will no longer be informed when a baby survives an abortion and is left to die. The minister also made the decision to remove pregnancy support centres from public health brochures. Why is that such a controversial thing? If the options were there beforehand and there was a way to support women seeking information, why remove the information from those brochures? The decision further narrows the choices available to women considering these options.
On the topic of children, I move from pre-born to youth. I remind members of the inquest into the deaths of 13 Aboriginal children and young people in the Kimberley region. There was a significant investigation into the tragic youth suicide crisis. I think it is important to mention these again. I note that the state government has made some progress with the 42 recommendations, but, again, many issues were raised and some are still left unattended. State Coroner Fogliani highlighted the following. The inquest found that poor physical health, including preventable conditions like recurring infections and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, played a critical role in the children's wellbeing. We want to see fetal alcohol spectrum integrated into a lot of the services. She also said that the deceased often had mental health vulnerabilities, exacerbated by substance use, particularly alcohol. It is a massive issue. The third big thing was intergenerational trauma. I listened to Hon Dr Brad Pettitt talk earlier about prevention. The underpinning thing in everything we are looking at is the whole concept of preventive policies and programs, and identifying these issues before it is too late. As the report mentions, it would be great to have programs that are sufficient and audited and evaluated well so that we know they are delivering for those communities.
Talking about outcomes, we need to look at the outcomes of a lot of our services here and the models under which they operate. Whilst there is no specific line for Perth Children's Hospital, there appears to be a continuing pattern. Last year we learnt that 202 minors were referred to the gender services clinic here, of which 178 are receiving some kind of care and 69 minors are currently on puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. The youngest referral last year was only 11 years old, with the youngest ever treated a 10-year-old. Publicly cited research suggests that 99% of youth who begin medicalised gender treatments continue into adulthood, indicating path dependence with limited reversibility. A lot of this medication is irreversible and it has long-term implications. The term "gender-affirming care" masks the reality that these are significant medical interventions for minors, with consistent contested evidence about the long-term implications.
I also note that it is important to keep pointing people to information around the Cass review recommendations and even looking at some of the findings in that report. Despite this, WA has not paused or reviewed its practice in line with these developments, and requests to release the PCH clinical guidelines have continually been declined. In fact, the health minister of the state seems to be fairly unphased about the contents and seriousness of this review. I want to read the minister's pre-budget response to one of my questions. I asked whether the government was familiar with the Cass review and, if so, whether WA Health could briefly describe the report and outline when and how it made clinical changes to the treatment of children. The response was: yes, the Cass review was a report into services for gender-diverse children. It goes on to point out that the recommendations were largely in relation to the configuration, governance and operational models in the UK. That response is quite shocking because the minister we trust with the care of our youth thinks that the most important review into this issue is about a governance and operational model. I draw members' attention to page 186 of the Cass report, which clearly states:
Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the University of York's systematic review …
Page 32 states:
However, no changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction were demonstrated. There was insufficient/inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing
The document has many statements like those. To call this a procedural document that has no relevance to Western Australia is actually outrageous. The only appropriate step is for us to ensure there is a review of the evidence so that we understand what the implications are and how these life-altering medications are prescribed to minors, especially around the issue of informed consent. The writing is on the wall and countless jurisdictions are moving to ban this experimental medicine. Extra funding allocation towards counselling can go a long way. Many families have shared with me, even some of the young people who have detransitioned, that had they had sufficient support and understanding before they were put on this trajectory, their decisions might have looked very, very different. We know that accessing those services is expensive and the waitlists are very long, so there has to be better access for that.
