❓ A parliamentary question regarding the sale of the Dampier-Bunbury natural gas pipeline by the previous government. The response is highly critical, questioning the professionalism and motives behind the sale, and highlighting potential financial mismanagement and strategic disadvantages for the state.
AnsweredQoN 736Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to comments by the Leader of the Opposition that the Dampier-Bunbury natural gas pipeline was sold by the former Government in a “very professional way”. Is that statement borne out by the facts? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I suppose it depends upon one’s standards. We must remember that the sale was presided over by the same person who thought that the infrastructure for the Windimurra vanadium mine was a good investment of taxpayers’ dollars; the same person who thought Kingstream was such a strong prospect that it was worth spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds on associated infrastructure; and the same person who superintended the western Kimberley power procurement project that ultimately collapsed. This is the same person who has repeatedly called on the Government to breach laws he drafted; namely, to override the independent gas tariff regulator. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review . Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located? Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I suppose it depends upon one’s standards. We must remember that the sale was presided over by the same person who thought that the infrastructure for the Windimurra vanadium mine was a good investment of taxpayers’ dollars; the same person who thought Kingstream was such a strong prospect that it was worth spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds on associated infrastructure; and the same person who superintended the western Kimberley power procurement project that ultimately collapsed. This is the same person who has repeatedly called on the Government to breach laws he drafted; namely, to override the independent gas tariff regulator. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review . Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located? Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
I suppose it depends upon one’s standards. We must remember that the sale was presided over by the same person who thought that the infrastructure for the Windimurra vanadium mine was a good investment of taxpayers’ dollars; the same person who thought Kingstream was such a strong prospect that it was worth spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds on associated infrastructure; and the same person who superintended the western Kimberley power procurement project that ultimately collapsed. This is the same person who has repeatedly called on the Government to breach laws he drafted; namely, to override the independent gas tariff regulator. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review . Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located? Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review . Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located? Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I suppose it depends upon one’s standards. We must remember that the sale was presided over by the same person who thought that the infrastructure for the Windimurra vanadium mine was a good investment of taxpayers’ dollars; the same person who thought Kingstream was such a strong prospect that it was worth spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds on associated infrastructure; and the same person who superintended the western Kimberley power procurement project that ultimately collapsed. This is the same person who has repeatedly called on the Government to breach laws he drafted; namely, to override the independent gas tariff regulator. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review . Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located? Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
I suppose it depends upon one’s standards. We must remember that the sale was presided over by the same person who thought that the infrastructure for the Windimurra vanadium mine was a good investment of taxpayers’ dollars; the same person who thought Kingstream was such a strong prospect that it was worth spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds on associated infrastructure; and the same person who superintended the western Kimberley power procurement project that ultimately collapsed. This is the same person who has repeatedly called on the Government to breach laws he drafted; namely, to override the independent gas tariff regulator. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review . Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located? Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review . Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located? Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.