❓ The Minister defends the decision to locate the HIsmelt project in Kwinana, criticising the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion to move it to the Pilbara or Oakajee, citing a previous government report and cost implications.
AnsweredQoN 939Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
HISMELT, PLACEMENT IN KWINANA
Will the minister comment on the Leader of the Opposition’s view that the Government should not put a large industrial project such as HIsmelt in Kwinana, but should put it in the Pilbara or Oakajee? Ms MacTIERNAN
Will the minister comment on the Leader of the Opposition’s view that the Government should not put a large industrial project such as HIsmelt in Kwinana, but should put it in the Pilbara or Oakajee? Ms MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for this question. I know that he has a long involvement with the activities on the Kwinana strip and is keen to ensure that there are jobs for Western Australians on that strip. The response of the Leader of the Opposition to this important project is particularly puzzling, even given his endemically contrary nature. I will present some of a report that was issued by the former Government in 1999. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Resources Development. That Government issued the Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy, which included the blueprint for industrial land development. I will take the liberty of quoting a few passages from it. The report states in part - future heavy industrial development will need to be accommodated in the metropolitan region, and Kwinana is the logical choice of location; and . . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations. It refers in particular to infrastructure, agglomeration economics and technical advantages. It further states - Kwinana is the only integrated heavy industry area in the State where heavy industrial firms . . . can achieve the degree of interaction and integration necessary to be competitive. The report indicates not only that the State will need new projects in the Kwinana strip, but also that in the year 2000 the previous Government added another 100 hectares of heavy industrial land to the area. In 1994 the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, opened the pilot plant for this project with considerable fanfare. If we were to transfer that project anywhere else in the State, the work that was done for the pilot project would have to be replicated at a cost in the order of $60 million. The hypocrisy and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition is stunning. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for this question. I know that he has a long involvement with the activities on the Kwinana strip and is keen to ensure that there are jobs for Western Australians on that strip. The response of the Leader of the Opposition to this important project is particularly puzzling, even given his endemically contrary nature. I will present some of a report that was issued by the former Government in 1999. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Resources Development. That Government issued the Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy, which included the blueprint for industrial land development. I will take the liberty of quoting a few passages from it. The report states in part - future heavy industrial development will need to be accommodated in the metropolitan region, and Kwinana is the logical choice of location; and . . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations. It refers in particular to infrastructure, agglomeration economics and technical advantages. It further states - Kwinana is the only integrated heavy industry area in the State where heavy industrial firms . . . can achieve the degree of interaction and integration necessary to be competitive. The report indicates not only that the State will need new projects in the Kwinana strip, but also that in the year 2000 the previous Government added another 100 hectares of heavy industrial land to the area. In 1994 the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, opened the pilot plant for this project with considerable fanfare. If we were to transfer that project anywhere else in the State, the work that was done for the pilot project would have to be replicated at a cost in the order of $60 million. The hypocrisy and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition is stunning. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
I thank the member for this question. I know that he has a long involvement with the activities on the Kwinana strip and is keen to ensure that there are jobs for Western Australians on that strip. The response of the Leader of the Opposition to this important project is particularly puzzling, even given his endemically contrary nature. I will present some of a report that was issued by the former Government in 1999. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Resources Development. That Government issued the Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy, which included the blueprint for industrial land development. I will take the liberty of quoting a few passages from it. The report states in part - future heavy industrial development will need to be accommodated in the metropolitan region, and Kwinana is the logical choice of location; and . . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations. It refers in particular to infrastructure, agglomeration economics and technical advantages. It further states - Kwinana is the only integrated heavy industry area in the State where heavy industrial firms . . . can achieve the degree of interaction and integration necessary to be competitive. The report indicates not only that the State will need new projects in the Kwinana strip, but also that in the year 2000 the previous Government added another 100 hectares of heavy industrial land to the area. In 1994 the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, opened the pilot plant for this project with considerable fanfare. If we were to transfer that project anywhere else in the State, the work that was done for the pilot project would have to be replicated at a cost in the order of $60 million. The hypocrisy and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition is stunning. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
The response of the Leader of the Opposition to this important project is particularly puzzling, even given his endemically contrary nature. I will present some of a report that was issued by the former Government in 1999. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Resources Development. That Government issued the Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy, which included the blueprint for industrial land development. I will take the liberty of quoting a few passages from it. The report states in part - future heavy industrial development will need to be accommodated in the metropolitan region, and Kwinana is the logical choice of location; and . . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations. It refers in particular to infrastructure, agglomeration economics and technical advantages. It further states - Kwinana is the only integrated heavy industry area in the State where heavy industrial firms . . . can achieve the degree of interaction and integration necessary to be competitive. The report indicates not only that the State will need new projects in the Kwinana strip, but also that in the year 2000 the previous Government added another 100 hectares of heavy industrial land to the area. In 1994 the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, opened the pilot plant for this project with considerable fanfare. If we were to transfer that project anywhere else in the State, the work that was done for the pilot project would have to be replicated at a cost in the order of $60 million. The hypocrisy and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition is stunning. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
. . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations.
Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations.