I move on to education. The budget measures for students, such as assistance payments and public transport fares, are all constructive. However, there is no specific support for home education, which seems to be growing a fair bit around Western Australia, and Australia for that matter. A lot of parents are choosing values-aligned, faith-based schooling. The demand is steadily growing. Parents should have greater influence, too, over curricular content. Classrooms should focus on core literacy and numeracy while avoiding partisan advocacy. Through my interaction with a lot of organisations and associations in Western Australia, teachers have reported concerns about non-curricular politics entering lessons. That undermines trust and distracts from the essentials. I have also received correspondence from teachers who have said to me over the years that well-meaning and dedicated people feel conflicted because they are often suddenly forced to support particular events and days at their school. Most recently there was one instance at a workplace in which a man had to take a day's leave because there was almost a requirement to be supportive of a particular event.
I commend the MADALAH scholarship pilot. That is fantastic. It will receive $1.1 million over seven years to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in regional and remote areas to attend schools in Perth. Having researched the role of mentorship in supporting Aboriginal young people at university, it will be good to see what this will deliver. Any support for mentors is always a good thing.
Another commendable aspect of the budget is the funding for women's and girls' sports. The budget provides $30 million for facilities and $6 million to lift participation, which is positive. Although, that said, the support for female sports is intentional, with Labor's gender self-identification laws allowing men to enter female-only spaces by changing their sex on legal documents. It is a bit hard for the government to claim it is standing up for women when we are trying to define what a woman is.
I move on to school chaplaincy, which also continues to be a valuable player in our community in the education space. Although funding has been allocated, a lot of the statistics in schools and communities show that the demand continues to grow because the need is so great in a lot of places. At the moment, funding covers only about a day and a half a week, but there is a need to extend that to two days. Chaplains are loved by schools and the community. Often it is not just about the child but about building relationships with the families and service providers involved. They often provide a kind of wraparound service. I want to thank YouthCARE and some of the other teams that do an incredible job. I note with interest, though, the top four conversations. This helps us when we look at our budgets. The top four conversation topics they were having with children and families this year were about health and wellbeing, peer relationships, family relationships and school concerns. These are quite important things for a lot of families and children. I note that 608,106 meals were served as part of the School Breakfast Program. That is phenomenal.
I think the important thing to note as well when we look at preventive policy is the fact that referrals are so important. There were 9,391 community referrals from chaplains to particular services, allied services, food banks or support services to help families, too. I think these coalface preventive-type programs are important and we need them. This shift towards preventive policies that strengthen households is crucial, otherwise I do not think we will be able to afford the repairs later. Too often, governments wait until the crisis hits breaking point and then we scramble to respond rather than putting real energy into addressing the root causes. Of course, a lot of that has been mentioned here today.
The budget allocates funds for domestic violence shelters and eviction relief. When a family is in danger or when a woman and her children need a safe place to go every night, these really are lifelines. These interventions are essential, but again, it talks about a broader issue. They are quite reactive. What we might not see in this budget is the kind of upstream investment that perhaps reduces the need for crisis measures in the first place. Needs abound. We can see that in the programs that we are funding.
Where is the funding for scalable, affordable family therapy that helps parents manage conflict before it escalates? I often thought about it during the election campaign when I was talking about the 10 Medicare sessions someone gets to go see a psychologist. Wouldn't it have been fantastic to extend that so that not just individuals could access it, but also families could actually have the option to access it collectively? Where is the commitment to accessible marriage counselling? I know there are a lot of organisations doing a great job but there are a lot of stressors out there. The cost of living places a lot of stress on people. It would be great, again, to offer some wraparound services around our families. Again, we are treating symptoms instead of probably preventing this damage. I understand that a lot of these problems are wicked policy problems to solve. They are challenging to solve, but our funding can flow accordingly.
Another under-appreciated driver of family breakdown and domestic violence that I think is important to mention here is gambling. I have never seen so much advertising for gambling than during ad breaks at sporting events. It is unbelievable. No longer does someone have to walk into a betting shop or stand at a counter to gamble;. it is on their smartphone and laptop. Gambling is accessible 24 hours a day and the consequences are devastating. The research makes it clear that people with gambling problems are more than twice as likely to perpetrate or experience family violence as those without gambling issues. It is not a minor correlation; it is a red flag that gambling is not just an individual vice. This is actually going to become a public safety issue. Over a third of problem gamblers report involvement in physical intimate partner violence, sometimes as a victim, sometimes as a perpetrator. We know that as financial stress inevitably escalates, it often spills into physical abuse or emotional abuse. Families are left traumatised by this instability, and they did not even choose it.
