❓ WA Parliament questions the Commonwealth government's refusal to take responsibility for unexploded bombs in Albany Harbour, citing a Supreme Court judge's incredulity at the Commonwealth's defence and urging resolution for port development.
AnsweredQoN 266Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ALBANY HARBOUR - MUNITIONS
Will the minister please advise the house of the latest developments in the commonwealth government’s refusal to accept responsibility for the unexploded bombs in Albany Harbour? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
Will the minister please advise the house of the latest developments in the commonwealth government’s refusal to accept responsibility for the unexploded bombs in Albany Harbour? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question and for continuing to advocate for a bomb-free Albany Harbour. Mr Speaker, it was heartening to find that in the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Templeman had very much the same response as ours to the case of the federal government. His reaction in the first instance was of incredulity that the commonwealth could have any doubt about its liability for these bombs. Justice Templeman quizzed counsel for the government on what alternative there might be to these being commonwealth bombs. Counsel was unable at first to come up with any answer. Justice Templeman said - It doesn’t have “made in Japan” stamped on it, I understand. He was querying whether or not the bombs were made in Japan. Counsel for the commonwealth said that he was not sure, as he did not have any instructions on that. Counsel then speculated that the bombs could have belonged to a Catalina flying boat and, therefore, would be an American problem. Justice Templeman responded - Catalina flying boat would have come from America but not carrying a load of bombs. It would have loaded its bombs in Australia . . . Justice Templeman went on to say that he could not understand the defence that was being mounted. He was equally concerned about the nature of what he described as the abuse of process that was being engaged in. He said that in the 30 years that he had been a member of the legal profession he had never seen such a case in which the process had been vastly abused. He said - I have the impression that what the Commonwealth intends to do with this vast array of documents it’s seeking is to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the . . . case. He therefore issued an order that a copy of this transcript go to the federal Minister for Defence to ensure that he actually understood what his department and its solicitors were saying on behalf of the commonwealth. He could not believe that if the Minister for Defence was aware of the unmeritorious nature of this case, he would allow it to continue. I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question and for continuing to advocate for a bomb-free Albany Harbour. Mr Speaker, it was heartening to find that in the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Templeman had very much the same response as ours to the case of the federal government. His reaction in the first instance was of incredulity that the commonwealth could have any doubt about its liability for these bombs. Justice Templeman quizzed counsel for the government on what alternative there might be to these being commonwealth bombs. Counsel was unable at first to come up with any answer. Justice Templeman said - It doesn’t have “made in Japan” stamped on it, I understand. He was querying whether or not the bombs were made in Japan. Counsel for the commonwealth said that he was not sure, as he did not have any instructions on that. Counsel then speculated that the bombs could have belonged to a Catalina flying boat and, therefore, would be an American problem. Justice Templeman responded - Catalina flying boat would have come from America but not carrying a load of bombs. It would have loaded its bombs in Australia . . . Justice Templeman went on to say that he could not understand the defence that was being mounted. He was equally concerned about the nature of what he described as the abuse of process that was being engaged in. He said that in the 30 years that he had been a member of the legal profession he had never seen such a case in which the process had been vastly abused. He said - I have the impression that what the Commonwealth intends to do with this vast array of documents it’s seeking is to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the . . . case. He therefore issued an order that a copy of this transcript go to the federal Minister for Defence to ensure that he actually understood what his department and its solicitors were saying on behalf of the commonwealth. He could not believe that if the Minister for Defence was aware of the unmeritorious nature of this case, he would allow it to continue. I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
I thank the member for the question and for continuing to advocate for a bomb-free Albany Harbour. Mr Speaker, it was heartening to find that in the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Templeman had very much the same response as ours to the case of the federal government. His reaction in the first instance was of incredulity that the commonwealth could have any doubt about its liability for these bombs. Justice Templeman quizzed counsel for the government on what alternative there might be to these being commonwealth bombs. Counsel was unable at first to come up with any answer. Justice Templeman said - It doesn’t have “made in Japan” stamped on it, I understand. He was querying whether or not the bombs were made in Japan. Counsel for the commonwealth said that he was not sure, as he did not have any instructions on that. Counsel then speculated that the bombs could have belonged to a Catalina flying boat and, therefore, would be an American problem. Justice Templeman responded - Catalina flying boat would have come from America but not carrying a load of bombs. It would have loaded its bombs in Australia . . . Justice Templeman went on to say that he could not understand the defence that was being mounted. He was equally concerned about the nature of what he described as the abuse of process that was being engaged in. He said that in the 30 years that he had been a member of the legal profession he had never seen such a case in which the process had been vastly abused. He said - I have the impression that what the Commonwealth intends to do with this vast array of documents it’s seeking is to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the . . . case. He therefore issued an order that a copy of this transcript go to the federal Minister for Defence to ensure that he actually understood what his department and its solicitors were saying on behalf of the commonwealth. He could not believe that if the Minister for Defence was aware of the unmeritorious nature of this case, he would allow it to continue. I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
