❓ Mr. Redman questions the Premier's commitment to transparency regarding the Woodside agreement, referencing a past stance on the Roy Hill agreement. The Premier acknowledges the previous debate and highlights differences between the Roy Hill and Woodside agreements, deferring further discussion to a later debate.
AnsweredQoN 923Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NORTH WEST GAS
DEVELOPMENT (WOODSIDE) AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2019
923. Mr D.T. REDMAN to the Premier:
I refer to the Railway (Roy Hill
Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Bill 2010. In opposition, the Premier sought
to amend the state agreement so that local participation plans were required to
be laid on the table of both houses of Parliament. In light of the Premier's
strong position of a government built on transparency, will he commit to
amending the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill
2019 so that community development plans and local participation plans are also
tabled in both houses of Parliament?
DEVELOPMENT (WOODSIDE) AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2019
923. Mr D.T. REDMAN to the Premier:
I refer to the Railway (Roy Hill
Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Bill 2010. In opposition, the Premier sought
to amend the state agreement so that local participation plans were required to
be laid on the table of both houses of Parliament. In light of the Premier's
strong position of a government built on transparency, will he commit to
amending the North West Gas Development (Woodside) Agreement Amendment Bill
2019 so that community development plans and local participation plans are also
tabled in both houses of Parliament?
AnswerView source ↗
I do remember that debate. The then
Minister for State Development, Hon Colin Barnett, rejected the amendments I put
forward and his arguments were quite reasonable.
Several members interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : They were.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr V.A. Catania : Are you
saying you were wrong?
Mr M. McGOWAN : No. His
arguments were quite reasonable. What he said at the time —
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
Mr
M. McGOWAN : He said at the time that
there had been a negotiation between Roy Hill and the state, which had formed a contract, which was already in existence,
and that had come into Parliament. He thought that to subsequently attempt to amend that contract via Parliament was not the right thing to do. I have
ruminated on what Mr Barnett had to say back then, and that is what he had to
say. The other component, I suppose, where there is a point of difference, is
that the Roy Hill agreement was new; it was greenfields. The Woodside agreement
we have been dealing with in this place is brownfields; it has been around for
40 years. They are sort of existing arrangements, if you like.
The National Party will bring on a debate
after question time and then we will actually debate the bill. It is an interesting strategy to adopt. The National Party
will move a matter of public interest motion on a bill that we are currently
debating. The National Party could have moved the MPI on something else and
raised its points during debate on the bill,
but who am I to question the tactics and strategic judgement of the National
Party? It is a ''cunning
plan'', no doubt, that Baldrick over here has in train but I am more
than happy to answer questions during the MPI.
Minister for State Development, Hon Colin Barnett, rejected the amendments I put
forward and his arguments were quite reasonable.
Several members interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : They were.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr V.A. Catania : Are you
saying you were wrong?
Mr M. McGOWAN : No. His
arguments were quite reasonable. What he said at the time —
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
Mr
M. McGOWAN : He said at the time that
there had been a negotiation between Roy Hill and the state, which had formed a contract, which was already in existence,
and that had come into Parliament. He thought that to subsequently attempt to amend that contract via Parliament was not the right thing to do. I have
ruminated on what Mr Barnett had to say back then, and that is what he had to
say. The other component, I suppose, where there is a point of difference, is
that the Roy Hill agreement was new; it was greenfields. The Woodside agreement
we have been dealing with in this place is brownfields; it has been around for
40 years. They are sort of existing arrangements, if you like.
The National Party will bring on a debate
after question time and then we will actually debate the bill. It is an interesting strategy to adopt. The National Party
will move a matter of public interest motion on a bill that we are currently
debating. The National Party could have moved the MPI on something else and
raised its points during debate on the bill,
but who am I to question the tactics and strategic judgement of the National
Party? It is a ''cunning
plan'', no doubt, that Baldrick over here has in train but I am more
than happy to answer questions during the MPI.
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.