The good news is that prevention does work. There are some incredible programs coming out of the US and other places that actually talk about solutions-focused therapy. Families could be given the opportunity to access these structured programs through government assistance. This budget does not yet move in that preventive-style direction. Instead, we are stuck in a cycle of building more shelters, funding more emergency beds and treating the wounds after the fact, while leaving the drivers of harm unchecked. If we are serious about stopping family violence, we have to go further upstream, and that means getting serious about regulating access to online gambling and curbing sports betting advertisements. These advertisements now target young people. It is not just adults anymore; it is children and young people. Critically, in doing this work, I think there is another area, too. We have to resist the temptation to vilify half the population, especially around that issue. We need to strengthen the men in our society. Not all men are toxic. Not all men are violent. They are fathers, brothers, sons and partners. They are a big factor in keeping communities strong.
A big factor that provides stability and security, as I mentioned earlier, is housing. Let us consider housing supply and the needs of families as we flow on from that. The budget places emphasis on building more houses, and that is welcome. I already outlined my concerns about this government's stamp duty regime in relation to housing. But more than this, families are desperate for relief from record high rents. Does Keystart and build-to-rent help? Well, this is one thing for us to consider. The government is delivering a $250,000 low-to-zero interest loan to build-to-rent developers, while Keystart home owners pay high interest rates. The market would give them better rates than the government if they could build a 20% deposit with the bank. This bias of support towards developers does not solve the affordability gap, so it remains a huge barrier to home ownership and building stronger families. This goes for metro and regional areas.
Interestingly, according to a KPMG analysis in July, the greater Perth birth rate rose 5% from 2023 to 2024, but it was led by outer suburbs like Armadale, Byford and Baldivis, where larger, affordable, more detached homes were available prior to 2023. In regional WA, very interestingly, the birth rate was up 8% year over year. It shows that families tend to prefer larger houses where they are available and affordable. Government measures are not assisting families enough. We know we have a massive birth rate issue. The number of births in WA in 2024 was 5,000 less than in 2016. This budget focuses almost exclusively on supply-side solutions and I think it is something we have to be mindful of. The problems are deeper than just a lack of homes. Layers of green and red tape continue to slow approvals and push costs higher for a lot of these programs, too.
I was speaking to a family a little while ago. It is great to have migrant families come in, myself included, but this family was saying it was so difficult for them to find a rental and to cope with the cost that they actually had to move back to their home country. We are doing a huge disserve to not only families who are migrating to Australia and Western Australia, but also families here. There is a constant battle and competition for resourcing and houses, and prices continue to go up. Housing stability is important and so is the wellbeing of our children and young people; they are linked. I want to quickly shift to child protection and program funding. We have to seriously consider age-appropriate safeguards and classifications. An interesting thing in the budget is that it allocates hundreds of millions to child protection through the Department of Communities, bolstering safety nets, family support services and its vital work that we need to get behind, yet we are letting down our guard when it comes to shielding children's minds from explicit content, with the classification system full of gaps that actually fail to keep a lot of explicit materials out. This is a perfect example; take the book Welcome to Sex, which is marketed to kids over 12, with detailed descriptions of graphic sexual acts. As a member, I am not comfortable giving all the detail of this, but unfortunately it is the only way to raise awareness. This book is actually targeting minors and describes sexual acts in detail. I cannot even list them. This is hardly the kind of content that we should be thinking is reasonable for 12-year-olds. The book's author said she would be fine with this kind of material being even read to eight-year-olds. Who in their right mind would think that such explicit material should be available to minors? Federal guidelines are clear: books with explicit nudity, sexual activity or content likely to offend reasonable adults or that is unsuitable for minors must get a category 1 restriction, barring sale to under-18s. No reasonable person could argue this book meets those standards, yet a search result from the classification board's online portal returns zero results for the title Welcome to Sex. We know that this book is either unclassified or unrestricted. Somehow this book managed to make its way onto bookshelves where minors can access it freely without any intervention from some classification board. We are talking about the toll of pornography and sexually explicit imagery on young people, yet we do not even have the capacity to fund a classification board. Regardless, this needs to be allocated and there needs to be something put in place.