Mr Speaker, it was heartening to find that in the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Templeman had very much the same response as ours to the case of the federal government. His reaction in the first instance was of incredulity that the commonwealth could have any doubt about its liability for these bombs. Justice Templeman quizzed counsel for the government on what alternative there might be to these being commonwealth bombs. Counsel was unable at first to come up with any answer. Justice Templeman said - It doesn’t have “made in Japan” stamped on it, I understand. He was querying whether or not the bombs were made in Japan. Counsel for the commonwealth said that he was not sure, as he did not have any instructions on that. Counsel then speculated that the bombs could have belonged to a Catalina flying boat and, therefore, would be an American problem. Justice Templeman responded - Catalina flying boat would have come from America but not carrying a load of bombs. It would have loaded its bombs in Australia . . . Justice Templeman went on to say that he could not understand the defence that was being mounted. He was equally concerned about the nature of what he described as the abuse of process that was being engaged in. He said that in the 30 years that he had been a member of the legal profession he had never seen such a case in which the process had been vastly abused. He said - I have the impression that what the Commonwealth intends to do with this vast array of documents it’s seeking is to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the . . . case. He therefore issued an order that a copy of this transcript go to the federal Minister for Defence to ensure that he actually understood what his department and its solicitors were saying on behalf of the commonwealth. He could not believe that if the Minister for Defence was aware of the unmeritorious nature of this case, he would allow it to continue. I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question and for continuing to advocate for a bomb-free Albany Harbour. Mr Speaker, it was heartening to find that in the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Templeman had very much the same response as ours to the case of the federal government. His reaction in the first instance was of incredulity that the commonwealth could have any doubt about its liability for these bombs. Justice Templeman quizzed counsel for the government on what alternative there might be to these being commonwealth bombs. Counsel was unable at first to come up with any answer. Justice Templeman said - It doesn’t have “made in Japan” stamped on it, I understand. He was querying whether or not the bombs were made in Japan. Counsel for the commonwealth said that he was not sure, as he did not have any instructions on that. Counsel then speculated that the bombs could have belonged to a Catalina flying boat and, therefore, would be an American problem. Justice Templeman responded - Catalina flying boat would have come from America but not carrying a load of bombs. It would have loaded its bombs in Australia . . . Justice Templeman went on to say that he could not understand the defence that was being mounted. He was equally concerned about the nature of what he described as the abuse of process that was being engaged in. He said that in the 30 years that he had been a member of the legal profession he had never seen such a case in which the process had been vastly abused. He said - I have the impression that what the Commonwealth intends to do with this vast array of documents it’s seeking is to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the . . . case. He therefore issued an order that a copy of this transcript go to the federal Minister for Defence to ensure that he actually understood what his department and its solicitors were saying on behalf of the commonwealth. He could not believe that if the Minister for Defence was aware of the unmeritorious nature of this case, he would allow it to continue. I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
I thank the member for the question and for continuing to advocate for a bomb-free Albany Harbour. Mr Speaker, it was heartening to find that in the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Templeman had very much the same response as ours to the case of the federal government. His reaction in the first instance was of incredulity that the commonwealth could have any doubt about its liability for these bombs. Justice Templeman quizzed counsel for the government on what alternative there might be to these being commonwealth bombs. Counsel was unable at first to come up with any answer. Justice Templeman said - It doesn’t have “made in Japan” stamped on it, I understand. He was querying whether or not the bombs were made in Japan. Counsel for the commonwealth said that he was not sure, as he did not have any instructions on that. Counsel then speculated that the bombs could have belonged to a Catalina flying boat and, therefore, would be an American problem. Justice Templeman responded - Catalina flying boat would have come from America but not carrying a load of bombs. It would have loaded its bombs in Australia . . . Justice Templeman went on to say that he could not understand the defence that was being mounted. He was equally concerned about the nature of what he described as the abuse of process that was being engaged in. He said that in the 30 years that he had been a member of the legal profession he had never seen such a case in which the process had been vastly abused. He said - I have the impression that what the Commonwealth intends to do with this vast array of documents it’s seeking is to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the . . . case. He therefore issued an order that a copy of this transcript go to the federal Minister for Defence to ensure that he actually understood what his department and its solicitors were saying on behalf of the commonwealth. He could not believe that if the Minister for Defence was aware of the unmeritorious nature of this case, he would allow it to continue. I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
Mr Speaker, it was heartening to find that in the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Templeman had very much the same response as ours to the case of the federal government. His reaction in the first instance was of incredulity that the commonwealth could have any doubt about its liability for these bombs. Justice Templeman quizzed counsel for the government on what alternative there might be to these being commonwealth bombs. Counsel was unable at first to come up with any answer. Justice Templeman said - It doesn’t have “made in Japan” stamped on it, I understand. He was querying whether or not the bombs were made in Japan. Counsel for the commonwealth said that he was not sure, as he did not have any instructions on that. Counsel then speculated that the bombs could have belonged to a Catalina flying boat and, therefore, would be an American problem. Justice Templeman responded - Catalina flying boat would have come from America but not carrying a load of bombs. It would have loaded its bombs in Australia . . . Justice Templeman went on to say that he could not understand the defence that was being mounted. He was equally concerned about the nature of what he described as the abuse of process that was being engaged in. He said that in the 30 years that he had been a member of the legal profession he had never seen such a case in which the process had been vastly abused. He said - I have the impression that what the Commonwealth intends to do with this vast array of documents it’s seeking is to build a haystack and then look into it to see if a needle or two can be found with which to puncture the . . . case. He therefore issued an order that a copy of this transcript go to the federal Minister for Defence to ensure that he actually understood what his department and its solicitors were saying on behalf of the commonwealth. He could not believe that if the Minister for Defence was aware of the unmeritorious nature of this case, he would allow it to continue. I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
I wrote to the Minister for Defence again today, urging that we come to a resolution on this matter for the benefit of our mutual constituents so that we can move forward with the Albany port and make sure that the magnificent Grange project has every chance of proceeding.
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.