❓ Question regarding the Minister's decision to block iron ore exports through Fremantle Port and whether a formal direction was issued to the Fremantle Port Authority. The Minister confirms discussions with the Premier and port authorities, but no formal direction was issued.
AnsweredQoN 256Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FREMANTLE PORT — IRON ORE EXPORTS
In reference to the minister’s decision to block Cazaly Resources Ltd exporting iron ore through Fremantle, I note that section 32 of the Port Authorities Act states that, subject to any direction given by the minister, a port authority has exclusive control of the port, and that section 72 states that the minister may give directions in writing to a port authority with respect to the performance of its functions. Therefore, I ask — (1) Has the minister given any direction to the Fremantle Port Authority about the shipment of iron ore; if so, on what date did he give that direction; and, if he has not, does he intend to give one? (2) Did the minister discuss his decision to prevent iron ore shipments with the Premier before publicly announcing his decision; and, if so, when and where? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
In reference to the minister’s decision to block Cazaly Resources Ltd exporting iron ore through Fremantle, I note that section 32 of the Port Authorities Act states that, subject to any direction given by the minister, a port authority has exclusive control of the port, and that section 72 states that the minister may give directions in writing to a port authority with respect to the performance of its functions. Therefore, I ask — (1) Has the minister given any direction to the Fremantle Port Authority about the shipment of iron ore; if so, on what date did he give that direction; and, if he has not, does he intend to give one? (2) Did the minister discuss his decision to prevent iron ore shipments with the Premier before publicly announcing his decision; and, if so, when and where? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
(1) Has the minister given any direction to the Fremantle Port Authority about the shipment of iron ore; if so, on what date did he give that direction; and, if he has not, does he intend to give one? (2) Did the minister discuss his decision to prevent iron ore shipments with the Premier before publicly announcing his decision; and, if so, when and where? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
(2) Did the minister discuss his decision to prevent iron ore shipments with the Premier before publicly announcing his decision; and, if so, when and where? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
(1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
(1) Has the minister given any direction to the Fremantle Port Authority about the shipment of iron ore; if so, on what date did he give that direction; and, if he has not, does he intend to give one? (2) Did the minister discuss his decision to prevent iron ore shipments with the Premier before publicly announcing his decision; and, if so, when and where? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
(2) Did the minister discuss his decision to prevent iron ore shipments with the Premier before publicly announcing his decision; and, if so, when and where? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
(1)–(2) I will answer the second part first. I discussed the matter with the Premier yesterday, and also one time earlier in the past week. In addition, staff from my office had been in conversation with members of the Premier’s office about that issue. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not issued a formal direction to the Fremantle Port Authority; I do not expect that I will have to. I do not think the Fremantle Port Authority will move ahead in engaging, in this particular case, with Cazaly iron ore on its plan for the bulk export of iron ore through the inner harbour of Fremantle. In my view and from my experience as the Minister for Transport, it is not unusual for me to have conversations with port authorities about what goes through their ports. I have done it in the past; I suspect I will do it in the future. Let me give the house two examples. The port of Albany made some inquiries of me about live sheep exports through Albany. It was my view, on reflection, that that would not be an acceptable outcome for the people of Albany, nor for the port of Albany, and it did not happen. The port of Bunbury approached me about the export of up to two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury. I informed the port, not by direction but through conversation, that the export of two million tonnes of wheat through the port of Bunbury was not consistent with the state government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure to move grain around Western Australia, and that I would — Mrs M.H. Roberts : It is under no obligation to take into account your point of view. If you looked at section 71 — Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Funnily enough, it has not happened. I had a meeting last week — Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mrs M.H. Roberts : If you actually want to prevent it, you’ll have to issue a direction; otherwise it will be obliged to consider Cazaly’s proposal. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Perhaps when the member is in government the port will listen to her, but I will give her the tip: I do not expect that the port of Fremantle will entertain this proposal from Cazaly. Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mrs M.H. Roberts : So you think it has no obligation to do it. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I expect and anticipate that this will cease. The comment has been made today that we have attempted to work around a long-established process. I think the Leader of the Opposition said that we have the Environmental Protection Authority; it should make these determinations. The fact is that the ports are owned by the state, and we make decisions at a high level strategically about what will go through those ports. We have in the past and will continue to do so. The EPA has no role in that. The EPA does not run the ports of Western Australia. It has a role to play, subsequent to decisions being made about what will happen in the ports, to assess those activities on their merits and, if required, apply licensing. I believe very strongly that the government is well within its rights to outline to the port of Fremantle what we expect from it in the export of iron ore. I repeat—I will be interested in the opposition’s position—that we do not see the Fremantle inner harbour as being suitable for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why we have been working hard in the Fremantle outer harbour, down at Kwinana, to free up capacity for the export of bulk iron ore. That is why a couple of weeks ago a firm — Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve failed to find a slot at Kwinana, haven’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : No; we have just allocated three and a half million tonnes at Kwinana to a company called MRL—Mineral Resources Ltd. We are also working on freeing up additional capacity at Kwinana. The Leader of the Opposition might not be aware of this; he was the Treasurer for only a while. The port of Fremantle has an opportunity to export through Kwinana significant increases in tonnage over the three million to five million tonnes that are currently approved. The point of constriction in our capacity to activate that volume is the metropolitan rail network, and we are currently working on identifying the total volume — Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr R.H. Cook : And the roads. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Rail, my friend, because iron ore will come by rail. It is not the best product to have on the roads. It will come by rail, and ultimately the total volume that will go through Kwinana will be determined by the capacity of the rail network to carry it. The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
The last point I will make is about iron ore producers in the Yilgarn. If the former government had not effectively ran the port of Esperance into the ground and left it incapable of making decisions and functioning as an appropriate port, there would be additional capacity today for companies such as Cazaly to export through Esperance. Esperance has been stuck at 10 million tonnes per annum for a long, long time. The former government’s neglect of Esperance is one of the main reasons that at the moment we are under pressure to provide port access to companies such as Cazaly. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion on this. He made a very strong argument that the EPA should be the ultimate determiner of what goes through our ports. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : He made that argument several times yesterday. It is reported in black and white. Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr E.S. Ripper : I haven’t made that argument. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. Let me put it this way: if he were to abrogate his responsibility to the EPA, what would happen if it approved uranium mining and uranium exports through Fremantle, Geraldton or Albany? What would he do? Would he stand up and play the proper role of government, when the proper role of government is at an overarching level to actively participate with our ports in considering what goes through those ports?
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.