This equally applies to the type of programs we fund for children and young people. All programs should be transparent, measured and accountable. At a time when so many families are paying more for their electricity, cars and fuel, millions of dollars are being funnelled into very narrow, ideologically driven programs. The budget allocates millions of dollars to particular initiatives, but there is very little clarity about what these services or groups provide, what are the outcomes or how the services will be delivered or measured. The government is pretty much just writing out blank cheques.
At a more basic level, I say that using taxpayer funds on divisive programs is unacceptable. Some of the relentless agendas pushed by organisations do not resonate with a significant number of Western Australians. There should be initiatives run in schools that are good for all kids and all families. Although some of those groups may perhaps have difficulty in defining what a woman is, it seems that this budget can. The women's grants program allocates over $500,000 to projects in health and wellbeing. That is a good thing. However, there appears to be a bit of an imbalance in this. Budget documents reference women and girls nearly 40 times, but men and boys are barely referenced at all. The only mention of males that I could find was the word "boys" in relation to an old school building's air conditioning unit. Consider this: men account for 70% of workplace injuries, 96% of workplace fatalities, 60% of drug-induced deaths and 75% of suicides, public policy needs to also recognise the vulnerabilities of men in our society and not perhaps pretend that one half of the population does not exist. We have to look at the issue as a whole, because ignoring the reality of these challenges for men will do us a great disservice. Whether it is suicide statistics or workplace safety, we need to look at the issue more closely. The test for any public expenditure should be simply whether it serves the common good and its outcomes can be properly measured.
In closing, my hope is that through this budget future budgets will reflect better planning and transparency, perhaps with more of a focus on prevention, evaluation and targeted support. Although we have missed some key opportunities, there is always room for improvement and to lead in key areas such as tax reform, long-term cost relief, balanced health policy, evidence-led children's care, protecting children and young people, looking at the life issue and implementing recommendations to support our regions. I am sure we all aspire to leave behind a state in which families can thrive. I am sure that is everybody's aspiration. I will continue to do my best to champion values and topics for those key things, and hopefully we will see more of a shift towards preventive policy in the next budgets.
Hon Amanda Dorn (3:53 pm): I rise today to give my contribution in response to the 2025–26 budget, with a particular focus on how public funds are being used or not used to protect animals and the environment. It can be said that a government budget is more than just numbers. It provides a reflection of society's values. Although there are some commendable initiatives in this year's budget, there are also some omissions and troubling investments that deserve scrutiny.
Before I get into the papers themselves, I note that when it comes down to it, funding is what allows us to get work done. We are all here as public servants trying to get work done for our constituents, but to do that we need resources. My office has felt the strain of having to do everything that is required outside of this chamber with limited staffing available. With the support of some of my crossbench colleagues, as mentioned, I previously wrote to the Premier to request an interim increase in staffing support ahead of the completion of the Morton review. We are simply asking for a part-time staff allocation to at least bring us into line with other minor parties that have received such an increase. As the sole member of my party here, fighting to represent animal interests, I respectfully ask for fairness in funding so that I can do my job to the best of my ability.
A member: Hear, hear!
Hon Amanda Dorn: Thank you.
