❓ Mr. Cook questions the Premier's objections to the James Point port proposal, particularly regarding reclamation and environmental impact. The Premier cites commercial factors and environmental concerns, especially the visual impact of a large reclamation project in Cockburn Sound.
AnsweredQoN 657Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
JAMES
POINT — PROPOSED PORT
657. Mr R.H. COOK to the Premier:
I ask a supplementary question. The Buckeridge proposal
includes large areas of reclamation. Does the Premier's primary
objection come down to environmental impact?
POINT — PROPOSED PORT
657. Mr R.H. COOK to the Premier:
I ask a supplementary question. The Buckeridge proposal
includes large areas of reclamation. Does the Premier's primary
objection come down to environmental impact?
AnswerView source ↗
No. A whole lot of commercial factors relate to this
proposal. Some reclamation would be needed for the berth space that Mr
Buckeridge would create alongside the coast, which he would describe as stage 2.
It would have been a huge reclamation project in the middle of Cockburn Sound.
I do not think that is a good idea and I do not think the people living along
Cockburn Sound would fancy seeing a massive man-made island between the coast
and Garden Island.
Mr R.H. Cook : So
was your discussion around both stages or just stage 1?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
have made it very clear that I will not talk in terms of stage 1 or stage 2; I
have talked about two separate projects. I said that there is a need for a bulk
cargo facility on the coast, and we would work with Mr Buckeridge to try to
achieve that. We would welcome private investment in that facility. That is
needed.
As to the other project, that is another matter. I think
there would be massive environmental impediments to that, not the least of
which would be the view of the government. We do not want to see Cockburn Sound
turned into a parking area for a bulk cart for containers.
proposal. Some reclamation would be needed for the berth space that Mr
Buckeridge would create alongside the coast, which he would describe as stage 2.
It would have been a huge reclamation project in the middle of Cockburn Sound.
I do not think that is a good idea and I do not think the people living along
Cockburn Sound would fancy seeing a massive man-made island between the coast
and Garden Island.
Mr R.H. Cook : So
was your discussion around both stages or just stage 1?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
have made it very clear that I will not talk in terms of stage 1 or stage 2; I
have talked about two separate projects. I said that there is a need for a bulk
cargo facility on the coast, and we would work with Mr Buckeridge to try to
achieve that. We would welcome private investment in that facility. That is
needed.
As to the other project, that is another matter. I think
there would be massive environmental impediments to that, not the least of
which would be the view of the government. We do not want to see Cockburn Sound
turned into a parking area for a bulk cart for containers.
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.