❓ Mr. Wyatt questions the Premier regarding the stalled Browse LNG project at James Price Point, specifically concerning land acquisition, benefits packages for traditional owners, and the state's leverage. The Premier expresses disappointment at Woodside's decision and clarifies the state's actions and considerations.
AnsweredQoN 15Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BROWSE LNG PROJECT — JAMES PRICE POINT —
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
15. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
I refer to the Premier's personal selection and his
use of the threat of compulsory acquisition of James Price Point as the
preferred location for the now stalled onshore Browse gas project, and the
statement that the joint venture partners should recognise the policy position
and deal with it.
(1) Is the state still proceeding with the acquisition of the
land at James Price Point?
(2) If yes,
will the Premier guarantee today that the state component of the benefits
package negotiated for the acquisition will still proceed?
(3) Will the
Premier use his leverage in respect of the retention of the Browse joint
venture leases to fight for the traditional owners and ensure that they will
still receive a benefits package regardless of how the gas is exploited?
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
15. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Premier:
I refer to the Premier's personal selection and his
use of the threat of compulsory acquisition of James Price Point as the
preferred location for the now stalled onshore Browse gas project, and the
statement that the joint venture partners should recognise the policy position
and deal with it.
(1) Is the state still proceeding with the acquisition of the
land at James Price Point?
(2) If yes,
will the Premier guarantee today that the state component of the benefits
package negotiated for the acquisition will still proceed?
(3) Will the
Premier use his leverage in respect of the retention of the Browse joint
venture leases to fight for the traditional owners and ensure that they will
still receive a benefits package regardless of how the gas is exploited?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Victoria Park for the question.
(1)–(3)
Obviously, I am extremely disappointed that Woodside, as the major joint
venture partner, has indicated it does not wish to proceed at James Price
Point. This project has a long history, which I will not go through, but the
obligations of the state were twofold. The first was to acquire a site, James
Price Point, which was selected from initially 43 different locations, and to
do that in conjunction with Aboriginal people. The second obligation on the
state was to achieve environmental approval. The latest advice I have is that
the acquisition of the site was probably two to three weeks away. Some mistakes
had been made and there have been also a lot of court challenges and the like,
but it had reached the end of the process and was essentially in place. State
environmental approval had already been given some nine months ago, and we are
under the expectation that federal environmental approval will occur within the
next month or so. The joint venture partners were aware of that, so the state
would have done its part of the deal. What the state cannot do is tell
companies how they should spend their money.
In respect of whether the state
will acquire the site, agreement was reached by a vote of Aboriginal people
according to the Native Title Act and under the supervision of the Federal
Court. No-one, I think, can challenge that, even though some disagree. The
site, we believe, will be able to be transferred to the state, as I said, in a
matter of weeks. As part of the so-called benefits package, if you like, the
cost to the state of acquiring the site at that point would be $30 million. The
state is obviously considering whether or not to proceed with that. As to other
aspects of the benefits package —
Mr M. McGowan : So
you haven't decided whether or not to acquire it?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
No, I just said that.
Other aspects of the benefits package were dependent on the
project proceeding. The state will consider what it may do in addition to
acquiring the site—the $30 million, if that is what we do—but
the whole benefits package was related to the project proceeding. I regret
that. As I said yesterday to the media, I do not apologise for doing all that I
can, and all this government can do, to achieve that project. But I do
apologise to the Aboriginal people for not succeeding.
Mr B.S. Wyatt :
Premier, do you think the joint venture partners should in the event that they
exploit the gas some other way?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
That is a supplementary question.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Victoria Park, when the Premier finishes you can ask a supplementary
question.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The state, I would claim within a matter of weeks, would have achieved all that
it was required and agreed to achieve by the due date of 1 July, which is when
the final investment decision was required by the JV. The state has done its
part. I regret, but I cannot be held accountable for, what the joint venture
chooses to do.
(1)–(3)
Obviously, I am extremely disappointed that Woodside, as the major joint
venture partner, has indicated it does not wish to proceed at James Price
Point. This project has a long history, which I will not go through, but the
obligations of the state were twofold. The first was to acquire a site, James
Price Point, which was selected from initially 43 different locations, and to
do that in conjunction with Aboriginal people. The second obligation on the
state was to achieve environmental approval. The latest advice I have is that
the acquisition of the site was probably two to three weeks away. Some mistakes
had been made and there have been also a lot of court challenges and the like,
but it had reached the end of the process and was essentially in place. State
environmental approval had already been given some nine months ago, and we are
under the expectation that federal environmental approval will occur within the
next month or so. The joint venture partners were aware of that, so the state
would have done its part of the deal. What the state cannot do is tell
companies how they should spend their money.
In respect of whether the state
will acquire the site, agreement was reached by a vote of Aboriginal people
according to the Native Title Act and under the supervision of the Federal
Court. No-one, I think, can challenge that, even though some disagree. The
site, we believe, will be able to be transferred to the state, as I said, in a
matter of weeks. As part of the so-called benefits package, if you like, the
cost to the state of acquiring the site at that point would be $30 million. The
state is obviously considering whether or not to proceed with that. As to other
aspects of the benefits package —
Mr M. McGowan : So
you haven't decided whether or not to acquire it?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
No, I just said that.
Other aspects of the benefits package were dependent on the
project proceeding. The state will consider what it may do in addition to
acquiring the site—the $30 million, if that is what we do—but
the whole benefits package was related to the project proceeding. I regret
that. As I said yesterday to the media, I do not apologise for doing all that I
can, and all this government can do, to achieve that project. But I do
apologise to the Aboriginal people for not succeeding.
Mr B.S. Wyatt :
Premier, do you think the joint venture partners should in the event that they
exploit the gas some other way?
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
That is a supplementary question.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Victoria Park, when the Premier finishes you can ask a supplementary
question.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The state, I would claim within a matter of weeks, would have achieved all that
it was required and agreed to achieve by the due date of 1 July, which is when
the final investment decision was required by the JV. The state has done its
part. I regret, but I cannot be held accountable for, what the joint venture
chooses to do.
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.