I intend to approach this speech from the perspective of someone who is passionate about enhancing our society's collective values and those values being reflected in how our public funds are being spent. I repeat the core values of my party, which I emphasised during my inaugural speech. They are kindness, equality, rationality and nonviolence. I imagine it would be difficult for anyone to disagree with wanting to see these values reflected in our society. A world in which decisions are made rationally but with kindness held front of mind is a world worth striving for. Today I will make a case for how we might be able to apply these values when considering our state's finances.
I will not lie; seeing over a thousand pages of budget papers gave me and my team a bit of a shock, but it made me realise just how much work has gone into this, and I commend the government on producing such detailed documents. I also congratulate the government on the very positive figures summarised in the overview of our state's fiscal outlook. WA is clearly an economically successful state, and we have the surplus to prove it. This puts us in an enviable position of being able to allocate funding to things that our society cares about. Billions—with a capital B—of dollars have been allocated to cost-of-living relief, housing, education and health investments. These are all extremely important initiatives, and the more we can do to help the vulnerable in our society, the better. But amongst all this, we must not forget the other vulnerable members of our state that do not often get thought about during all this talk about money. These members do not even get a direct say in how money is spent in relation to them. I am, of course, referring to animals. Whether they are domestic, wild or captive, animals are a core part of our society, and they deserve to be represented in public expenditure. As the Animal Justice Party representative, I am here to do just that.
Let me begin my take on this year's budget by acknowledging several positive inclusions that deserve recognition. The Animal Welfare Grant Program continues to provide support to organisations working on the front lines of animal protection. In 2024–25, over $1 million was allocated to initiatives including subsidised veterinary care for vulnerable people's pets, sterilisation and microchipping programs, and wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. These grants are not just compassionate; they are practical, preventive and community driven. For that, we can be thankful. However, although the continuation of this program is welcomed, it is very concerning that funding does not continue beyond 2026–27. I am also dismayed that these grants have remained capped at $50,000 per organisation since 2021, despite the huge cost-of-living increases we have experienced in recent years. If we are serious about supporting the welfare of companion animals and wildlife, we must ensure that funding is not only sustained but scaled appropriately. Inflation-adjusted increases and multi-year commitments would allow organisations to plan, grow and reach more animals in need.
I mentioned that this program has awarded grants to assist with subsidised veterinary costs for a range of scenarios. This is something I imagine we could all surely get behind. Who would not want to see assistance provided to vulnerable people or desperate wildlife carers so that their beloved pets or rescued animals can receive critical medical treatment? I will use this point to highlight one of my party's core policies—one that I intend to passionately pursue in this Parliament—and that is Veticare, a world-first public healthcare system for animals modelled on the Medicare model. We hear of families struggling to afford giving their pet medical treatment, and the horrendous number of otherwise healthy animals being needlessly euthanised, leading to a mental health crisis for vet staff. Veticare would make veterinary care affordable and accessible for all. It would support rescue organisations, prevent animal abandonment and empower veterinary professionals to do their lifesaving work. The positive ripple effect of such an initiative would be felt throughout the community. This budget has revealed that our state is in an enviable financial position. Let us use that momentum and our good fortune to create something truly special—something that will benefit generations of humans and animals alike.
On a similar note, I want to commend the government on funding the veterinary social work pilot program. I understand that this program supports animal caregivers who are experiencing homelessness, domestic violence, mental health distress or financial hardship. It recognises the intersection between human vulnerability and animal welfare, which is directly related to what I have been advocating through Veticare. I also am pleased to note the continuation of the Pets in Crisis program, which helps people with pets who are escaping family and domestic violence.