As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for this question. I know that he has a long involvement with the activities on the Kwinana strip and is keen to ensure that there are jobs for Western Australians on that strip. The response of the Leader of the Opposition to this important project is particularly puzzling, even given his endemically contrary nature. I will present some of a report that was issued by the former Government in 1999. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Resources Development. That Government issued the Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy, which included the blueprint for industrial land development. I will take the liberty of quoting a few passages from it. The report states in part - future heavy industrial development will need to be accommodated in the metropolitan region, and Kwinana is the logical choice of location; and . . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations. It refers in particular to infrastructure, agglomeration economics and technical advantages. It further states - Kwinana is the only integrated heavy industry area in the State where heavy industrial firms . . . can achieve the degree of interaction and integration necessary to be competitive. The report indicates not only that the State will need new projects in the Kwinana strip, but also that in the year 2000 the previous Government added another 100 hectares of heavy industrial land to the area. In 1994 the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, opened the pilot plant for this project with considerable fanfare. If we were to transfer that project anywhere else in the State, the work that was done for the pilot project would have to be replicated at a cost in the order of $60 million. The hypocrisy and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition is stunning. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
I thank the member for this question. I know that he has a long involvement with the activities on the Kwinana strip and is keen to ensure that there are jobs for Western Australians on that strip. The response of the Leader of the Opposition to this important project is particularly puzzling, even given his endemically contrary nature. I will present some of a report that was issued by the former Government in 1999. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Resources Development. That Government issued the Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy, which included the blueprint for industrial land development. I will take the liberty of quoting a few passages from it. The report states in part - future heavy industrial development will need to be accommodated in the metropolitan region, and Kwinana is the logical choice of location; and . . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations. It refers in particular to infrastructure, agglomeration economics and technical advantages. It further states - Kwinana is the only integrated heavy industry area in the State where heavy industrial firms . . . can achieve the degree of interaction and integration necessary to be competitive. The report indicates not only that the State will need new projects in the Kwinana strip, but also that in the year 2000 the previous Government added another 100 hectares of heavy industrial land to the area. In 1994 the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, opened the pilot plant for this project with considerable fanfare. If we were to transfer that project anywhere else in the State, the work that was done for the pilot project would have to be replicated at a cost in the order of $60 million. The hypocrisy and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition is stunning. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
The response of the Leader of the Opposition to this important project is particularly puzzling, even given his endemically contrary nature. I will present some of a report that was issued by the former Government in 1999. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Resources Development. That Government issued the Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy, which included the blueprint for industrial land development. I will take the liberty of quoting a few passages from it. The report states in part - future heavy industrial development will need to be accommodated in the metropolitan region, and Kwinana is the logical choice of location; and . . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations. It refers in particular to infrastructure, agglomeration economics and technical advantages. It further states - Kwinana is the only integrated heavy industry area in the State where heavy industrial firms . . . can achieve the degree of interaction and integration necessary to be competitive. The report indicates not only that the State will need new projects in the Kwinana strip, but also that in the year 2000 the previous Government added another 100 hectares of heavy industrial land to the area. In 1994 the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, opened the pilot plant for this project with considerable fanfare. If we were to transfer that project anywhere else in the State, the work that was done for the pilot project would have to be replicated at a cost in the order of $60 million. The hypocrisy and economic illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition is stunning. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
. . . Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations.
Kwinana is the premier heavy industry location in the State. Although the need for additional heavy industrial estates in Western Australia has been recognised . . . estates at Oakajee, Kemerton, Mungari, Meenar and Burrup are in development or planning stages. For the foreseeable future, Kwinana is likely to remain the preferred location for many new heavy industry developments in Western Australia. The report . . . identifies Kwinana’s range of advantages that cannot easily be replicated in alternative locations.
As the Leader of the Opposition well knows from his days in government, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was competing for this project with a number of other elements of the Rio Tinto Ltd conglomerate from around the world. Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Mr Barnett: It was never going to the United States. Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Ms MacTIERNAN: No, never! Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
Locating the plant in the Pilbara would have increased the cost of the project’s development by 25 per cent, and locating it in Bunbury, as the then Minister for Resources Development suggested at one stage, would have increased the cost by 15 per cent. His other fabulous suggestion was to locate the project at Oakajee. What can I say? He cannot let the dream go. He chucked at least $23 million of taxpayers’ money into Oakajee during his time as the Minister for Resources Development for no outcome. It would not only have cost at least 15 per cent more for the proponent to get this project up and running in Oakajee, but also would have required the State Government to invest $300 million to build a port and to provide the other necessary infrastructure. The likely outcome is that the project would not have gone ahead. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support the HIsmelt project as long as it is somewhere else. As I have said, it probably would have been built in the United States. No wonder the State did not fire a shot while he was calling the shots. That demonstrates what Mr McGlue wrote in a recent article in The Australian, which states - As the Labor Government rolled out a series of economic initiatives and announcements, Barnett criticised just about every one or them, taking a very literal interpretation of the word opposition. The article also describes Mr Barnett as - . . . petulant and a poor sufferer of ideas and views which don’t dovetail with his own. As a minister, this was mostly hidden from public view. As Opposition Leader, there’s no place to hide and the full personality comes out.
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.