The funding boost to RSPCA WA's inspectorate service is a welcome step in the right direction, and I commend the government for following through on this election promise. This funding supports enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, a responsibility that RSPCA alone carries on behalf of the entire state. I do not believe it is appropriate to have a charity tasked with the enormous responsibility of investigating and enforcing animal cruelty cases. Imagine if the police needed to ask for public donations to help them do their job. Enforcement is only one part of the picture. The care of animals rescued through enforcement, as well as those surrendered or found in distress outside of enforcement activities, still relies directly on public donations. Behavioural rehabilitation, veterinary care, desexing, rehoming, education and outreach are essential services that prevent cruelty before it occurs. They build community resilience and foster empathy, yet they remain underfunded.
All of this, and more, is why I advocate for an independent office of animal protection—a publicly-funded government agency that would oversee and enforce animal protection legislation. If we are serious about protecting animals under the law, we need to move towards a more empowered and resourced agency that can do this work. We need an agency that does not need to call for donations or question itself on whether to follow-up a case with prosecution. We know how passionate the public is about ending animal cruelty, and that is the reason I am standing here today. The next time I bring up the independent office of animal protection, please remember this statement.
I refer to the negative inclusions. Although there are some commendable initiatives, such as the few I have just highlighted, there are also areas in which this budget falls short—or worse, invests in systems that perpetuate harm. Take, for example, the biosecurity funding allocated to avian influenza response activities. Although disease prevention is critical, we must confront the uncomfortable truth: the conditions in which chickens are farmed—crammed, stressed, and genetically uniform—are a breeding ground for viral mutation and spread. Attempting to prevent wild birds from accessing poultry farms, so that farmed chickens are not exposed to the influenza virus, is not enough. The farms themselves are the risk. Zoonotic diseases are transmitted rapidly in environments densely populated with animals, as traditional disease control measures like movement and separation are largely ineffective in these situations.
We cannot continue to treat industrial animal agriculture as a neutral backdrop to biosecurity. It is in itself a contributing factor. If we are investing millions in disease response, we must also invest in reforming the systems that create the risk in the first place. Do members know that the national standard for free-range hens in Australia allows up to 10,000 birds per hectare, whereas in the EU and New Zealand they are legally restricted to 2,500 per hectare? As all of us should be aware, factory farms are the absolute worst of the worst, with chickens being crammed into cages or dark, dingy barns. But even in the so-called free-range world, a lack of specific legal requirements allows producers to choose their own levels of space, shelter and vegetation to provide to their hens. Society's insatiable appetite for eggs, coupled with an increasing population and increasing cost of living, continues to place immense pressure on producers to provide more with less. Over the past 10 years, the number of eggs produced annually in Australia has risen by over 25%. That is nearly seven billion eggs for just this last financial year! There are around 20 million egg-laying hens in Australia, with around a third of these still confined to cages, living in less space than we would find on a piece of A4 paper.
In terms of numbers of animals, the egg industry pales in comparison to the chicken meat industry. More than 650 million broiler chickens are slaughtered in Australia each year. Broiler chicken sheds house tens of thousands of birds, basically living on top of each other, and even on top of their own waste. These are conditions that a zoonotic virus would consider an absolute jackpot. Broiler chickens have been selectively bred for decades to reach their maximum weight around four to six weeks after birth, far sooner than their natural growth span and this, along with their squalid living conditions, leads to a range of devastating health conditions, such as organ failure, leg deformities, skin diseases and infections. Wild waterbirds often bear the blame for being the source of avian flu, but it should be clear that the conditions under which we keep farmed chickens is like a tinderbox waiting to explode. Rather than simply spending money on responding to avian influenza, we should be working to prevent it by investing in new ways of producing food that do not put bird and human lives in peril.
I noticed that aquaculture development has received over a million dollars in this budget. While marine farming is often framed as sustainable compared with wild harvest, it raises serious ethical concerns. Fish and other marine animals are sentient beings capable of feeling pain, stress and exhibiting complex social behaviours, yet they are farmed in conditions that would be unacceptable for land animals—even despite the description of farmed chickens I provided before. I urge the government to shift investment towards specifically plant-based aquaculture such as seaweed and marine algae, which offers environmental benefits without the ethical cost. Western Australia is well-positioned to lead in this space and doing so would reflect a forward-thinking, compassionate approach to marine stewardship.
The wild dog action plan, which includes lethal control methods such as trapping and poisoning, raises serious ethical and ecological concerns. Research has shown that the majority of so-called wild dogs in Australia are in fact dingoes or dingo-dominant hybrids. These are apex predators that play a crucial role in ecosystem balance. Poisoning and killing these animals is not only cruel but also counterproductive. We should be focusing on nonlethal, ecologically-sound alternatives that respect the role of native species in our landscapes.
The Perth Royal Show is something that I hesitate to comment harshly on given the largely positive memories that many Western Australians have of this yearly event. But with millions of public dollars allocated to the show annually, I feel compelled to highlight a troubling contradiction. Each year, children flock to the animal nursery where lambs, piglets and other cute animals are presented as symbols of innocence and rural charm. They are bottle-fed, cuddled and photographed, and presented as ambassadors of the farm. The nursery is framed as an educational experience, aimed at teaching children about where their food comes from. What it actually teaches is a sanitised version of the truth. It omits the suffering, confinement and the slaughter that underpins industrial animal agriculture. It skips over the reality that many of these animals will be raised in systems that deny them the most basic freedoms and ultimately end their lives—prematurely and violently. We must ask: What are we really teaching our children—that animals are lovable, but disposable; that affection and exploitation can coexist? If we are not honest about the systems that exist behind closed doors, we will risk perpetuating a disconnect between compassion and consumption. I feel that if we are going to spend millions of dollars on an event that promotes the agriculture sector in WA, we should be transparent and also educate the public about the hidden realities that are not quite so cute and fluffy.
We can all agree that health-related research is extremely important work, and I note that the government has made very significant investments into the state's health and medical research sector through the Future Health Research and Innovation Fund. From the animal perspective, in this there is both hope and sadness. The hope is found in a $2 million investment in the Phenomics Australia In Vitro Node, where the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research will develop organoids. These are-lab-grown masses of cells and tissue that mimic the function and structure of real human organs. Organoids provide accurate and human-relevant models for medical research, and I am grateful that investment is being made into this technology. It is exciting stuff. It not only promises further advancements in healthcare, but will also help spare countless animals that would otherwise be subjected to medical experimentation.
Unfortunately, there is still extensive testing on animals in WA, and for this I feel sadness. Government money has previously been granted to a local company that breeds lab mice and rats to be used in medical research. No matter what members may think of the ethics of experimenting on animals in the pursuit of better human health outcomes, the reality is that these tests rarely yield success. Studies have shown that over 90% of drugs deemed safe and effective in animals fail during human trials. Animal testing is outdated, ineffective and inhumane. We should not be publicly funding research that is wasteful of time, money and lives.
Speaking of health care, I note that ambulance ramping in WA hit a record in July, with our state having the second lowest rate of public hospital beds per thousand people. The West Australian has described our hospital system as crumbling and ABC news has said that we have a crisis engulfing WA hospitals, yet we see over $200 million being spent on bulldozing animal habitat and beautiful parkland to build an unnecessary and unwanted racetrack in Burswood. My colleagues and I have spoken about this several times already. Although I will, of course, emphasise the environmental degradation that this project will result in, I could not help but notice the financial own-goal being kicked by the government here.
Perhaps some of the most egregious use of public funds in this budget is the continued investment in animal exploitation via racing infrastructure and wagering systems. Over $160 million is being spent on racing systems, infrastructure upgrades and wagering product development. This includes thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing—industries that are increasingly out of step with community values, with injuries, euthanasia, confinement and the commodification of sentient animals for entertainment and profit, not to mention the human misery that often results from gambling addiction, as mentioned by my honourable colleague. These are not values we should be funding with taxpayer dollars. Where is the kindness? Certainly not on the racetrack. Imagine if this huge amount of money were to be spent on something else, such as ensuring that social housing and refuges are pet friendly so that vulnerable people escaping poverty or violence do not need to be separated from their beloved animals. The WA Greyhound Racing Association continues to receive capital investment for racetrack upgrades and equipment. I do not see that as innovation; it is entrenchment of cruelty. What kind of future are we building? One that celebrates compassion and progress, or one that clings to outdated industries built on exploitation? I believe these funds should be redirected towards ethical recreation, community engagement and animal welfare initiatives that reflect the values of modern Western Australians.
Finally, I refer to the opportunities. I want to highlight some potential opportunities hidden within this budget—areas where investment could drive innovation and compassion. This budget has allocated over $7 million to the expansion of the Busselton Jetty Marine Discovery Centre, a facility designed to showcase marine species in their natural habitat. This is a commendable investment in education and ecotourism, and it presents a valuable opportunity to foster public appreciation for marine life, not just as part of our environment but as sentient beings worthy of protection. In this context, I want to draw attention to a related opportunity, the proposed penguin discovery centre in Rockingham, which would be built on the mainland. A business case for this centre has already been developed, but the immediate priority right now must be the temporary closure of Penguin Island. As I have talked about before, the little penguin population is in massive decline due to human disturbance, habitat degradation and climate pressure. Closing the island for a minimum of two years would give these penguins the space and stability they need to rebuild. A mainland centre would allow education and tourism to continue, without placing further strain on the colony. It would also align with the goals of the Busselton Jetty centre, promoting marine conservation through ethical immersive experiences. This is not just a conservation issue; it is a test of our willingness to act when science and compassion call for it. The penguins cannot wait for long-term planning alone. They need immediate relief, and we have the tools to provide it.
The agrifood activation fund was an item that certainly caught my eye, not least because it includes a food technology facility project that could support emerging businesses in alternative proteins. Unfortunately, I cannot find specific commitment to plant-based meat or cultured meat technologies in the budget, despite their incredible ability to reduce our environmental impact, improve food security and eliminate animal suffering. For example, WA is ideally suited for lupin cultivation—a high-protein crop that could underpin a thriving plant-based industry. With a shout-out to my colleague on the crossbench, hemp is another crop that could financially benefit farmers tremendously, with a wide range of environmentally friendly uses. In all, I strongly believe that the government should assist farmers in transitioning to more ethical and sustainable forms of food production, with plant-based proteins being front and centre. Cultured meat technology, which is being pioneered in Australia by companies such as Magic Valley and Vow, is also incredibly exciting. It promises to completely transform the way consumers eat. Surely we can agree that we should invest in technology that creates meat products without antibiotics, disease and contamination, without the suffering and cruelty of cages, factory farms and slaughter houses, and without the extensive damage to our wild habitats, ecosystems and climate? Alternative proteins and cultured meat truly are the future. I urge the government to embrace this opportunity and to support businesses that are building the future of ethical food.
In closing, in reviewing this budget it is clear that there are elements worth celebrating. Funding allocated to animal welfare grants, enforcement and initiatives like the veterinary social work pilot, show that compassion does have a place in our public spending. Alongside these steps forward are areas of concern. We continue to invest public money into industries that harm animals and perpetuate environmental degradation. There are missed opportunities to lead in ethical innovation and to protect vulnerable species and ecosystems before it is too late. I hope that these opportunities, and more, can be activated in the next and future budgets. We should keep in mind that public budgets are not just financial documents; they are moral documents. They tell us what we value, what we prioritise and who we are willing to protect. If we want a society that is kinder, more sustainable and more honest with itself, our budget must reflect those aspirations. I hope the points I have raised today will be taken as an invitation to do better, to think differently and to build a future where compassion is not an afterthought but a guiding principle. Thank you.
Debate adjourned until a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Lauren Cayoun.
(Continued at a later stage of the sitting.)
